REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part III

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 15:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4810
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA


RE: Personal Interaction.

Ok, just cause it's in my mind and I need to express it before I lose the train of thought here.

EXAMPLE ONE.
Saturday morning, you notice your car has a flat, and not wanting to use your spare, you call the local garage to send out a mechanic.

He comes, he does the work, you pay him, he leaves.


EXAMPLE TWO.
Saturday morning, you notice your car has a flat, and not wanting to use your spare, you call the local garage to contract a mechanic.

He comes, you negotiate, seeing he's a young guy, probably on an apprenticeship, offer him a full course, home cooked dinner instead of coin - and he accepts, on the condition that he has to finish his shift first.

He comes back, and you set a place at the table and share dinner and stories with him, he offers you some tips on vehicle maintainence, and your wife gives him some advice on getting those grease stains out.

You take him for a forthright, personable fellow, and earnest if inexperienced, so you inquire about a long term vehicle maintainence contract with his company, specifying him as the tech (your daughter thinks this a GREAT idea, to your chagrin, but what the hey, he's got a worth ethic) and he says he will discuss it with his boss, and shyly asks about perhaps a laundry contract, which your wife politely declines, but suggests a friend who would probably be quite interested, since she lives alone and is not mechanically inclined.

And having resolved your current contract with him, bid him a good evening.


Now, of those two examples, which would YOU prefer ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:50 AM

FLETCH2


I would use my spare. Otherwise I would want the fastest solution, after all I need to go places.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I don't get it - on the one hand you say they are "Born Evil" and we can't do shit about it, and then when I point out we can, and that sometimes they managed to self-correct, you flame me ?

I am beginning to question your honesty in...
Hell with that, I *AM* questioning your honesty in this discussion.

You gotta point, make it.

In ANY society there are *going* to be people you can not help, and in my opinion this one is worse because people who could be helped, who would be, are shunned, cut out, and left to sink because of our inhumane "success" model of devil take the hindmost.

We live in a world where people sever FAMILY bonds just to stay or get ahead, and those with easily treatable conditions are left to suffer and even die if they don't have the means or resources to bend our current system.

We live in a world where so much of a persons resources are consumed by an agency that acts directly counter to their benefit (Government) that folks are UNWILLING to help another, because they NEED that time, those resources, to pay the extortion.

Maybe you don't understand, maybe it's a crossed wires issue, but damn me, I'd settle for a world where folks where willing and able to help, although less effectively, than one where that help would be far more effective but no one can or will give it.

I doubt that'll get across, but I tried.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


HKC, alas that isn't the full text, several pages are skipped and not displayed.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I don't get it - on the one hand you say they are "Born Evil" and we can't do shit about it, and then when I point out we can, and that sometimes they managed to self-correct, you flame me?
I DID say some kids are "born evil". I adopted the pejorative term because I wanted to underscore that fact that some kids are living in an unimagineably different mental, emotional, and perceptual landscape than most. SOME PEOPLE ARE TRULY NOT LIKE OTHERS, my daughter included. I don't need to see myself in her or her in me, or think that she's just like everyone else. She isn't.

I DID NOT SAY THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE FOR THEM. That was YOUR interpretation. How can I POSSIBLY make that any clearer???

I think that we should put all that we can into understanding their landscape, and integrating them as best we can so that they do not create a hazard for others. Or themselves.

I see all of the failings in our system that you do. But my point is that there are many sources of power. Guns are only one. Moral authority another, majority rule is another, money, ideas... YOUR system- aside from reverting us to primitivism in the short run (and in the long run too, I suspect) along with the inevitable killing of the vulnerable- is incomplete.

I'm looking at a solution in a different direction. One that isn't going to sacrifice the lives of kids like mine.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


That was just in case you didn't see it the first time!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 10:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Probably too late in the discussion, but maybe worth a try.

Hey, Gang! Let's have a thought exercise!

Clear away all those mindsets and preconceptions, now!

We've got two rules, one assumption, and a scenario.

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

Assumption. In a free market, if there is demand for a product or service, the market will fill it.

Scenario. In the land of Geezerdonia, 80% of the people believe in the two rules and the assumption above. They are scrupulous about obeying and enforcing these rules.

