Bill Sikes Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm done watching that video, 20 minutes and I think the guy's a fking idiot. What was the final straw? "The guy who herded animals by his cave became the wealthiest guy around! This is how agriculture started by the way." Yeah... no. More strawmen than straws in this video. Yeah, figure that one out. My god, according to this guy, affection is due to capitalism. This is beyond ludicrous. Anyway, I think about the same for people who don't own means of production, provided we're not talking about the an-cap utopia, but a realistic future with a guaranteed income. If people won't have to trade time for dollars, then absolutely we will see an explosion of arts and culture (until robots can do that, too. Oops, too late). If, however, we're simply talking about people out of work in a current or an-cap society, well I don't see that working out very well at all. I don't know about a cheaper society, particularly because people can't afford anything. Businesses have to maximize profits per customer when their customer base shrinks, and that's what I see happening. If you control the means of production and have a monopoly, does it matter what the cost of production is? Not at all. The squeeze would be on from all sides, and I think we'd fall into a dystopian society. Of course, I see mincome in the future to deal with such problems, until we do away with the concept of money and personal value altogether in a post-scarcity society. Or maybe I read too much sci-fi as a kid. I think I've seen the type of society he pitches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 As a creditor, no. As a shareholder/owner, yes. But you don't need the limited-liability of a government legal fiction to protect yourself in a government-free society...I wonder how you never thought of the concept of insurance...truly bizarre oversight. Corporations were originally supposed to be chartered to perform one specific commercial enterprise and were not allowed to "diversify" into other activities not specified in the charter. Limited-liability protection on shareholder's paid-up capital was only supposed to apply to protection from creditors in case of insolvency. Once corporate personhood was put into practice, it somehow got extended to include torts. But then again, corporations are the products of governments, so it only makes sense for governments to do what's best for themselves. I just wanted to see how long it would take for you to say insurance. Now, I'm sure you know liability policies have a maximum, depending on what you pay for. For my cleaning business, I carried 5mil gen liability coverage because I was trying to get commercial jobs, but what would happen if damages exceed my coverage? Say, my employee killed someone? Remember, as a business owner I would be personally responsible for my employees as well. A corporation insulates my personal assets, whereas under your system I could be completely financially destroyed in a civil suit. I don't really get what you mean by "as a creditor, no; as a shareholder/owner yes", I wasn't asking a yes/no question... Can you explain why it shouldn't include torts? Can you refute the statements presented? With the assistance of Western resources, the pre-war government is able to reassert it's authority over much of the country again, yet it only means a monopoly on power is being re-established. 1. So, the issue in Somalia is that without a central government factions fight for control? And the answer is to not have a central government? Something does not compute here. The fact of the matter, and this isn't strictly related to Somalia, is that an-caps only look at an already functional system and say, "Gee, it has issues, so let's rid of it completely", but can you show any examples of your system actually building a functional society? An-caps rely on a stable system being built, because otherwise you will end up with a Somalia. No, people won't become affectionate based on perceived values (as Tucker suggested in that video), people without central rules and in desperate circumstances could give a rat's ass about working together. They will take theirs by force, and if your stick is smaller, you're getting amputated at the neck. This is reality for any society that does not have a central authority. 2. Does it matter what caused the downfall of the government? We're not discussing historical motives here. This point clearly states the government in Somalia has fallen, in other words has no authority. The fact it has factions fighting over power only goes to support my point that we need central government. Without a government able to exert force, how will you convince those stronger than you not to take what's yours? Will you and your neighbours pay someone to protect your stuff? What if the other person can pay more? Will you leave someone in charge of protection, who will be responsible for all aspects of it, and delegate security tasks down (Could refer to this guy as, say a Defense Minister)? Or will every person be personally responsible for themselves? 3. I won't dignify this point with any rebuttal. Did I ever say I was based out of Chile? Did I ever say I applied for Start-Up Chile financing? If you read that thread again, I only suggested the reasons for why Chile is a friendly jurisdiction for attracting foreign start-ups. If you read that thread again carefully, I already suggested how this is not a wise deal for Chilean taxpayers. And finally, you acknowledged that taxation is theft! Yeah, I had a feeling I was getting carried away. Precisely why I usually do my best not to assume anything about other people. I blame Hugor! That's not acknowledging anything, I was merely speaking your language to get my point across. Economics is called the dismal science for a reason...it's dry, boring, and dense for most people...I'm just trying to make it as simple, or as interesting, as possible to consume, which isn't easy, as you can see. Great Scott! We agree! Actually, I would just leave it at dismal. It's a science as much as I'm an an-cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I'm done watching that video, 20 minutes and I think the guy's a fking idiot. What was the final straw? "The guy who herded animals by his cave became the wealthiest guy around! This is how agriculture started by the way." Yeah... no. More strawmen than straws in this video. Yeah, figure that one out. My god, according to this guy, affection is due to capitalism. This is beyond ludicrous. Anyway, I think about the same for people who don't own means of production, provided we're not talking about the an-cap utopia, but a realistic future with a guaranteed income. If people won't have to trade time for dollars, then absolutely we will see an explosion of arts and culture (until robots can do that, too. Oops, too late). If, however, we're simply talking about people out of work in a current or an-cap society, well I don't see that working out very well at all. I don't know about a cheaper society, particularly because people can't afford anything. Businesses have to maximize profits per customer when their customer base shrinks, and that's what I see happening. If you control the means of production and have a monopoly, does it matter what the cost of production is? Not at all. The squeeze would be on from all sides, and I think we'd fall into a dystopian society. Of course, I see mincome in the future to deal with such problems, until we do away with the concept of money and personal value altogether in a post-scarcity society. Or maybe I read too much sci-fi as a kid. It's late... 2 points I want to make: 1) When I said artisan designers I don't mean people who juggle for nickels. Look at Webster6's sig, for instance, a cook. Private chef is one type of artistic career that can potentially be very lucrative if one works for the right households. Custom tailers, fashion designers, computer programmers, advertisers, small scale farmers, etc will all see rise in career opportunities in our future. 2) I'm not sure if the future labourless economy will feature too many monopolistic businesses. Cost of production matters because low cost of production means easier barrier of entry for entrepreneurs. While on one hand you will always have large companies trying to dominate the market, you will also always have small business owners carving out niches - this goes back to point 1), and the more advance the technology, the lower cost of production, the lower barrier of entry, the more businesses will carve out niches. and no one person will control all the means of production in that industry. Another side effect of 1) and 2) will be the proliferation of new sub-industries. Products get more and more specialized and sophisticated to a point where corporations might have trouble managing a very diverse range of products and their production assets simply due to difficulty in obtaining sufficient human assets. Even with my relatively optimistic outlook I still think that the wealth gab between the rich and poor will rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I kinda got locked into it since an example was made of a small town, and I live in a smaller town in the Valley. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the possible economic structures so I can have as objective a view as I can. Having an absolutely objective view isn't possible though obviously, because our biology has built in biases we've developed over our life. Anyways I've kinda gone through that mind poisoning process on that devolution chart. But I really don't think humans are going to facilitate the ushering in of the absolutely perfect dynamics to structure economies and societies on. I think that will eventually be in the hands of super-computing AI systems that map out the statistical probabilities of all potential options for everything. We're silly prime apes, we'll never get it. The biggest issue I have with Keynesian economics is it shifts corporate debt to public debt. When people get laid off the government has to pay them income so 1) they don't starve and 2) they keep demand up. The companies stay profitable while government loses money and get into debt, and the companies don't thank the government for it. In fact they complain about EI payments disincentivize workers from taking on lower pay work. I think all entrepreneurs who have done government contracts will tell you that yes direct government investment into the economy is beneficial to the economy :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 It's late... 2 points I want to make: 1) When I said artisan designers I don't mean people who juggle for nickels. Look at Webster6's sig, for instance, a cook. Private chef is one type of artistic career that can potentially be very lucrative if one works for the right households. Custom tailers, fashion designers, computer programmers, advertisers, small scale farmers, etc will all see rise in career opportunities in our future. 