Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 85

I don't know what this "your views don't exist" stuff is that you keep bringing up. Your views certainly exist, they're just not cohesive with the rest of anarchist thought. I don't recall ever using those specific words. If I were to use them, then I'd say your idealized free market society doesn't exist in a future, i.e. it precludes us having a future as a species. If it is at all possible outside of pure speculation, it's too destructive. But left anarchism (i.e. libertarian socialism) is destructive too if it isn't global, it's far too vulnerable when it's undertaken locally. I think you've been under the illusion that I believe that local anarchist revolutions could save the world, but I'm pretty far from that belief. I only think that they were useful and necessary to debunk common ideas about human nature, they aren't models to imitate.

Anarchism to me is more of an ethos, I came to it by reading philosophy, first the Cynics, the Stoics and the ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, and then contemporary theorists and novelists. I was also drawn to it because I was studying the deleterious effects of hierarchical social structures on the biology of mammals. My views were not formed through political arguments and I know how idealistic they are from that narrow point of view, though anarcho-syndicalism isn't, and if I worked I'd try to get involved with the IWA. It's the kind of direct action that allows me to mock your group of internet badasses by contrast: it actually leads to something tangible relating to the welfare of people. Same with veganarchy in the case of animal welfare.

On August 21 2018 23:46 Loco wrote: I've just read your link and there isn't really anything about the anthropological/archeological data or redefining violence... the topic seems to be about people's media-influenced perceptions of the degree of danger that women face in the US and how expert polls don't necessarily reflect reality. I'm not very informed on this topic so I don't have much to say. It seems like a lot of it has to do with the CDC figures too, are those not reliable because of feminists exaggerating what rape truly consists of?

I'm not sure what are you questioning here, I mean, you acknowledge that the US isn't in the top 10 most unsafe countries and not even in the top 100 right? unless there is some dishonesty in how this data is presented, agreed or not?

Dying violently seems to be the ultimate measure for you. I'd much rather have a dignified and meaningful life that's pretty short and die a violent death than the other way around

So would I, but we are talking about specifically about violence, not happiness.

And bodily harm?There's an immense amount of stress affecting most people across the globe, fueling a chronic illness epidemic, do you count that in? It sure is physical harm after all. What about the poor who can't afford medication all the while they can only afford to eat subsidized junk food that keeps them obese and sick, are they luckier than most cultures that were egalitarian and had robust health just because they happen to have a microwave and a TV?

You mean the reobust health of people with an average lifespan of 30 years?, I'll take today's healthcare tank you.

And yes subsidizing is wrong, especially subsidizing shitty stuff

What about the violence towards other species? Has that gone down too in your opinion?

Thats an interesting one, primitive cultures were in more contact with animals in farming, working etc, so perhaps they treatem them better but there has been an increase in abuse due to industrialization of farming, however there is a clear push back against that in the last couple of decades, veganism, ethical food sources, banning of dog fighting, bull fighting, preserving species, regrowing forests etc, so I think we are headed in the righ direction.

As for the numbers, personally, I think that it's ridiculous to be glad that billions of people today -- far more than there were even people a century or so ago-- live undignified and impoverished lives because there's been a per capita decrease in violence and poverty. If the world has gone from 90% of a 10 million population struggling to a 80% of a 7 billion population struggling,

Absolutely, that means that you managed to not just maintain but incrase the productivity in a system with finite resources.

You've heard me many times saying that population growth is the biggest problem mankind has

and in the end it's just significantly more people suffering only for the sake of maintaining that system. And what exactly is the end goal of this system? What are we purchasing with all this suffering?

Again, capitalism isn't purchasing ferraris with suffering, capitalism is the system that minimizes suffering in an environment with our species and limited resources in this period of time, I know you think collectivism would work better, but its not about ignorant or unempathetic people wanting ferraris vs knowledable and empathetic people wanting to minimize suffering

What's it most likely going to be like in 50-80 years if things just keep going as they are with the infinite growth model?

With our current pop. wroth we double every 70 years, its very hard to make projections because it heavily involves technology leaps, but it's certainly a challenge to accomodate for 14 billion humans in any socio economical system, and impossible to mainitain exponential growth, so I go back again at population control.

On August 22 2018 00:19 Loco wrote: I don't know what this "your views don't exist" stuff is that you keep bringing up. Your views certainly exist, they're just not cohesive with the rest of anarchist thought. I don't recall ever using those specific words. If I were to use them, then I'd say your idealized free market society doesn't exist in a future, i.e. it precludes us having a future as a species. If it is at all possible outside of pure speculation, it's too destructive. But left anarchism (i.e. libertarian socialism) is destructive too if it isn't global, it's far too vulnerable when it's undertaken locally. I think you've been under the illusion that I believe that local anarchist revolutions could save the world, but I'm pretty far from that belief. I only think that they were useful and necessary to debunk common ideas about human nature, they aren't models to imitate. Anarchism to me is more of an ethos, I came to it by reading philosophy, first the Cynics, the Stoics and the ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, and then contemporary theorists and novelists. I was also drawn to it because I was studying the deleterious effects of hierarchical social structures on the biology of mammals. My views were not formed through political arguments and I know how idealistic they are from that narrow point of view, though anarcho-syndicalism isn't, and if I worked I'd try to get involved with the IWA. It's the kind of direct action that allows me to mock your group of internet badasses by contrast: it actually leads to something tangible relating to the welfare of people. Same with veganarchy in the case of animal welfare.

You said it when you were fighting about the word anarchy, (you still kind of are), I disagreed that it preclues having a future, as I said the market doesnt just pursue value/cost, people are stopping using plastic bags, straws, they pay more for "ethical meat", Sea World is struggling financially, bullfighting arenas are going out of business, the market makes moral choices all the time, we collectivly choose wrong, but a big part of it is that we are used that daddy government imposes morality through law, in a free market society, we impose it collectively by our choices.

Kind of how stroggoz said that if 50%+ of the people voted for expropiating everybodys property/land in NZ he would be ok with it... well if people too "vote" against fossil fuel, plastics, animal cruelty etc, it all would be soon gone and without having to enforce it with violence (as your system would) an subject to the inatural inefficiency of the state.

Its meme time!!!

This is the amount of cash required to buy these products in Venezuela's bolivares:

One of the most evil people to ever exist has died - John McCain, it's funny reading comments in Bulgarian newsmedia outlets where they praise him, I'm guessing Americans love him even more, which is a fucking irony considering the number of people that died because of him, including Americans.

On August 23 2018 01:01 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 22 2018 00:19 Loco wrote: I don't know what this "your views don't exist" stuff is that you keep bringing up. Your views certainly exist, they're just not cohesive with the rest of anarchist thought. I don't recall ever using those specific words. If I were to use them, then I'd say your idealized free market society doesn't exist in a future, i.e. it precludes us having a future as a species. If it is at all possible outside of pure speculation, it's too destructive. But left anarchism (i.e. libertarian socialism) is destructive too if it isn't global, it's far too vulnerable when it's undertaken locally. I think you've been under the illusion that I believe that local anarchist revolutions could save the world, but I'm pretty far from that belief. I only think that they were useful and necessary to debunk common ideas about human nature, they aren't models to imitate. Anarchism to me is more of an ethos, I came to it by reading philosophy, first the Cynics, the Stoics and the ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, and then contemporary theorists and novelists. I was also drawn to it because I was studying the deleterious effects of hierarchical social structures on the biology of mammals. My views were not formed through political arguments and I know how idealistic they are from that narrow point of view, though anarcho-syndicalism isn't, and if I worked I'd try to get involved with the IWA. It's the kind of direct action that allows me to mock your group of internet badasses by contrast: it actually leads to something tangible relating to the welfare of people. Same with veganarchy in the case of animal welfare. You said it when you were fighting about the word anarchy, (you still kind of are), I disagreed that it preclues having a future, as I said the market doesnt just pursue value/cost, people are stopping using plastic bags, straws, they pay more for "ethical meat", Sea World is struggling financially, bullfighting arenas are going out of business, the market makes moral choices all the time, we collectivly choose wrong, but a big part of it is that we are used that daddy government imposes morality through law, in a free market society, we impose it collectively by our choices. Kind of how stroggoz said that if 50%+ of the people voted for expropiating everybodys property/land in NZ he would be ok with it... well if people too "vote" against fossil fuel, plastics, animal cruelty etc, it all would be soon gone and without having to enforce it with violence (as your system would) an subject to the inatural inefficiency of the state.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

To claim that "my system", i.e. non-hierarchical voluntary associations enforces something through violence is like claiming Orthodox Christians believe Jesus to have been Satan incarnate. An anarchist society doesn't outlaw or enforce anything, this is oxymoronic. For an anarchistic society to succeed in the future it's understood that it must render previous structures of dominance obsolete. You have seemingly the same basic misapprehensions of what anarchism has been for hundreds of years (if not thousands of years, depending on how broad our definition is) as the average person on the street who gets his superficial understanding of anarchism from mainstream media.

"Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it. " (Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! (D.Graeber; The Anarchist Library)

Now you'd probably say, "yeah but it's always violent since people are naturally led to have hierarchical organization. It goes against human nature not to and anarchists want to suppress this whenever it's present in a society" To which I'd reply something like: just like it is when you don't want to be around a selfish, overly-noisy person and you cut them off from your life; anarchist societies would simply not federate oppressive ones.

"Anarchist approaches are both local and global, premised on autonomy and solidarity. If a neighboring society were patriarchal or racist or oppressive in some other way, an anarchist culture would offer a range of possible responses beyond apathy and “liberation” by force. In all oppressive societies, one can find people fighting for their own freedom. It is much more realistic and effective to support such people, letting them lead their own struggles, rather than trying to deliver liberation the way a missionary delivers “good news.” (Peter Gelderloos, "Anarchy Works'')


The anarchist credo works with what environmental scientists are telling us now about the state of the 9 planetary boundaries, namely that we will destroy ourselves if our main mode of interaction remains built on economic competition. It's like how most people who understand where we're at don't think building a mercantilist economy would be possible or useful nowadays; it's hard to believe an-cap would be possible or useful. Its romanticized and easily debunked view of human beings as homo economicus and its failure to deal with negative externalities makes it easy to abandon. Elinor Ostrom, the only woman to have won a Nobel Prize in Economics, showed in her work that distributed resource management systems are better at maintaining ecological diversity and avoiding ecological collapse than privately managed resources. There can be little doubt that cooperation, voluntary associations and mutual aid have to be the foundation for humans to have a future at all past the end of this century (if not before it).

In an-capistan, daddy government is replaced with daddy private power. Nothing really changes, since the fundamental role of the state is to protect private property. There is no collective "we" in a hierarchical organization; there's no substantial whole, just individual parts functioning via self-interest. There's those who have accumulated the most wealth and who end up essentially inheriting the Earth; and those who can't compete against monopolies because they can always swallow you whole. People's "votes" are always crushed or at least manipulated when you have this much power over them. The majority is inevitably subservient to the few's interests, no matter how many simulations you run. But hey, if you don't want to further the interests of the rich and powerful, you have the freedom to not be given a basic living wage and starve to death. That's not violence though because the capitalist's power over their property is God-given and legitimate, somehow, and they don't ever force you at gun-point to serve their interests (ahem, only because they don't have to, since the instinct of self-preservation is strong enough that you'll virtually always take a bad deal over dying).

couple points about purchasing power and how it's meant to deal with climate change:

You can't really expect human beings to do individual research into everything they buy, and into what kind of externalities the commodity may produce. That's very inefficient. Far better to just have a few people do research and have them advise on policy.

Research and development into solar power and wind isn't really something that major energy companies want to do atm, since they are profit maximizing they go for the cheaper energy first.

I still don't see ancapitalism being able to combat the major issue of our time.

I agree with libertarians when they are opposed to state aggression, but last time i heard most of the soldiers in iraq are now mercenaries. That seems to be the trend, private capital is buying up more and more mercenaries to protect their wealth rather than using the state. I'm not sure why that is, but it shows that private power is willing to use aggression without the state, to meet it's needs.

On August 26 2018 22:27 Loco wrote: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman

QFT

To claim that i.e. non-hierarchical voluntary associations enforces something through violence is like claiming Orthodox Christians believe Jesus to have been Satan incarnate. An anarchist society doesn't outlaw or enforce anything, this is oxymoronic. For an anarchistic society to succeed in the future it's understood that it must render previous structures of dominance obsolete. You have seemingly the same basic misapprehensions of what anarchism has been for hundreds of years (if not thousands of years, depending on how broad our definition is) as the average person on the street who gets his superficial understanding of anarchism from mainstream media.

It doens't directly use violence, but it collectivly does, not long ago I asked what would happen if somebody hoarded TVs or any product, you said "he would probably get beat up by people"... so enforced by violence. (which I'm fine with, Im just pointing this out)

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

This is so abstract its meaningless, then we dont need jails, legal systems or anything like that because people can behave reasonably without being forced... except when they dont.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how.

You dont like me quoting the Joker but you almost did word by word

"people are as good as their world allows them to be", and I agree

The second is that power corrupts.

very few people will dispute that, but you can't stop people to attain power, in a world with no currency or property people will still form hierarchies.

Anarchist approaches are both local and global, premised on autonomy and solidarity. If a neighboring society were patriarchal or racist or oppressive in some other way

What does patriarchy and racism have to do with anything for fucks sake?, the SJW buzzwords gave me cancer, thanks.

he anarchist credo works with what environmental scientists are telling us now about the state of the 9 planetary boundaries, namely that we will destroy ourselves if our main mode of interaction remains built on economic competition.

Which is why you have to dogmatically try to make mental gymnastics to refute progress made in the last century, like refusing to acknowlege that what matter is % of people not total in a system with a changing population.

In an-capistan, daddy government is replaced with daddy private power. Nothing really changes, since the fundamental role of the state is to protect private property.

No, defending private property is a tiny fraction of what the judicial branch do.

daddy private power doesnt fight wars, it doesnt impose laws, it just wants you to buy a new phone, what power it scares you that they would hold?

There's those who have accumulated the most wealth and who end up essentially inheriting the Earth; and those who can't compete against monopolies because they can always swallow you whole.

Nobody inherits the earth, the "1%" is in constant flux, the more free the market the higher the class mobility

The state creates monopolies, the free markets kills them, thousands of massive companies fall al the time, half of car manufacturers would have gone bust without bailouts and an ever higher % of banks, history is filled with "blockbusters".

When a company gets so big a bureacratic inefficiency settles in kind of like state-run companies, they are deemed to fall to fresher lighter and newer companies.

I could palpably feel such effect in stars from the inside fwiw.

you have the freedom to not be given a basic living wage and starve to death.

You have the freedom to attain skills to do a labor with a higher value to the market so you can live a life with the comforts you want, if you want a comfortable life while sweeping sidewalks part-time thats going to be difficult.

That's not violence though because the capitalist's power over their property is God-given and legitimate, somehow, and they don't ever force you at gun-point to serve their interests (ahem, only because they don't have to, since the instinct of self-preservation is strong enough that you'll virtually always take a bad deal over dying).

You have to work to produce value so that other people working just like you can provide you with food, shelter and other neccesities so that you can live... so no shit sherlock.

On August 27 2018 00:54 Stroggoz wrote: couple points about purchasing power and how it's meant to deal with climate change: You can't really expect human beings to do individual research into everything they buy, and into what kind of externalities the commodity may produce. That's very inefficient. Far better to just have a few people do research and have them advise on policy. Research and development into solar power and wind isn't really something that major energy companies want to do atm, since they are profit maximizing they go for the cheaper energy first.

