How does the notion of absolute limits of collectivism by Dunbar reconcile with collectives larger than this in evidence?
Bitcoin would be an example of this.
People can be naturally allied by common acceptance of an idea, or a philosophy or a practice.
One could feel a deep sense of community by participation in a group activity where the individuals are not even known to each other.
Topic: Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 13. (Read 12620 times)
June 13, 2013, 10:40:44 AM
June 13, 2013, 09:51:51 AM
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
Because, when love (and trust, which only exists within blood communities)
is gone (with the destruction of the blood communities by organised violence)
it has to be replaced by something, which is justice (judiciary)
which is force (state protection for the 'protection money payers')
Communism is the only natural life style for the homines sapientes. But it doesn't work beyond Dunbar's Number. Nothings works beyond Dunbar's Number.
This is all a little bit baffling for me, but I hope to understand.
Is a blood community any person with whom one establishes trust?
Does this idea allow for love and trust with people that I've not yet met? There are many that I both love and trust that I met through out my life and I suspect this is not going to stop happening until the end of my life.
The blood community is not an idea, it is the organisation, in which the homines sapientes lived until it was destroyed and replaced by hypercollectives under organised violence, around 10'000 years ago.
The fact, that collectivism beyond Dunbar's Number is dysfunctional, doesn't mean that you won't love and trust some strangers, foreigners and aliens.
The same is true with the patriarchal monogamous pairing families (constructed also around 10'000 years ago). Some of them are not dysfuntional. But a system, in which functionality is not the rule but the exception - is a system, which is dysfunctional.
Therefore, collectivism is dysfunctional, both the socialist and the capitalist expression.
Quote
Why is it a goal to replace trust and love with violence?
Workless income for violent offenders (church and state).
June 13, 2013, 09:03:11 AM
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
Because, when love (and trust, which only exists within blood communities)
is gone (with the destruction of the blood communities by organised violence)
it has to be replaced by something, which is justice (judiciary)
which is force (state protection for the 'protection money payers')
Communism is the only natural life style for the homines sapientes. But it doesn't work beyond Dunbar's Number. Nothings works beyond Dunbar's Number.
This is all a little bit baffling for me, but I hope to understand.
Is a blood community any person with whom one establishes trust?
Does this idea allow for love and trust with people that I've not yet met? There are many that I both love and trust that I met through out my life and I suspect this is not going to stop happening until the end of my life.
Why is it a goal to replace trust and love with violence?
June 13, 2013, 07:35:38 AM
...
Quote
Within the capitalistic framework, this practice is referred to as entrepreneurship, rational self-interest, opportunity, and, more colloquially, PROFIT!
Lol. Yet another 'preacher'.Merely saying something is rational, does not make it so.
It don't?
Wat do?Quote
Quote
Elegant & self-consistent -- the human life's so short! Leaving the place neat & tidy when you leave die epitomizes irrational self-interest.
Claiming to know what happens when you die seems arrogant of you. You're obviously assuming and calculating that you're never coming back. What if you're wrong?Fuck 'glamour', faker.
Fabulous! You suppose it'll let me?
June 13, 2013, 07:16:57 AM
...
Quote
Within the capitalistic framework, this practice is referred to as entrepreneurship, rational self-interest, opportunity, and, more colloquially, PROFIT!
Lol. Yet another 'preacher'.Merely saying something is rational, does not make it so.
Quote
Elegant & self-consistent -- the human life's so short! Leaving the place neat & tidy when you leave die epitomizes irrational self-interest.
Claiming to know what happens when you die seems arrogant of you. You're obviously assuming and calculating that you're never coming back. What if you're wrong?Fuck 'glamour', faker.
June 13, 2013, 07:14:18 AM
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
Because, when love (and trust, which only exists within blood communities)
is gone (with the destruction of the blood communities by organised violence)
it has to be replaced by something, which is justice (judiciary)
which is force (state protection for the 'protection money payers')
I think you exaggerate with the 'bloodlines' thing. Unlike some other species, humans don't have a very strong sense of smell, so it's not like we can literally sniff each other and determine group membership based on DNA. Besides, how would you explain fraternal bonding within, e.g.: nationalist, church, or academic groups?
To me it seems that many people tend to gravitate towards various groups, and some of those groups happen to be a major source of that "organised violence" in the world today.
The selfsufficient blood-community is a historic fact (hundredthousand and more years). The fraternal bonding within clubs, nationalists and other groups are a perverted replacement of that natural feeling of human being.
June 13, 2013, 06:41:15 AM
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
Because, when love (and trust, which only exists within blood communities)
is gone (with the destruction of the blood communities by organised violence)
it has to be replaced by something, which is justice (judiciary)
which is force (state protection for the 'protection money payers')
I think you exaggerate with the 'bloodlines' thing. Unlike some other species, humans don't have a very strong sense of smell, so it's not like we can literally sniff each other and determine group membership based on DNA. Besides, how would you explain fraternal bonding within, e.g.: nationalist, church, or academic groups?
To me it seems that many people tend to gravitate towards various groups, and some of those groups happen to be a major source of that "organised violence" in the world today.
June 13, 2013, 06:21:54 AM
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.
Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
Because:
-stealing to survive
-stealing, ripping people off and so on, due to greed
Only petty theft is tragic. On a proper scale, it's rather glamorous! Nine out of ten capitalists agree.
Quote
-exploiting easy targets (e.g.: immigrants who are desperate for a little bit of money).
Within the capitalistic framework, this practice is referred to as entrepreneurship, rational self-interest, opportunity, and, more colloquially, PROFIT!
Quote
-Capitalism seems to reward society with short-to-medium term gains (e.g.: technology, gadgets) while potential problems (e.g.: depleted resources, pollution) are easy to ignore because they tend to creep up very slowly.
Elegant & self-consistent -- the human life's so short! Leaving the place neat & tidy when you
Quote
-Ignoring morals seems to be more "efficient" than being righteous, at least in the short term.
The wonderful thing about morals is ... there are so many to choose from!
Quote
I'm sure there are more reasons, but that's plenty for starters.
So many blatantly subjective & emotion-laden terms here (tragic, slave, coercion, exploiting [people], [being] righteous, [appeal to] morals)
June 13, 2013, 06:18:46 AM
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
Because, when love (and trust, which only exists within blood communities)
is gone (with the destruction of the blood communities by organised violence)
it has to be replaced by something, which is justice (judiciary)
which is force (state protection for the 'protection money payers')
Communism is the only natural life style for the homines sapientes. But it doesn't work beyond Dunbar's Number. Nothings works beyond Dunbar's Number.
June 12, 2013, 11:17:08 PM
Don't you remember some hippie burning man stuff? I do. I'm sure I can dredge it up if I need to or start caring to.
Oh, I think you need to.
Quote
I think I abandoned the thread because I was derailing it with off topic posts like you are now with this garbage.
"Hundreds" doesn't help you when you don't have one.
"Hundreds" doesn't help you when you don't have one.
I started that thread with one.
June 12, 2013, 05:34:52 PM
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.
Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
Because:
-stealing to survive
-stealing, ripping people off and so on, due to greed
-exploiting easy targets (e.g.: immigrants who are desperate for a little bit of money).
-Capitalism seems to reward society with short-to-medium term gains (e.g.: technology, gadgets) while potential problems (e.g.: depleted resources, pollution) are easy to ignore because they tend to creep up very slowly.
-Ignoring morals seems to be more "efficient" than being righteous, at least in the short term.
I'm sure there are more reasons, but that's plenty for starters.
June 12, 2013, 05:20:42 PM
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.
Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
I can't say whether or not it is possible, but assuming that it is not possible seems to beg the question and thereby preclude any discussion on the merits of what it offers or destroys.
The economic benefit for an employee is shallow compared with what they could have done for themselves and their oft-neglected community and the world with the same amount of labor of love, rather than toil for pay.
Yes, perhaps so, but even in the impure capitalist system, they could choose this option to labor for oneself rather than cooperatively, and many do so today.
The violence comes in when the wage slave sees the capitalist profiting from her toil, and tries to take some of that profit. The capitalist sometimes has a machine gun waiting in case of this.
For capitalism to work, a premium of some kind must be placed on a product to profit the capitalist involved in funding the production- this premium is lost to the worker.
For capitalism to work, a premium of some kind must be placed on a product to profit the capitalist involved in funding the production- this premium is lost to the worker.
This seems that the violence is initiated by the worker who does not respect the risk that the funding capitalist took in creating the environment and organizing that work. If the capitalist is overcompensated for that risk, it invites competition.
From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.
The best laid mutual agreements often go awry -especially when one party is more dependent on the other. You can count on "do as thou wilt" to get things done.
All statist intervention is unnecessary.
Arguably whichever side is getting the best part of the deal is the more dependent and has the most to lose from any renegotiation.
How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination?
Once the state's protection of private property is abolished, the 'All Is For All' free for all chaos wound up tightly like a spring by capitalism will work itself out- with perfect efficiency.Some might suggest that even without state protection of private property, individuals may choose to protect their private property and person. One might further suggest that free for all chaos is sometimes less than perfectly efficient.
June 12, 2013, 04:59:55 PM
When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean.
Quote me, now.
I dont feel like rummaging through hundreds of posts, I'm on a smartphone.
Let's just say I made it up or am mistaken to save me the trouble of trying to prove it. Look it up if you want.
Nope. You claimed you 'engaged' me because of my namecalling and meanness. I expect you to prove it. I will not suffer your slander. If I called you anything harsh or unwarranted before you earned it, prove it and I will apologize. Fail and you can expect whatever consequences of your slander that I can bring to bear. And don't forget, you brought this upon yourself.
Quote
Ever come across that historical example of capitalism working?
Hundreds, some better than others. A dozen of them were listed in that other thread you abandoned because you couldn't spin an argument, most of which were there before you were even a member of this forum. You choose to ignore them. I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm not here to entertain you by doing tricks.
Quote
(... and NOT obliterating tons of workers' potential in the name of 'freedom' or whatever...)
EDIT: "Racist bastard" doesn't count.
EDIT: "Racist bastard" doesn't count.
Correct, "Racist Bastard" does not count, because you earned that title.
Don't you remember some hippie burning man stuff? I do. I'm sure I can dredge it up if I need to or start caring to.
I think I abandoned the thread because I was derailing it with off topic posts like you are now with this garbage.
"Hundreds" doesn't help you when you don't have one.
June 12, 2013, 04:49:28 PM
Still catching up on this thread, but didn't want to let this gem slip through:
So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?
I'd question the ultimate validity of patriarchical lineage in general, then I'd rant about how the most efficient and arbitrary way of producing arbitrators is to allow arbitrators to arbitrarily produce arbitrators.By the way, Im pro monarchy.
So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?
June 12, 2013, 04:44:52 PM
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.
Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
The violence comes in when the wage slave sees the capitalist profiting from her toil, and tries to take some of that profit. The capitalist sometimes has a machine gun waiting in case of this.
For capitalism to work, a premium of some kind must be placed on a product to profit the capitalist involved in funding the production- this premium is lost to the worker.
Quote
From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.
The best laid mutual agreements often go awry -especially when one party is more dependent on the other. You can count on "do as thou wilt" to get things done.All statist intervention is unneccessary.
Quote
How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination?
Once the state's protection of private property is abolished, the 'All Is For All' free for all chaos wound up tightly like a spring by capitalism will work itself out- with perfect efficiency. 
June 12, 2013, 04:28:47 PM
Still catching up on this thread, but didn't want to let this gem slip through:
So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?
By the way, Im pro monarchy.
So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?
So you're a beneficiary of the King's nepotism?
Yes. I would have been. Had the king not been deposed during the Russian Revolution.
June 12, 2013, 04:04:35 PM
They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
There you have it. That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.
Help me understand this please.
Why does their hypothetical "pure" Capitalism, which uses wages for working people who are enticed with economic benefit so tragic? Why is it necessarily violent? Why is it inefficient?
From what they are saying, it would seem to offer some benefit over the do-as-thou-wilt alternatives in that there is some measurable elements of the benefits provided to those engaging in it, as well as a mutual agreement that could preclude any violent engagement. Of the systems proposed here it seems to at least have potential viability and a measurably beneficial method to reduce coercion and unnecessary statist intervention.
How does one choose which of the many options for contributing labor to their society without evaluating the benefit to the society that labor offers, by looking at the differing compensation voluntarily exchanged for the labor options? What is the more efficient method for making this determination?
June 12, 2013, 12:14:31 PM
Still catching up on this thread, but didn't want to let this gem slip through:
So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?
By the way, Im pro monarchy.
So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?
So you're a beneficiary of the King's nepotism?
June 12, 2013, 05:24:43 AM
Quote
You lost me after LOL.
Warum ist Autarkie im Blut Gemeinde relevant Kapitalismus?
'LOL-answers' and 'name-calling-answers' are typical in communications within an anonymous hypercollectiv, as this and other threads show. There is not much natural respect towards members outside of your blood community. That's also the reason why you need organised violence to enforce someone to interact economically (capitalism) with foreigners, strangers and aliens.
'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justive is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. So hold me,
Mom, in your long arms.
In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms.
In your arms.
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms.
Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms.
In your electronic arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQw
Well quoting Laurie puts you in my blood community as much as anything can.
But I still don't understand why you think I need organised violence.
Is not mutual benefit is a strong incentive with the sane and civilized?
June 12, 2013, 04:06:15 AM
Quote
You lost me after LOL.
Warum ist Autarkie im Blut Gemeinde relevant Kapitalismus?
'LOL-answers' and 'name-calling-answers' are typical in communications within an anonymous hypercollectiv, as this and other threads show. There is not much natural respect towards members outside of your blood community. That's also the reason why you need organised violence to enforce someone to interact economically (capitalism) with foreigners, strangers and aliens.
'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justive is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. So hold me,
Mom, in your long arms.
In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms.
In your arms.
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms.
Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms.
In your electronic arms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQw
Jump to: