Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Sunday April 20th, 2014: Sunday Call In Show at 10am Eastern

Wednesday April 23rd, 2014: No Call In Show

Thursday and Friday April 24-25th, 2014: The Next Web Conference in Amsterdam

Saturday April 26th, 2014: Freedomain Radio Meet-Up in Amsterdam

Sunday April 27th, 2014: No Call In Show


56 Philosopher King files - 71 Gold files - 39 Silver files - 50 Bronze files


Update: A new silver level file on Peer Influence and Envy has been added! Click here to donate if you'd like access to the various premium sections. If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Photo

The Peter and Stefan Comic Strip (Ancap vs TVP RBE)

the venus project peter joseph zeitgeist stefan molyneux anarcho-capitalism cartoon parody humor

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic
-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#2
Nathan Diehl

Nathan Diehl

  • 189 posts

First off, thanks for this thread!! 'Tis gonna be phun!  :P  :cool:
 
Wow. I think the only thing you got right was the angry look on Peter's face.  :laugh:
 
Lemme take a crack at rewriting the first one...
molyneux1.jpg


PJ: So, Stefan, what do capitalists do with resources that they extract from Earth?
SM: They refine them into usable products and then sell those products to manufactures who then produce usable goods. The manufacturers sell their products to distributors, who sell to stores, who sell to the end user. It's an interconnected web of peaceful voluntary trade that raises humankind out of dirt dwelling poverty. 
 
PJ: Does that mean you steal from Earth and never pay back the price plus interest?
SM: ....wait. What?
 
PJ: Thanks for clearing that up. I think I created some resources that were parked in your garage last night. It was difficult breaking in there, so I suppose it's OK with you.
SM: Tell me about your father, Pete.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Ok, that was way too fun not to do the 2nd one, too!
 
molyneux2.jpg
 
 
SM: So, Peter, was I able to convince you that a free market is the only morally good economic option?
PJ: Your words are violence.
 
SM: ....wait, what?
PJ: I've got to sell my kids' house chores bonds on the stock market, change some coins for my home washing machine, . . .
 
PJ: ...and pay sex bills to my wife.
SM: Tell me about your mom, Pete.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Oh my! I chuckle like a fat bastard.
 
molyneux3.jpg
 
PJ: What's happened to you?  (notice how SM is about to die, and PJ isn't all that worked up)
SM: Dude! I exposed taxation as theft and the statist mafia threw me to the sharks! I'm drowning! Will you help me?!
 
PJ: So your problem is breathing scarcity. If you want oxygen from my suit, that will be $9.95 per minute. (still not worked up he's watching a human being die.)
SM: But the water is killing me! Why don't you help!?
 
PJ: Stefan taught me (talking like SM isn't even there), water isn't a person, it can't initiate violence against you. BTW, there's no way I'd destroy a perfectly good oxygen market.
SM: But I am a person and you're committing great evil by passively aggressively murdering me. Since you're not going to help me, go listen to podcast 308 "Projecting Torture". Then, since I'll be dead, if you have any questions, go talk with my 4 year old daughter. She'll be able to answer all of your questions.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I can't stop. I'm enjoying this too much.
 
molyneux4.jpg
 
SM: Price is the indicator of how much energy it takes to deliver a good to the market. One sentence. You get it yet?
PJ: Eh, wonderful. I didn't understand Economics 101 until now. So, is the free market really free?
 
SM: By free, we mean free of coercive violence. 
PF: Wow, that sounds really "free".
 
SM: Yes, it does.
PJ: .........my mom was passive aggressive with me. 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

interlude


molyneux5.jpg

 

SM: What if 100 million people want cell phones, but there are only enough resources to produce 80 million?

PJ: Are you F-ing kidding me?

 

SM: ...No. 

PJ: So what if everyone in a free market decided they want a cell phone?

 

SM: Competition drives the quality up and the price down. What used to cost $10,000 you can now get for $20. No elusive no-where-to-be-found algorithm required! 

PJ: ....but, DENIAL OF PRINCIPLE CONTINUUM!!


  • 1

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#4
LovePrevails

LovePrevails

  • 1359 posts

the comic artist should have replace Peter Joseph with Himself in the comic since he is a far better debater and rhetorician than Peter

 

Stefan should respond by challenging him to a debate.


  • 0

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#6
Jer

Jer
  • 49 posts

Armitage: Have you ever considered that you may have a blind spot?

How's your relationship with your parents?


  • 2

#7
LovePrevails

LovePrevails

  • 1359 posts

well, I for one am willing to debate you.


  • 0

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#9
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

Market has the right to deny people what they need, under the pretext that they don't have money. This is the "algorithm" of the market. This used to make sense, when people and money were involved in production, instead of automation and resources. The market system gives us products, but it takes away our time. We pay ransom for our own time! We can have a part of our time dead, or have it all dead. How is that different from taxes?

 

 

The "market" does not exist.  There are just people.  We work and provide resources for each other.  We do this because some of us are more efficient at certain things than others.  Everyone wants and needs a certain amount of resources, but providing what we need just by ourselves is essentially impossible unless you have a poverty level existence.

 

People and money involved in production instead of automation and resources?  What on earth are you talking about?  It's always been resources.  You can't eat money.  You can't do much of anything with money.  And automation?  It's been around for a long, long time.   Wind and water have been used to automate physical processes for centuries now.   It's not a new invention.  It's just that we are getting better and better at it.