That is indeed an issue, how to be informed about everything and how to know if what a company claim is true, this is solved by private rating agencies.

Kind of what the ISO is for companies, ISO is a rating for things like efficiency, productivity etc, that is used to chose suppliers and things like that.

So private "FDA agencies" would charge the companies for inspections and they would rate a products (GMO free, free range, non-cruelty, clean energy etc), perhaps another good example of this is the "kosher" mark that appears in many of not most supermarket products, of course this is a bullshit religiuos thing, but its a small example.

The FDA is absolute garbage, its estimated that it has cused much more deaths than it has saved by delaying certain safe medicines, usually getting approval requires millions of dollars and years and its very prone to corruption unlike a private rating company which its reputation is its most valuable asset, if ISO somehow accepted bribes for ratings it would lose all credibility and go bankrupt in no time, unlike the FDA.

let me know what you think about this solution.



Also you didn't answer my questions about the NZ real state market, what you are suggesting (unless what you mean is a peculiar and temporal profitable opportunity) totally breaks the basic laws of economics, why isn't a low-skill, low-risk, highly profitable market being flooded by investors? why would anyone invest in stocks instead of a real state that according to you is more profitable and less risky?

NZ property has been flooded by investors, particularly foreign investors mostly from china and australia. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/busine...rs-buying-up-commercial-property-cbre " yields that were better than in other markets."

making money off stocks has become one parasitic form of making money as well. I mean for small time people it's fine, but for major stockholders it is just about making money and it doesn't produce anything. Stock speculation, again, wasn't even a thing in the period in the middle of the 20th century, because policy makers actually remembered how degen and bad it was for the economy looking back at the 1920's and before. Stocks were the first thing to recover in the great recession, before the unemployment rate and wages and things that actually mattered, this was from a corporate state policy and not 'economic laws.'

rating agencies in a capitalist society are not trustworthy, they were at the centre of the GFC, calling those collatarized debt obligations AAA ratings when in fact the CDO's were complete junk. Corruption is something i would expect from hierarchical regimes. If credit rating agencies were run democratically and wern't colluding with other corporations to make sick profits, then yes, that sounds fine to me as a way of informing people.

On August 29 2018 02:22 Stroggoz wrote: NZ property has been flooded by investors, particularly foreign investors mostly from china and australia. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/busine...rs-buying-up-commercial-property-cbre " yields that were better than in other markets." making money off stocks has become one parasitic form of making money as well. I mean for small time people it's fine, but for major stockholders it is just about making money and it doesn't produce anything. Stock speculation, again, wasn't even a thing in the period in the middle of the 20th century, because policy makers actually remembered how degen and bad it was for the economy looking back at the 1920's and before. Stocks were the first thing to recover in the great recession, before the unemployment rate and wages and things that actually mattered, this was from a corporate state policy and not 'economic laws.' rating agencies in a capitalist society are not trustworthy, they were at the centre of the GFC, calling those collatarized debt obligations AAA ratings when in fact the CDO's were complete junk. Corruption is something i would expect from hierarchical regimes. If credit rating agencies were run democratically and wern't colluding with other corporations to make sick profits, then yes, that sounds fine to me as a way of informing people.

Then its just a good investment opportunity currently being flooded by investors raising land value making it a less appealing deal every day, so capitalism is working fine there I dont see the issue, do you?

Indeed I think stock speculation isn't productive, no argument there.

The big three rating agencies are privately owned in name, but the government has a vice grip control on them, but you make a good point, but I'm not saying privately owned rating agencies wont be corrupt, they will be but public trust in them would hurt business making corruption less apealing, S&P and the others are proped up by the government otherwise what financial institution would ever trust them after the 2008 fiasco?

man a lot of western countries, cities in particular, have problems with property values increasing much faster than average salaries, which ends up excluding a lot of people from the housing market. This is absolutely a case where capitalism is not working without regulation.

Like, in Norway, inflation has increased by 30% since 2004. Salaries have increased by ~60% in the same period. Square meter price of buying an apartment? 250% increase for the entire country (16k NOK to 40k NOK), almost 300% increase for Oslo (24k to 69k). People who had enough money to buy a house/apartment rather than rent 15 years ago have ended up getting vastly wealthier (and they were already wealthier in the first place, hence them buying instead of renting) than people who have not. (Those people have instead experienced that their rent has increased more than their salary has.)

me and my wife bought our apartment like 8 years ago now, it has doubled in price since then. And that bonus comes on top of the fact that instead of paying rent to some other jerk, we're paying mortgage. This development is followed by more people starting to own more than 1 property, and less people owning their own home, which further cements differences and makes it harder for people to 'make it on their own'. I dun have percentages but a very significant amount of first home buyers are only able to do so because they have wealthy parents (every person I know who bought apartment before turning 30 did so with parental aid). I mean you've argued that capitalism is successful because it reduces wealth disparities before. I don't agree with it doing so in general - and in this specific scenario, it most certainly doesn't - I'm just mentioning this because you do apparently highlight decreased wealth disparity as a positive.

I mean you might say that the market will correct itself or whatever, but if that happens through some housing bubble crashing, that's actually pretty devastating for a very significant amount of people.

Yes that is the issue i have in general, the housing crisis creates a class based society; those that have to rent and get stuck in a poverty trap and those that can make money out of money quite easily. Doesn't have to be real estate, but that is something that is quite profitable atm. There are a ton of different causes into this problem, it's quite complex, but governments have just sat by and let it happen over the last generation and are only now starting to deal with it, in a mild way, now that the problem is too big to ignore.

Like i've been saying before, there isn't really any evidence to suggest we live in a market based society except at the fringe level, letting markets fix themselves isn't in the realm of reality. fact is there are a lot of policies that affect every facet of the economy and these problems have to be dealt with pragmatically.

On August 29 2018 16:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: man a lot of western countries, cities in particular, have problems with property values increasing much faster than average salaries, which ends up excluding a lot of people from the housing market. This is absolutely a case where capitalism is not working without regulation. Like, in Norway, inflation has increased by 30% since 2004. Salaries have increased by ~60% in the same period. Square meter price of buying an apartment? 250% increase for the entire country (16k NOK to 40k NOK), almost 300% increase for Oslo (24k to 69k). People who had enough money to buy a house/apartment rather than rent 15 years ago have ended up getting vastly wealthier (and they were already wealthier in the first place, hence them buying instead of renting) than people who have not. (Those people have instead experienced that their rent has increased more than their salary has.) me and my wife bought our apartment like 8 years ago now, it has doubled in price since then. And that bonus comes on top of the fact that instead of paying rent to some other jerk, we're paying mortgage. This development is followed by more people starting to own more than 1 property, and less people owning their own home, which further cements differences and makes it harder for people to 'make it on their own'. I dun have percentages but a very significant amount of first home buyers are only able to do so because they have wealthy parents (every person I know who bought apartment before turning 30 did so with parental aid). I mean you've argued that capitalism is successful because it reduces wealth disparities before. I don't agree with it doing so in general - and in this specific scenario, it most certainly doesn't - I'm just mentioning this because you do apparently highlight decreased wealth disparity as a positive.

The only reason why land value could go steadily up is because you have reached a scarcity threadshold, Norway is big for european standards but perhaps the weather in a good chunk of the country isn't very welcoming so it could be that, because if not its just a bubble that will correct itself.

If its the former its a problem, with population growth and a limited resource hoarding it becomes profitable and it indeeds makes it harder for people to own a home and it increases the wage gap, that is obviously bad and It can be helped with regulation.

When I say im an-cap I'm not saying that all regulations or state institutions are bad, what I'm saying is that having a group of people with the power to regulate is much worse than no regulation at all, its kind of my view on freedom of speech, whem I'm for freedom of speech I'm not saying that having nazis spreading ideas is good, what I'm saying is that having a group of people with the power to censor is fare worse than ethnonationalists.

I mean you might say that the market will correct itself or whatever, but if that happens through some housing bubble crashing, that's actually pretty devastating for a very significant amount of people.

Yes market corrections can be devastating, letting GM and the banks go bust would mean the loss of thousands of jobs and who knows how many more indirectly, it literally means suffering and even death to some people but it is necessary to prevent even much more suffering in the future.

Capitalism isn't perfect, less intelligent and skillful people will suffer because of it but a system that eliminates currency/private property we will still find ways to buid hierarchies around the genetic lottery, how pretty, how funny wild and clever we are, true equity is the craziest of delusions and with the bonus that we will all starve to death because it doesn't work.

On August 30 2018 02:22 Stroggoz wrote: Like i've been saying before, there isn't really any evidence to suggest we live in a market based society except at the fringe level, letting markets fix themselves isn't in the realm of reality. fact is there are a lot of policies that affect every facet of the economy and these problems have to be dealt with pragmatically.

Well indeed but we are just discussing the core ideas, its not we are actually discussing how to solve NZ housing market because as you say, you would have to deal with all the policies and factors in tha specific issue.

I want to clarify since I've talked twice about "we are going to have hierarchies anyway" that it's not my main reason why I oppose collectivism because its not economically feasable in practice since its ridiculously more exploitable than capitalism (that we can see how big its exploits are since we are discussing them)

You're kind of a stuck in a never ending cycle here. Hierarchies lead to power leads to corruption leads to bad shit, regardless how many layers of regulation there is... its always a temporary solution, in cases it might be productive for over a lifetime of a generation, which would then be taken as a well-working hierarchy or structure ... until it doesn't.

The whole premises of anarchy is that it would be the GTO for society, right? Except its just a utopia isn't it. Perhaps if we can reset the world and have a clean sheet where we start off from an anarchy, then it will certainly work, but it just won't happen like that in practice.

So where you wanna go to is, how do we push society to take these steps on all levels of the hierarchy towards simultaneous change? That's the real irony here since it would be a step which would push the hierarchy towards self-destruction.

The only real way would be to have each individual be well educated and have instant access to information of value. How we reach that point? I don't know. Society has instant access to information nowadays and still prefers to watch cat videos. The only feasible solution I could think of is if we have an altruist group* to rise to the top of the pyramid and use propaganda towards good. The only solution would be for psychology to advance light years and then use that knowledge altruistically, which is just as likely as anarchism actually taking place.

You spent so much time discussing theories, that you completely disregarded the practicality and actual implementation. We could take steps by ourselves as individuals e.g. as Stroggoz pointed out to use our purchasing power adept. We might be inherently good as species, but it doesn't mean we're smart.


*It has to be a group, otherwise it will be bound to fail. Solo power will always get destroyed by the opposition without having any allies, especially if you're threatening their reality.

Dr Eugene Gu, the male feminist with wife beating charges... std male feminist.

On September 03 2018 23:24 Spitfiree wrote: Hierarchies lead to power leads to corruption leads to bad shit... ...The only feasible solution I could think of is if we have an altruist group* to rise to the top of the pyramid and use propaganda towards good.

Your argument is self defeating since power leads to corruption, these group would become corrupt. If you know of some impossible to corrupt intelligent beings then I'm all for the overlords lol.



You dont have to reset society, society gradually changes, and I'm with Loco (and the Joker lol) that most people are as good as society allows them to be, society which, paradoxicaly, is built by the collective consciousness of people, so we arent inherently good nor evil (certainly stupid), we just are human beings and if we are ever going to break free from the hive its not going to be by smashing its going to be through "evolution".

This evolution has to come within the self, not by histrionic public displays, thats why I'm with JBP camp with the "clean up your room" which many see as just an trite call to inaction while "people are literally fighting for their lives" or whatever bullshit catharsis is fashionable among SJWs.

I guess its a painful realization how short our lifespan truly is in relation of how slow things are, ergo all the obsession with apocalypses, the y2k, 2012 and the late-stage-capitalism craze all emanate from the same subconscious desire to matter.