Topic: System building (Read 1753 times)
Now that quite a few of us are already or rapidly approaching "wealthy" status I thought I would bump this to see if anyone is seriously interested in building a/o cooperating to build a new system. I don't believe it will be long before many of us here get to choose how we lead the rest of our lives. Some of us will choose jim beam, coke and hookers (power to you), but for the rest of us serious about political reform through practical example, I ask you to either post here or contact me directly. We are very near to having the power to choose the world we live in, let's make the most of it.
Capitalism can't create anything since it is created, by everybody 
The term is over- and mis-used for a lot of things. But not only that but every other *-ism as well. It it counter intuitive to use them actually. I'll try to express my true meaning in more detail in future discussions.
Back to business: Shall it be law to have an entity called a "legal personality" which is liable for the actions of a corporation?
I say: Nay!
The term is over- and mis-used for a lot of things. But not only that but every other *-ism as well. It it counter intuitive to use them actually. I'll try to express my true meaning in more detail in future discussions.
Back to business: Shall it be law to have an entity called a "legal personality" which is liable for the actions of a corporation?
I say: Nay!
Capitalism introduces a concept called a legal personality, an abstract concept consisting of an entity. These entities are supposed to be in charge of cooperations, be liable under law and so on. It separates the subject from the object, and so creates the illusion of personal non-liability.
Capitalism didn't create that legal concept, governments did.
Gotcha,
governments are a similar legal concept. They too are entities providing the illusion of non-liability
Yes, but government wasn't created by capitalism either.
Capitalism introduces a concept called a legal personality, an abstract concept consisting of an entity. These entities are supposed to be in charge of cooperations, be liable under law and so on. It separates the subject from the object, and so creates the illusion of personal non-liability.
Capitalism didn't create that legal concept, governments did.
Indeed. All capitalism really is is the ability to retain the excess value created from trade. Banks, loans and all the other financial stuff arises from that but corporations are a government created fiction. It can be called more properly corporatism though it might legitimately be called fascism if that term hadn't completely been distorted in it's usage (by the left, no surprise).
Capitalism introduces a concept called a legal personality, an abstract concept consisting of an entity. These entities are supposed to be in charge of cooperations, be liable under law and so on. It separates the subject from the object, and so creates the illusion of personal non-liability.
Capitalism didn't create that legal concept, governments did.
Gotcha,
governments are a similar legal concept. They too are entities providing the illusion of non-liability.
Somebody lobbied for that law, and I think it was wealthy capitalists.
Capitalism introduces a concept called a legal personality, an abstract concept consisting of an entity. These entities are supposed to be in charge of cooperations, be liable under law and so on. It separates the subject from the object, and so creates the illusion of personal non-liability.
Capitalism didn't create that legal concept, governments did.
Doesn't sound much different from AnCap.
Well there is regenacy inside a large corporation, at least the ones which currently exists. Under anarchism those couldn't exit but there are so in tune with capitalism. Capitalism introduces a concept called a legal personality, an abstract concept consisting of an entity. These entities are supposed to be in charge of cooperations, be liable under law and so on. It separates the subject from the object, and so creates the illusion of personal non-liability.
Actually the correct term is post structuralist Anarchism.
It's basically anarchism with the difference that it acknowledges that the abolishment of the government isn't the magic pill and that government is just a result of the society we live in. It acknowledges that not all power is abusive and it does not assume that human nature is good, spoiled by government like some of the other schools are. It also intents to fight regnancy (hard to come up with the correct term, the english language is so restrictive, that is something of a concern too ...) everywhere not just the one which happens to be inside government.
(Of course in the end government would still be abolished
)
It's basically anarchism with the difference that it acknowledges that the abolishment of the government isn't the magic pill and that government is just a result of the society we live in. It acknowledges that not all power is abusive and it does not assume that human nature is good, spoiled by government like some of the other schools are. It also intents to fight regnancy (hard to come up with the correct term, the english language is so restrictive, that is something of a concern too ...) everywhere not just the one which happens to be inside government.