 

The market gives us products but takes away our time?  Of course.  Because someone has to use their time to make them.  This goes back to my point above about the market not existing and it's just people.  It's a fair exchange of time for time.  Money is the abstraction that allows this exchange to occur. 

 

 
Honestly, do you guys understand the market(people trading) at all?  This is why we say free market = freedom.

  • 0

#10
LovePrevails

LovePrevails

  • 1359 posts

I'd porbably debate you on free market


  • 0

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#12
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

I don't understand. Why would you say that market does not exist? What is your notion of market and of existence?
According to Wikipedia,
A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange.
 

 

A market does not exist in the way a forest does not exist.  It is just a collection of trees.  And that governments do not exist.  They are just people stealing and killing.  It's important to drill down to see what we are actually talking about.  The word market is so abused in popular culture and made out to be like some mythical dragon or something.  It's important to recognise that the market is just people trading with each other, just as the government is people stealing and forcing others to do things at gunpoint.  When you look at things at that level it is clear that one is OK and one is not.

 

It's also important to realise that central planners and the people who depend on them, academia and media particularly,  will always be quite eager to denigrate the idea of the market because if you look at markets closely you realise that not only can they work without central planning, but all evidence and logic points to them working much better without central planning.  Central planners, of course, don't want you to know this and want you to think the opposite.  I'm pretty sure Stalin railed against the free market too.

 

This question is kind of tricky. There are still fewer people in primary or secondary economy. People move on to services and most of these services are not about resources, they are basically paperwork for keeping track of money. On the other side, machines replace people in dealing with resources. And machines start driving people even out of the service sector. And economy can not run on service sector alone.
 

 

 

The services you talk about that are mainly paperwork are to do generally, though not always with government.  Bookkeeping is an important part of the economy whether it is paper or computer based.   I would argue that many of these services are not "just paperwork".  There are all kinds of services that people provide in the local economy around me.  Why not get ahold of your local yellow pages and have a look?   Have a flick through and measure the thickness of it.  You'll see most of the services provided are not book-keeping.

 

Yes, trading time on market used to be necessary. Nowadays businessmen just install machines that can run all day long and require just a few people to watch over them. Suddenly the workers' time is obsolete and the fair exchange is ended. The most sought after jobs today are engineer and programmer, the jobs that eliminate even more jobs. Productivity is increasing, number of jobs remains roughly the same and unemployment increases. The problem is, when we take people out of equation, money don't get returned into the economy. And when people don't have money, they can't buy back the product they produced - or that the machines produced.

Thus money is not an abstraction, it's a real entity, a real gear in a gearbox of economy that turns between two other real entities - people and products. And it presents a problem in itself, a hindrance to true technological production of pure resources and state of the art technologies.

Money are also a powerful cultural artifact, comparable in fame, power and impact only to the idea of God, as the sociologist Georg Simmel noticed.

 

 

You are still trading time.  Even if you have machines doing the work you still need people to use their time to look after the machines.  The difference is that with automation, people's time becomes more valuable.  They can get paid more because their time is so much more productive.  As this happens the economy starts to evolve and new jobs that weren't economically viable before now become viable and we are all better off.  Or I should say this is what happens in a free market setting.  Unfortunately, so much of the West has been weighed down with rules and regulations that markets aren't working very well at all.   And so the economy can not dynamically adapt to fit the new circumstances.  This is government doing it's best to hold back change.  That's what it always attempts to do and has unfortunately been wildly successful.

 

It's why the communist countries failed.  And it's why China was failing until it implemented market reforms.  People need to be free to enjoy the fruits of their labours.  Otherwise, they lose interest in working.   It turns out that our systems are only slightly more successful than the communists.  They are failing for very similar reasons.  Government interference.  It just took a bit more time for the problems to pile up because our masters weren't as heavy-handed as the communists.


  • 0

#13
Think Free

Think Free

  • 103 posts

[The following comics:]

molyneux1.jpg

 

The earth doesn't have property rights because the earth isn't human. If you take away the product of a man's labor, he's going to stop laboring. Earth isn't going to keep producing fossil fuels and stop if we keep taking them.

 

 
molyneux2.jpg

 

If you're using non-violent parenting, all the things you list are negotiated and are paid for. A marriage traditionally is, among other things, a contractual agreement.

 
molyneux3.jpg

 

Oh! I finally am beginning to understand the reasoning behind RBE. I see that RBE is really just people (at their own expense) going around helping mafia victims drowning in the ocean. And here I thought the RBE was about dealing with normal and realistic situations. That idea, never made much sense to me because, under normal circumstances, there's nothing unreasonable about asking people who consume more expensive resources to contribute more of their effort toward acquiring those resources.

 

molyneux4.jpg

 

As already stated the free market is free of coercion from other people. To imply that threats of getting your prices undercut is some kind of coercion is like implying that the threat of other men wooing and marrying women is some kind of coercion.

 

Instead of the dating market, I think we should have a giant computer that uses "science" to assign everyone a mate that then has to have sex with you. This way, nobody will have to voluntarily choose to try and be attractive or desirable. That would be a real tragedy.

 

 
molyneux5.jpg

 

If everyone in the free market system wants a car made of gold, the market will determine the price and the people that can afford it and want it badly enough will pay for it.

 
molyneux6.jpg

 

"...but, yes, my wants are infinite." 'Nuff said.

 
molyneux7.jpg

 

As the free-market produces wealth all automation becomes profitable eventually government simultaneously suppresses wealth production while making automation profitable early (by making labor unnaturally unprofitable), causing inefficient automation techniques to be adopted early, further reducing wealth creation and putting people out of jobs (which again, reduces wealth creation).

 
molyneux8.jpg

 

It's a perfectly reasonable question. What are "demand signals"? Consumption =/= demand. The free-market price of something is the best clue we have of the demand for it..

 
molyneux9.jpg

 

In the statist case, the chicken is lucky if the government doesn't catch him and kill/incarcerate him. In the free-market case, he's free to cross the road. Of course, the laws of reality apply in all cases (RBE, excepted, of course).

 
molyneux10.jpg

 

Stefan's daughter is a criminal? She's stealing and committing violent acts against other people???


  • 1

The U.S. Constitution is nothing more than A Warning Label.
Heed the warning!


-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

-36 This post by STer is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#16
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

This way of thinking is so key to anarcho-capitalism. And yet I still don't understand why people who use it don't quickly see the flaw in it, as displayed below:

 

"Trees do not exist. It is just a collection of cells"

"People do not exist. It is just a collection of cells"

"Cells do not exist. It is just a collection of organelles and membranes, etc."

"Cells, organelles and membranes do not exist. It is just a collection of atoms." 

 

And so on. The point being that it is really meaningless to debate whether emergent levels of things "exist" or don't "exist." To do so is to imply that only the absolute fundamental level of matter is relevant. This failure to accept the nature of emergent properties and holons is, I believe, one of the most enormous flaws in the thinking of many anarcho-capitalists.

 

I think an ecologist would say that there is a big difference between a forest and a random collection of trees. It all has to do with emergent properties. A bunch of isolated trees act one way. But when they relate in such a way as to be called a forest, the forest takes on properties of its own that are irreducible to the individual trees. Just as a family acts differently than any of the members would act separately were they not part of the family. The relationships, which cause us to give the group a name, actually change the nature of how things function.

 

This is very pertinent.  Just because you call something a family does not then mean that the parents have rights beyond the children because it is a family structure.  You still have to look at the actions of the individual actors to know whether they are right or wrong.  You don't say, "oh, it's a family so therefore the children must respect the mother and father" for example.

 

I mentioned above that the reason this is necessary is because the market is ascribed all kinds of properties by media and government, many of which are untrue.  Just as the family is also in society.  But people get away with it when they use the abstract grouping.  To get to the truth you have to look at individual behaviour.  .

 

And also, people are essentially separate from each other, your body isn't.  I can separate myself in space from other people, but it's not a good idea if I start trying to separate my body parts.   The people who are separate from each other still function the same.  Remove body parts and they will quickly die.  

 

Honestly, the difference isn't hard if you choose to actually think about it.


 

The point was, that within family we do solve the economical information problem without money, we keep track of stuff in our own head, as it is a computer, and so family is within itself a Resource-Based Economy. RBE is principially possible and we all grew up in it. Nobody pays their dinner at the family table.

 

This goes back to Stef's contention that RBE'ers are still children who feel robbed because they did not get their needs met as children and now expect some kind of external agency  (in this case a computer) to look after them as an adult.  It's because there are so many people like this currently in society that we have nanny governments.  


  • 0

-36 This post by STer is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#18
Nathan Diehl

Nathan Diehl

  • 189 posts

In the 2nd and 3rd one I deal with the notion, that trade is peaceful (nope) and voluntary (nope) and that it raises humankind out of poverty (not necessarily). And that people like you explain Economy 101 much more than necessary, missing the real point.
Claiming to raise people out of dirt-dwelling poverty is like my current politicians claiming to protect us from the past Communistic regime. Being marginally better is not enough. They steal about 10 % of state budget and squander the rest, but their most pathetic argument is, "at least we're better than Communists!" Being better than nothing or marginally better is not good enough. But that's exactly what trade needs - an offer needs to be just better than circumstances, better than death, in order to be accepted. And if someone controls the circumstances, it's all a cheat. We today do control almost any circumstances on Earth, short of geo-engineering. 
What do you think? Are we still these brave trailblazers with forests full of wolves just behind the tarpaulin? In reality, nature is this thin shell of biosphere on the surface, in constant danger of industry. Usable goods is the most relative and misused of market talk we see today. As long as people think they're usable, they are usable to move money around, that's the market delusion.


Trade being peaceful, voluntary, and that it raises humankind out of poverty is not a "notion". It is a fact. And a very simple one to grasp. I don't understand how you miss it.
 
The next part doesn't make a lick of sense to me, whatsoever. I can't even comprehend what you're trying to say. I'd love for you to make a numbered "cause and effect" list and show me exactly how freely exchanging things leads to violence. 
 
 

As I said in #1, market is based on the idea, that we can first take from Earth for free and then sell to our fellow men. This is a common human practice, we need the motivation of ownership to work. That used to be all right. But today, in light of Resource-Based Economy, it becomes painfully obvious that nature is so easy to steal from wholesale, so easy to destroy, that we can't treat it as a part of the economy. We have to treat it as a real trade partner with full rights and trade partner deserves his value back plus interest or profit, in a way which nature can use. People can add to nature. Nature or environment is not our enemy or property, but an euphemism for "the things that keep us alive". Our goals are one and our origins as well, the matter of our bodies is made of natural resources. That is a fact. Ownership is a legal fiction. If it wasn't, nature would own us all.

 
 Oh my, what a heap of nonsense this is. Here is why. . . 
 
It is impossible to do anything for free except die. Movement itself requires energy; energy that must be acquired from somewhere else and then transformed. To extract raw materials from the earth takes quite a bit of energy whether you are doing it manually, or with large machines (the latter being far more efficient). When you are extracting manually, it requires time and calories. Time is what you bought by working earlier, calories are energy that you transformed from eating plants or other working animals. Nothing in life is free except death. There is no way around this, it is simply a fact of existence. Infants believe that things are free because all they see are their parents magically providing for all of their needs. Adults and bugs and birds and fish understand that if you need something, you have to expend labor to get it.
 
"Treat nature as part of the economy"....goodness. Human beings are a part of nature! "Economy" is a word to describe human interaction. That means "Economy" is used to describe how one part of nature interacts with itself. Now if you're talking about polluting and stripping resources bare, then you need look no further than governments. It makes no sense in a free market system to strip your owned resources bare. You want a constant renewable source of resources so you can maintain a constant flow of income. Only when governments move in do resources get stripped and pollution runs rampant. 
 
You're talking like "Nature" is some type of personified thing. It is in no way a person. "Nature" is a word to describe "the universe", but in a more local sense. You say we come from nature and actually are nature, but then speak as if we're separate. If you think ownership doesn't exist in nature, go try and take a freshly killed gazelle from a lion. Or even a piece of steak from a hungry dog. Ownership absolutely exists, the difference being that humans have figured out how to maintain ownership peacefully. 
 
"Our goals are one..." what does that even mean?
 
Nature doesn't own anything because "Nature" isn't a conscious being. It is a word used to describe our local environment in the universe.
 
 

No, it's not SM, it's some random unfortunate guy, threatened by circumstances, the environment, or by structural violence. Sometimes it's not people who threaten us, yet somehow, in Stefan's incomplete philosophy, only people count as threats that the system has to deal with, the environment within and without is ignored. If you were a sociologist, you'd know that the individualism (and interest in capitalism) of Max Weber was outweighed by collective effort of people like Durkheim, Elias and Marx. In other words, ancap is sociologically and technologically almost illiterate. It's better than the current system, but that is never enough!
 
Another point here is, actually solving the problem means destroying the market. The most profitable behavior is to sell the most superficial of solutions at the highest of prices. Then anyone who come next can offer just marginally cheaper solution and call it "market competition". If nobody else comes or cartel negotiations are successful, the price stays high and the trade remains a ransom.


Appeal to authority fallacy. Either you can explain your point or you can't. Here, you've shown that you cannot. 
 
"The market" is a word we use to describe the concept of the play of voluntary human interaction. In other words, what people peaceably do is the market. The only way to destroy the market is to destroy all people. (which is what I would argue TVP wants to do anyway)
 
"The most profitable behavior is to sell the most superficial of solutions at the highest of prices." You simply have no idea what you're talking about. This is an emotional argument wrapped up in intellectual jargon. The most profitable behavior is WIN-WIN. What you described is WIN-LOSE and, therefore, unsustainable. Anyone who engages in WIN-LOSE interactions will be unable to maintain that behavior for very long because people will recognize that by engaging this person they can only lose. Therefore, they will find someone who engages in WIN-WIN interactions. (For instance, if FDR charged a fee to post on their message board, and then severely limited your daily posting count, that would be a WIN-LOSE situation. Why? Because posting is so incredibly cheap. FDR would make money at first, but then not enough people would post, which would discourage others from joining in. What's the point of paying a fee to have a conversation that is very limited? WIN-WIN is when it's free to sign up and post, and then those who find value donate to maintain the board.) This is a real world example of an instance of a free market interaction that is WIN-WIN. 
 
Here is another example of WIN-WIN. For $100/month I get to use a phone that can call any other phone in the United States at any time and talk for as long as I want. I also get to use this same phone to surf the web for as long as I want. A short way to say this is "I'm paying $100/month for phone service." A long way to say this is "I'm paying $100/month for my phone company to maintain a nationwide grid of cell phone towers, technicians, customer service reps, and freaking satellites they launched into orbit to make it all work." You know, $100/month ain't bad at all. They win because they get my money, I win because I get a phone. Not only that, but when I started my service I got my phone for free. And then after 2 years, I got a brand new phone for free. Those sons of bitches!!  
 
Once, I ordered a pizza from Papa Johns. They took 2 hours to get to me. When the driver arrived my pizza was only a bit warm. If I had taken the pizza it would have been a WIN-LOSE. They would have still got my money, but my food would have been not good at all. But seeing that WIN-LOSE coming, I told the driver no thank you, I called the store and said I wanted a refund, and I got my refund. I rejected a WIN-LOSE and turned it into a WIN-WIN when I ordered from Domino's and got a piping hot pizza in 25 minutes. 
 