So what would such a society be like? Remember, you gotta stay within the rules, and accept the asumption and scenario for the length of the exercise.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 10:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OH, and Frem... Once I (IT WAS ME, NOT HER DOCTORS) found my daughter's dx and successful (albeit late) treatment I spent the next ten years of my life shepherding parents of similarly afflicted children into the right direction, making the right contacts, sharing information, pushing the medical establishment in the right direction. Because of our communications, we moved... yes, WE moved... the USA medical establishment to research, diagnose, and treat a problem they had not recognized before.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 10:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Scenario. In the land of Geezerdonia, 80% of the people believe in the two rules and the assumption above. They are scrupulous about obeying and enforcing these rules.
Then I will look for a place of concentrated poulation, put all of my money into a costly but essential service, like water or sewage, and deliver it at the most economical rates possible, expanding my base until I can take full advantage of economies of scale and develop a near-unbreakable monopoly.

What about you?


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I'm sick of this, you ask my opinion, or for my interpretation, then examine it within the context of our current model, where it would not work - then tell me that it wouldn't work, period ?

On top of that, first you flame me for not working towards it, then flame me for pointing out that I do, and how - and them flame some more for daring to be annoyed about your flaming.

You deliberately gave the impression first, that there is no preventing or mediating any of these kids, something I pointed out is untrue, and had to do so repeatedly, then in spite of a long and detailed history, some of which has been posted here, mind you, of doing exactly that, such as I can, passionately - accused me of doing nothing about it, a blatant lie that I initially let past as a misunderstanding, and then when I did point out in more detail than I would like, since it is an important point - you respond with...
Quote:

So get off your 24-carat-gold pedestal of self-importance.

Frankly, you folks have been disingenious, closeminded, and downright nasty from the start, hostile in every possible way to both the concept and the folks expressing it, a damned poor way to enter or maintain any discussion, much less this one - and it may just be me, but these episodes of extreme snark seem to come right after someone pokes holes in the conventional worldview, but aren't we poking and pointing out the holes in both ? or is the conventional off-limits in spite of it's blatant unsustainability ?

I think the status quo is gonna blow up in our face and would like to move towards something else, with a certain ideal in mind - we're just gonna hafta agree to disagree, because *I* do not believe in ramming a system or worldview down peoples throats when it isn't wanted...

Either way, I've had enough, this *IS* exactly like trying to discuss Evolution with Creationist Zealots and about as productive - at this point you ain't lookin for answers, yer lookin for stuff to flame, well... all I got to say to that is suffer in silence, cause I'm done discussin it.

-Frem

EDIT: And so you edit out the part I quoted, after I quoted it... imma grit my teeth and assume good intentions, and just leave it at that.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

but these episodes of extreme snark seem to come right after someone pokes holes in the conventional worldview
Wow, YOU think that's "extreme snark"?
So whatever, Frem. I've agreed with many of your points: yes you CAN prevent a lot of "problem children". But I've stuck on another: SOME kids are "born that way", they inhabit a lanscape thru no fault of their own that's just a whole bunch of standard deviations from the norm. Then you totally misrepresented what I meant by that: I never said they were "irredeemable", and said MANY TIMES exactly the opposite. And while I applaud your work, which I'm sure does a great deal of good, you are NOT the only one who knows anything of this!

I note, for the record, that you had not ONE QUESTION to ask of MY proposed solutions. Is is because you're so wrapped up in your self-perceived martyrdom that you can't even listen?
Quote:

I'm sick of this, you ask my opinion, or for my interpretation, then examine it within the context of our current model, where it would not work - then tell me that it wouldn't work, period ?
Yep, I'm telling you it won't work period, under ANY model. Ive' been trying to tell you that it's INCOMPLETE.

Okay. Now that we got that snark out of the way... are you prepared to listen?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So Geezer- do you see any bar to me forming a monopoly on water-provisioning under your system? 'Cause I don't. If you do, tell me how.

'Cause if you can't, that's ONE hole in the anarchist paradigm.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Then I will look for a place of concentrated population, put all of my money into a costly but essential service, like water or sewage, and deliver it at the most economical rates possible, expanding my base until I can take full advantage of economies of scale and develop a near-unbreakable monopoly.



Couple of possibilities.

1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?

2. So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.

3. With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?"

What if you own all the land with good access to the water table or surface water ? What's the competition going to do then ? Get a posse and run you off your land ? I thought that was in direct violation of Geezer-rules.

"3. ... crush ... by any means and force you to pay my prices for water."

But business means are legitimate by Geezer-rules - see owning all the land with good access to the water table or surface water. Doesn't mean you have to use guns. DUH !

So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?

***********************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?
Let's assume I'm an astute businessman and have another business that provides me a steady source of money. Or, as Rue says, I own the source.
Quote:

So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.
Except that because of economies of scale, I can keep my prices just below the point where it would become attractive to invest de novo.
Quote:

With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.
With an evil laugh I buy out any competition and THEN make people pay my price, which is finely calibrated to keep people out of my business.

Force?
What force?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:54 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?




There is a cost to entering a market, especially one where there is infrastructure involved. You would have to build plant to deliver product to your customers or if you share plant (assuming Siggy lets you) then you would almost certainly have to pay him to use it.

Can you make a case to spend billions installing duplicate plant for a commodity that probably wont make that mack in profit in a 20-30 year timeframe (unless your plan is to force Sigy out and then replace him with high pricing to make back your investment.)

Quote:



2. So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.




How? If the cost of entering a market is so large how do you setup in competition?



Quote:


3. With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.




Well it's not violence. Even if you consider all capitalist activity as inherently coersive nobody is forcing you to pay at gunpoint. If you are saying that it's ok to apply violence to anyone you have a grievence with then you have a problem.

Quote:



Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water.




Do I need more than the 3% with money?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 2:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water."

Family money isn't an issue by Geezer-rules. Neither are consortia, personal connections, or bankrupting or buying out competition to get 100% market share. It's all good.

And there you are.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 2:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 3:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Nothing, as far as I can tell.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 4:43 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Are you saying that it's ok for a society to oppress a man because of the colour of his skin? Jack seems to have no problem with the idea of ethnic cleansing, he thinks that if a community in anarchist world doesn't want to live with "niggers" they have the right to force them out, even if that families property rights are violated even if violence is used.


Fletch, this is getting out of hand. I don't know where the hell you get your idea of who I am. Not from what I've written here, that's for sure. It's hard for me to imagine that you read the post you just quoted. I said, "...it is the collective will of the community that determined the moral character of a community not a law or a cop or a judge." You talk about a "rule of law" but communities will ignore a law if enough of them don't agree with it, even law enforcement. This can be a good thing (hint: Gandhi) or a bad thing (hint: Spousal abuse). It is my considered opinion that law does not rule. What governments are most adept at doing is maintaining the illusions of their people.

I did make a mistake when I spoke of the "three people" speaking on behalf of anarchism. I was thinking of Frem, CTS and me--I wasn't including Jack. I don't take him seriously, particularly now that he's outed himself as comfortably racist as well as homophobic. At best, he's one of your "bad" anarchists.
Quote:

What I haven't heard is a rejection of that idea from the people that "believe hard" so how about it? Clear that up for us right now, who else suffers for your "better world?"

I'm sorry, Fletch, but this is the last you'll be hearing from me. Your contempt is too thick for me to try and breach anymore. Again, I dismissed Jack long ago. And as I've said again and again and again, anarchy will not work until the race as a whole sanes up a good deal. It may not happen in my lifetime, but stranger things have happened.

The question of "how do we get there from here?" has been asked repeatedly. My answer is simple: when the majority of people want it. When such folks are willing, of their own free will, to give up a lot of the privileges we enjoy today at the expense of the global underclass. When such people are all willing to make a personal commitment to making it work, because they know the alternative all too well.

That's it.

It will not happen if people have to fight a revolution with guns. It will not happen as long as people think their problems can be solved by power-mongers.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 4:59 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
What if you own all the land with good access to the water table or surface water ?



Okay, if you're going to impose impossible conditions on the exercise, you aren't playing fair. But that's sort of your way, isn't it?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
[ Let's assume I'm an astute businessman and have another business that provides me a steady source of money. Or, as Rue says, I own the source.



You're the only astute businessman in the country? Come on.

Quote:

Except that because of economies of scale, I can keep my prices just below the point where it would become attractive to invest de novo.


So you're selling water at a loss. Fine if you want to.

Quote:

With an evil laugh I buy out any competition and THEN make people pay my price, which is finely calibrated to keep people out of my business.


Maybe they don't want to sell. If you can sell water at a loss, all they have to do is wait until you're broke and buy you out.

Besides, the mindset of 80% of the population is that they won't be pushed around. They'd probably decide it's worth it to pay a few cents more for their water just to take you out of play.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:16 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is a cost to entering a market, especially one where there is infrastructure involved.



Absolutely. And SignyM would have the capital on hand to personally do that? Investors would be needed, and most of those potential investors would morally balk at ripping people off.

Quote:

How? If the cost of entering a market is so large how do you setup in competition?

Use a different method? Delever a better product? How do bottled water delivery companies stay in business when you can get it from the tap? Appeal to people's opposition to getting ripped off? Remember, you got 80% of the population morally opposed to getting ripped off.
Quote:

Well it's not violence.

Force, not violence. "Pay my price or die" isn't force?

Quote:

Do I need more than the 3% with money?

Nonsense. Look who invests in stock now.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:18 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Neither are consortia, personal connections, or bankrupting or buying out competition to get 100% market share. It's all good.



Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?



Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- Frem's definition of "force" seems to be putting a gun to someone's head. Now, in the scenarios that we posed there was no such thing. And really, it's not "pay my price or die", it's just... pay my price or do without. Feel free to move elsewhere, or look for alternatives.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Okay, if you're going to impose impossible conditions on the exercise, you aren't playing fair. But that's sort of your way, isn't it?
No, that's not "impossible conditions" that's just good business sense. In YOUR world, there is nothing wrong with someone buying a property with a natural spring, or a water table that's only 15 feet below the surface. And if I were going to distribute water, I'd look exactly for that.

AFA "selling water at a loss"... do you know anything about "economies of scale?" If I build my business large enough, my operations will be more efficient per unit cost than a competing but smaller operation. So I can sell water at price that would be a profit to me, and a loss to them.

See Economy 101.

Besides, you can keep the water business. I've decided I'm going to build a an integrated monopoly in general parcel delivery, safe deposit vaults, security, and (most important) toll roads. Less work, more money.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Frem's definition of "force" seems to be putting a gun to someone's head. Now, in the scenarios that we posed there was no such thing, so... how do YOU define "force"?



I think Fremd's right, and you haven't been reading his posts, since gun to head is absolutely the last option in a long list starting with discussion and compromise. This doesn't seem to penetrate your head.

However.

First, force in response to initiated force is not a given. Other options such as the already mentioned discussion and compromise would be the start. If that didn't work, maybe a boycott or shunning. Maybe a publicity campaign. Once again, maybe people upset enough to spend a bit more for another source of whatever.
Force in response to initiated force could be a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game), in extreme circumstances it possibly could be physical violence, but only after plenty of other options were exhausted.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game)
Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract. If your customers signed a contract, or were willing to do business on one model but changed their minds later, how are you liable?

And nothing prevents you from entering into your own publicity campaign or otherwise convincing people that your ways are best. You've got lost of money to buy media time... right?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game)
Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract. If your customers signed a contract, or were willing to do business on one model but changed their minds later, how are you liable?

And nothing prevents you from entering into your own publicity campaign or otherwise convincing people that your ways are best. You've got lots of money to buy media time... right?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:29 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, that's not "impossible conditions" that's just good business sense. In YOUR world, there is nothing wrong with someone buying a property with a natural spring, or a water table that's only 15 feet below the surface. And if I were going to distribute water, I'd look exactly for that.


Rue proposed you buying up all the water sources. So you're not actually reading Rue's posts either.
Quote:

Besides, you can keep the water business. I've decided I'm going to build a an integrated monopoly in general parcel delivery, safe deposit vaults, security, and (most important) toll roads. Less work, more money.


Explain how you're going to finance this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:33 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract.



Wrong.

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Explain how you're going to finance this.
Set up a secure vault so people can park their papers and valuables safely. That's pretty cheap. Maybe provide notary-type or certification services at the same time. Parlay that money into some trucks. Teach kids how to drive in exchange for them making deliveries. Yanno, build from the ground up. The last part would be buying or building roads and turning them into toll roads.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:26 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Signy:
6ix, somehow I don't think YOU'RE ready for anarchism. Or even libertarianism.



Explain yourself.


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:48 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
My view can be summed up like this--- your personal freedom to swing your arms ends at the end of my nose. Now depending on who's talking the libertarian/anarchist answer to this seems to be.

1) Psychologically healthy enlightened people don't swing their arms.
2) People would have to pay restitution for busting your nose.
3) Suck it up! Concern about your nose should never curtail my rights to swing my arms.
4) If you had a gun you could shoot the guy that's attempting to bust your nose.

None of which really helps me if I don't want my nose busted.



Yeah, you're right Fletch. I much prefer today's method of a cop taping off the area and putting a chalk line around my nose after the fact.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 9:49 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I hate to say it, but this all really is a moot point at this juncture. A majority of the proles would never want or allow this to happen today, nor would they be equipped to handle it emotionally, physically or spiritually were it to happen.

We've all been coddled too long and in far too many aspects of our lives that today, like farm-bred pigs who will eventually be served up as tomorrow's bacon, we've had nearly all sense of personal responsibility or self empowerment bred out of us to the point that the only time we even display any sense of self-preservation anymore is when we're ratting each other out to save our own asses. Just watch any episode of CSI or Law and Order, or read up on the Republican "Organ Doner" witch hunt of 2001 in Illinois and see how they all toppled like dominos if you're intrested in an example which seriously impacted my life for years afterwards, or simply if you didn't quite catch my meaning there.

Anarchy will only happen when the current system crumbles to the ground and those who are not equipped to handle it will not survive, period. It will be a great period of time for individualists and champions of the ideals of man over Government, but unfortunately, some of the stronger assholes will then gain enough power and centralize it to to such a point that they eventually one day re-enslave the population and aside from the year on the calendar they'll be in a no different position than we find ourselves today.

Mankind's biggest flaw is it's herd mentality which we just can't seem to break away from. As far as human society is concerned, Darwinism is thrown out the window. The strong are beaten down while the weak are put on pedastals.

Is it really indoctrination we recieve in school? Or do they just teach the path of least resistance because for the most part we're all the more willing to be lead blindly down the easiest path?
-------------------------------

Just you watch Frem... when Fux News and CoNN puts on the spin later this year and start telling the people of Georgia state and the like that their localy elected officials are assholes for making sure they aren't allowed in federal buildings or that they're responsible for the hoops they have to jump through with the FEDs and how it will take 8 hours to get on a plane because they don't have the Real ID, who do you think those idiots are going to believe?

Personal liberties being breeched, I'd suspect, woudn't even make it on most people's radars in the first place, and then most of the people who falsely claim that things like that matter to them are going to think twice and do a 180 a few down the years when they can't get a job without that REAL ID. Soon the people will view those of us fighting the Real ID in the same light they view those of us who refuse to pay unConstitutional income taxes criminally levied on each and every one of us. Those income taxes, as I know Frem knows, were only 1% at first, and meant to support war. Look what they've become today...

Shit.... most people I talk to about the Real ID even today don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But they could tell you in depth what a crappy mother Britney Spears is.





Maybe that makes it all a little more clear for your royal highness Signy. Sorry if that was too potty mouth or immature for you like my last post you quoted obviously was.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 10:41 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"You see what Frem and I propose as taking away your rights."

Hunhhh ?


Hey Rue.

I actually try not to post in RWED threads that go this long (I know, but this one got to me). Too much is said for me to speak to it all. So I end up kinda glumping a few hundred posts into one idea. It can end up making sense to very few people outside my own head.

I was talking about the confusion of rights with privileges. I was reading a general staunch support of the status quo in the anarchy discussion as a whole. I would include the many miracles of modern medical science as privileges to the extent that they couldn't exist in a non-exploitative system. On the way to achieving social justice, life might get harder than it is now for the most affluent of us, y'know what I mean?
Quote:

You can't have a viable anarchy and have all the same systems in place that concentrate wealth and power - like private property (goods and land), money, guns, nuclear families and parental authority, organizations, and the ideology that justifies them. ALL those things make the interaction between individuals something other than a free association between equals - just in and of themselves.

I see your point, certainly. I'll say I don't see the obsession with personal property as healthy in the least. That a concept of personal property might in some way exist, y'know, sure--but this rigid worship of personal property as the ultimate truth, not so much.

I don't hold with the libertarians much at all, unless they're running for President against a panel of fascists.

I don't see Frem praising the nuclear family and wanting to keep parental authority in tact (I have done some skimming, so I could be wrong, but I don't think that would be at all consistent with what I have read of Frem's position)--I'm pretty sure he keeps talking about clans and uncles and great-aunts for a reason.
Quote:

And THEN you have the problem of the born sociopath who willingly manipulates every system for gain with complete (and I do mean complete) disregard for the people affected.

This, Rue, I absolutely disagree with. And I still find it plenty disturbing that you would make such a statement. The kind of sociopath you describe is made, not born. Some children will bend to evil's easy answers more readily than others, but the evil is ex-utero. You know, Alice Miller has written a number of very persuasive books on the subject--I would be fascinated to hear your take on her.
Quote:

But the other thing I've noticed is an easy-breezy - sometimes downright callous - disregard for the weaker and slower in the systems they propose. Think on it - they want systems of unequal power, no collective rein on what people with power might do - and complete and utter disinterest in the helpless, the slow, the infirm, in the face of the very systems that could easily victimize them.

I'd say that was a thoroughly unsympathetic reading of Frem's ideas--a mischaracterization perhaps engendered by the general hysterical atmosphere that persists in this thread.
Quote:

Let me ask you personally HKC - do you find that approach moral?

I have to make a distinction between Frem's colossal sense of irony and his heartfelt beliefs. Honestly, I think he likes to outrage people whom he decides are clueless anyway. Oh, and let me be clear--I don't quite understand CTS's position regarding "the feeble" and I don't want to discuss anything Jack has to say on the subject. The position you describe is indeed immoral, ugly and would to my mind be cancerous in an anarchist system.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:12 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

...I don't want to discuss anything Jack has to say on the subject.


Ha! Have I finally acheived PN status on the board? Go me!

Don't sweat it bro. The truth is so hard to handle they're making it illegal to speak it anymore.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Explain how you're going to finance this.
Set up a secure vault so people can park their papers and valuables safely. That's pretty cheap. Maybe provide notary-type or certification services at the same time. Parlay that money into some trucks. Teach kids how to drive in exchange for them making deliveries. Yanno, build from the ground up. The last part would be buying or building roads and turning them into toll roads.



So, you start a business. And of course since no one else in the country has the business acumen to do this you end up with a monopoly. I don't think so. This also assumes that you actually make money in the first place.

It's kind'a funny, because what you want to build, with a coercive monopoly on water & sewer, or roads, or security, or mail delivery, is what we got right now. It's called the government.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And of course since no one else in the country has the business acumen to do this you end up with a monopoly.
Geezer, if your model worked we would NEVER develop monopolies. But clearly, monopolies develop! I'm using Bill Gates as my model. He jumped into a market at the beginning, and by buying up and destroying competitors, offering PC OEMs his product with a carrot... and a stick if other systems were loaded, and weaseling on his deals with IBM, built a monopoly long before the DMCA became law. And "people" think that Bill Gates is a god.

Or, I could use WalMart as another example. People FLOCK to WalMart. They LOVE it! The fact that it depends on slave-labor wages elsewhere just kinda goes by them. I could point to Rockefeller, who built a monopoly on oil; Cornelius Vanderbilt (shipping),

My point is that monopolies develop NOT because of government but because monopolies ARE MORE EFFICIENT. They can take advantages of economies of scale, and even more efficient if they're integrated horizontally (like the mail-toll road- storage service I proposed) or vertically (like oil companies) they become even MORE efficient.

And, as you know, under capitalism the most efficient company wins. The end state of capitalism, with or without the government, is monopolism. And unless you build specific barriers to monopolism into your system, monopolies will develop. IF, as Frem says, the initial state of anarchism will cause a technological hit, they'll be a lot of "ground floor" to jump in on: water, roads, sewage, medical care, ... and plenty of people ready to jump in on it. And SOME of them will be Bill Gateses and Rockefellers.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:48 AM

FLETCH2


Well colour me confused. My understanding is that nobody is coersed into giving up their wealth and that nobody is coersed into teaching or assimilating the anarchist mindset. So how can you know he won't raise the money? You have no idea what a William Gates the sixth may place his cash into? There may be incentives for the poor and downtrodden to buy into your system but what would be in it for the rich? Unless you plan to set up a Guillotine in Time Square as part of your revolution there will still be people with excessive personal resources. There would still be foreign corporations there would still be american corporations.

If your argument is that well these organizations would be staffed by anarchists why would they? There are no labour laws any more I can chose the people that work for me, I can select the ones that share my worldview.

Siggy is talking about building from scratch because he wants to personalize it, but what is to stop Vivendi owning your local water company? Or Blackstone?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

This, Rue, I absolutely disagree with. And I still find it plenty disturbing that you would make such a statement. The kind of sociopath you describe is made, not born.
Bill Gates. Sam Walton (Walmart). Soros. Rockefeller. Vanderbilt. Hearst. Warren Buffet. Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner (Cisco). Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google) Baron von Rothschild. Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, Leland Stanford, Rupert Murdoch, Carlos "Slim" Helu (Mexico, telephone)...

Some of these were "born" that way (Bill Gates, Rockefeller). Some of them were "made" that way (the current batch of waltons) and some of them- quite nice, and apologetic even for their success (Soros, Buffet) saw an opportunity and took it.

As long as the system allows people to concentrate wealth. some people will. And unlike government, you can't vote them out. They'll spend all the money it takes to convince you that they're the saviors of the human race, and most people will believe them. Or, they'll disappear into the woodworks and you'll never know who they are.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:05 AM

FLETCH2


Just an observation here. If you look back at how the industrial revolution started it was because after enclosure big land owners had an excess of capital being generated from their land. They felt the need to invest it and this gave the new industrialists the capital they needed to get started.

So in Geezerland we have low level people, supposedly of an anarchist mindset with excess capital.

1) Are you really saying they would pass up investment with a good return if they thought it violated anarchist principles? Are you sure absolutely 100% would?

2) Are you really saying that if Siggy builds an 80% monopoly these people will put money into a competitor, one that can and probably would lose as some kind of public service? Case in point, seems that Blueray has likely won the HD format wars (with no help from government) would an anarchist push money into HD DVD now to try and prevent a monopoly, even though by doing so he would loose money?

3) Wouldn't the safer investment be to put money into Siggy's company since it is now at a scale where it' making money?

Capitalism is about using your money to realize profit, not to tinker with the market place for social reasons. If my product is better than anyone elses or if the cost of entering my market is too large I can end up with a defacto monopoly. Unless you are really saying that people will invest in competitors with little chance of succeeding as part of some kind of social compact, I can't see how you counter that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


6ix- YOUR view of anarchism is post-apocalyptic, knife-between-teeth piracy to the max. That's not anarchism, that's anarchy. That's why your views on anarchism are moot.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:18 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Signy,

I think part of the problem you're having with understanding anarchist thought is that you're working from what I would call a "systems to individual" model, where the external world determines human behavior, laws and police keep the wayward individual in line--the individual person is not trustworthy, largely powerless and external authority is practically deified; while anarchists are working from an "individual to systems" model, where the beliefs and commitments of individuals determine what happens in the system, change is effected by individuals forging bonds with other human beings until a culture wide shift occurs. That's why Frem and I put so much emphasis on mental health and non-adversarial child rearing. Parents teach, promote and indoctrinate their children in the "us and them" principle that you take so completely for granted that you can't seem to envision a world not ruled by it. Our mega-communal, rats-in-a-cage, insects-in-a-hive, strangers-in-a-crowd, way of life destroys empathy further. That's why I would exclude 6ix from a discussion of anarchist social theory, because he does not demonstrate a whole lot of empathy guiding his thought.