2) I'm not sure if the future labourless economy will feature too many monopolistic businesses. Cost of production matters because low cost of production means easier barrier of entry for entrepreneurs. While on one hand you will always have large companies trying to dominate the market, you will also always have small business owners carving out niches - this goes back to point 1), and the more advance the technology, the lower cost of production, the lower barrier of entry, the more businesses will carve out niches. and no one person will control all the means of production in that industry. Another side effect of 1) and 2) will be the proliferation of new sub-industries. Products get more and more specialized and sophisticated to a point where corporations might have trouble managing a very diverse range of products and their production assets simply due to difficulty in obtaining sufficient human assets. Even with my relatively optimistic outlook I still think that the wealth gab between the rich and poor will rise. Must say, it's so pleasant to discuss things with someone in the same reality as myself. 1. I know what you meant, and I was talking about the same. I really do think robots will eventually be so good that the only thing humans will be able to offer is human contact itself. Maybe we'll pay for human singers and dancers, but I don't see why anyone would pay goods made by people, including gourmet meals, produce, et al. Maybe I'm under-appreciating human-made products though, and you're right, there will definitely be a market, as niche as I may think it will be. 2. Good point. However, with a monopoly (provided there is already a monopoly in place. Otherwise, I see status quo leading to continuing monopolizing of the markets by international conglomerates, eventually arriving at a monopoly), predatory pricing can be employed until the competition is insolvent. That of course depends on the barriers to entry themselves. Actually, you know what, I agree with you. What I'm describing seems to be a worst-case scenario, where we end up with giant corporations in place of government, laws favoring incumbents, it's just not very realistic. Suddenly I feel more optimistic than you! The wealth gap will rise until it doesn't, and then post scarcity! Speaking of wealth gap, I wonder whose share the equalization of third world nations will come out of. The world will eventually (I won't speculate how long) have equal quality of life across the globe. I don't think that can happen with the west preserving it's wealth. I am of the opinion that the west largely prospers at the cost of third world nations. Don't really know where I'm going with this. Must be the weed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I should get both of you to come on my podcast and talk about this kinda stuff in real time. Any interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I should get both of you to come on my podcast and talk about this kinda stuff in real time. Any interest? I would say my presence would hurt your podcast's credibility. I'm not nearly qualified to speak on the subject beyond CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I would say my presence would hurt your podcast's credibility. I'm not nearly qualified to speak on the subject beyond CDC. The podcast I'm starting won't be for strictly professional reporting. More so just discussing a variety of topics, share opinions on the pros or cons of things. hypothesizing, speculating, formulating potentials solutions to humanities upcoming problems. Just throwing two or more knowledgeable and curious minds at any given subject. Essentially educated 'stoner talk'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The podcast I'm starting won't be for strictly professional reporting. More so just discussing a variety of topics, share opinions on the pros or cons of things. hypothesizing, speculating, formulating potentials solutions to humanities upcoming problems. Just throwing two or more knowledgeable and curious minds at any given subject. Essentially educated 'stoner talk'. Sounds like a party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The podcast I'm starting won't be for strictly professional reporting. More so just discussing a variety of topics, share opinions on the pros or cons of things. hypothesizing, speculating, formulating potentials solutions to humanities upcoming problems. Just throwing two or more knowledgeable and curious minds at any given subject. Essentially educated 'stoner talk'. PM me a link? I'm not half as well spoken and well thought out as I do typing, but I'm at least interested in your show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 PM me a link? I'm not half as well spoken and well thought out as I do typing, but I'm at least interested in your show. I'm basically getting the wheels in motion right now. I've spent the last 2 years collecting funds for equipment, conceptualizing how to structure my shows, and formulating thoughts and opinions on a wide variety of topics from global current events, scientific discoveries, global conflicts, humanities struggles/needs. I've written plenty of articles, and talking points to structure some shows, although most of it will just be talking freely and sharing ideas. I'm start Locker Room Talk which is strictly hockey talk. NHL and Canucks. On top of that I'm starting The WebbCast. Which is just a sandbox conversation for any topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'm basically getting the wheels in motion right now. I've spent the last 2 years collecting funds for equipment, conceptualizing how to structure my shows, and formulating thoughts and opinions on a wide variety of topics from global current events, scientific discoveries, global conflicts, humanities struggles/needs. I've written plenty of articles, and talking points to structure some shows, although most of it will just be talking freely and sharing ideas. I'm start Locker Room Talk which is strictly hockey talk. NHL and Canucks. On top of that I'm starting The WebbCast. Which is just a sandbox conversation for any topics. Sounds good man. I obviously don't know your earning power but all you need is an USB mic.... I believe. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I'm basically getting the wheels in motion right now. I've spent the last 2 years collecting funds for equipment, conceptualizing how to structure my shows, and formulating thoughts and opinions on a wide variety of topics from global current events, scientific discoveries, global conflicts, humanities struggles/needs. I've written plenty of articles, and talking points to structure some shows, although most of it will just be talking freely and sharing ideas. I'm start Locker Room Talk which is strictly hockey talk. NHL and Canucks. On top of that I'm starting The WebbCast. Which is just a sandbox conversation for any topics. Interesting. I've been wanting to do a Jay and Dan-type podcast (so, sandbox, perhaps?), but I don't have the money nor the time to do that all up right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Sounds good man. I obviously don't know your earning power but all you need is an USB mic.... I believe. No? For a basic basic show. I'll have white and green screen backdrops soon. I bought an audio mixer and some mics for it. I also have a USB mic that can also plug into my iphone to record, for taking the show on the road. I'm getting a more powerful computer soon. among some other random accessories to help me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugor Hill Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 For a basic basic show. I'll have white and green screen backdrops soon. I bought an audio mixer and some mics for it. I also have a USB mic that can also plug into my iphone to record, for taking the show on the road. I'm getting a more powerful computer soon. among some other random accessories to help me. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 Can you explain why it shouldn't include torts? Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Well this makes it interesting: "COUNTDOWN TO ISRAEL ATTACK: RUSSIA LIFTS BAN ON MISSILE SALES TO IRAN" Russia announced Monday that it will sell Iran advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The decision, which ends an embargo dating back to 2010, shows that President Barack Obama is rapidly losing control of the international consensus on Iran. It also sets Israel a deadline to attack Iran–since Israel has treated the S-300 system as a “red line,” and has attacked Syria several times recently to prevent advanced Russian air defense and anti-ship missile systems from becoming operational. Some Israeli analysts have recently suggested that Israel will only attack Iran if the regime’s nuclear program poses a direct and imminent threat–if the “sword is at the throat.” However, it is likely that Israeli strategists have another deadline in mind–namely, the point where a military attack against Iran is no longer feasible. Currently, Iran has weak air defenses and would not be able to do much to stop an airstrike. However, the Russian missiles will advance its defensive capabilities. Effectively, then, Putin is calling the world’s bluff. He is setting a deadline for Israel to make a fateful choice, and daring the Obama administration to intervene. More broadly, he is unraveling the P5+1 process that the U.S. has dominated recently–chiefly by leading the way in offering concessions to Iran. The “framework” of Lausanne is still murky, and a final deal is a long way from done, but Putin is already challenging the U.S. leverage that brought about the conditions for negotiations. Putin knows full well that he is triggering an Israeli countdown–and he has been happy to do so in the past. From his point of view, it makes little difference whether Iran or Syria actually use the weapons he is selling them, so long as their money is good and the two regimes remain somewhat dependent on Russian protection. For Israel, though, the question of war with Iran is no longer theoretical. It is something Israeli leaders–and the Obama administration–must face immediately. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/13/russia-sells-s-300-missiles-to-iran-starts-countdown-to-israeli-attack/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.