The Pencilsword: On a plate. Two very different realities [Archive]

Peter1469

05-29-2015, 07:43 PM

No, it is the most important thing.

I am tired of the lie of the "American Dream". Because it is.

Given the social circunstances it leads to what opportunities you will have. What happens in the comic is what happens to more than the 90% of families from worker class.

Parents don't have enough time for children. Then, the children must work to help at home, for example, one of the parents getting sick. It makes harder for them to be able to study or it makes harder. It makes getting them stuck in the social class.

Reality, is who is born in a low class, they will continue being low class.

Or have you forgotten one of the biggest arguments of our friend Chris:

- The resources are limited and there is scarcity.

And then, people say that they don't blame the poors, aka the victims, for being poor. Shit, if everybody have participated in this thread are blaming them for bein idiots, lazy, or whatever.

I disagree with you that your factors are the most important. But admittedly I am talking about America. Not Spain. People in America can work hard and succeed if they have the drive, the ability, and some luck.

People with no drive may get lucky, but it isn't likely.

Chris

05-29-2015, 07:57 PM

Chris

05-29-2015, 07:59 PM

Besides pushing Marxism what else do you do?

He's a follower of Kropotkin more than Marx though the exact differences I'm not sure of.

MisterVeritis

05-29-2015, 08:02 PM

He's a follower of Kropotkin more than Marx though the exact differences I'm not sure of.
He is a Russian anarchist. You can find his papers in the Marxist library on line. They are birds of a feather. Steal from the rich. Siphon off large amounts for government bureaucrats, give crumbs to the poor. Keep the levels of agitation high. Oh wait, that is president Obama...

Chris

05-29-2015, 08:08 PM

He is a Russian anarchist. You can find his papers in the Marxist library on line. They are birds of a feather. Steal from the rich. Siphon off large amounts for government bureaucrats, give crumbs to the poor. Keep the levels of agitation high. Oh wait, that is president Obama...

Well, I would argue Kropotkin more of a libertarian anarchist and Marx more of an authoritarian anarchist, which seems oxymoronic, but he, Marx, wanted control, especially over the future.

MisterVeritis

05-29-2015, 08:10 PM

Well, I would argue Kropotkin more of a libertarian anarchist and Marx more of an authoritarian anarchist, which seems oxymoronic, but he, Marx, wanted control, especially over the future.
For all intents and purposes they agreed upon the essentials and argued only over the tactics. Shall we kill the rich first and then eat them or shall we steal everything they have, then kill them and eat them?

kilgram

05-29-2015, 09:52 PM

Besides pushing Marxism what else do you do?
Besides I am not Marxist, do you have any other comment?

And, what is the problem in looking for freedom, equality and social justice?

kilgram

05-29-2015, 09:53 PM

Well, I would argue Kropotkin more of a libertarian anarchist and Marx more of an authoritarian anarchist, which seems oxymoronic, but he, Marx, wanted control, especially over the future.
Marx has never been anarchist. Never. Marx has called himself socialist or communist but never anarchist.

And libertarian anarchist has no sense as authoritarian anarchist, at all. Chris.

They were some kind of socialists.

kilgram

05-29-2015, 09:55 PM

For all intents and purposes they agreed upon the essentials and argued only over the tactics. Shall we kill the rich first and then eat them or shall we steal everything they have, then kill them and eat them?
Do you have any argument or just you have to spit your bile and show your ignorance?

And about the topic. It is only fault of the girl that she has had less opportunities than the guy, right?

MisterVeritis

05-29-2015, 10:03 PM

Besides I am not Marxist, do you have any other comment?

And, what is the problem in looking for freedom, equality and social justice?
Right. Work and fight for the revolution...

You are a thief in the night. Social justice is a Marxian formulation used by agitators, socialists, radicals, liberation theologists and Marxists everywhere. Your equality is slavery. You do not mean equality before the law. Do you? You want us to be equal in our poverty. Like most radicals you will excuse yourself from the misery you cause to others.

I have seen your kind before. Most live miserable lives, always blaming others for their failures. One or two grow out of it if it is caught early before the sickness spreads.

MisterVeritis

05-29-2015, 10:04 PM

Do you have any argument or just you have to spit your bile and show your ignorance?

And about the topic. It is only fault of the girl that she has had less opportunities than the guy, right?
You love propaganda, right?

MisterVeritis

05-29-2015, 10:06 PM

Marx has never been anarchist. Never. Marx has called himself socialist or communist but never anarchist.

And libertarian anarchist has no sense as authoritarian anarchist, at all. Chris.

They were some kind of socialists.
Scratch some of the finish off and you guys are all the same. You are greedy blood suckers. You want what others have but you are unwilling to pay the price it takes.

Redrose

05-29-2015, 10:11 PM

http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

How different can be a life, depending the home where you are born.

Related to the topic: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/45081-Poor-Aren-t-Poor-Because-Rich-Are-Rich

Doesn't always have a happy ending. My ex SIL from a very wealthy family, three generations of millionaires, was given everything on a silver platter. Best schools, big allowance, trust fund, cars, more education and job connections. Daddy always managed to pay his way out of trouble all through school. The Marines threw him out, after several stays in the brig for not taking orders well. Fired from every job he had. Then started bucking the system with police. He turned a simple traffic stop into a felony. Within ten years he was in prison for a First Degree felony, att.murder with a machete, two counts.

He's serving 33 years in prison. He could not take direction from anyone, teachers, employers, and in the Marines, then eventually police.

He had everything handed to him, and was lead to believe he was the center of the universe.

Being born poor doesn't always lead to a life of servitude. In the USA the opportunities are there for those willing to work hard.

Chris

05-29-2015, 10:30 PM

Marx has never been anarchist. Never. Marx has called himself socialist or communist but never anarchist.

And libertarian anarchist has no sense as authoritarian anarchist, at all. Chris.

They were some kind of socialists.

Anarchy is not so narrowly limited as your personal definitions.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 06:58 AM

Doesn't always have a happy ending. My ex SIL from a very wealthy family, three generations of millionaires, was given everything on a silver platter. Best schools, big allowance, trust fund, cars, more education and job connections. Daddy always managed to pay his way out of trouble all through school. The Marines threw him out, after several stays in the brig for not taking orders well. Fired from every job he had. Then started bucking the system with police. He turned a simple traffic stop into a felony. Within ten years he was in prison for a First Degree felony, att.murder with a machete, two counts.

He's serving 33 years in prison. He could not take direction from anyone, teachers, employers, and in the Marines, then eventually police.

He had everything handed to him, and was lead to believe he was the center of the universe.

Being born poor doesn't always lead to a life of servitude. In the USA the opportunities are there for those willing to work hard.
Obviously a wealthy guy can screw all that is given. The stupidness is not cured with money, normally it is increased.

The problem is work hard does not work for everybody. For example, the poor family of the comic, they were working very hard. And what did they get? Nothing. That is the common in the capitalist system.

Poverty is inherent and necessary in this system. The belief that if you work hard you will success is a lie. A lie made by the powerful to keep the system, like many others.

But, all the chances that guy he had, the girl in the comic (as most of the people) won't never get, even in their biggest dreams.

What is the morale of the comic? That two people being similarily equal in abilities will success or not depending of where they are born. In another words, depending of their initial economic situation.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 07:05 AM

Right. Work and fight for the revolution...

You are a thief in the night. Social justice is a Marxian formulation used by agitators, socialists, radicals, liberation theologists and Marxists everywhere. Your equality is slavery. You do not mean equality before the law. Do you? You want us to be equal in our poverty. Like most radicals you will excuse yourself from the misery you cause to others.

I have seen your kind before. Most live miserable lives, always blaming others for their failures. One or two grow out of it if it is caught early before the sickness spreads.
I am sorry for not accepting a system where the wealthy have absolute power and where they are the new aristocracy. Excuse me for wanting a system where people is emancipated and they don't have to serve anyone.

Oops, no sorry. I am proud of my ideology. I am anarchist, YES. I am revolutionary, YES. I am antisystem: YES. Very proud of all it.

If you try to deslegitimate my ideas by saying all that. You don't do.

A system that condemns most of the society to poverty, lacking of opportunities to have a minimum conditions of a life, like a good education, healthcare, and even being able to participate in the decisions they affect them... Then yes I will be an agitator against this system. As Washington was an agitator against the British Empire.

Chris

05-30-2015, 09:05 AM

Obviously a wealthy guy can screw all that is given. The stupidness is not cured with money, normally it is increased.

The problem is work hard does not work for everybody. For example, the poor family of the comic, they were working very hard. And what did they get? Nothing. That is the common in the capitalist system.

Poverty is inherent and necessary in this system. The belief that if you work hard you will success is a lie. A lie made by the powerful to keep the system, like many others.

But, all the chances that guy he had, the girl in the comic (as most of the people) won't never get, even in their biggest dreams.

What is the morale of the comic? That two people being similarily equal in abilities will success or not depending of where they are born. In another words, depending of their initial economic situation.

Baloney.

The problem is work hard does not work for everybody. For example, the poor family of the comic, they were working very hard. And what did they get? Nothing. That is the common in the capitalist system.

Sans government, you would have this reality: Work and you gain something, perhaps just enough to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. And changes are you can better yourself. Do nothing and you get nothing, do nothing you die. Unless others come to your aid. But generalize, what if everyone did nothing.

Now I realize, kilgram, you can declare it not so, but you will never present an argument to demonstrate what you proclaim.

Poverty is inherent and necessary in this system.

Not in a system based on private property, only in a system that denies it. For what is poverty but the lack of property with which to feed, clothe and shelter yourself with. That is inherent and necessary in your communism (except for the elite rulers as we saw in the Soviet Union, see in Cuba and North Korea).

The belief that if you work hard you will success is a lie.

But who's lie is it? Again, look at communism where property is denied. You can work as hard as you like and you gain nothing because you have denied any means of success. Allow the ownership of property and work will generate wealth in it, perhaps just a little, just enough to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. But this is more success than under a system that denies the very means and ends of work.

What is the morale of the comic? That two people being similarily equal in abilities will success or not depending of where they are born. In another words, depending of their initial economic situation.

Your own words contradict this in your opening statement: "Obviously a wealthy guy can screw all that is given. The stupidness is not cured with money, normally it is increased." In short, the guy who starts high can fall to the bottom.

Chris

05-30-2015, 09:10 AM

I am sorry for not accepting a system where the wealthy have absolute power and where they are the new aristocracy. Excuse me for wanting a system where people is emancipated and they don't have to serve anyone.

Oops, no sorry. I am proud of my ideology. I am anarchist, YES. I am revolutionary, YES. I am antisystem: YES. Very proud of all it.

If you try to deslegitimate my ideas by saying all that. You don't do.

A system that condemns most of the society to poverty, lacking of opportunities to have a minimum conditions of a life, like a good education, healthcare, and even being able to participate in the decisions they affect them... Then yes I will be an agitator against this system. As Washington was an agitator against the British Empire.

Your system condemns all to poverty. How, at base you are anti-authority. You demand absolutely no authority: no state, no market, no religion, no family, no, in fact, society, Your egalitarian demand levels society to the lowest common denominator, poverty.

Ironically, your anti-authoritarian demands are authoritarian. Society must be as you demand. Nothing else is acceptable.

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 09:14 AM

Everyone can be equal if we consider the lowest common denominator.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 10:26 AM

Your system condemns all to poverty. How, at base you are anti-authority. You demand absolutely no authority: no state, no market, no religion, no family, no, in fact, society, Your egalitarian demand levels society to the lowest common denominator, poverty.

Ironically, your anti-authoritarian demands are authoritarian. Society must be as you demand. Nothing else is acceptable.
It is your problem, Chris. You think I demand something. I only present my views. I don't try to demand anything.

It is something society must achieve if they want. I just suppose (99% wrongly) that people will want it. However, reality is that people want to be directed, want to serve someone else. People don't want freedom. People prefer slavery if they can live comfortably and not think.

For this reason capitalism works so well. Because it gives a false sensation of freedom and permits serve to others.

Again, you are wrong in suppossing I want to impose something. My demands are pretty simple.

- Create an environment in freedom where people can see other forms of working and they will take it, willingly, voluntarily.

It is my way of works.

By the way, it is the way to criticise me ;) Without saying "You are an authoritarian communist" :)

kilgram

05-30-2015, 10:30 AM

Everyone can be equal if we consider the lowest common denominator.
Is it?

Many European countries are much equalitarian than USA. Poverty is reduced to a few numbers... And they are not poor. They are pretty wealthy. Are you sure, that equality only can achieved in the lowest common denominator? I disagree.

Obviously, the capitalist system where it is based in the greedy behaviour of the people always will be a system where a few have a lot and others have almost anything.

In my opinion, a system where just only one person cannot get the same opportunities than other, only one person is abandoned and the society does not help him. This society is a failure.

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 10:34 AM

Is it?

Many European countries are much equalitarian than USA. Poverty is reduced to a few numbers... And they are not poor. They are pretty wealthy. Are you sure, that equality only can achieved in the lowest common denominator? I disagree.

Obviously, the capitalist system where it is based in the greedy behaviour of the people always will be a system where a few have a lot and others have almost anything.

In my opinion, a system where just only one person cannot get the same opportunities than other, only one person is abandoned and the society does not help him. This society is a failure.