Addiction is a serious issue for any individual to deal with and so it is a serious stumbling block to anarchy. Addiction destroys empathy, but even more crucially, it destroys the healthy relationship to the self, because the addict's identity is so polluted by the addiction. When addiction begins in the teenage years or earlier, when one's fully aware identity is still forming, it is extremely difficult to break the addiction because the individual really has no concept of a self with out the addiction. He literally can't imagine himself separate from the addiction and his addiction becomes his primary relationship, trumping even marriage and family.

Anyway, under capitalism addiction to money, to buying, is rewarded supremely. The destructive power of this addiction has gone almost wholly below our cultural radar of late. Another excellent book to read: When Society becomes an Addict by Anne Wilson Schaef.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:21 AM

FLETCH2


Let's look at iPod a moment. Hitachi creates a really small hard drive. Doing so was very expensive, the market for such a device was not overly clear a few of their competitors look at doing something similar but it's a gamble and in a capitalist society only a few are willing to take risks on greenfield projects.

Steve Jobs sees it and immediately sees an application. Up front he buys all of Hitachi's production. He starts building iPods, he has competitors but none can match his product, only Hitachi makes the drives and Apple bought them all. the result isn't a 100% monopoly but it is market dominance. When flash chip capacity starts getting dense enough Jobs does the same again, he leverages his capital and buys close to 80% of the high density flash memory being produced in Asia. he locks in a very large discount by buying in bulk and locks his competitors out of teh market for a year. It's great business in time the market will adjust, now it's shown to be profitable more people will be building small HD and flash chips there will be competition but Apple effectively controls that market space now, everyone else is scrambling to be a distant second.

So how do you stop that happening with say a wonder drug? Pharma company X has a cancer cure, hospital chain Y buy's their entire years production and says we are the only ones that can cure cancer, come to us and pay our price. In a year, two years there may be a competitor but the folks that wait for that could die. What then? There is no violence or force in this picture unless you think that making a profit is the use of force?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, if your model worked we would NEVER develop monopolies.



The two rules and an assumption model? I know. That's what I'm saying.

Quote:

But clearly, monopolies develop! I'm using Bill Gates as my model. He jumped into a market at the beginning, and by buying up and destroying competitors, offering PC OEMs his product with a carrot... and a stick if other systems were loaded, and weaseling on his deals with IBM, built a monopoly long before the DMCA became law.


Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.


Apply theis rule to Gates' rise to power. Did he break it? Then Rule 2 applies.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

If not, and he continues to deal non-coercively, so what?

Quote:


And, as you know, under capitalism the most efficient company wins. The end state of capitalism, with or without the government, is monopolism.



So that's why I can only buy McDonald's burgers, and Whole Foods and Trader Joe's folded, right?

Quote:

And unless you build specific barriers to monopolism into your system, monopolies will develop.


If you build specific barriers to coercion into your system, like having 80% of the population morally opposed to it, you can have a monopoly, but you can't have a coercive monopoly.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
1) Are you really saying they would pass up investment with a good return if they thought it violated anarchist principles? Are you sure absolutely 100% would?



Would you pass up an investment with good return if it was in child slavery and prostitution? Kidnapping and butchering people for pet food? Violating the Non-aggression Principle would strike most Libertarians/Anarchists as at least as bad.

Quote:

2) Are you really saying that if Siggy builds an 80% monopoly these people will put money into a competitor, one that can and probably would lose as some kind of public service?

No. I'm saying that if Siggy's 80% monopoly becomes a coercive monopoly, folks will take it down. If it deals fairly, so what?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:44 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
....

http://books.google.com/books? ...{balance suppressed}

HKCavalier

Would you mind going up and editting that post... that long URL with no spaces is making the whole thread 'very wide'. Shoot a couple spaces in there and caution folks it's had spaces added to keep the thread usable.

Thx much.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

No. I'm saying that if Siggy's 80% monopoly becomes a coercive monopoly, folks will take it down. If it deals fairly, so what?
Geezer: What's a "fair" price? What's coercive? I mean, what if the only "coercion" I apply is to charge about 50% more than in a fully competitive system? Anarchism doesn't seem to have much to say on the topic of fair prices. So who's going to determine if my prices are fair? You and a mob?

So, yeah.. TAKE money away from the successful business-builder, you, you... communist!!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:46 - 44 posts
Elon Musk
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:33 - 28 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL