Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
How Capitalism Help Build Socialism or..........
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 808600" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>So let's see, letting people act in purely voluntary relationships of their own making is, as you say, "dreamy" and unbelievable" because people can't be trusted to act in a moral and ethical manner. OK, before I answer that let me address the use of Greenspan and what you said in regards to AV. In my case, the use of Greenspan to argue my point is bogus because I'm talking a world that has no central bank to begin with and even money or medium of exchange is decided by the 2 parties in any given exchange. Maybe someone locally has a currency of some merit and the 2 market actors contract to use it or they find some other means to economic satisfaction, maybe some form of barter. That is purely up to them. I'm talking the complete tearing down of centralized institutions of all type so to take the ills of current institutional models and then ascribe that to a "no institutional" system is like telling a cattle farmer who only grows grass for his cattle that his idea is faulty because he hasn't prepared for a tomatoe hornworm problem. Now your arguement may hold some merit in the case of AV because at best or at least last time he spoke of, he's more a minarchist as he still has some measure of an organized state. He does seem to want to maintain some measure of the current capitalist model and therefore your counter arguement has some validity. From my POV as it concerns the Corp. State, AV and yourself share a lot in common and are only really at odds over some oversight issues. But from my POV, the very ills of which you speak are a result of there being a central authority in the first place and that gets to my response to your assertion.</p><p> </p><p>Those people you say we can't trust, those people being ourselves, are in your world the very same people who now hold the gun in the room. Among them they gather into gangs and from among their ranks emerge leaders whom they pick to lead the pack. Then the gang leaders face each other in a form of power struggle we call elections with the idea that all the gangs even though divided, will under the idea of "mutual interests" form under one leader and that leader moves around amongst at least 2 of the gangs. These gang leaders and a number of lieutenants broken out to represent smaller gang segements one might call a posse rule power and decide all things in life and death. They weld the power of force, they own the gun in the room and it's expected they will be fair, honest and rule morally and ethically and that society as a result will be good and prosper. </p><p> </p><p>So according to you, in my voluntary world, it's impossible that people will self organize and interact in some manner of mutual benefit and yet you claim these same people when given a gun and the rule of force will then do the right thing and organize in such a good and moral manner? We have around 10k years of history in which man has centralized himself in what some call the great civilizations. Yet throughout that history has been one common factor and that has been bloodshed, force, coersion, and brutality on a very widescale. From a purely historical perspective, you calling me "dreamy" seems a bit irrational and illogical to say the least.</p><p> </p><p>There is no utopia, man will always battle himself and have conflict but when he centralizes and uses force to coerse others unto his labor, the negative effects are amplified 100 fold but I ask you this. Was it voluntary, mutually and de-centralized societies that create mass weapons of war, inflict large scale warfare over lands and people and then subdue conquered peoples or is that the handy work of large centralized states who rule their peoples with force, coersion and the iron fist? Saddam Hussein, Hilter, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, the several Ceasars of Rome and a whole list of others, were they leaders and products of de-centralized societies, the ill effects of voluntary and free societies and people or were they products of centralized states? Was the atomic bomb, biological and chemical weapons a product of de-centralized peoples organized into voluntary societies or was it the product of large scale organized states? Has the organized state ended all poverty? Ended all fraud in business transaction? Ended harm to the defenseless by the powerful and privileged? I could make an argument in the history of organized and centralized states that these very ills are in fact magnified and amplified by such conditions. This may ruffle some feathers but, was it a de-centralized state that took the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">lies of Codename Curveball</span> </a>and launched a war using them? How much bloodshed must it be before it becomes to much using you ideal? Or was it just that the wrong gang leader was in there at the time?</p><p> </p><p>I may be dreamy in one respect that I'm willing to look at the current situation and realize it's not working and in truth never has but then I'm willing to look over the horizon, beyond the walls we've built around ourselves and ask the most important question of all, What If? Fear is the mind killer! </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Absolutely, you are dead on point and I agree completely but you rightly pointed out what we have isn't free market so understand I'm talking about a completely different animal.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That's because you just fell back into the trap of equating the current sytem with a free market. You are trying to see a way to reform the current system into something it isn't or never was to begin with. I use to do the very same thing and it's so easy to do. Go beyond it all and come to it purely from the position of no absolute force, coersion or fraud to achieve an end for any reason and approach all actions using just basic morality and ethics. State controlled economics is about winners and losers and winner takes all. Free markets are about equal exchanges that benefit bothsides of the transaction or thus the transaction doesn't happen. Don't try and reform the existing market using free market contexts because it won't happen and you'll never achieve the end results. You have to first get the gun out of the room.</p><p> </p><p>Yee shall know them by their fruits?</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 808600, member: 2189"] So let's see, letting people act in purely voluntary relationships of their own making is, as you say, "dreamy" and unbelievable" because people can't be trusted to act in a moral and ethical manner. OK, before I answer that let me address the use of Greenspan and what you said in regards to AV. In my case, the use of Greenspan to argue my point is bogus because I'm talking a world that has no central bank to begin with and even money or medium of exchange is decided by the 2 parties in any given exchange. Maybe someone locally has a currency of some merit and the 2 market actors contract to use it or they find some other means to economic satisfaction, maybe some form of barter. That is purely up to them. I'm talking the complete tearing down of centralized institutions of all type so to take the ills of current institutional models and then ascribe that to a "no institutional" system is like telling a cattle farmer who only grows grass for his cattle that his idea is faulty because he hasn't prepared for a tomatoe hornworm problem. Now your arguement may hold some merit in the case of AV because at best or at least last time he spoke of, he's more a minarchist as he still has some measure of an organized state. He does seem to want to maintain some measure of the current capitalist model and therefore your counter arguement has some validity. From my POV as it concerns the Corp. State, AV and yourself share a lot in common and are only really at odds over some oversight issues. But from my POV, the very ills of which you speak are a result of there being a central authority in the first place and that gets to my response to your assertion. Those people you say we can't trust, those people being ourselves, are in your world the very same people who now hold the gun in the room. Among them they gather into gangs and from among their ranks emerge leaders whom they pick to lead the pack. Then the gang leaders face each other in a form of power struggle we call elections with the idea that all the gangs even though divided, will under the idea of "mutual interests" form under one leader and that leader moves around amongst at least 2 of the gangs. These gang leaders and a number of lieutenants broken out to represent smaller gang segements one might call a posse rule power and decide all things in life and death. They weld the power of force, they own the gun in the room and it's expected they will be fair, honest and rule morally and ethically and that society as a result will be good and prosper. So according to you, in my voluntary world, it's impossible that people will self organize and interact in some manner of mutual benefit and yet you claim these same people when given a gun and the rule of force will then do the right thing and organize in such a good and moral manner? We have around 10k years of history in which man has centralized himself in what some call the great civilizations. Yet throughout that history has been one common factor and that has been bloodshed, force, coersion, and brutality on a very widescale. From a purely historical perspective, you calling me "dreamy" seems a bit irrational and illogical to say the least. There is no utopia, man will always battle himself and have conflict but when he centralizes and uses force to coerse others unto his labor, the negative effects are amplified 100 fold but I ask you this. Was it voluntary, mutually and de-centralized societies that create mass weapons of war, inflict large scale warfare over lands and people and then subdue conquered peoples or is that the handy work of large centralized states who rule their peoples with force, coersion and the iron fist? Saddam Hussein, Hilter, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, the several Ceasars of Rome and a whole list of others, were they leaders and products of de-centralized societies, the ill effects of voluntary and free societies and people or were they products of centralized states? Was the atomic bomb, biological and chemical weapons a product of de-centralized peoples organized into voluntary societies or was it the product of large scale organized states? Has the organized state ended all poverty? Ended all fraud in business transaction? Ended harm to the defenseless by the powerful and privileged? I could make an argument in the history of organized and centralized states that these very ills are in fact magnified and amplified by such conditions. This may ruffle some feathers but, was it a de-centralized state that took the [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam"][COLOR=red]lies of Codename Curveball[/COLOR] [/URL]and launched a war using them? How much bloodshed must it be before it becomes to much using you ideal? Or was it just that the wrong gang leader was in there at the time? I may be dreamy in one respect that I'm willing to look at the current situation and realize it's not working and in truth never has but then I'm willing to look over the horizon, beyond the walls we've built around ourselves and ask the most important question of all, What If? Fear is the mind killer! Absolutely, you are dead on point and I agree completely but you rightly pointed out what we have isn't free market so understand I'm talking about a completely different animal. That's because you just fell back into the trap of equating the current sytem with a free market. You are trying to see a way to reform the current system into something it isn't or never was to begin with. I use to do the very same thing and it's so easy to do. Go beyond it all and come to it purely from the position of no absolute force, coersion or fraud to achieve an end for any reason and approach all actions using just basic morality and ethics. State controlled economics is about winners and losers and winner takes all. Free markets are about equal exchanges that benefit bothsides of the transaction or thus the transaction doesn't happen. Don't try and reform the existing market using free market contexts because it won't happen and you'll never achieve the end results. You have to first get the gun out of the room. Yee shall know them by their fruits? :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
How Capitalism Help Build Socialism or..........
Top