(Of course in the end government would still be abolished
)Doesn't sound much different from AnCap.
Actually the correct term is post structuralist Anarchism.
It's basically anarchism with the difference that it acknowledges that the abolishment of the government isn't the magic pill and that government is just a result of the society we live in. It acknowledges that not all power is abusive and it does not assume that human nature is good, spoiled by government like some of the other schools are. It also intents to fight regnancy (hard to come up with the correct term, the english language is so restrictive, that is something of a concern too ...) everywhere not just the one which happens to be inside government.
(Of course in the end government would still be abolished)
It's basically anarchism with the difference that it acknowledges that the abolishment of the government isn't the magic pill and that government is just a result of the society we live in. It acknowledges that not all power is abusive and it does not assume that human nature is good, spoiled by government like some of the other schools are. It also intents to fight regnancy (hard to come up with the correct term, the english language is so restrictive, that is something of a concern too ...) everywhere not just the one which happens to be inside government.
(Of course in the end government would still be abolished
) Anarchy implies without hierarchy (hence the "archy" part). Horizontal structure, not vertical.
Anarchy has different definitions. In my definition you can have both hierarchy and structure, be it voluntary.
Right. No rulers, not no leaders.
Anarchy implies without hierarchy (hence the "archy" part). Horizontal structure, not vertical.
Anarchy has different definitions. In my definition you can have both hierarchy and structure, be it voluntary.
Three words, one term:
Post-structural Anarchism.
Post-structural Anarchism.
Anarchy implies without structure - there is structure here, its simply horizontal, not vertical.
Close. Anarchy implies without hierarchy (hence the "archy" part). Horizontal structure, not vertical.
I didn't read the whole thread, but what you're doing sounds like voluntarism combined with agorism. I approve :-) and think this is exactly the way to transition to a free society: bottom up.
There are generally two different types of generalization & specialization I was referring to. The first is personal, the second is organizational (in this case on a community level). I expect generalization to be the norm at the infancy stage of this system for both types, but as the networks grow in size, the desire for more specialized products built locally will emerge and will be accomplished a corresponding increase in specialization of the communities. This does not necessarily mean that all of the members of the communities will be increasingly more specialized as the community itself specializes. It depends on what the members decide is best for them.
Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.
In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.
Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.
In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.
You know, if we were both playing some simulation game where we built little villages and run them according to our philosophies, I don't think that your little village and my little village would look that much different. Perhaps your villagers would directly trade product for product, mine might use a medium of exchange. Certainly in neither would there be a mayor.
Yep, possibly
Regarding value exchange, here is what I would choose based on the size of the group:
>25 people communities: gift economy
25>150 communities/villages: LETS/ mutual credit systems
150-10,000: reputational currencies
10,000+: anonymous currencies
There are generally two different types of generalization & specialization I was referring to. The first is personal, the second is organizational (in this case on a community level). I expect generalization to be the norm at the infancy stage of this system for both types, but as the networks grow in size, the desire for more specialized products built locally will emerge and will be accomplished a corresponding increase in specialization of the communities. This does not necessarily mean that all of the members of the communities will be increasingly more specialized as the community itself specializes. It depends on what the members decide is best for them.
Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.
In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.
Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.
In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.
You know, if we were both playing some simulation game where we built little villages and run them according to our philosophies, I don't think that your little village and my little village would look that much different. Perhaps your villagers would directly trade product for product, mine might use a medium of exchange. Certainly in neither would there be a mayor.
Three words, one term:
Post-structural Anarchism.
Post-structural Anarchism.
Sort of. I prefer to think of it more of a system akin to: http://p2pfoundation.net/
Anarchy implies without structure - there is structure here, its simply horizontal, not vertical.
As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.
Yep, generalization is in general in good for us, for many reasons. Even from a purely selfish perspective, it helps with your longevity, creativity and emotional wellbeing to be able to wear many hats (which is accomplished by always allowing yourself to stay open to learning new things).
