Topic: Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 4. (Read 12620 times)

Unless you live deep in the amazon jungle you have to pay taxes, anywhere in the world. Theres no getting away from it.

If you think admitting that the rock's as bad as the hard place = defending, then why, pray tell, are you defending this statist disaster?

It is not a plan. This is the history of the homines sapientes for several hundred thousand years, until this life style had been destroyed 10'000 years ago, as they began to collectivise the animals and then themselves.

Wow, that was enlightening!  I feel so low. [you can tell sarcasm when you see it, right?]
My oxygen-starved friend:  Why would i call something that i've never heard of a meme?  What do you think makes a meme -- obscurity or repetition.  Still thinking?  Oh, come on, i'll give you a hint, it's the last one.  ... Give up?  Ok, it's the last one, repetition!  Yeah, sure you were about to say that.  [protip: highlight->right-click->search.]

Huh?  If i am, should be trivial to prove me wrong.


a)No.  
b)Perhaps you should make more money & move to my hood -- it's safe & rich totally free of unsightly undesirables.


You're rambling, save the war stories for your buds.


Noted.

pan paniscus = bonobos

Is this the plan for your matrilinear consanguineous campground?  You may have something there!  I <3 bonobos.
And because I have some capital, I can share the love with http://www.bonobo.org/

Whether it is more communal or capital based, I wouldn't know.

"Private" does not cause another atom to spin/vibrate the same way as the word "private?"   
"Personal" means "miners?"     
I was using the definition of "private" to mean the opposite of "public" as opposed to "blocked from public view"

The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time.

Core problem.
Private is not as quantum entangled. It's a mere claim. Secreted away from dirty fingers and prying eyes.

EDIT: Personal is defined in bitcoin as providers of hashing power. I'm sure someone else can fill that definition in quite nicely.

I already lived in a paradise much like that -- ya iz toy je stranyi kak tyi, moy daragoyi

Seriously?  You don't think that there is a rational reason that murder and rape are crimes regardless of government?

We're not even speaking the same language.

Just a little bit of research into the topic for which you attempt to speak would have saved you from shame, assuming you actually feel shame.

"In 1992 [5] Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).[6]

Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans. Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter–gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories — small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes — with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number#Research_background

Trolling again.


I absolutely agree.  That's why armed mugging is so popular  I point a gun at your face & offer you a profitable trade:  Your life for your wallet.  After a quick negotiation, you conclude that it's in your enlightened self interest to part with your wallet & not your brains.  Another deal done
[/quote]

Mugging is popular where you live?  Perhaps you should move, or choose another profession.  That one will get you killed where I live, and I do mean that literally.


That wouldn't have been my choice.  My choice would as likely to have been to shoot you in the face, since I'm more than confident that I'm both fast and accurate enough to defeat you, since I actually can afford to practice.  Again, I live in a city where at least ten percent of the adult population possesses a permit to carry a weapon concealled.  I was 32 before I even met anyone who was mugged in my city.  To this day, in a city of roughly one million people, the reported muggings are less than 100 in a year; half of which occur within a three block radius of a particular housing project in the west end of town, and almost all of them after dark.  I've never been in that neighborhood after dark, and don't know anyone who would.

I cut out the remainder of your trolling, BTW.

Luckily for us anarchocapitalists, those other guys don't believe in violence.
Or maybe they do, since some of them seem to be against "non-aggression"... I'm so confused 

Define your difference between "private" and "personal," as I consider them synonyms.

It's a perspective developed from observations.  So yes, that's my opinion.

You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe?

Distinguishing between sharing and trading seems an essential problem.
Avoiding accumulation may be another problem.

Consanguinity is fine as an arbitrary rule.  It works like most arbitrary rules, for some-but-not-all.
By matrilinial I suppose that you mean the women are the ones that don't wander and switch consanguineous groups, and the men have the choice of which consanguineous group they wish to attempt to join in order to prevent complete inbreeding?

So far it doesn't seem very pleasant, or any any way preferable to even the shambles we have today, so I am very curious as to what makes it excellent.  I am sure that I don't understand it yet.

You probably don't have to worry about the an-caps and libertarians.  They already have picked a geography:
http://freestateproject.org/

Seasteading, space travel and transhumanism.
Not neccessarily in that order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx_WSfOUsrg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

That this only can mean to be economically self-sufficient should be crystal clear to everybody in this discussion.
To be not dependent from everything means to be non-existent (nirvana). Here, we are discussing about human being, but not about non-being. That's another story.



No, I don't propose non-being. I simply propose the non-violent, autarchic, self-sufficient life style beyond the so called society, which is violent at an exponentially increasing pace.


Independent from economic interaction (trade) with people beyond the consanguineal community.
That's the difference to the people within a society, who are enforced to trade with strangers to generate surpluses and savings.


To share and to trade is a completely different story. To share water is no problem. To trade and accumulate water is the problem.

Best regards.

I admit to being baffled by this.  You have strongly stated that to be self sufficient is to be not dependent, but now you do not remember a discussion to be independent from anything. 

So it does seem that what you are proposing is nirvana-like.  It seems so unreal and hard to even imagine. I need some help to imagine it.
What are the other economic operators from which you will be self sufficient?  (people, animals, plants, communities, or societies)?
How will you avoid sharing air, water, land, weather, earth with these other economic operators without a pure isolation?
How will this isolation/sharing be maintained without inter-dependency?


Truly, it seems like ouroboros, if you can achieve it, congratulations.  Many will likely try to follow that example once it exists, most folks in our simplicity adhere to the notion of ex nihilo nihil fit and do not consider such an amazing future.

I am still far to young to have a philosophy, but I remain always eager to learn from those that have come to interesting conclusions.