I prefer the US system where hard workers can excel. I am not so upset when those who don't apply themselves are stuck in poverty. Not that poverty in the US is equivalent to what it is in much of the world. Most of our poor have high speed internet and smart phones.

Chris

05-30-2015, 10:37 AM

It is your problem, Chris. You think I demand something. I only present my views. I don't try to demand anything.

It is something society must achieve if they want. I just suppose (99% wrongly) that people will want it. However, reality is that people want to be directed, want to serve someone else. People don't want freedom. People prefer slavery if they can live comfortably and not think.

For this reason capitalism works so well. Because it gives a false sensation of freedom and permits serve to others.

Again, you are wrong in suppossing I want to impose something. My demands are pretty simple.

- Create an environment in freedom where people can see other forms of working and they will take it, willingly, voluntarily.

It is my way of works.

By the way, it is the way to criticise me ;) Without saying "You are an authoritarian communist" :)

It is your problem, Chris.

Again, you want to make it personal?

You think I demand something. I only present my views. I don't try to demand anything.

No, you demand, as you do in your very next statement:

It is something society must achieve if they want.

And your following statements belie the same:

I just suppose (99% wrongly) that people will want it. However, reality is that people want to be directed, want to serve someone else. People don't want freedom. People prefer slavery if they can live comfortably and not think.

Your presumptions of what people want is authoritarian. You don't trust people to think and choose for themselves.

Again, you are wrong in suppossing I want to impose something.

But again in your very next statement you demand:

My demands are pretty simple.

You're doing exactly what I describe you doing and you provide the evidence for it.

You are an authoritarian communist.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 10:46 AM

Baloney.

Sans government, you would have this reality: Work and you gain something, perhaps just enough to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. And changes are you can better yourself. Do nothing and you get nothing, do nothing you die. Unless others come to your aid. But generalize, what if everyone did nothing.

Now I realize, kilgram, you can declare it not so, but you will never present an argument to demonstrate what you proclaim.

Not in a system based on private property, only in a system that denies it. For what is poverty but the lack of property with which to feed, clothe and shelter yourself with. That is inherent and necessary in your communism (except for the elite rulers as we saw in the Soviet Union, see in Cuba and North Korea).
Let's use the correct terms.

Communism (marxist): Has never been achieved. Marxists in their authoritarian ways always got stuck in the Socialism.

Ok, let's analyze the socialism of Cuba.

- All the society has healthcare, and pretty good for being so poor and don't have access to the last improvements in that area.

- People receive high education and is well educated

- Poverty, compared to many other neighbour capitalist countries like Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua,... they are much better. They don't bath in richness, but for what I know everybody has shelter, food,... It is the basic needs are satisfied. It is something cannot be said for all the occidental countries, or the ones mentioned before.

- Crime is also lower than any other of the capitalist South American countries.

And, no, I don't defend those systems as ideal. They are a failure in many ways as you liberals indicate, like central power or central government or central planification. It is a problem.

But a real communism where people would be free and the basics would be assured is a system much better than any form of capitalism.

Obviously, have the problems of all authoritarian/dictatorship system that is the lack of freedom...

But who's lie is it? Again, look at communism where property is denied. You can work as hard as you like and you gain nothing because you have denied any means of success. Allow the ownership of property and work will generate wealth in it, perhaps just a little, just enough to feed, clothe and shelter yourself. But this is more success than under a system that denies the very means and ends of work.
Property is denied? It depends how you see it. Today a great percentage of people (I don't know which one, I've not done the research) does not own any property. Their homes and other "owned" objects are property of the banks or they live in some rent.

And many don't even have access to any shelter.

As the comic indicates, people with low incomes need to work harder (more time) to get enough incomes to access to basic things. And even they don't get it, for example, healthcare (in the case of USA). Then a person that is living in a low income family cannot study because in early age need to go to work. And they don't have time to study, keeping the cycle of poverty.

Your own words contradict this in your opening statement: "Obviously a wealthy guy can screw all that is given. The stupidness is not cured with money, normally it is increased." In short, the guy who starts high can fall to the bottom.
It can happen. As a poor can become rich. It happens very few times in society. And it happens more in more equal socities like Denmark than in more inequal societies like Spain or USA.

It is not a contradiction. The exception of the rule. But what my words mean is that the wealthy always will have much better chances to continue being wealthy or increase it than the poor. Starting for the connections they have. They have access to the better schools, to the better lawyers. Obviously, in this system, even a rich can screw up it. But he has to do something very big to fall. And when more powerful (wealthy) is that person more have to screw up to fall.

A poor guy, a little mistake can make him to fall and never recover.

But, going to the topic, my point is that a rich person with some skills and a poor person with the same skills, the rich person is the one who will get all the opportunities and the poor won't. It is for their position. It is a fact. And you cannot deny it.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 10:56 AM

Again, you want to make it personal?
No, I said you that it was the way. I congratulate you to continue in that way.

No, you demand, as you do in your very next statement:
Chris, I don't demand.

Sorry, but if I cannot give to my rethoric an English or American style, but I am not demanding anything.

I don't see, the problem in saying that is something society must achieve. I don't see the problem in saying that is their decision and it is in their hands. I don't see the demand.

And now I am going to ask you. How would you express that idea without looking as a demand. Maybe it is a problem with my English. Help me to express myself in a better way. I don't want to look as a demand, if not as something as a choice, as a decision that is in the hands of the people. How you would have expressed it?

And your following statements belie the same:
There I used your words. I didn't see anything wrong in answering in your own words.

I didn't see it as a form of authoritarism.

Your presumptions of what people want is authoritarian. You don't trust people to think and choose for themselves.
Again you fail to understand me. I trust people to think and choose for themselves. But I am pretentuous that they will choose what I believe. Because I believe it is the choice that will bring to people to the biggest freedom.

However, I believe, for my acquatainces and all that most people want leaders and strong governments. We are fated to eat our utopias because they will never become real. Neither the yours neither the mine.

But again in your very next statement you demand:

You're doing exactly what I describe you doing and you provide the evidence for it.

You are an authoritarian communist.
I am not authoritarian. From the moment I leave every choice in the people. And I just talk what I would like things to be.

You should understand that I am from another culture. I've not being much with American culture or English culture, only a few weeks. Even if I've taken some universitary courses of English written, I cannot get the style of American expression and I usually translate my cultural thinking into English. And in Spanish I am pretty straightforwarded, and I know for a foreigner (English culture) it may look very authoritarian. But it is not.

Chris

05-30-2015, 11:02 AM

Let's use the correct terms.

Communism (marxist): Has never been achieved. Marxists in their authoritarian ways always got stuck in the Socialism.

Ok, let's analyze the socialism of Cuba.

- All the society has healthcare, and pretty good for being so poor and don't have access to the last improvements in that area.

- People receive high education and is well educated

- Poverty, compared to many other neighbour capitalist countries like Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua,... they are much better. They don't bath in richness, but for what I know everybody has shelter, food,... It is the basic needs are satisfied. It is something cannot be said for all the occidental countries, or the ones mentioned before.

- Crime is also lower than any other of the capitalist South American countries.

And, no, I don't defend those systems as ideal. They are a failure in many ways as you liberals indicate, like central power or central government or central planification. It is a problem.

But a real communism where people would be free and the basics would be assured is a system much better than any form of capitalism.

Obviously, have the problems of all authoritarian/dictatorship system that is the lack of freedom...

Property is denied? It depends how you see it. Today a great percentage of people (I don't know which one, I've not done the research) does not own any property. Their homes and other "owned" objects are property of the banks or they live in some rent.

And many don't even have access to any shelter.

As the comic indicates, people with low incomes need to work harder (more time) to get enough incomes to access to basic things. And even they don't get it, for example, healthcare (in the case of USA). Then a person that is living in a low income family cannot study because in early age need to go to work. And they don't have time to study, keeping the cycle of poverty.

It can happen. As a poor can become rich. It happens very few times in society. And it happens more in more equal socities like Denmark than in more inequal societies like Spain or USA.

It is not a contradiction. The exception of the rule. But what my words mean is that the wealthy always will have much better chances to continue being wealthy or increase it than the poor. Starting for the connections they have. They have access to the better schools, to the better lawyers. Obviously, in this system, even a rich can screw up it. But he has to do something very big to fall. And when more powerful (wealthy) is that person more have to screw up to fall.

A poor guy, a little mistake can make him to fall and never recover.

But, going to the topic, my point is that a rich person with some skills and a poor person with the same skills, the rich person is the one who will get all the opportunities and the poor won't. It is for their position. It is a fact. And you cannot deny it.

Let's use the correct terms.

In short, let's define things in such a way that you are correct. Again, all you offer is declarations, basically, declarations things are as you say they are. No argument, no support.

Communism (marxist): Has never been achieved. Marxists in their authoritarian ways always got stuck in the Socialism.

Soviet Union, North Korea, and ...

Ok, let's analyze the socialism of Cuba.

After saying it doesn't exist you look to facts that say it does.

And to your positive remarks I back up what I've said, that an elite few live lives of luxury at the expense of an impoverished many: Life under Cuban communism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/life-under-cuban-communism/)

In Cuba, as in Elysium, a small group of economic and political elites live in a rarefied world high above the impoverished masses. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of The Communist Manifesto, would be appalled by the misery endured by Cuba’s ordinary citizens and shocked by the relatively luxurious lifestyles of those who keep the poor down by force….

Read more @ Splendor Amid Poverty: Gallery Nights With Cuba's Gilded Elite (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/splendor-amid-poverty-gallery-nights-with-cubas-gilded-elite/261956/). Or The Last Communist City: A visit to the dystopian Havana that tourists never see (http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_havana.html).

But a real communism where people would be free and the basics would be assured is a system much better than any form of capitalism.

You mean the no true Scotsman you want to impose, the egalitarianism you just above denied that levels everything to poverty.

Property is denied? It depends how you see it....

And here you go twisting definitions to suit your agenda.

Today a great percentage of people (I don't know which one, I've not done the research) does not own any property. Their homes and other "owned" objects are property of the banks or they live in some rent.

But your communism would deny them the property they do own, deny them the means to achieve more, and deny them the ends of wealth.

Again, the egalitarian system you seek would level all wealth to poverty.

And that you define, somehow, as freedom.

But, going to the topic, my point is that a rich person with some skills and a poor person with the same skills, the rich person is the one who will get all the opportunities and the poor won't. It is for their position. It is a fact. And you cannot deny it.

I reject it because you have redefined economy by abstracting only the simplest of factors. Why else would under your simplifications a rich person fail? Becuase there are so many other factors involved, as we have discussed in another recent thread on the poor aren't poor because the rich are rich.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 11:04 AM

I prefer the US system where hard workers can excel. I am not so upset when those who don't apply themselves are stuck in poverty. Not that poverty in the US is equivalent to what it is in much of the world. Most of our poor have high speed internet and smart phones.
But it is a lie, Peter.

Peter, hard workers don't excel themselves. How many people work hard their whole life and they barely earn the enough incomes to live through.

It is the reality. The problem is not that maybe let's be good a 5% of the poor that work hard can change to middle or more strangely to high class. The problem is that the rest 95% for more than they work they won't never get that chance. It is a system of privileged and non privileged.

Chris

05-30-2015, 11:07 AM

No, I said you that it was the way. I congratulate you to continue in that way.

Chris, I don't demand.

Sorry, but if I cannot give to my rethoric an English or American style, but I am not demanding anything.

I don't see, the problem in saying that is something society must achieve. I don't see the problem in saying that is their decision and it is in their hands. I don't see the demand.

And now I am going to ask you. How would you express that idea without looking as a demand. Maybe it is a problem with my English. Help me to express myself in a better way. I don't want to look as a demand, if not as something as a choice, as a decision that is in the hands of the people. How you would have expressed it?

There I used your words. I didn't see anything wrong in answering in your own words.

I didn't see it as a form of authoritarism.

Again you fail to understand me. I trust people to think and choose for themselves. But I am pretentuous that they will choose what I believe. Because I believe it is the choice that will bring to people to the biggest freedom.

However, I believe, for my acquatainces and all that most people want leaders and strong governments. We are fated to eat our utopias because they will never become real. Neither the yours neither the mine.

I am not authoritarian. From the moment I leave every choice in the people. And I just talk what I would like things to be.

You should understand that I am from another culture. I've not being much with American culture or English culture, only a few weeks. Even if I've taken some universitary courses of English written, I cannot get the style of American expression and I usually translate my cultural thinking into English. And in Spanish I am pretty straightforwarded, and I know for a foreigner (English culture) it may look very authoritarian. But it is not.

Chris, I don't demand.

Yet each time you declared that in your post you followed it with demands.

There I used your words.

You cited and then responded to my words with your own words.

I trust people to think and choose for themselves.

And if they choose free-market capitalism you are OK with that then.

You should understand that I am from another culture.

I understand that. But I'm not talking about how you use words but the message conveyed.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 11:11 AM

In short, let's define things in such a way that you are correct. Again, all you offer is declarations, basically, declarations things are as you say they are. No argument, no support.

Soviet Union, North Korea, and ...

After saying it doesn't exist you look to facts that say it does.

And to your positive remarks I back up what I've said, that an elite few live lives of luxury at the expense of an impoverished many: Life under Cuban communism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/life-under-cuban-communism/)

Read more @ Splendor Amid Poverty: Gallery Nights With Cuba's Gilded Elite (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/splendor-amid-poverty-gallery-nights-with-cubas-gilded-elite/261956/). Or The Last Communist City: A visit to the dystopian Havana that tourists never see (http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_havana.html).

You mean the no true Scotsman you want to impose, the egalitarianism you just above denied that levels everything to poverty.

And here you go twisting definitions to suit your agenda.

But your communism would deny them the property they do own, deny them the means to achieve more, and deny them the ends of wealth.

Again, the egalitarian system you seek would level all wealth to poverty.

And that you define, somehow, as freedom.

I reject it because you have redefined economy by abstracting only the simplest of factors. Why else would under your simplifications a rich person fail? Becuase there are so many other factors involved, as we have discussed in another recent thread on the poor aren't poor because the rich are rich.
Chris, it is linked to the other thread :) In the OP I linked purposelly to that thread, for some reason.

I don't change definitions about communism or socialism. I've used the terms that the implicated use in their theory. Marxism divided two phases: socialist and communist. The socialist phase is where we found the URSS and Cuba. They never advanced to the communist phase, where it would be classless and stateless.

Chris, have I denied the problems of Cuba? no.

And do I redefine property? Property of most of the people is owned by banks. They don't really own it.

I don't want to go to discuss my system, anymore. It is a topic about the poverty in the capitalism and the lack of opportunities because it is a system based in privileges.

And yes, the conflict is that I am not able to make you undestand me. You think that I've said Y when I said X.

Archer0915

05-30-2015, 11:16 AM

Chris

05-30-2015, 11:19 AM

Chris, it is linked to the other thread :) In the OP I linked purposelly to that thread, for some reason.

I don't change definitions about communism or socialism. I've used the terms that the implicated use in their theory. Marxism divided two phases: socialist and communist. The socialist phase is where we found the URSS and Cuba. They never advanced to the communist phase, where it would be classless and stateless.

Chris, have I denied the problems of Cuba? no.

And do I redefine property? Property of most of the people is owned by banks. They don't really own it.

I don't want to go to discuss my system, anymore. It is a topic about the poverty in the capitalism and the lack of opportunities because it is a system based in privileges.

And yes, the conflict is that I am not able to make you undestand me. You think that I've said Y when I said X.

I don't change definitions about communism or socialism. I've used the terms that the implicated use in their theory. Marxism divided two phases: socialist and communist. The socialist phase is where we found the URSS and Cuba. They never advanced to the communist phase, where it would be classless and stateless.

So you who denies he's a Marxist wants to restrict definitions to his? You can't control language through special pleading definitions that deny in common usage Cuba is communist.

It's not just that you're a foreigner, it's your way of trying to control discussion through definitions. You use your Marxist definitions to end discussion. Marx say Cuba is not communist, therefore it is not.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 11:20 AM

Yet each time you declared that in your post you followed it with demands.
Again, I tell you. I didn't demand.

You cited and then responded to my words with your own words.
I used your words of demand. With no other intention that answer what I considered a direct question. And I used the words that were in that.

Even I used the word demand.

And if they choose free-market capitalism you are OK with that then.
I told you many times. I would not like it but I would be ok with it. It is their decision. However what I've said many other times is that I don't believe people would choose it when they have proven systems that grant more freedom and a better life. But yes it does not suppose a problem for me.

I understand that. But I'm not talking about how you use words but the message conveyed.
I am pretty straightforwarded.

Yes, but maybe the message conveyed is not exactly what I wanted to convey because the difference of culture and usage of language, that maybe in my culture and language that style would mean a thing but in English another.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 11:23 AM

So you who denies he's a Marxist wants to restrict definitions to his? You can't control language through special pleading definitions that deny in common usage Cuba is communist.

It's not just that you're a foreigner, it's your way of trying to control discussion through definitions. You use your Marxist definitions to end discussion. Marx say Cuba is not communist, therefore it is not.
Chris, I've been living for a few years with a Marxist. I had very strong discussions with him because his authoritarism. And yes, I learned a few things about them, and I considered it was necessary to explain what is their vision. And how they see it.

To be Marxist I should have to agree with what I said there. And I don't agree with it.

I can use arguments coming from every ideology and look like I am defending that ideology. Sometimes I've used arguments from the free marketers ;)

I go to do some work. See you later :)

Chris

05-30-2015, 11:47 AM

Chris, I've been living for a few years with a Marxist. I had very strong discussions with him because his authoritarism. And yes, I learned a few things about them, and I considered it was necessary to explain what is their vision. And how they see it.

To be Marxist I should have to agree with what I said there. And I don't agree with it.

I can use arguments coming from every ideology and look like I am defending that ideology. Sometimes I've used arguments from the free marketers ;)

I go to do some work. See you later :)

Yet you present and defend Marxist definitions as if they are true and the only way to view the world.

You have not answered a key question. You say you do trust the people. What if they ended up following a free-market capitalist system? Would you trust them still? Or would you insist reason must rule and only your communist system is reasonable?

The Sage of Main Street

05-30-2015, 11:47 AM

If you read what was posted you would have seen this from the first response.

Why not just admit that you are a low-information Marxist? Do you believe people should be shielded from life or their choices?

Is it their choice to be poor? Really?

So, it is their fault that they are members of the low class. Nice. Notice his hypocrisy in tolerating the fact that the children of the rich are being sheltered as adults. For example, not having to suffer through college-student poverty because they get a lot of money from their parents to live on. Also, be aware of the way the rulers give us forced choices, which is a contradiction in terms. We have to either do what they advise or suffer the consequences they impose, which are not natural or deserved. We are punished for choices only because we allow the upper class's unearned right to punish us.

However, your socialism comes from the same spoiled people. Some of the rich feared that democracy would abolish their privileges. So they decided to take over the democratic movements and impose a dictatorship. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Castro, y los otros all came from the upper classes. That should have automatically made people suspicious and revolutionaries should have disqualified them. But centuries of brainwashing left the working class with the fantasy of " some rich people are on our side." There can be no such group, because that whole class has no right to exist at all. The fools even said that the children of the rich had more to lose by supporting democracy, so they should be leaders because they aren't selfish and were willing to sacrifice their guaranteed rank in society to abolish such privileges. But the only thing guaranteed by allowing these people to pretend to be revolutionaries was that they would impose a dictatorship because they were brought up with a "Born to Rule" attitude and can never overcome that.

The Sage of Main Street

05-30-2015, 11:57 AM

Doesn't always have a happy ending. My ex SIL from a very wealthy family, three generations of millionaires, was given everything on a silver platter. Best schools, big allowance, trust fund, cars, more education and job connections. Daddy always managed to pay his way out of trouble all through school. The Marines threw him out, after several stays in the brig for not taking orders well. Fired from every job he had. Then started bucking the system with police. He turned a simple traffic stop into a felony. Within ten years he was in prison for a First Degree felony, att.murder with a machete, two counts.

He's serving 33 years in prison. He could not take direction from anyone, teachers, employers, and in the Marines, then eventually police.

He had everything handed to him, and was lead to believe he was the center of the universe.

Being born poor doesn't always lead to a life of servitude. In the USA the opportunities are there for those willing to work hard. The exception proves the rule, so your example says nothing about the situation.

And class-climbers don't deserve any respect either. They wind up bitter, vindictive, greedy, and corrupt. They take it out on those who refused to brownnose, not on those who imposed the ladder of thorns they had to climb.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 12:20 PM

Yet you present and defend Marxist definitions as if they are true and the only way to view the world.

You have not answered a key question. You say you do trust the people. What if they ended up following a free-market capitalist system? Would you trust them still? Or would you insist reason must rule and only your communist system is reasonable?
No, I presented it as they see it.

And I don't know why I did, but I did for that reason. Now, that you mention it, I don't know why I did it (probably just to contradict you in my inner self). It was not necessary, but I did.

I would not insist if it works. If it does not send pariahs away. If it does not condemn thousand of people to poverty and live in precarious conditions. If does not reduce the rights of the workers. Yes, I am not going to oppose.

If it does not work. I am going to fight for a more just system as I do now.

And if my system would do what I said in the first paragraph I would admit I was wrong and I would fight for something else that would achieve what I said in the first paragraph.

My goal does not change.

But yes, I would accept the decision of the people. But I would not stop criticizing it, if I believe it does not wrong. Even if people adopted something as I defend and it didn't work as expected I would "attack" it. But in conclusion, yes, everything is and should be in the hands of the people.

Chris

05-30-2015, 12:31 PM

No, I presented it as they see it.

And I don't know why I did, but I did for that reason. Now, that you mention it, I don't know why I did it (probably just to contradict you in my inner self). It was not necessary, but I did.

I would not insist if it works. If it does not send pariahs away. If it does not condemn thousand of people to poverty and live in precarious conditions. If does not reduce the rights of the workers. Yes, I am not going to oppose.

If it does not work. I am going to fight for a more just system as I do now.

And if my system would do what I said in the first paragraph I would admit I was wrong and I would fight for something else that would achieve what I said in the first paragraph.

My goal does not change.

You did it because according to Marx one follows on the other, and to declare (not argue, but declare) communism still perfect: "Communism (marxist): Has never been achieved. Marxists in their authoritarian ways always got stuck in the Socialism." You define away the problem, the criticism of communism.

I would not insist if it works. If it does not send pariahs away. If it does not condemn thousand of people to poverty and live in precarious conditions. If does not reduce the rights of the workers. Yes, I am not going to oppose.

The question was what if the people end up following free-market capitalist, would you accept that? Your answer is yes IF it meets your requirements. And if not you will fight, iow, use forceful coercion to impose your system.

Thus you are an authoritarian anarchist. As opposed to a libertarian anarchist who would not try to impose anything on the future but leave it to people to choose. (I use here broad European definitions of authoritarian and libertarian anarchy, see Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism.)

By choose I do not mean vote or explicitly choose but implicitly by whatever works for them, whatever emerges from their myriad momentary choices in social interaction.

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 12:36 PM

But it is a lie, Peter.

Peter, hard workers don't excel themselves. How many people work hard their whole life and they barely earn the enough incomes to live through.

It is the reality. The problem is not that maybe let's be good a 5% of the poor that work hard can change to middle or more strangely to high class. The problem is that the rest 95% for more than they work they won't never get that chance. It is a system of privileged and non privileged.

It isn't a lie in the US. I can't speak for Spain.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 01:24 PM

You did it because according to Marx one follows on the other, and to declare (not argue, but declare) communism still perfect: "Communism (marxist): Has never been achieved. Marxists in their authoritarian ways always got stuck in the Socialism." You define away the problem, the criticism of communism.

The question was what if the people end up following free-market capitalist, would you accept that? Your answer is yes IF it meets your requirements. And if not you will fight, iow, use forceful coercion to impose your system.

Thus you are an authoritarian anarchist. As opposed to a libertarian anarchist who would not try to impose anything on the future but leave it to people to choose. (I use here broad European definitions of authoritarian and libertarian anarchy, see Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism.)

By choose I do not mean vote or explicitly choose but implicitly by whatever works for them, whatever emerges from their myriad momentary choices in social interaction.
I am not authoritarian anarchist. And Nettlau's book is just another book in the myriad of books where you get one opinion or other. He is authority of nothing.

I said fight, yes. As I would fight my own system if it becomes corrupt or whatever. As I would fight everything that I believe it becomes authoritarian.

And How would I fight it? Proposing alternatives. Reporting their weakness.

Is it authoritarian or coercion? No. It is not. But it is fighting.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 01:25 PM

It isn't a lie in the US. I can't speak for Spain.
It is easier in Europe (not Spain) than in USA to happen.

In USA is less probable.

Without external support there is no possibility to change of class.

For example: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/19/steven-rattner/it-easier-obtain-american-dream-europe/

Or from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

Ask yourself why Finland, Canada, Denmark and Norway do it much better than USA? What is the feature they have and USA does not?

Chris

05-30-2015, 01:33 PM

I am not authoritarian anarchist. And Nettlau's book is just another book in the myriad of books where you get one opinion or other. He is authority of nothing.

I said fight, yes. As I would fight my own system if it becomes corrupt or whatever. As I would fight everything that I believe it becomes authoritarian.

And How would I fight it? Proposing alternatives. Reporting their weakness.

Is it authoritarian or coercion? No. It is not. But it is fighting.

I didn't claim Nettlau as authority, he merely recorded the historical facts of anarchism as an ideology, and part of that history include many anarchists using the terms authoritarian and libertarian to describe the two opposing branches.

I can understand fighting against corruption. It exists is all systems.

But you equate corruption with authority, of any sort. To you your father was corrupt simply because he had authority over you.

The Sage of Main Street

05-30-2015, 02:01 PM

Obviously a wealthy guy can screw all that is given. The stupidity is not cured with money, normally it is increased.

The problem is working hard does not work for everybody. For example, the poor family in the comic, they were working very hard. And what did they get? Nothing. That is common in the capitalist system.

Poverty is inherent and necessary in this system. The belief that if you work hard you will succeed is a lie. A lie made by the powerful to keep the system going, like many others.