Generalization and specialization are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Having many skills is good, but being good at all of them is next to impossible. You'll note that Sv. Heinlein did not say that a human being should be able to do all of that well. Specialization is indeed for insects, but the fact that one species is capable of being both a generalist and a specialist is what sets us apart from the insects. Humans are not interchangeable cogs in some great machine. Natural talent or inclination will lead some members to be better at some things than others. The gears are not perfectly round. And when you try to use an oblong gear where a round one goes, you get stresses that tear the machine apart. Oblong gears, however, can mesh perfectly. You just have to design the system so that each gear fits into the pattern in the proper way. With human interaction, the best way to design the system is to let the market build the machine, and the gears will select their own place.
Now, I feel I've stretched that metaphor quite far enough, so I'll just add this. So long as you're allowing some specialization, and not enforcing equality, you'll get a very robust system, as people pick the jobs they like, and do them well.
There are generally two different types of generalization & specialization I was referring to. The first is personal, the second is organizational (in this case on a community level). I expect generalization to be the norm at the infancy stage of this system for both types, but as the networks grow in size, the desire for more specialized products built locally will emerge and will be accomplished a corresponding increase in specialization of the communities. This does not necessarily mean that all of the members of the communities will be increasingly more specialized as the community itself specializes. It depends on what the members decide is best for them.
Regarding the forcing something on someone else, this system allows each person to choose their own governance structure. I, personally like living in an egalitarian style community where everyone is more or less equal. If, however you want to live in a village setting (or even a community) which is run by the market, then that is absolutely your own choice.
In my vision I dream that the interaction between these communities would be primarily trade and commons management. There isn't necessarily any need for hierarchy within these parameters.
Three words, one term:
Post-structural Anarchism.
Post-structural Anarchism.
As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.
Yep, generalization is in general in good for us, for many reasons. Even from a purely selfish perspective, it helps with your longevity, creativity and emotional wellbeing to be able to wear many hats (which is accomplished by always allowing yourself to stay open to learning new things).
Generalization and specialization are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Having many skills is good, but being good at all of them is next to impossible. You'll note that Sv. Heinlein did not say that a human being should be able to do all of that well. Specialization is indeed for insects, but the fact that one species is capable of being both a generalist and a specialist is what sets us apart from the insects. Humans are not interchangeable cogs in some great machine. Natural talent or inclination will lead some members to be better at some things than others. The gears are not perfectly round. And when you try to use an oblong gear where a round one goes, you get stresses that tear the machine apart. Oblong gears, however, can mesh perfectly. You just have to design the system so that each gear fits into the pattern in the proper way. With human interaction, the best way to design the system is to let the market build the machine, and the gears will select their own place.
Now, I feel I've stretched that metaphor quite far enough, so I'll just add this. So long as you're allowing some specialization, and not enforcing equality, you'll get a very robust system, as people pick the jobs they like, and do them well.
Kudos for practicing what you preach. I wish you and yours the best of luck.
=)
So you're aiming for some kind of robust commune type arrangement?
Yes, my dream (fantasy) is an economy which is both primarily based on the trade between communities, which is supplemented to a much lesser extent with trade on a global level.
I definitely agree there's more to life than 'It's the economy, stupid". Specialization has allowed some magnificent things to be accomplished but you are correct in that it's a very fragile system. I've been considering myself ways to mitigate the risk. We are on a very high plateau with a long way to fall. Even without going all the way to a system such as you advocate, there are definitely things that could and should be done to cushion any drastic change in the global economic environment. I try to be a generalist somewhat myself. Who knows what skills might be needed? If all you know is how to rubber-stamp forms in government office, you might be setting yourself up for trouble.
As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.
As Heinlein said: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.” I'm a few short on that but I do what I can.
Yep, generalization is in general in good for us, for many reasons. Even from a purely selfish perspective, it helps with your longevity, creativity and emotional wellbeing to be able to wear many hats (which is accomplished by always allowing yourself to stay open to learning new things).
Jump to: