Topic: Capitalism. - page 8. (Read 6891 times)

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

Frankly, I'm not sure.  It was something that zarathustra was fond of.  (Who has not joined this thread yet so it may not provoke any more of an answer than it already has)

An exercise in contemplating some mythical future, envisioning that community encountering another.

So yes.. it is a simple attempt to reflect back what I read in a different form, in order to better understand what it was all about.  I'm one of those weirdly curious folks that when I encounter something different or new, my fist impulse is not always to see if I can break it or poke fun at it.  I may not have any use for it, but I surely wouldn't know until I figure it out.

Is this an example of you "[trying to] better understand"?  Or is this some form of Libervoodo, like ghost shirts?  
Protip: "The shirts did not work as promised, and consequently 153 Lakota Sioux died"  
Spoiler alert: Magic: the Gathering site sez its bank is "having some technical problems."  Wake up & smell the coffee
edit: typo.

In other words, the modern economic miracle (banks & corporate giants needing bailouts, major US cities going bankrupt & paying their creditors 10c/$) is due to the reawakening lex mercatoria?  

I love you bro, GTF in the van!

Capital misnomer.
Arbitrary syncopation.

Controvert insipid..
Fallacies.
 
National
Privacy
publicity
personality

 Secretive seed

If there someday occurs these matrilinial autark communities, there may simultaneously exist other communities which are different.  When these communities collide, there will possibly be some sort of dispute.  Resolving that dispute without violence or worse might be a goal.  If the collision happens to be with a community that does engage in trade (even if the autarks dont) understanding the principles of the other may serve them well.

The traders approach and roll out their tinkers wagon to start hawking their wares.
Maybe the autarks say "we have nothing extra, we are autarks".
The traders may say, "well, look at these nifty seeds, and try this tasty drink.
The autarks reply "no, we have what we need and nothing to offer, all is for all"
And the traders say "check out this self maintaining robot that eats garbage, it will save you an hour a day, and by the way I really like that hat over there, can I give you this robot as a gift?"
And the autarks say "the hat is not mine, all is for all"

The trader leaves the robot and takes the hat,
Later some of the autarks find a use for the robot to reduce their toiling and both are pleased with themselves for adhering to their principles and go on their way.

Lex Mercatoria, or non-governmental trade law, did receede a bit this past one or two centuries, primarily because countries were very isolationist, with lots of conflict. Instead we had war, tariffs, trade restrictions, currency manipulation, etc. But it is very much alive still, and has been exploding in use this past decade. According to Wikipedia, there are entire organizations that are focusing on developing a body of international trade law, specifically for globalized trade and transnational companies that aren't based in any single country. A lot of it is based on arbitration, and is just a more nuanced version of the old Lex Mercatoria. Because of this, and Bitcoin, and other tech that is making trade easier and regulation harder, whenever someone says something like, "We are getting more socialist," or "You need government for trade/capitalism," I go all

At the risk of totally blowing my credibility, i'll confess:
I'm not a professional politician.  I don't politic for a living.
I'm not even a political hobbyist -- not once have i marched my stuffies & dollies to conquer Equestria.
And (and this one really hurts) i'm not a political scholar either:  The only thing i know about Dali is what he looked like & all those melty clocks.  Maybe a hair more, but nothing about his politics.  When it comes to politics, i'm a consumer, and possibly a victim -- inasmuch as the 2 balcony geezers who yell "Horrible!" on The Muppet Show could be seen as victims.

Are you familiar with Salvador Dalí's Monarchichal Anarchism?
The origin of kingship in arbitration?
The structure of the Linux and Bitcoin fondations are both like this.
I'd rather have one point of failure for an evil regime than millions of landed politician capitalist with a presumed mandate.

Government-and it's siamese twin, Capitalism, as it is today, evolved from the ruins of Serfdom.

Of all the examples to pick   Please understand that this board is a monarchy.  It is fully owned & controlled by Theymos.  He makes the rules.  You follow them, or GTFO.
See how that works?
There's an interesting read here:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/garr255werner-auction-shilling-238474 , where you'll find out just how well your example is working (SPOILER ALERT:  Shilling and sockpupetry turns out to be perfectly fine here.  How come?  'Coz Theymos said so.)
On this forum, most businesses fail, turn out to be scams, or both.  On this forum, mining bonds are sold to people who belive in other fairy tales but not in learning to maths. On this forum, Pirateat40, fully doxed, walked away with all of your money in broad daylight, and this hugbox, knowing *exactly who & where he was*, couldn't get its *millions* back.

Nice work, lex mercatoria, color me impressed.

Any specific, line by line objections to this rather promising proto-state dinosaur amalgamation?

Simply put, it is the non-violent non-governmental dispute resolution process used in trade.  
Though in places where governments arise, they tend to usurp it as their authority.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria

lex mercatoria is about as old as commerce, and there is evidence of it as old as there is writing.  Sumarians had a form of it more than 4K years ago.

It has been most useful for places where there are different cultures mixing, and each culture may have different "house rules" for how trade is conducted.

When you look at the Trust system that is evolving here, it mirrors it tightly. 
The claim that it is dead is a weird one.  Or maybe just extremely picky.  As if something which arises everywhere they care to look doesn't exist simply because the language used to describe it is a different one.  One might as well claim that love is dead because folks aren't building temples to Venus.
Call it lex mercatoria, call it the code of Ur, or in modern America, binding arbitration.  A time traveler would find enough similarity to be less confused than many of its critics here.

Though Montana beckons, my little farm would not do well without my attendance.  I'd have to attract some help with that to gain enough freedom for me to attend.  The rest of today is going to be absorbed by fixing my well, so I will leave you in the good hands of the wit-battlers.

I make no claim to superior intellect.  Nor do I claim to be engaging in a battle of wits.  If you are looking for a battle of wits, look elsewhere. I am only looking to better understand.
In a dialog, folks often re-characterize the statements of their interlocutor in order to show that they understand the intent of the statement.
Willful misunderstanding is evident when the re-characterizations are consistently the opposite or orthagonal. I suspect this is rewarding for him in some way, but the only meaningful response is to be pedantic which is tiring and with a wit-battler, and generally fruitless, so I am happy to let others do that.

Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). Contract law is not dead, quite the contrary it thrives.  Further to that, increasingly it is engaged without direct government engagement through binding arbitration.  So the trend (at least in the USA) is toward MORE lex mercatoria, rather than less.  This is sensible as it is less expensive for all to have a smaller government footprint in places where it has overstepped.
The claim that the existing large governments use of the lex merc principles means that it is dead/extinct/dinosaur, is as absurd as claiming that math is dead because there are now computers. 
I am not seeking to convince anyone of anything and I deeply appreciate thoughtful refutations and being shown where my thought has failed.  When apparently intelligent folks take these thoughts, ignore them, and attack thoughts which are not mine, it is not my responsibility to corral those folks and attempt to get them to attack mine instead.  As much as I'd prefer that, I am very happy to let them run off on their own and enjoy themselves.


The July 4 Rainbow Gathering in Montana looks delightful.  Montana summers are some of the best I've had with many fond memories of picking some fresh raspberries that the deer missed, and pulling the occasional rainbow trout out of Flathead Lake. 

Excerpt from user mouser98

I learned something today. Thank you.

EDIT: Final results for "Capitalism is"
Free trade13,
Wage Slavery 7,
Exclusively Statist 4,
Exclusively Anarchist 5

Let's see if I can come up with something worth asking.

Good discussion of "capitalism" from a libertarian/anarchist point of view: http://mises.org/community/forums/t/22196.aspx

Never ask what a word "is" - this is one of the worst intellectual habits you can possibly cultivate - because words aren't anything. They are merely communication tools that can refer to things. Asking what some controversial word "is" is a recipe for a protracted (sometimes centuries-long), hopelessly confused debate.

The question to ask is what each person is trying to get at when they use the word. This is the ONLY way to ever reach clear thinking about a term or (verbalized) concept.

Minarchists define capitalism as free trade, voluntarists define it as a condition of inviolable property rights or lack of central authority, and leftists define it as what libertarians would call corporatism (if they define it at all). These meanings are obviously incompatible; these people speak different languages, so it is a complete mistake and wild-goose chase to ask what the word "really means." It means different things to different people, as different as the word "Gift" means to an American and a German (Gift means poison in German).

Figure out what each person you talk to means by the term before engaging in a debate with them, or else it will just devolve into semantics. And if you are just thinking in your own mind, be sure to figure out what you are trying to get at when you use a key term, rather than pondering about what it "is" like some muddle-headed Platonist. Doing this with everything (even the word "Bitcoin") is one of the best habits you can cultivate for lucid understanding of things.