My real world examples trump, nay, completely demolish your appeal to authority-ness, completely irrational, and meanderingly meaningless logic abortions.
 
Cartels can only exist through institutionalized violence (a.k.a. governments). In a free society, there are no cartels because there is always free competition. A cartel is only profitable with the protection of the state. 
 
 

But we are CONSTANTLY threatened by coercive violence! Time, nature, our bodies, we are in their thrall and we have to do as they demand. People can pay really high prices when under coercion from their own body (i.e. hungry). A trade is always "good", meaning it is always "better than nothing". But that can be still quite a worsening to previous situation, as the drowning guy shows. "Better than nothing" is not good, not voluntary. 
 
There is no such thing as a voluntary market. All market is involuntary, the only voluntary actions are taking and giving. Not exchanging. Exchanging has an element of giving up and regretting loses. This isn't obvious, but it plays a role in always striving to get the better end of the deal.
 
If trade was voluntary, first thing we'd try to do, would be to give our customer the best service possible for least money possible. Without the threat of competition, best service is the last thing that market subjects want to do. If it wasn't, people would provide quality service even in Communism. (which they didn't)

 
 No we aren't! 
 
Time, nature, and our bodies commit violence against us??? 
 
If I have ever heard someone so outrightly and with the loudest voice proclaim "I WAS ABUSED AS A CHILD!!", it's with this statement right here. 
 
Time is abusive = parental neglect
Nature is abusive = unsafe environment at home. No privacy.
Bodies are abusive = you were physically abused (i.e. your body was used against you)
 

(I am so very sorry you experienced these things. I experienced them, too. Being neglected had the most negatively profound effect on me. If you would ever like to chat about what happened, pm me anytime.)

It is <<NOT THE NATURAL STATE OF A HUMAN BEING>> to feel abused by themselves and their environment! Why is this so important?? Because abused people who think they can save the world end up murdering millions! Save yourself! Leave the rest of us the hell alone!
 
Here is a contradiction you just made. In your first post, you said that extracting resources from Earth was free. But here you say that people can pay a high price when "under coercion" from hunger. As far as I know, extracting resources from the Earth makes a person VERY hungry!  :laugh: Therefore, by your own definition of violence, it is impossible to get anything for free. 
 
Here you continue on with the win-lose hubbub. Again, this logic fail is not because you lack smarts. You're very intelligent. But if you think the whole world operates on WIN-LOSE interactions, you're still seeing the world through the eyes of your abused child self. Until you've decided to save yourself, it is almost impossible for you to see the world as it is, and not how it was for you when you were horribly mistreated. 
 

Market has the right to deny people what they need, under the pretext that they don't have money. This is the "algorithm" of the market. This used to make sense, when people and money were involved in production, instead of automation and resources. The market system gives us products, but it takes away our time. We pay ransom for our own time! We can have a part of our time dead, or have it all dead. How is that different from taxes?
And what makes the resources so scarce? Isn't it making hundreds of different cell phone models? They all need rare earth metals, silicon and stuff. It is cheaper on resources to make everything in top quality (all can be easily downgraded with software, if wished), than to have a cell phone industry for making hundreds of various models. 
 
 
In TVP, scientists deal with the shortage by researching a substitute material. Only they do it right away. If 100 million people really want a cell phone, we will ask them and we will know beforehand what we need to prevent theft and envy. Either way, people are not forced to go to work if they want a cell phone. They get to keep their free time to spend in any way they want. The cell phone is only something extra on top of free time, not something we sacrificed our workdays for. That certainly makes the demand a lower and the waiting easier. It's not perfect, just better than the current system and better than ancap.

 

You're right. TVP way is not perfect. But you're wrong in that it's better. What you've just described has been tried except without all the silliness of an "algorithm" to solve all our problems. An algorithm which does not exist, btw. 

 

Let me tell you something I know for a 100% fact. As soon as someone comes along and says that they have figured out how to save me, that I just have to buy into their "plan", I know I've met a complete loony toon. There is absolutely NO WAY you know what's best for me. This is the FUNDAMENTAL difference between TVP and anarcho-capitalism. TVP pretends to be able to solve all of my material needs, but EVEN I DON'T KNOW what all of my material needs will be. Nor do I know how they will change. 

 

TVP is no different than a government. We have the largest, wealthiest, most technologically advanced government in the history of the world and it can't even make a $600 million dollar website work properly. 

 

If you really want to prove that TVP works, go set up somewhere and show us all that we're wrong. An-caps have example after example to show freedom works. 

 

All of the "problems" you have with anarcho-capitalism are not inherent in the market and only exist through government. The fact that you haven't faced the abuse your parents so unjustly heaped upon you means that you are unlikely to see this, though. You have justified anger, but you're pointing it in the wrong direction. 

 

Put down the philosophy of social organization before you hurt yourself and others.


  • 0

#19
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

...

I could probably write a lot more. But all I'm trying to show is the deep interconnections between these multiple levels, which I think contrasts with how anarcho-capitalists try to fetishize the individual human being level and disregard the emergent properties higher levels have and the fact that there are countless levels both higher and lower than the individual human level that have influence. There are things we can learn and predict at each level that we can't from any other level. The individual human level is not unique that way. The individual human level does have some special, unique properties. But so do many other levels.

 

Now you are just getting needlessly abstract.  The reality is that a human makes a choice.  That is one choice.  The market never does that.  It's all the individuals making their choices individually that is described as the market.  There is no market organism that can think for itself.

 

We judge individuals on their choices.  You go into a courtroom and you are not judged as part of a group, you are judged specifically on what your actions were.   If one member of a group kills someone, that doesn't mean the other members of the group are guilty of murder.  You have to assess each individual's actions on it's own merits.  

 

Assigning properties to a group of people, like say the government, is what gets us into trouble.  The reality is, we, individuals, all have the exact same rights and putting people into a group does not change the individuals rights nor does it mean they are absolved of their actions.


  • 0

-36 This post by STer is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#21
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

You don't get rights beyond those of individual rights when you join a group.  I don't know how to simplify that more.  Since when does peer pressure change your rights?  "Oh, someone made me do this or someone said I should do this or everyone else did it so I just followed."  None of these are excuses.   

 

I think people who can't accept the fact that government is basically, by any reasonable standards, a criminal organization, just don't want to accept these facts.  

 

You don't get rights by joining a group therefore people in government can't have the rights they claim to have.  Simple . Done.  Individuals can't violate the rights of other individuals.  Voluntary trade does not involve the violation of rights, because they are choosing to trade.  It turns out that this is the most effective way of providing resources to people and lifting people out of poverty.   And it's logical when you think about it.   People will work harder if they get to retain the fruits of their labour.  The more work done, the more goods and services available to society, the better off is everyone in general.

 

You don't need to make things more complicated than they are.


  • 0

-36 This post by STer is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#23
ProfessionalTeabagger

ProfessionalTeabagger

  • 752 posts

Another RBEer proving nothing. I wish you would just go make your RBE. Who's stopping you?


You still aren't accurately reflecting what emergent properties are. It's not surprising because they are very tricky to grasp. How is it that something can be more than the sum of its parts? And yet we know they are. Just stop and consider that for a second without any further judgment. You can have a group of things and together they are more than the sum of their parts. The group does things that cannot be explained even when you take into account each individual in it. Soak that in. And that isn't even a remotely controversial statement. That's something almost boringly well-established.

 

You keep trying to reduce emergent properties to something more direct. But it isn't direct. There is simply no way to get the whole from looking at the sum of its parts.

 

Where you went with it in the end of your post supports my point that this is not about the discussion itself, but the fact that anarcho-capitalists don't like the implications of emergent properties. So you veered off the topic of whether emergent properties exist - the fact that systems have properties that cannot be reduced to the sum of their parts - and started simply arguing against something you think might be an implication of that if it's true.

 

The existence of emergent properties does not depend on whether you are comfortable with the implications of it. If you agree that emergent properties exist, we can then talk about what the implications might be. But first we need to decide if you're on the same page with their existence. If you don't agree that they exist and you think that systems' behavior can be reduced to the choices of the parts that make them up individually, then we simply disagree and I think you are disagreeing with the overwhelming facts of science.

If you have any proof that a certain emergent property exists then fucking prove it and stop alluding to it. Before you assert that violence comes out of peaceful interactions (or whatever you're trying to say) then show how that happens. 

Prove that An-caps don't like the implications of emergent properties. Prove it or concede you can't.


  • 0

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#25
Rob_Ilir

Rob_Ilir

  • 146 posts

**But we are CONSTANTLY threatened by coercive violence!**

 

 

How many times have you been threatened in this forum?

 

 

I think what you meant to say is that, your choices lead to 'CONSTANTLY threatened by coercive violence' by people you are surrounded with. I can sympathise with that.

 

To me the distasteful cartoons are a way to intellectualise people who CONSTANTLY threatened coercive violence against you.


  • 0

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#27
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

If parents have fights or arguments, it's abusive, no matter if that's because of alcoholism, bad communication or money problems. It does not bide well for capitalism either way. Stef would realize that if he wasn't working from home at the best job on Earth.

 

 

I'm sorry you had problems with your parents.  I did too.  Many here have.  You are safe to talk about it here.

 

As for Stef's best job on Earth?  Do you realise how incredibly risky it was for him at the start?  It was an unproven business model.  There was no way to know whether there was any longevity to it.  He wasn't getting paid all that much compared to what he could get in the market.  The amount of work that it has taken for Stef to get this far is absolutely enormous.  I honestly wouldn't expect someone who wants everything for free to understand this though.

 

 

As for the family, I mentioned purely the internally economic aspect. Once the groceries are bought, the price tags are useless. They are managed directly as inventory in our minds. Family household economy is a RBE, so is the physiology of our bodies. Behind our doors and mouths, we do not have endless growth, market corrections, economic boom and bust and when the bankrupcy comes to our body, it comes but once. 

 

 

Just more affirmation.  You are telling us everything here.

You still aren't accurately reflecting what emergent properties are. It's not surprising because they are very tricky to grasp. How is it that something can be more than the sum of its parts? And yet we know they are. Just stop and consider that for a second without any further judgment. You can have a group of things and together they are more than the sum of their parts. The group does things that cannot be explained even when you take into account each individual in it. Soak that in. And that isn't even a remotely controversial statement. That's something almost boringly well-established.

 

You keep trying to reduce emergent properties to something more direct. But it isn't direct. There is simply no way to get the whole from looking at the sum of its parts.

 

Where you went with it in the end of your post supports my point that this is not about the discussion itself, but the fact that anarcho-capitalists don't like the implications of emergent properties. So you veered off the topic of whether emergent properties exist - the fact that systems have properties that cannot be reduced to the sum of their parts - and started simply arguing against something you think might be an implication of that if it's true.

 

The existence of emergent properties does not depend on whether you are comfortable with the implications of it. If you agree that emergent properties exist, we can then talk about what the implications might be. But first we need to decide if you're on the same page with their existence. If you don't agree that they exist and you think that systems' behavior can be reduced to the choices of the parts that make them up individually, then we simply disagree and I think you are disagreeing with the overwhelming facts of science.

 

As the poster above says, prove that your emergent behaviour has relevance in this context.  It's like talking about Quantum Mechanics.  Everything is quantum when you get right down to it but what relevance does that have to the discussion we are having about human behaviour?


  • 0

#28
Guest_Exceptionalist_*

Guest_Exceptionalist_*
As already stated the free market is free of coercion from other people. To imply that threats of getting your prices undercut is some kind of coercion is like implying that the threat of other men wooing and marrying women is some kind of coercion.

 

 

It is even more complex, you have to be highly effective and efficient to keep your market share, offer an extra benefit for a competetive price. If you cannot be better than the competitor, you have to be more efficient, which means to be more affordable.


  • 0

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#30
Think Free

Think Free

  • 103 posts

Earth is the euphemism for "the thing that keeps us alive".

This is false. The earth killed most humans for millenia. The reason it stopped is because humans got control of their environment. Most of the places people live today would be unlivable if it weren't for humans changing their environment. Humans keep themselves alive through innovation.
 

Earth is not our property, we are its extension. If Earth made the laws, we would be Earth's property, because Earth made us of its own material. We should look away from the legalism of law and realize, that laws are like computer code, they can simulate reality or create a virtual reality. Legal norms like ownership can be given, taken away and re-defined. The Communist constitution had four types of ownership. The social democratic constitution has one type, but with four or five exceptions when it can be restricted.
The Libertarian ideal of Common law is basically an open-source law which can say anything it wants, because it is not statist. But Bolivia recently made a classical statist law that gives Earth rights and it is perfectly legal and legitimate to give or take rights away. It'just a paper. Paper invented legal persons known as corporations and I heard they have now in USA some kind of human rights. If that is possible, for something that does not even physically exist, then it damn well is possible for Earth.

You are confusing rights with laws. Rights (true rights) are an objective feature of reality, and are basically mean "things a rational person cannot ever be rationally expected to irrevocably surrender." These things are life, liberty, and the fruit of one's labor because to surrender any one of these things is to surrender everything else.
 

It has nothing to do with being human. Nothing at all, unless you've got a damn good definition of a human and damn good justification for it. Chimps are 98 % human, genetically speaking. Banana is about 30 % human. Human is a legal fiction, like "mental health", which medically does not exist.

Actually, there is at least one "damn good" definition of human, but this is a red herring. The fact is, even without any clear definition, there is actually no kind of thing known to man that isn't either clearly human or clearly not-human. There are examples of humans where we wonder whether they have lost their humanity, through, for example, brain death. But humans remain remarkably distinct from every other known thing.
 

The point was, that within family we do solve the economical information problem without money, we keep track of stuff in our own head, as it is a computer, and so family is within itself a Resource-Based Economy. RBE is principially possible and we all grew up in it. Nobody pays their dinner at the family table.


The economic calculation problem isn't solved in families--it's ignored, and rightly so. There's a cost even to solving the economic calculation problem, and on small enough scales, the cost exceeds the value. So families do okay without it and every attempt to ignore it on a large scale has failed miserably. But in a peaceful family, all the fundamental rights of the free-market are still in place, which is the most important thing.
 

No, that was a parody of Peter parodying capitalism. It's the reality of "pay or perish", which is so familiar to every leftist. Market is a problem, capitalism means never solving this problem totally, only postponing it for a price. Give man a fish, you're at loss. Sell the man a fish, you get profit. Teach the man to fish, and he'll be free and you won't earn a dime but gain a competitor. Employ the man to fish for you and you'll live off the profit comfortably till the rest of your life.


Teach a man to fish and you can charge him more than you can for a fish. Some people will pay for the fish, some for the teaching, depending on what they think they need.
 

It is coercion, but from the side of women! :) Historically, they always wanted a monopoly on their men.


Right, just as women have the right to control access to their bodies by giving them to the more attractive men only, people have the right to control the fruits of their labor by trading them only in the most competitive trades.
 

Indeed it would be, because this is not how TVP works. The only ones who have the information on who wants what are the people themselves. A global digital network links them to the computer, which is just a correlation center, a glorified Amazon storage management. What counts aren't money, but direct clicks, direct digital demand. Sure there would be a lot of statistical calculations involved, but the basis is people providing the data on what they want.


Clicking "I want this" isn't the same as expressing demand. Some people want some things more than other people. Some people want things so they can provide services to others while others just want to consume them. Price conveys this information. Price, furthermore, let's the consumer know how many resources they're consuming with each product they might want. Price allows people to be moderate in their consumption.

Regarding statistical calculations, if anything can be manufactured immediately and delivered with the click of a button, statistics aren't necessary. Statistics are only necessary if you have to predict demand (impossible) or make decisions for people (tyrannical). And what exactly are these statistical calculations anyway?
 

But they don't want it badly enough, so why should a global economic system be designed to meet such needs, while neglecting needs of life and death? Do you say all needs are equal, the need to stay alive and the need to have a golden car? If so, then you are a relativist and as Xelent said, relativist is the worst kind of leftist. Either that, or Xelent is full of crap. I'm OK with both choices  :D


Of course not all needs are equal. But the idea that the production of golden cars is somehow competing with food production or something is ridiculous. The reasons people are starving are well known, and it has nothing to do with the production of fantastic luxury goods.
 

Does that mean Einstein was also right about you?


Einstein didn't have anything to say about me. However, if you're trying to convince me that human stupidity is infinite, you are doing a very good job.

I wonder when it would become profitable, according to free market, to invent computers and cure black plague.

 

The only way to find out when the free-market will do something is to let it do it. History suggests that if people had been free from the beginning, we would be centuries ahead in technology.
 
 

Why can't people just click on web application what they want ordered and delivered? Provided that all the articles are produced by automated lines which can speed up or slow down depending on the rate of demand.

 

Now it's your turn to answer the question, what happens if everyone, all at once, decide they want a golden car?

 

Yeah, but in both cases the chicken is equally in exile and homeless.

 

 

People looking for a job are equally in exile and homeless as people fleeing for their lives from the government??? I'm not even going to honor this with a list of very real and important differences. It shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to think of them yourself if you should choose to think for yourself.
 

 

 

Stefan's daughter is a criminal? She's stealing and committing violent acts against other people???
 
No, but criminals are people too. Today, most of them are not even responsible, they are driven to crime by their environment. And they are a valuable source of information on what made them commit the crime, about the environment. Which is a useful information in a system which uses design of the environment, such as TVP. In anarcho-capitalism, the environment is still a wild frontier and nobody knows what's in there. All the cultural stupidity of past generations, petrified into traditions and habitus is permitted to exist, under the label of freedom.


You can't have it both ways. You can't know that their environment drives them to commit crimes without knowing how their environment drives them to commit crimes. Regardless, how crimes are dealt with is not a fundamental part of free-market theory, so none of this matters. When people are truly free will see how they deal with criminals.


  • 0

The U.S. Constitution is nothing more than A Warning Label.
Heed the warning!


#31
Rob_Ilir

Rob_Ilir

  • 146 posts

 Armitage Have you been threatened in this board with violence or not?

 

Lets solve that before we dive deeper, into your intellectualisation, as that is your whole argument. 


  • 0

#32
LovePrevails

LovePrevails

  • 1359 posts

This way of thinking is so key to anarcho-capitalism. And yet I still don't understand why people who use it don't quickly see the flaw in it, as displayed below:

 

"Trees do not exist. It is just a collection of cells"

"People do not exist. It is just a collection of cells"

"Cells do not exist. It is just a collection of organelles and membranes, etc."

"Cells, organelles and membranes do not exist. It is just a collection of atoms." 

 

And so on. The point being that it is really meaningless to debate whether emergent levels of things "exist" or don't "exist." To do so is to imply that only the absolute fundamental level of matter is relevant. This failure to accept the nature of emergent properties and holons is, I believe, one of the most enormous flaws in the thinking of many anarcho-capitalists.

 

I think an ecologist would say that there is a big difference between a forest and a random collection of trees. It all has to do with emergent properties. A bunch of isolated trees act one way. But when they relate in such a way as to be called a forest, the forest takes on properties of its own that are irreducible to the individual trees. Just as a family acts differently than any of the members would act separately were they not part of the family. The relationships, which cause us to give the group a name, actually change the nature of how things function.

 

explained:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RIlOtkBhRvI


  • 0

#33
xelent

xelent

  • 2176 posts

I'd suggest to everyone that they leave Armitage to his own thoughts. None of us are going to convince him. He is otherwise ensconced in his own ideas, for reasons that most of us probably understand..

 

I hope he talks to Stefan and gets some resolve either way. Because this conversation is going nowhere, either for him or the rest of the board.


  • 2

-109 This post by Armitage is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#35
Mike Fleming

Mike Fleming

    Atheist Anarchist Determinist


  • 375 posts

My parents weren't perfect, but they always meant well. If I have any problem, it's with my dad, who got himself a lover and betrayed the family - that's what really gets my goat. True, 50 % of marriages divorce, but I'd never tell him the type, he works as sort of a psychological and marriage counselor himself. Having an affair does things to men, they try to justify that by slandering the wife.
Let's just say the digital age preserved some internet conversation my dad had with his mistress over the net and it was not a nice read.
 

 

Good.  These are the issues you need to resolve.  Don't fall into the trap of thinking that you can force people to be good.  Or thinking we just need to set up a system where everything is free and everyone will be happy.  These are traps.   Straighten this out in your head and the desire to control others will be removed.


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: the venus project, peter joseph, zeitgeist, stefan molyneux, anarcho-capitalism, cartoon, parody, humor

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users