But, all the chances that guy he had, the girl in the comic (as most of the people) won't ever get, even in her biggest dreams.

What is the morale of the comic? That two people being similarly equal in abilities will succeed or not depending on where they are born. In another words, depending om their initial economic situation. She doesn't deserve to get anywhere either by her submissive sacrifice. That's how the educationists trick people. The most they let you say is that the rich kid doesn't deserve it but someone who voluntarily humiliates herself should have become a success. That means the rest of us have to "work our way through college." That illogical phrase implies that schoolwork is not work and doesn't deserve to be paid. The cartoon is deceptive. It also says nothing about her talent.

What is the required conclusion all about? That those who get rewarded should be punished first by living in student poverty? Also, that a job only benefits the class-climber, as if he had, for example, a college major that effectively showed him how to make money gambling, or something else that is not useful to the economy. Yes, that's the attitude of jealous Americans.

Third, graduate supremacy is not about talent, it's about someone deserving a job for sacrificing, which has nothing to do with talent. In a rational economy, the jobs should belong neither to the spoiled nor to those who follow the regime's unfunded mandate in order to get the job. "To get a good job, get a good education" says nothing about to do a good job. It's just another slogan preached incessantly by the economic bullies. Instead, just like in sports, those with talent must be recruited and paid up front to put themselves through the development of that talent. A seed doesn't grow in sand, and that's what we get thrown in our eyes by the educationists.

The world does owe a living to the human resources with the most natural talent to do the job. We don't owe anything to those who own the world. Someday those who are cheated most will use their talent to confiscate the parasites' wealth extorted from the previous generations of the talented. This must be done before they help an ungrateful society any more, unless the average American starts treating star students the same way he now treats star athletes, from childhood on.

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 07:41 PM

I am sorry for not accepting a system where the wealthy have absolute power and where they are the new aristocracy. Excuse me for wanting a system where people is emancipated and they don't have to serve anyone.

Oops, no sorry. I am proud of my ideology. I am anarchist, YES. I am revolutionary, YES. I am antisystem: YES. Very proud of all it.

If you try to deslegitimate my ideas by saying all that. You don't do.

A system that condemns most of the society to poverty, lacking of opportunities to have a minimum conditions of a life, like a good education, healthcare, and even being able to participate in the decisions they affect them... Then yes I will be an agitator against this system. As Washington was an agitator against the British Empire.

You need to check in with your primary care physician and get a consult to psychiatric services.

No one commits anyone to poverty. Only a complete idiot could believe such a nonsense statement. Shall we use me as an example? I grew up in crushing poverty. I decided early on that I would seek a different future. I read without ceasing and I did everything to the best of my ability. I chose to work.

You are a flake.

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 07:44 PM

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 07:47 PM

Is it?

Many European countries are much equalitarian than USA. Poverty is reduced to a few numbers... And they are not poor. They are pretty wealthy. Are you sure, that equality only can achieved in the lowest common denominator? I disagree.

Obviously, the capitalist system where it is based in the greedy behaviour of the people always will be a system where a few have a lot and others have almost anything.

In my opinion, a system where just only one person cannot get the same opportunities than other, only one person is abandoned and the society does not help him. This society is a failure.
I recommend that you select one that you believe is to your liking and emigrate.

I have relatives in one of those socialist nations. They milk the system. I despise them for what they do.

They are not wealthy. My relatives believe they are better off than I am. Yet they live in 1/4th the space. Their taxes are as high if not higher than mine. The rules crush the spirit and crush liberty. I believe you would fit in well.

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 07:49 PM

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 07:51 PM

But it is a lie, Peter.

Peter, hard workers don't excel themselves. How many people work hard their whole life and they barely earn the enough incomes to live through.

It is the reality. The problem is not that maybe let's be good a 5% of the poor that work hard can change to middle or more strangely to high class. The problem is that the rest 95% for more than they work they won't never get that chance. It is a system of privileged and non privileged.
I get it. You live in a socialist paradise. You do not know freedom so you reject freedom.

You are also a kook.

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 08:06 PM

She doesn't deserve to get anywhere either by her submissive sacrifice. That's how the educationists trick people. The most they let you say is that the rich kid doesn't deserve it but someone who voluntarily humiliates herself should have become a success. That means the rest of us have to "work our way through college." That illogical phrase implies that schoolwork is not work and doesn't deserve to be paid. The cartoon is deceptive. It also says nothing about her talent.

What is the required conclusion all about? That those who get rewarded should be punished first by living in student poverty? Also, that a job only benefits the class-climber, as if he had, for example, a college major that effectively showed him how to make money gambling, or something else that is not useful to the economy. Yes, that's the attitude of jealous Americans.

Third, graduate supremacy is not about talent, it's about someone deserving a job for sacrificing, which has nothing to do with talent. In a rational economy, the jobs should belong neither to the spoiled nor to those who follow the regime's unfunded mandate in order to get the job. "To get a good job, get a good education" says nothing about to do a good job. It's just another slogan preached incessantly by the economic bullies. Instead, just like in sports, those with talent must be recruited and paid up front to put themselves through the development of that talent. A seed doesn't grow in sand, and that's what we get thrown in our eyes by the educationists.

The world does owe a living to the human resources with the most natural talent to do the job. We don't owe anything to those who own the world. Someday those who are cheated most will use their talent to confiscate the parasites' wealth extorted from the previous generations of the talented. This must be done before they help an ungrateful society any more, unless the average American starts treating star students the same way he now treats star athletes, from childhood on.
So much nonsense in a single post. Awesome.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 08:08 PM

I recommend that you select one that you believe is to your liking and emigrate.

I have relatives in one of those socialist nations. They milk the system. I despise them for what they do.

They are not wealthy. My relatives believe they are better off than I am. Yet the live in 1/4th the space. Their taxes are as high if not higher than mine. They crush the spirit and they crush liberty. I believe you would fit in well.
You know... I've lived for a year in Finland.

And plus... I am Spanish :) yeah I am one of those filthy European.

You know where I would never go to live... to USA ;)

And, about the nonsense of work. What the hell you think people do? Work. But as capitalists remember:

- Resources are limited. Therefore, there is no wealth for everybody. And the system is done to keep the power in the inner circle :)

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 08:10 PM

You would like the US if you lived in a cool area.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 08:13 PM

You would like the US if you lived in a cool area.
The truth, maybe. But it would not be the real America. I would see an edulcorated America. Not the real

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 08:17 PM

The truth, maybe. But it would not be the real America. I would see an edulcorated America. Not the real

America has many sides. They are mostly all real.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 08:20 PM

America has many sides. They are mostly all real.
Mmm, yes. USA is as big as a continent and with a lot of diversity.

A place that I would like to go (just for curiosity and see it by myself) is Texas or some other state of the red belt. To see if they are as conservative and religious as it seems to foreign eyes. That would be an interesting thing.

Also, another place of USA that I've been interested, more seriously is California.

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 08:22 PM

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 08:25 PM

Mmm, yes. USA is as big as a continent and with a lot of diversity.

A place that I would like to go (just for curiosity and see it by myself) is Texas or some other state of the red belt. To see if they are as conservative and religious as it seems to foreign eyes. That would be an interesting thing.

Also, another place of USA that I've been interested, more seriously is California.

I have been to San Diego many times. I bet you would like that. LA once. Not so much. Hollywood would probably turn you off. San Fran was cool. But expensive.

Chris

05-30-2015, 08:27 PM

You know... I've lived for a year in Finland.

And plus... I am Spanish :) yeah I am one of those filthy European.

You know where I would never go to live... to USA ;)

And, about the nonsense of work. What the hell you think people do? Work. But as capitalists remember:

- Resources are limited. Therefore, there is no wealth for everybody. And the system is done to keep the power in the inner circle :)

Actually, while resources are limited, wealth is generate, in two ways, one, by turning resources into more valued products, and two, through exchange of products each trader values more than what he has--but you see, for that to work, you must own things, property, as means and as ends, which you, as communist want to deny the poor access to.

kilgram

05-30-2015, 08:33 PM

Actually, while resources are limited, wealth is generate, in two ways, one, by turning resources into more valued products, and two, through exchange of products each trader values more than what he has--but you see, for that to work, you must own things, property, as means and as ends, which you, as communist want to deny the poor access to.
Do I? Sure?

Are you sure? Do you remember my criticism to capitalism, one of them?

Yes, that one I said thar capitalism does not give resources to everybody, only to the privileged. For this reason I defended anarchism, because it gave access to everybody.

Peter1469

05-30-2015, 08:34 PM

You are a kook. That cannot be helped.

It is a shame you were not aborted.

Warning Watch the language.

Chris

05-30-2015, 08:41 PM

Do I? Sure?

Are you sure? Do you remember my criticism to capitalism, one of them?

Yes, that one I said thar capitalism does not give resources to everybody, only to the privileged. For this reason I defended anarchism, because it gave access to everybody.

Here we go again, I speak of free-market capitalism and you criticise something else you call capitalism because Marx did.

Free-market capitalism is not a thing, not an actor, not an agent, it does not give anything. It is an emergent social order.

What your criticise is something else. What exactly is it? What gives resources, what or who hands them out?

See, I think you envision capitalism like you envision communism where central planners hand out work and hand out resources and hand out pay and other rewards--from each accoding tohis ability, to each according to his need. Capitalism doesn't work like communism, there's no central planning.

And that is the problem with communism, central planning that can in no way solve the economic calculation and coordination problems.

Central planning is authoritarian. Like Marx, you're an anarchist who wants to level one social order and replace it with another.

MisterVeritis

05-30-2015, 09:02 PM

Warning Watch the language.
I WAS watching my language! LOL

He is an enemy. He is a Marxist.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 08:57 AM

I WAS watching my language! LOL

He is an enemy. He is a Marxist.
An enemy?

Enemy of what?

And I didn't see the part that I would have been aborted... Very nice for your part. Typical of fascists. Hate is your business :)

kilgram

05-31-2015, 09:03 AM

Here we go again, I speak of free-market capitalism and you criticise something else you call capitalism because Marx did.

Free-market capitalism is not a thing, not an actor, not an agent, it does not give anything. It is an emergent social order.

What your criticise is something else. What exactly is it? What gives resources, what or who hands them out?

See, I think you envision capitalism like you envision communism where central planners hand out work and hand out resources and hand out pay and other rewards--from each accoding tohis ability, to each according to his need. Capitalism doesn't work like communism, there's no central planning.

And that is the problem with communism, central planning that can in no way solve the economic calculation and coordination problems.

Central planning is authoritarian. Like Marx, you're an anarchist who wants to level one social order and replace it with another.
Chris, I am tired of explaining myself. You can believe whatever you want.

You don't grasp anything of my ideals.

No, in you free market do I depend of what my economic power gives? Do I or not? yes. I am. Then my attack is against free market. Nothing else. Then I am not free.

I don't want any central planning. How is it so difficult to you to grasp?

How is so hard for you to grasp that I am saying it depends of the people and only the people.

There is no central planning. Every federation works as an individual. A neighbourhood, a factory,... Everything behaves as an unit. Nothing planned from something central.

Free market is an organization. A form to organize ourselves. Nothing else. Everything in the humanity is based in our minds, and we can organize ourselves as we want. From accepting authoritarian forms like:

- Patriarchal families
- Tribes
- States
- Corporations
- Religion with chiefs...

To non-leader organizations with pure horizontal structures.

Peter1469

05-31-2015, 09:12 AM

Then you must be for the free market. :smiley:

kilgram

05-31-2015, 09:43 AM

Then you must be for the free market. :smiley:
Free market is too limited, too much restrictions. There is not enough freedom. I want something else, beyond that. More liberty.

MisterVeritis

05-31-2015, 09:55 AM

An enemy?

Enemy of what?

And I didn't see the part that I would have been aborted... Very nice for your part. Typical of fascists. Hate is your business :)
You are an enemy of humankind, of course. Your pernicious ideas, when carried out have resulted in the murders of millions of people.

It is a shame all authoritarian statists by whatever name you call yourselves this week could not have been aborted.

It is clear that you are unclear on the definition of fascism, which is odd as fascists are authoritarian statists too.

You should consider the path of individual liberty and freedom. Of course we plunder our neighbors less than you are used to.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 10:00 AM

You are an enemy of humankind, of course. Your pernicious ideas, when carried out have resulted in the murders of millions of people.

It is a shame all authoritarian statists by whatever name you call yourselves this week could not have been aborted.

It is clear that you are unclear on the definition of fascism, which is odd as fascists are authoritarian statists too.

You should consider the path of individual liberty and freedom. Of course we plunder our neighbors less than you are used to.
For starters.

Desiring my death is not something someone self called defender of individual liberty and freedom should say.

Secondly supposedly free countries are also behind millions of deaths, for example United States. But yeah, I am an enemy. For what reason? Just because you don't agree with my ideas and even you are not able to understand what I defend, because I remember you I am anarchist.

And I embrace individual freedom much more than anyone else in this forums.

MisterVeritis

05-31-2015, 10:05 AM

For starters.

Desiring my death is not something someone self called defender of individual liberty and freedom should say.
Why not? Those who are like you cause untold misery. Stopping you before birth would be humane for us and for you.

Secondly supposedly free countries are also behind millions of deaths, for example United States. But yeah, I am an enemy. For what reason? Just because you don't agree with my ideas and even you are not able to understand what I defend, because I remember you I am anarchist.

And I embrace individual freedom much more than anyone else in this forums.

Right. We murder millions in the name of utopian dreams. Your ideas are not dangerous so long as you have no possible way to carry them out. Unfortunately the idea of getting something for nothing has always been appealing to those, like you, who would save the rest of us from ourselves. You are just one more bad actor in a world overflowing with bad actors.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 10:10 AM

Why not? Those who are like you cause untold misery. Stopping you before birth would be humane for us and for you.

Right. We murder millions in the name of utopian dreams. Your ideas are not dangerous so long as you have no possible way to carry them out. Unfortunately the idea of getting something for nothing has always been appealing to those, like you, who would save the rest of us from ourselves. You are just one more bad actor in a world overflowing with bad actors.
Thank you very much for your nice words.

I suppose you would behave like the ones of extreme centre that they demonstrated in Madrid two days ago and they attacked a photographer and cameras of a TV channel. They were protesting against the winners of the local elections of Madrid, that was a leftist coalition. :)

I think that you would be very friendly with them. People that wanted to fire the cameras of that channel. :) yeah, I think that you are a member of that non-violent and peaceful group.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:11 AM

Chris, I am tired of explaining myself. You can believe whatever you want.

You don't grasp anything of my ideals.

No, in you free market do I depend of what my economic power gives? Do I or not? yes. I am. Then my attack is against free market. Nothing else. Then I am not free.

I don't want any central planning. How is it so difficult to you to grasp?

How is so hard for you to grasp that I am saying it depends of the people and only the people.

There is no central planning. Every federation works as an individual. A neighbourhood, a factory,... Everything behaves as an unit. Nothing planned from something central.

Free market is an organization. A form to organize ourselves. Nothing else. Everything in the humanity is based in our minds, and we can organize ourselves as we want. From accepting authoritarian forms like:

- Patriarchal families
- Tribes
- States
- Corporations
- Religion with chiefs...

To non-leader organizations with pure horizontal structures.

No, in you free market do I depend of what my economic power gives? Do I or not? yes. I am. Then my attack is against free market. Nothing else. Then I am not free.

Most of that is incoherent. You say you attack the free market. Earlier you said it gives to people--no, that's not free market, which is not an organization, it's an outcome. Earlier you said you support freedom of people, free market is free people choosing--so, no, again, you are not talking about the free market. You are talking about a capitalist system defined by Marx and you projecting communist central planning on it. In effect, you're criticising communism.

I don't want any central planning.

But that is what communism imposed. It takes away private property and then centrally plans the economy.

Other than your declaration you're against central planning, you offer no other means of solving the economic calculation and coordination problem within a communist system.

All you ever offer are declarations. No explanations.

There is no central planning. Every federation works as an individual. A neighbourhood, a factory,... Everything behaves as an unit. Nothing planned from something central.

The federation itself is a central planning organization. You can call it a neighborhood, a factory, a unit, whatever, but it does the planning. And the individual is lost to the collective, the individual is a slave to the authority of the collective.

Say federation A produces shoes and federation B wheat. It is the federations' central planners who trade, not individuals. And there's probably some super-federation that controls that.

Free market is an organization. A form to organize ourselves. Nothing else. Everything in the humanity is based in our minds, and we can organize ourselves as we want. From accepting authoritarian forms like:

- Patriarchal families
- Tribes
- States
- Corporations
- Religion with chiefs...

You're doing exactly what I said earlier. Your taking what you see as a need to design and manage and organize in your system and projecting it onto the free market. The free market is not designed, is not managed, it emerges naturally, spontaneously from the interaction of individuals.

One might say the free market is organic, whereas in communism the federation/.../unit is organized.

Now you might say but capitalism is organized and I agree, once the state comes into existence, once the state comes into play, it, the state, tries to design and manage--to organize--the economy--just as you communists do. That we might call state capitalism, as practiced in Europe, US, even China, Russia.

But as a free market capitalist, a free market anarchist, I am against state capitalism of any form. So at best here, you have yet to criticize free markets, and have only criticised state capitalism.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 10:14 AM

Most of that is incoherent. You say you attack the free market. Earlier you said it gives to people--no, that's not free market. Earlier you said you support freedom of people, free market is free people choosing--so, no, again, you are not talking about the free market. You are talking about a capitalist system defined by Marx and you projecting communist central planning on it. In effect, you're criticising communism.

But that is what communism imposed. It takes away private property and then centrally plans the economy.

Other than your declaration you're against central planning, you offer no other means of solving the economic calculation and coordination problem within a communist system.

All you ever offer are declarations. No explanations.

Everything is designed in a way or other.

The federation itself is a central planning organization. You can call it a neighborhood, a factory, a unit, whatever, but it does the planning. And the individual is lost to the collective, the individual is a slave to the authority of the collective.

Say federation A produces shoes and federation B wheat. It is the federations' central planner who trade, not individuals.
Chris, in free market is the individual who has the power.

Again, I ask you?

Shareholders will exist in a free market system? Any system of shares will exist?

Or, everything will be an individual unit of production of only one person doing that. How are you going to organize it?

You repeat free market. But you are unable to go beyond the theory and explain the organization.

You are unable to tell me if there will be business in the same king of organizations as we have today.

if they will be. Is it not even worse? A person, the owner has the absolute power. You eliminate the individual power of choice.

You're doing exactly what I said earlier. Your taking what you see as a need to design and manage organization in your system and projecting it onto the free market. The free market is not designed, is not managed, it emerges naturally, spontaneously from the interaction of individuals.

One might say the free market is organic, whereas in communism the federation/.../unit is organized.

Now you might say but capitalism is organized and I agree, once the state comes into existence, once the state comes into play, it, the state, tries to design and manage--to organize--the economy--just as you communists do. That we might call state capitalism, as practiced in Europe, US, even China, Russia--just about everywhere replacing state communism.

But as a free market capitalist, a free market anarchist, I am against state capitalism of any form. So at best here, you have yet to criticize free markets, and have only criticised state capitalism.
I am not Marxist, Chris!

How do I have to say it? You demand me to criticise free market but you don't stop to attack me for something I've never defended. Whatever you say. I've never defended central power. NEVER. I attacked it many times, even in these forums. So, please stop saying lies about me.

Why do you think people gets tired of you and gets angry? Why do you think I started to behave as I've behaved the last days. I have a tolerance, don't spend it.

Chris I've criticized free market. I only mention the interactions that could exist in that environment.

PS: I've not read your whole answer, I got stuck where you accused me of something I am not.

MisterVeritis

05-31-2015, 10:14 AM

Thank you very much for your nice words.

I suppose you would behave like the ones of extreme centre that they demonstrated in Madrid two days ago and they attacked a photographer and cameras of a TV channel. They were protesting against the winners of the local elections of Madrid, that was a leftist coalition. :)

I think that you would be very friendly with them. People that wanted to fire the cameras of that channel. :) yeah, I think that you are a member of that non-violent and peaceful group.
This was nonsensical. I suppose you had to have been there.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:17 AM

Free market is too limited, too much restrictions. There is not enough freedom. I want something else, beyond that. More liberty.

How can you not see the word "free" in front of market? "Free" there implies no restriction. "Free" there implies absolute liberty.

This is why it is so difficult to have a discussion with you. You deliberately distort words to their opposite meaning. It is the standard practice of a propagandist.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:21 AM

I am not Marxist, Chris!

How do I have to say it? You demand me to criticise free market but you don't stop to attack me for something I've never defended. Whatever you say. I've never defended central power. NEVER. I attacked it many times, even in these forums. So, please stop saying lies about me.

Why do you think people gets tired of you and gets angry? Why do you think I started to behave as I've behaved the last days. I have a tolerance, don't spend it.

PS: I've not read your whole answer, I got stuck where you accused me of something I am not.

I didn't say you're a Marxist. Though it is readily evident in most of what you say you are following Marxist principles albeit unwittingly.

No one is stopping you from criticizing the free market. But don't criticize state capitalism and tell me you're criticizing the free market. And don't change the meaning of free to it's opposite and tell me you're criticizing the free market. Don't, as Judge Judy would say about now, pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I imagine you get angry because I expose your propagandist nonsense.

You haven't read it because you cannot argue with it other than to distract with feigned insult and semantic games.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 10:22 AM

How can you not see the word "free" in front of market? "Free" there implies no restriction. "Free" there implies absolute liberty.

This is why it is so difficult to have a discussion with you. You deliberately distort words to their opposite meaning. It is the standard practice of a propagandist.
Chris. I don't distort words.

What is the problem in saying that free market is not my ideal of freedom? What is the problem in saying that free market is a system that restricts freedom because it is based in private property and capital?

Is some distortion of free market what I've said?

Chris, I've explained many times that theory and practice are not the same thing. You are stuck in the theory. You are unable to see that many of the problems I mention could happen in the free market.

You close in your theory and you say, no, no that won't happen, never it will happen. Free market will be free and no person will coerce in any way to others because it goes against free market.

Theory, Chris. Reality is much more harsh than that.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 10:30 AM

I didn't say you're a Marxist. Though it is readily evident in most of what you say you are following Marxist principles albeit unwittingly.

No one is stopping you from criticizing the free market. But don't criticize state capitalism and tell me you're criticizing the free market. And don't change the meaning of free to it's opposite and tell me you're criticizing the free market. Don't, as Judge Judy would say about now, pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I imagine you get angry because I expose your propagandist nonsense.

You haven't read it because you cannot argue with it other than to distract with feigned insult and semantic games.
Well, in the end I read it :)

However I didn't edit the comment.

You are calling me authoritarian communist. And you believe I follow the marxism. I don't. That I coincide with them in many analysis of the situation, it is not strange. We drink from very similar ideas: socialism. Just we differ in the implementation.

Chris, as you say, free market has never been implemented. I can only work in suppositions that could happen. They may be wrong or not. But I don't have any real basis to study it. Only the theory, and the theory is very inexact. So, according to what free market writers have written I have to extract conclusions.

You don't agree with them. Good, but don't tell me I don't criticize free market because during the whole time with talked I've presented you monopolies that appear in a pure or almost free market system, like Google or Microsoft. It is an example, how one of the affirmations of free market is wrong. In free market systems can exist monopolies.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:37 AM

Chris. I don't distort words.

What is the problem in saying that free market is not my ideal of freedom? What is the problem in saying that free market is a system that restricts freedom because it is based in private property and capital?

Is some distortion of free market what I've said?

Chris, I've explained many times that theory and practice are not the same thing. You are stuck in the theory. You are unable to see that many of the problems I mention could happen in the free market.

You close in your theory and you say, no, no that won't happen, never it will happen. Free market will be free and no person will coerce in any way to others because it goes against free market.

Theory, Chris. Reality is much more harsh than that.

I don't distort words.

When you say free markets are not free you are distorting words and there meanings. Basically what you said to Peter was free markets are not free I want free markets. Se how utterly nonsensical that is? No, you probably don't.

Is some distortion of free market what I've said?

I have gone on at length in this thread and 100s more like it and you ignore and just keep repeating your declarations the free market is not free.

Oh, wow, the theory rhetoric.

Do you even know what a theory is? I think you use theory in the sense Marx would, a declaration of what you would like to see. A better word for that is wishful thinking. To me a theory is a description and prediction based on the real world.

Here, let's narrow this down. You declare the free market is not free. What on earth do you even mean by that? Do more than merely make declarative statements. Explain, argue, tell us what you mean.

But start here: The free market is the emergent social order from the interaction of individuals exchanging goods and services for what they value more. How is that not free.

And if you criticize some other system, then you are not criticizing the free market but something else.

Go ahead, try, focus on just that.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 10:43 AM

When you say free markets are not free you are distorting words and there meanings. Basically what you said to Peter was free markets are not free I want free markets. Se how utterly nonsensical that is? No, you probably don't.

I have gone on at length in this thread and 100s more like it and you ignore and just keep repeating your declarations the free market is not free.

Oh, wow, the theory rhetoric.

Do you even know what a theory is? I think you use theory in the sense Marx would, a declaration of what you would like to see. A better word for that is wishful thinking. To me a theory is a description and prediction based on the real world.

Here, let's narrow this down. You declare the free market is not free. What on earth do you even mean by that? Do more than merely make declarative statements. Explain, argue, tell us what you mean.

But start here: The free market is the emergent social order from the interaction of individuals exchanging goods and services for what they value more. How is that not free.

And if you criticize some other system, then you are not criticizing the free market but something else.

Go ahead, try, focus on just that.
In science. Economy, politics, sociology are not science.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:44 AM

Well, in the end I read it :)

However I didn't edit the comment.

You are calling me authoritarian communist. And you believe I follow the marxism. I don't. That I coincide with them in many analysis of the situation, it is not strange. We drink from very similar ideas: socialism. Just we differ in the implementation.

Chris, as you say, free market has never been implemented. I can only work in suppositions that could happen. They may be wrong or not. But I don't have any real basis to study it. Only the theory, and the theory is very inexact. So, according to what free market writers have written I have to extract conclusions.

You don't agree with them. Good, but don't tell me I don't criticize free market because during the whole time with talked I've presented you monopolies that appear in a pure or almost free market system, like Google or Microsoft. It is an example, how one of the affirmations of free market is wrong. In free market systems can exist monopolies.

That I coincide with them in many analysis of the situation, it is not strange.

Now you understand my words.

free market has never been implemented.

No, the free market is what states try to regulate. It is the emergent social order from the interaction of individuals exchanging goods and services for what they value more.

I've presented you monopolies that appear in a pure or almost free market

Monopolies exist only because the state exists. In a state capitalism system like the US, they are created by and protected by the state. In a purely statist system like communism, the federation is the sole monopoly.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:45 AM

In science. Economy, politics, sociology are not science.

You can't do it, can you, you must distract and digress, rather than address what I ask you to focus on. So again:

Here, let's narrow this down. You declare the free market is not free. What on earth do you even mean by that? Do more than merely make declarative statements. Explain, argue, tell us what you mean.

But start here: The free market is the emergent social order from the interaction of individuals exchanging goods and services for what they value more. How is that not free.

And if you criticize some other system, then you are not criticizing the free market but something else.

Go ahead, try, focus on just that.

Chris

05-31-2015, 10:59 AM

This is a description: The free market is the emergent social order from the interaction of individuals exchanging goods and services for what they value more. How is that not free.

I work for a company by mutually agreed on contract. The company pays me a salary because they value what I do more than the salary and benefits they pay out, and conversely, I value the salary and benefits more than the time and effort I give out to them. This is an example of the free market description I give.

A neighbor stopped by and wanted to borrow my lawn mower and said in exchange he would give me a hydraulic pump. I don't really have use for it but know another neighbor who does and will exchange some time cutting up a tree blown down in a recent storm. This is an example of the free market description I give.

In order to cut up the tree I went to a stored and exchange money for a chainsaw. They valued my money more than the chainsaw and I the converse. This is an example of the free market description I give.

I could go on all day long giving you examples of the free market.

It is a description of what people do.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 11:28 AM

Now you understand my words.

No, the free market is what states try to regulate. It is the emergent social order from the interaction of individuals exchanging goods and services for what they value more.

Monopolies exist only because the state exists. In a state capitalism system like the US, they are created by and protected by the state. In a purely statist system like communism, the federation is the sole monopoly.
I gave examples like Microsoft or Google. They emerged without interference from government.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 11:34 AM

Chris

05-31-2015, 11:40 AM

Chris, exactly that is what I criticize. Exactly this fucking system.

Exactly this shit you've described is the one I am against:

- Wages
- Bosses
- Owners of means of production

That is not freedom.

Well, as I've told you some times, I defend a system that goes further: Free gift.

I don't defend the fucking system.

Let me know when you have criticism of the free market. It is noted that you refuse to address my description of the free market but instead repeat your propaganda.

If wages, bosses and owners are arrived at freely, voluntarily, mutually agree upon contracts, then it is free.

Under communism the federation would set wages, act as bosses, and own the means of production. It would not be arrived at freely by individuals who would be slaves to the collective.

Chris

05-31-2015, 11:43 AM

I gave examples like Microsoft or Google. They emerged without interference from government.

They are corporations. Corporations are legally defined by government.

In a free market competition would prevent their becoming monopolies. It is only by government regulation and protection that they even come anywhere near being monopolies in any economic sense: Restricting production, raising prices, they in fact do the opposite.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 11:47 AM

I don't defend the fucking system.

Let me know when you have criticism of the free market. It is noted that you refuse to address my description of the free market but instead repeat your propaganda.

If wages, bosses and owners are arrived at freely, voluntarily, mutually agree upon contracts, then it is free.

Under communism the federation would set wages, act as bosses, and own the means of production. It would not be arrived at freely by individuals who would be slaves to the collective.
I ask you, the federation what is?

For example. Let's say we have the factory in town Milos. How do you think would be organized as a federation and as a corporation (or an enterprise or whatever)? Which system do you believe is slave of what?

In this way, I believe it may permit me to don't go circles and advance.

Federation model:

Business (enterprise) model:

Chris

05-31-2015, 11:51 AM

I ask you, the federation what is?

For example. Let's say we have the factory in town Milos. How do you think would be organized as a federation and as a corporation (or an enterprise or whatever)? Which system do you believe is slave of what?

In this way, I believe it may permit me to don't go circles and advance.

Federation model:

Business (enterprise) model:

Under your federation model, the federation would own the factory, manage it, pay if not wages then whatever it is worked get for their work, what food, clothing, shelter--thought they couldn't own property.

I find it odd that I'm asked to describe your system--can't you?

I'm not arguing for business, I'm arguing for free market, remember? Here in the US, Republicans tend to argue pro-business, Democrats anti-business (though they too are pro-business), and libertarians are pro-market. If you don't understand the difference it only shows you really don't criticize free markets.

Chris

05-31-2015, 12:18 PM

According to Basic Kropotkin (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/kropotkin_history_of_anarchism.html)

Kropotkin seems to have acknowledged these two ways of looking at anarchism. In his famous article on anarchism for the Encyclopedia Britannica (1910), Kropotkin defined anarchism as:

“A principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government – harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being” (KRP 289).

Society is thus envisaged as an interwoven network of an infinite variety of groups and associations at various levels of federation (local, regional, national, international) organised for a variety of different purposes and functions. Elsewhere, he gives another succinct definition of an anarchist society.

“The anarchists conceive a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated, not by laws, nor by authorities, whether self-imposed or elected, but by mutual agreements between members of that society and by a sum of social customs and habits – not petrified by law, routine or superstition, but continually developing and continually re-adjusted in accordance with the ever-growing requirements of a free life stimulated by the progress of science, invention, and the steady growth of higher ideals” (KRP 157).

(Kropotkin admitted that no society had ever existed which fully expressed these principles).

First off, if we are to, as you do above, dismiss theories of non-existent systems, then we should dismiss what Kropotkin says outright.

But I find his words useful because I am saying above and elsewhere basically the same thing as he is--with two exceptions.

One, where he advocates organizing such a system by man, I advocate an organic system of men in society. Division of labor, specialization and trade have been a part of man in society as long as family, religion and property have. They are organic, they are natural, and the outcome of that is what I call the free market.

Two, where he advocates public/collective ownership of property, I advocate individual/private ownership because that naturally solves the economic calculation and coordination problems no man-made organized federation can possibly do.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 01:15 PM

According to Basic Kropotkin (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/kropotkin_history_of_anarchism.html)

First off, if we are to, as you do above, dismiss theories of non-existent systems, then we should dismiss what Kropotkin says outright.

But I find his words useful because I am saying above and elsewhere basically the same thing as he is--with two exceptions.

One, where he advocates organizing such a system by man, I advocate an organic system of men in society. Division of labor, specialization and trade have been a part of man in society as long as family, religion and property have. They are organic, they are natural, and the outcome of that is what I call the free market.

Two, where he advocates public/collective ownership of property, I advocate individual/private ownership because that naturally solves the economic calculation and coordination problems no man-made organized federation can possibly do.
Chris. What the hell I've been defending the whole thread?

I know. I have a barrier of expression to make me understand. It is the conclusion.

By the way, I don't want to quote the previous comment you did just for asking you a question (because it links with the quote you did). What is a federation? Who is the federation? Going to the example of the factory.

About the market. Chris, free market leads to formation of business. In the end, it is pro business.

But what is more important, what says Kropotkin is what I've been trying to say the whole time.

PS: I don't outright dismiss theories. Anarchism is more theoric than practical however there are many shows of practical anarchism. Mainly in Europe.

And some insurrectionary anarchism in America.

Offtopic: What do you think of some individualist anarchists that would use violence to achieve their goals (for example I think that the insurrectionary anarchism would use violence). (I think this coud be an interesting topic: The violence of some anarchist groups, unabomber and others, however I admit I don't have many knowledge about it, but maybe later we can discuss it, after dinner I may create a thread or you ;) ).

Chris

05-31-2015, 01:41 PM

Chris. What the hell I've been defending the whole thread?

I know. I have a barrier of expression to make me understand. It is the conclusion.

By the way, I don't want to quote the previous comment you did just for asking you a question (because it links with the quote you did). What is a federation? Who is the federation? Going to the example of the factory.

About the market. Chris, free market leads to formation of business. In the end, it is pro business.

But what is more important, what says Kropotkin is what I've been trying to say the whole time.

PS: I don't outright dismiss theories. Anarchism is more theoric than practical however there are many shows of practical anarchism. Mainly in Europe.

And some insurrectionary anarchism in America.

Offtopic: What do you think of some individualist anarchists that would use violence to achieve their goals (for example I think that the insurrectionary anarchism would use violence). (I think this coud be an interesting topic: The violence of some anarchist groups, unabomber and others, however I admit I don't have many knowledge about it, but maybe later we can discuss it, after dinner I may create a thread or you ;) ).

What is a federation? Who is the federation? Going to the example of the factory.

A federation is the collective that has authority over the individual. Kropotkin said none exists so I can't give examples. Hell, you can't even define.

...free market leads to formation of business. In the end, it is pro business.

You are talking about something I'm not talking about again. You might as well talk to yourself. And, once again, all you do is make a declaration. Where's your description, where's your facts and argument? Nothing, just mere declaration.

Now I will agree that by voluntary free market exchange anyone can accumulate wealth and thereby begin a business, the rich kid or the poor. Seems to me you want to deprive the poor any chance of doing this.

Pro-market is simply not pro-business. That is just another one of your twisting meanings.

I don't outright dismiss theories.

I understand that, you're OK with your theories, just not anyone else's.

what says Kropotkin is what I've been trying to say the whole time

Yes, except what he says is what I say other than the two differences I enumerated above. You seem to have nothing against what I actually say, only what you say.

I am a noninterventionist.

The unibomber wasn't an anarchist. He was crazy.

Does anyone notice I'm the only one presenting information here? I'm even presenting Kilgram's side by citing Kropotkin. And do so to avoid arguing straw men the way he does.

kilgram

05-31-2015, 01:50 PM

They are corporations. Corporations are legally defined by government.

In a free market competition would prevent their becoming monopolies. It is only by government regulation and protection that they even come anywhere near being monopolies in any economic sense: Restricting production, raising prices, they in fact do the opposite.

Google is a recent corporation. They have adopted that because it is fiscally better.

But without being defined as corporation they would have the market.

Chris

05-31-2015, 02:05 PM

Google is a recent corporation. They have adopted that because it is fiscally better.

But without being defined as corporation they would have the market.

They are not a monopoly. Do they restrict production? No. Have they raised prices? No, search is free.

Here's Nozik's Wilt Chamberlain problem. Begin by redistributing wealth anyway you like, take all wealth and divide it up equally. Then there's Wilt Chamberlain, a very skill basketball player. People want to see him play and will pay good money to do so. And they do. In time all the wealth will be redistributed to Wilt.

That's just the way the world is.

Of course, there are many competing basketball stars, many competing sports, many competing businesses. But the same applies, they provide people something they want and are willing to pay for.

BTW, Wilt was not rich to begin with. Pencilsword in reverse.

Yet you would deny this to him and others, you would insist it is not fair, you would insist it is slavery and not free, and then impose your communism on everyone.

The Sage of Main Street

05-31-2015, 03:11 PM

In science. Economy, politics, sociology are not science. They are primitive sciences, like alchemy. Yet they are preached by conceited authoritarians as if our self-anointed private-sector rulers' simple-minded theories have reached their greatest and wisest development. The pride of their witch doctors (brujos), who pose as pontificating professors, comes from being supported by the concentrated power of the Wall Street kleptocracy.

In our time, they are desperate. They took a wrong turn after World War II by instituting exclusivity. Their final policy is to take away the will of the people for economic self-determination, not compromising and stripping away the rights won when the majority was more defiant. The reason they have come to this last stand is that they started putting inferior people in superior positions. Such favoritism has sapped their power and drained them of productive human resources. So now they have to concentrate all the power they have left on brainwashing and bullying.

kilgram

06-01-2015, 08:12 AM

A federation is the collective that has authority over the individual. Kropotkin said none exists so I can't give examples. Hell, you can't even define.
Chris what is a federation, who is the federation?

Chris the federation only has "power" in the federation and the federation are all the members of the federation.

You defend many kind of group powers over individual like religion, family,...

The federation is the form of organize the words that you quoted of Kropotkin. It is your problem, Chris. You don't see how people need to organize themselves to take decisions.

You would leave that an individual decide for a whole group. In change, I defend a system where everybody has the power to decide.

Chris if we are coworkers in a factory of 10 people. The federation is all 10. And we decide everything that is in the factory, it means, how we produce, what we produce, the quantity, we decide with who we negotiate to get the resources to manufacture what we are manufacturing.

Can you explain me how the federation takes over the individual if the federation are all us 10.

You are talking about something I'm not talking about again. You might as well talk to yourself. And, once again, all you do is make a declaration. Where's your description, where's your facts and argument? Nothing, just mere declaration.

Now I will agree that by voluntary free market exchange anyone can accumulate wealth and thereby begin a business, the rich kid or the poor. Seems to me you want to deprive the poor any chance of doing this.

Pro-market is simply not pro-business. That is just another one of your twisting meanings.
It is your belief.

I understand that, you're OK with your theories, just not anyone else's.
As you are OK only with your own theories.

Yes, except what he says is what I say other than the two differences I enumerated above. You seem to have nothing against what I actually say, only what you say.

[QUOTE]I am a noninterventionist.

The unibomber wasn't an anarchist. He was crazy.
It is something that came into my mind and as ¡t came I commented it.

Does anyone notice I'm the only one presenting information here? I'm even presenting Kilgram's side by citing Kropotkin. And do so to avoid arguing straw men the way he does.
And I won't do. It is not my style.

I won't going to lose time looking for documentation for discussions in a forum. If I post some source will be when I was lucky and I met with this documentation and I am going to post at the same moment I found it. I am not going to do any active research. Get used to it.

As I said, it is a game. I don't take it so seriously to need to do some research to contrast my opinions. It is not a formal discussion.

Archer0915

06-01-2015, 08:25 AM

Hey I got a reality for ya! I was the poor kid! I was the one who had to take care of his own work! I was the one who did whatever he could to make a buck.

I dont need to hear all this sob-sob shit!

Chris

06-01-2015, 08:37 AM

Chris what is a federation, who is the federation?

Chris the federation only has "power" in the federation and the federation are all the members of the federation.

You defend many kind of group powers over individual like religion, family,...

The federation is the form of organize the words that you quoted of Kropotkin. It is your problem, Chris. You don't see how people need to organize themselves to take decisions.

You would leave that an individual decide for a whole group. In change, I defend a system where everybody has the power to decide.

Chris if we are coworkers in a factory of 10 people. The federation is all 10. And we decide everything that is in the factory, it means, how we produce, what we produce, the quantity, we decide with who we negotiate to get the resources to manufacture what we are manufacturing.

Can you explain me how the federation takes over the individual if the federation are all us 10.

It is your belief.

As you are OK only with your own theories.

Yes, except what he says is what I say other than the two differences I enumerated above. You seem to have nothing against what I actually say, only what you say.

It is something that came into my mind and as ¡t came I commented it.

And I won't do. It is not my style.

I won't going to lose time looking for documentation for discussions in a forum. If I post some source will be when I was lucky and I met with this documentation and I am going to post at the same moment I found it. I am not going to do any active research. Get used to it.

As I said, it is a game. I don't take it so seriously to need to do some research to contrast my opinions. It is not a formal discussion.

Chris the federation only has "power" in the federation and the federation are all the members of the federation.

Authoritarian power. It owns the means of production, hands out work, determines whose work is worth what. The individual is a slave to it.

You defend many kind of group powers over individual like religion, family,..

Add free market. Yes, I defend natural, non-coercive powers. I am against man designing and managing society as your federations are. No different than the state.

The federation is the form of organize the words that you quoted of Kropotkin. It is your problem, Chris. You don't see how people need to organize themselves to take decisions.

There are natural organizations and there are artificial ones. What you describe goes beyond Kropotkin who was libertarian.

You would leave that an individual decide for a whole group.

Incorrect. I want the individual in charge of himself and his property alone to decide how he interacts with society.

In change, I defend a system where everybody has the power to decide.

If everyone is in charge then no one is, not even the individual. Instead the collective, run by a few elites--Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba--rules over individuals.

I think you think the collective can somehow know the will of the people and represent it. But that is not possible.

Chris if we are coworkers in a factory of 10 people. The federation is all 10. And we decide everything that is in the factory, it means, how we produce, what we produce, the quantity, we decide with who we negotiate to get the resources to manufacture what we are manufacturing.

And if I as one of the 10 disagree with the other 9 what happens? If I have this absolute freedom you believe in then the group is stuck, it cannot act--or it acts overruling me.

Can you explain me how the federation takes over the individual if the federation are all us 10.

You have heard this explanation. I have presented this very problem to you dozens of times and you have never solved it other than to argue that reason will result in agreement. But how can this be? The group is making a decision about the future for which no one has any reasonable knowledge, each comes to the discussion with their own reasonable insights. There may be agreement, true, but there may be disagreement: How does your system deal with dissention? This you have never addressed.

It is your belief.

When you declare pro-market is pro-business then, no, it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of the meaning of words. Pro-market is something different from pro-business.

It is my belief that you say that to deflect from the fact you cannot address the difference for to address it would put a crack in the facade of your pretending not to understand my descriptions and examples of the free market. Once you admit some understanding of what I am describing and exampling you would have to argue with it instead of your state capitalist strawman.

As you are OK only with your own theories.

We ought to be arguing theories but you won't address what I describe and example, you argue with your theory of capitalism instead, a theory derived from Marx.

And I won't do. It is not my style.

Yes, I know, you are one to make declaration and not support them with explanations and examples.

One other comment, kilgram, I notice that each time I narrow discussion down to a single point, you expand it to a dozen or more. Interesting tactic to avoid being pinned down. But I suggest we focus on one thing at a time. For now, how your idea of a federation would handle dissent, dissention being a very important aspect of liberty. Address that. Focus on it.

kilgram

06-01-2015, 11:40 AM

Authoritarian power. It owns the means of production, hands out work, determines whose work is worth what. The individual is a slave to it.
The federation is of 10 people of the factory.
This factory has 10 workers. And the 10 workers determine what they do with the means of production. Shit, I don't see how an individual can be slave to himself. Because those 10 workers are the federation.

Seriously, if you guess a way where people have more control, I am all hears.

Add free market. Yes, I defend natural, non-coercive powers. I am against man designing and managing society as your federations are. No different than the state.
You repeat free market. But you don't profundize. You border the theory. You use only the nice words. You deny when I approach to things could happen.

But, ok, you want to discuss my federation.

There are natural organizations and there are artificial ones. What you describe goes beyond Kropotkin who was libertarian.
And what do you think he was describing?

Incorrect. I want the individual in charge of himself and his property alone to decide how he interacts with society.
Ok, welcome to society. Because I tell you that there will appear organizational structures and depending of the basis of the society they will be authoritarian or libertarian. If the roots of the society is vertical, hierarchal or pyramidal I assure you that when the interactions become grower it will lead to some kind of authoritarian structure with few people deciding for the majority. Authoritarism.

And for example, going back to the example of the bridge of the town. You solved it by the owners of the land decided to create the bridge without asking anyone else. It is imposing their will to the rest of the people of the town that they wanted a tunnel.

If everyone is in charge then no one is, not even the individual. Instead the collective, run by a few elites--Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba--rules over individuals.

I think you think the collective can somehow know the will of the people and represent it. But that is not possible.
Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba are dictatorships. How can you come to talk me about dictatorships? Seriously.

There is no collective in power.

I remember you that Soviet Union killed (murdered) the members of the soviets to prevent the people have power. It is history. Yes, the vanguard was afraid of the soviets, and for this they attacked them to destroy it.

And if I as one of the 10 disagree with the other 9 what happens? If I have this absolute freedom you believe in then the group is stuck, it cannot act--or it acts overruling me.
Ok, Chris.

I am going to make you a question. You've said that you are a worker, right? You work for someone else, right? Do you agree with everything that your boss tells to do?

You have heard this explanation. I have presented this very problem to you dozens of times and you have never solved it other than to argue that reason will result in agreement. But how can this be? The group is making a decision about the future for which no one has any reasonable knowledge, each comes to the discussion with their own reasonable insights. There may be agreement, true, but there may be disagreement: How does your system deal with dissention? This you have never addressed.
I cannot adress to this. I've given you many times possible solutions.

When you declare pro-market is pro-business then, no, it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of the meaning of words. Pro-market is something different from pro-business.
Ok, I am going to admit here. Explain me the difference, because the reality is I don't see it. I see a capitalist system and I cannot imagine it without business. Sorry, I cannot. It is impossible for me.

Because you've always have talked about business for example the small business like exchange (I don't remember the objects that you used as example in the one you talked about exchange for example a pencil for pen) It is a small business.

It is my belief that you say that to deflect from the fact you cannot address the difference for to address it would put a crack in the facade of your pretending not to understand my descriptions and examples of the free market. Once you admit some understanding of what I am describing and exampling you would have to argue with it instead of your state capitalist strawman.
I give you back your strawman. Are you not arguing me with your marxist strawman (Cuba, URSS...)?

Supposing that I do that, why cannot I argue as you argue me?

We ought to be arguing theories but you won't address what I describe and example, you argue with your theory of capitalism instead, a theory derived from Marx.
Theory as valid as yours based in Austrian School.

Yes, I know, you are one to make declaration and not support them with explanations and examples.
I've given many examples.

The problem is that when I've done it, the thread has become desserted. I am tired that when I produce an elaborated post it becomes absolutely ignored. But when I do simple posts, they are very answered. So, as a person that likes to discuss and not being ignored I don't elaborate too much my posts. And then I get attention and answers :)

Yeah, I am an attention whore ;)

One other comment, kilgram, I notice that each time I narrow discussion down to a single point, you expand it to a dozen or more. Interesting tactic to avoid being pinned down. But I suggest we focus on one thing at a time. For now, how your idea of a federation would handle dissent, dissention being a very important aspect of liberty. Address that. Focus on it.
One way is until people established absolute agreement. It is possible in small groups :)

And how would you handle dissent in your free market system?

I remember that you talked about religion, family... Ok, how in the family handle dissent? I remember you, that a family can be a federation (at least in my idea of federation :) )

Chris

06-01-2015, 12:02 PM

The federation is of 10 people of the factory.
This factory has 10 workers. And the 10 workers determine what they do with the means of production. Shit, I don't see how an individual can be slave to himself. Because those 10 workers are the federation.

Seriously, if you guess a way where people have more control, I am all hears.

You repeat free market. But you don't profundize. You border the theory. You use only the nice words. You deny when I approach to things could happen.

But, ok, you want to discuss my federation.

And what do you think he was describing?

Ok, welcome to society. Because I tell you that there will appear organizational structures and depending of the basis of the society they will be authoritarian or libertarian. If the roots of the society is vertical, hierarchal or pyramidal I assure you that when the interactions become grower it will lead to some kind of authoritarian structure with few people deciding for the majority. Authoritarism.

And for example, going back to the example of the bridge of the town. You solved it by the owners of the land decided to create the bridge without asking anyone else. It is imposing their will to the rest of the people of the town that they wanted a tunnel.

Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba are dictatorships. How can you come to talk me about dictatorships? Seriously.

There is no collective in power.

I remember you that Soviet Union killed (murdered) the members of the soviets to prevent the people have power. It is history. Yes, the vanguard was afraid of the soviets, and for this they attacked them to destroy it.

Ok, Chris.

I am going to make you a question. You've said that you are a worker, right? You work for someone else, right? Do you agree with everything that your boss tells to do?

I cannot adress to this. I've given you many times possible solutions.

Ok, I am going to admit here. Explain me the difference, because the reality is I don't see it. I see a capitalist system and I cannot imagine it without business. Sorry, I cannot. It is impossible for me.

Because you've always have talked about business for example the small business like exchange (I don't remember the objects that you used as example in the one you talked about exchange for example a pencil for pen) It is a small business.

I give you back your strawman. Are you not arguing me with your marxist strawman (Cuba, URSS...)?

Supposing that I do that, why cannot I argue as you argue me?

Theory as valid as yours based in Austrian School.

I've given many examples.

The problem is that when I've done it, the thread has become desserted. I am tired that when I produce an elaborated post it becomes absolutely ignored. But when I do simple posts, they are very answered. So, as a person that likes to discuss and not being ignored I don't elaborate too much my posts. And then I get attention and answers :)

Yeah, I am an attention whore ;)

One way is until people established absolute agreement. It is possible in small groups :)

And how would you handle dissent in your free market system?

I remember that you talked about religion, family... Ok, how in the family handle dissent? I remember you, that a family can be a federation (at least in my idea of federation :) )

First thing to note is that you once again throw spaghetti at the wall, instead of focusing, you distract with 100 different directions. Instead of focusing on the one key issue where your federation fails, dissent, you distract.

Again, given a federation of 10 people who must agree on how to use resources, how do they deal with dissent? How do they deal with the lone wolf individual who disagrees with the other 9? Are they stuck and unable to move forward, or does the collective overrule the liberty of the individual to dissent?

Answer.

The problem does not exist in the free market.

kilgram

06-01-2015, 12:11 PM

First thing to note is that you once again throw spaghetti at the wall, instead of focusing, you distract with 100 different directions. Instead of focusing on the one key issue where your federation fails, dissent, you distract.

Again, given a federation of 10 people who must agree on how to use resources, how do they deal with dissent? How do they deal with the lone wolf individual who disagrees with the other 9? Are they stuck and unable to move forward, or does the collective overrule the liberty of the individual to dissent?

Answer.

The problem does not exist in the free market.
The problem in free market is solved by a simple way

The owner decides everything without discussion.

In the Federation all members are owners so they must arrive to agreement. How they do that, it is their decision. And yes, they can get stuck until everyone agrees. Or they can use majority to decide that is better choice than the owner decides for the rest 9.

In free market, I am the owner and the rest 9 work for me, therefore my decision overrides any decision of the other 9. Even, I don't have ti listen them in any way.

The problem is that in society always you have to concede to others. It is impossible to do anything else.

Archer0915

06-01-2015, 12:14 PM

Mister D

06-01-2015, 12:25 PM

Archer0915

06-01-2015, 12:29 PM

What about your freedom!? :shocked:

What he does not understand is, his freedoms end where mine begin. People can be as free as they want as long as it does not encroach on others.

Still I would like a neighbor like kilgram. I would use his car, his tools, his water...

kilgram

06-01-2015, 12:31 PM

What he does not understand is, his freedoms end where mine begin. People can be as free as they want as long as it does not encroach on others.

Still I would like a neighbor like kilgram. I would use his car, his tools, his water...
No, in this system. I would acuse you of stealing me :)

Sorry, every attitude for every system. This system is egotist. And I will behave in pure egotism :)

Probably you could do that. Just you should ask for it and if I don't use it, I would not have any problem. Sharing is a great thing.

Mister D

06-01-2015, 12:35 PM

What he does not understand is, his freedoms end where mine begin. People can be as free as they want as long as it does not encroach on others.

Still I would like a neighbor like kilgram. I would use his car, his tools, his water...

Where my freedom begins and your freedom ends isn't a question we can really answer. It's a major problem with this conception of freedom and individualism.

Archer0915

06-01-2015, 12:39 PM

No, in this system. I would acuse you of stealing me :)

Sorry, every attitude for every system. This system is egotist. And I will behave in pure egotism :)

Probably you could do that. Just you should ask for it and if I don't use it, I would not have any problem. Sharing is a great thing.

Now I could handle that! You can use my chain saw and I can use your string trimmer.

Chris

06-01-2015, 12:41 PM

The problem in free market is solved by a simple way

The owner decides everything without discussion.

In the Federation all members are owners so they must arrive to agreement. How they do that, it is their decision. And yes, they can get stuck until everyone agrees. Or they can use majority to decide that is better choice than the owner decides for the rest 9.

In free market, I am the owner and the rest 9 work for me, therefore my decision overrides any decision of the other 9. Even, I don't have ti listen them in any way.

The problem is that in society always you have to concede to others. It is impossible to do anything else.

So your answer is:

In the Federation all members are owners so they must arrive to agreement. How they do that, it is their decision. And yes, they can get stuck until everyone agrees. Or they can use majority to decide that is better choice than the owner decides for the rest 9.

If they get stuck then they fail.

If the majority forces the dissented to comply, they have lost liberty.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Q.E.D.

http://i.snag.gy/c6r4K.jpg

In the free market your decision is only about you and your property. You could get stuck by being indecisive, but it only affects you. You are not deciding for others and their property, they are free to decide for themselves and their property.

The problem with your criticism is you have projected the collectivism of your federation onto the free market. You are in effect criticising your own federation system.

Archer0915

06-01-2015, 12:42 PM

Where my freedom begins and your freedom ends isn't a question we can really answer. It's a major problem with this conception of freedom and individualism.

I think there is a balance. Let us go extreme here. If you protest gets in the way of me getting where I need to go, you and I are both fucked. I am not going to put up with your shit, run your ass over and I will go to jail.

Chris

06-01-2015, 12:43 PM

No, in this system. I would acuse you of stealing me :)

Sorry, every attitude for every system. This system is egotist. And I will behave in pure egotism :)

Probably you could do that. Just you should ask for it and if I don't use it, I would not have any problem. Sharing is a great thing.

This too is self-defeating. You assume an attitude and then demolish it as inappropriate.

Chris

06-01-2015, 01:00 PM

Where my freedom begins and your freedom ends isn't a question we can really answer. It's a major problem with this conception of freedom and individualism.

Individualism is a funny thing. If you read de Tocqueville it is an ideology that leads to the problems of modern democracy--the democracy of the collective of Kilgram's federation. Critics of de Tocqueville however say American individualism as almost the opposite, as a way of life almost the outcome of democracy and a wild west where you had to rely on yourself--perhaps called rugged individualism. The problem with both views in the extreme is one subsumes the individual in the collective and in the other extreme the collective in the individual so to speak, in one the collective is absolute, in the other the individual.

My view is you have to take the individual in his social context. Society emerges as much from the interaction of individuals in society as society in turn defines the individual.

But the individual is a modern notion.

kilgram

06-01-2015, 01:52 PM

So your answer is:

If they get stuck then they fail.

If the majority forces the dissented to comply, they have lost liberty.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Q.E.D.

http://i.snag.gy/c6r4K.jpg

In the free market your decision is only about you and your property. You could get stuck by being indecisive, but it only affects you. You are not deciding for others and their property, they are free to decide for themselves and their property.

The problem with your criticism is you have projected the collectivism of your federation onto the free market. You are in effect criticising your own federation system.
No, Chris.

In free market the owner of the means of production has absolute power. And all the decisions are in the hands of the owner, that it is usually one person.

Later, there are a lot of people that they are under that person. They don't have any freedom except the freedom that the owner of the means of production give to them.

You also forget that you will have to forge relationships. In free market, you have two levels, owners and non-owners. The owners will have to negotiate between them. Probably they are going to adapt the same form of organization I am proposing when they are equals. For example an owner of X company with A resources that needs to negotiate to get B resources from Y company.

It is exactly what I am saying. A system where everybody is owner and therefore everybody has to negotiate with everybody.

Archer0915

06-01-2015, 01:58 PM

kilgram

06-01-2015, 01:58 PM

This too is self-defeating. You assume an attitude and then demolish it as inappropriate.
It was a little trolling answer :)

Mister D

06-01-2015, 02:05 PM

Individualism is a funny thing. If you read de Tocqueville it is an ideology that leads to the problems of modern democracy--the democracy of the collective of Kilgram's federation. Critics of de Tocqueville however say American individualism as almost the opposite, as a way of life almost the outcome of democracy and a wild west where you had to rely on yourself--perhaps called rugged individualism. The problem with both views in the extreme is one subsumes the individual in the collective and in the other extreme the collective in the individual so to speak, in one the collective is absolute, in the other the individual.

My view is you have to take the individual in his social context. Society emerges as much from the interaction of individuals in society as society in turn defines the individual.

But the individual is a modern notion.

Yes, IMO, the social context of individual identity is a critical fact.

Chris

06-01-2015, 02:09 PM

No, Chris.

In free market the owner of the means of production has absolute power. And all the decisions are in the hands of the owner, that it is usually one person.

Later, there are a lot of people that they are under that person. They don't have any freedom except the freedom that the owner of the means of production give to them.

You also forget that you will have to forge relationships. In free market, you have two levels, owners and non-owners. The owners will have to negotiate between them. Probably they are going to adapt the same form of organization I am proposing when they are equals. For example an owner of X company with A resources that needs to negotiate to get B resources from Y company.

It is exactly what I am saying. A system where everybody is owner and therefore everybody has to negotiate with everybody.

Again, you think you can argue by merely declaring something so. You declare, "In free market the owner of the means of production has absolute power," so it must be so, and to you that means the owner has absolute power over others.

Baloney, he does not.

Simple story. We're fisherman. We fish by hand. One day I come up with an invention, a net and with it I can catch ten times the fish of those who fish by hand. So I fish 1 day, and 9 days make nets. Now I offer the others use of my nets, but I want 1/10th of their catch. Because they gain 8 days off to spend as they choose, they take the offer. Freely, voluntarily. I have no power of them. They can fish by hand. But they choose to rent my nets.

But you would simply declare this slavery.

Your words are meaningless.

No, it is your federation you are criticising unwittingly. If your federation cannot reach agreement, it will get stuck and fail its members or use its absolute power to force dissenters into slavery.

Your rhetorical trick is as old as Plato and his simply declaring individuals selfish and the collective altruistic. It's baloney. Your collective fails, free market everyone wins.

Chris

06-01-2015, 02:14 PM

Yes, IMO, the social context of individual identity is a critical fact.

New book, Individualism: A Reader, Smith, Moore, Powell, eds.

And I still think the Scottish tradition of individualism organic, about the individual's place in society, as opposed to the French tradition that atomizes the individual and puts a collective over him.

Mister D

06-01-2015, 02:58 PM

New book, Individualism: A Reader, Smith, Moore, Powell, eds.

And I still think the Scottish tradition of individualism organic, about the individual's place in society, as opposed to the French tradition that atomizes the individual and puts a collective over him.

looks interesting. reminds me I have to place a new order soon. I read the blurb they have on Amazon. I don't think individualism is much criticized. I think it's deeply ingrained. So ingrained that the collectivists among us aren't conscious of it.

I wil certainly concede that the two have substantial differences.

The Sage of Main Street

06-01-2015, 03:02 PM

Chris

06-01-2015, 03:11 PM

looks interesting. reminds me I have to place a new order soon. I read the blurb they have on Amazon. I don't think individualism is much criticized. I think it's deeply ingrained. So ingrained that the collectivists among us aren't conscious of it.

I wil certainly concede that the two have substantial differences.

Only read the intro so far. There they collect criticisms. I think the rest of the book is a collection of historical essays that defend and expound on individualism.

Mister D

06-01-2015, 03:13 PM

Only read the intro so far. There they collect criticisms. I think the rest of the book is a collection of historical essays that defend and expound on individualism.

It's definitely criticized on a philosophical level but it's a dominant societal value.

Chris

06-01-2015, 03:15 PM

His "individualism" is really infantile self-obsession. I've heard that when babies turn their heads after looking at someone, they think he no longer exists.

His--meaning my--individualism is one rooted in society. Kilgram's is a pure abstraction that allows him to replace the individual by the collective. So yours is based on a baby's perceptions and short term memory?

Chris

06-01-2015, 03:18 PM

It's definitely criticized on a philosophical level but it's a dominant societal value.

Oh, yes, definitely. For a while I tried to steer clear of it, but I cannot. It's embedded in my thinking and I can't undo that. Even though I realize a couple few thousand years ago it had not meaning, was inconceivable, and is still in parts of the world like Japan and China, though Western influence is changing that too. But its very inescapableness demonstrates it comes not from me but the society around me, the culture I grew up in.

Mister D

06-01-2015, 03:43 PM

Oh, yes, definitely. For a while I tried to steer clear of it, but I cannot. It's embedded in my thinking and I can't undo that. Even though I realize a couple few thousand years ago it had not meaning, was inconceivable, and is still in parts of the world like Japan and China, though Western influence is changing that too. But its very inescapableness demonstrates it comes not from me but the society around me, the culture I grew up in.

I understand. Even though I'm now conscious of it and do not accept it as normative it probably still impacts my psychology in ways I'm not even aware of. I do find the modern tension between individualism as a value and community as a value very interesting particularly as it manifests itself in the collectivist phenomenon.

Chris

06-02-2015, 12:24 PM

Started listening to Michael Munger on Choosing in Groups (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/02/michael_munger_1.html) and it seemed a good way to cap off this discussion. These are Russ Robert's notes:

...I want to give credit to one of the philosophers about whom I feel most ambivalent, and that's Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He asked this great question, and that is: How can a man be both free and yet bound by wills not his own? Because when you choose in a group, unless the group is unanimous, it's likely that sometimes you are going to disagree with what they do. If you can only do one thing, even if it's going out for lunch, we can only do one thing and we are going to choose as a group, we might well choose a place that's not my most preferred. So, am I enslaved somehow by membership in this group? Now, I think that Rousseau's answer is terrifying, and the answer himself that he ends up giving is a recipe for totalitarianism. Russ: You're such a nitpicker. Guest: But that's a great question: how do people-- Russ: Sorry. Go ahead. Guest: The point is, it's a great question. So, what I want to define politics as, is, the will of the group is not the outcome. The will of the group is the way that it constitutes itself to decide. And politics is making a choice as a group and then following those rules, that we agreed on in advance, and then accepting the outcome because we followed the rules. So, it's a mistake to say--and this is close to what Rousseau said, but then he went on, and said that there's this genie called 'the general will' that we're actually bound by it, and if I disagree with that, I'm mistaken. Whereas, in fact, sometimes I don't want to do w hat the group wants, and I have to try to decide whether I still want to be a member of the group. But a group that constitutes itself chooses two things: We're going to decide as a group; and, here's how we're going to decide how to decide. That's what a constitution is--with a small 'c'. And I should give credit--this is actually James M. Buchanan's definition. It took me 20 years to understand the sort of complexity and depth of Buchanan's later work on constitutions--again, small-c constitutions. I am converted. Now I'm a Buchananite. Russ: It's with work with Tullock, also, to be clear, right? You are talking about The Calculus of Consent, 1962. Guest: The Calculus of Consent was the optimistic part. The part after that, The Limits of Liberty, Buchanan had several more books by himself, including the book with Congleton, Politics, by Principle not design, was a landmark. And it was Buchanan himself who kind of went off in a different direction. Tullock gives us a lot of the idea of people as rational and problems that you would have. But Buchanan retained a kind of optimism, and this is what in this book I would want to share: Don't throw out the fact that people choosing in groups can make themselves better off than people choosing as individuals. So, the problem was, public choice often seems to boil down to the idea that voters and politicians are just as self-interested as consumers and the CEOs (Chief Executive Officers) of corporations. That's true. But we also need to think of what Buchanan--and this was just Buchanan--called 'politics as exchange.' That we need a separate, different kinds of institutions to cooperate in groups, because bilateral or even corporate contracting doesn't work. We need politics.