World News Thread (Politics,whatever)

klapse

Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
1,932
Location
Germany
But that is the same principle even in anarcho-communism, syndicalism and what else have you. There must be a general consensus with the people to abide by the social compromise, that living together means sustaining each other for the better good; which means that you do not coerce someone else to do something.
I missed this post earlier, and I need to respond.

There are a few things in society which require consensus, but not many. We are better off when we don't need to rely on this process. Individual people have different preferences and goals. There will always be people who do not agree with each other about what to do with scarce resources, for example. There is no 'hive mind' among humans that locks-in to the global optimum solution to such problems. It is thus this idea of requiring consensus for decision-making - and not the real and observable dynamics of the marketplace - which truly deserves the term "magical thinking."

Lacking such a 'hive mind', any so-called "consensus" decision that must apply to all members of the group will necessarily leave some portion of the group dissatisfied. If instead we are free to choose what to do with whatever scarce resource that is our legitimate property (those things which we have acquired through homesteading, productive work and mutually-beneficial trade), and we do not thereby violate the property rights of others (via pollution harms for example) then we do not come into conflict with each other.

Instead of collectively deciding what to make out of a pile of iron ore, we can individually choose which uses of it meet our subjective, individual highest goals (ends) - a transaxle for our car, a fancy sword, or a new steel cooking pot. Instead of all agreeing that we must all eat hamburgers for lunch on the first of the month, we each choose that meal which we individually deem most preferable. Instead of 51% happy hamburger eaters and 49% who would have preferred something else, we each get what we want most. Instead of requiring children to be incarcerated in the State school system for twelve years, they and their families can choose the most suitable type and amount of education, and they can enter an apprenticeship or professional training whenever they are ready.

Wherever individual choice is allowed rather than a one-size-fits-all collective decision, we avoid creating discontented people and we avoid wasting our time and energy on unproductive fighting over decisions which must apply to all. (Think of multiple Pyra colors available instead of just one.)

And for those things which do require a degree of consensus - our idea of law, right and wrong, and socially inacceptable behavior - what do we need? Well, we need consensus - shared traditions, ideals and values - and that is only the result of a homogeneous culture! Any deliberate or inadvertent importation of significant numbers of people from a different culture makes genuine consensus building more difficult, or even impossible.
 
Last edited:

ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,196
Location
Seattle, WA
not particularly. what makes you think that it's *not* free markets that have essentially evolved things to this point? companies that make profit are the ones who can afford to "buy" congressman and their goodwill, thus leading to the sort of symbiotic relationship between the market and government that we have. i'm not convinced that a small government can maintain a free market (in the ideal sense), because of the tendency for people (and corporations by extension) to take over all the things (monopolize).

(also, please no walls of text, i'm too lazy to read it all.)
 

klapse

Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
1,932
Location
Germany
not particularly. what makes you think that it's *not* free markets that have essentially evolved things to this point? companies that make profit are the ones who can afford to "buy" congressman and their goodwill, thus leading to the sort of symbiotic relationship between the market and government that we have. i'm not convinced that a small government can maintain a free market (in the ideal sense), because of the tendency for people (and corporations by extension) to take over all the things (monopolize).

(also, please no walls of text, i'm too lazy to read it all.)
Sorry that is too long to read. please make your point in 140 characters or less.
 

Null

Junior partner in crime.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
9,172
I also enjoy big orange balloons, here let me send you a photo of my penis.


Do I know how to online date or do I know how to online date. :cool:
 

ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,196
Location
Seattle, WA
@klapse we are socializing kids to share and be nice. that's eventually how things are going to turn out, though it may take some time.

[edit] i used to be a libertarian, since freedom sounds nice. but freedom doesn't happen without regulation -- sounds counter-intuitive. for example, linux and the GPL wouldn't give users the freedom they are promised unless there were laws (governments) ready to enforce the GPL. you need a government "bigger than" the corporations that are trying to completely dominate the market, just as you need people who have the muscle to enforce the GPL to continue giving users freedom. ergo, if you believe in a free market, you need a big enough government to enforce it.

also, giving everybody universal healthcare would also help the free market. in the current market (in the US), working at a big company has many perks, one of them being access to better healthcare. if everyone had a good level of healthcare, that wouldn't be a consideration in deciding who to work for, and startups/small businesses could have more freedom.

i'm happy to hear opposing sides, but i'd appreciate a high level overview like the above...[/edit]
 
Last edited:

JDTAY

Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
714
Age
32
Location
North Carolina, USA
Meh, I still don't know why you think we have free markets.

What we have right now is Keynesianism, a system of capitalism overseen by government which measures success based on consumption. A market with no government wouldn't be pushed to put up huge consumption numbers.

Also, when you give private entities complete control over resources, they actually tend to overconserve them to artificially inflate prices, not waste them. See diamonds for example.

I mean, doesn't sharing in itself conflict with reducing consumption of resources?
 

Null

Junior partner in crime.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
9,172
You show me a kid who's learned to be nice and share and I'll show you two who never.
I dare say I'd be one of the two, because although it may not seem like it at times I am a nice person, but my stuff is my stuff.
 

ible

professional vim user
Joined
Mar 24, 2014
Messages
2,196
Location
Seattle, WA
@JDTAY and diamonds don't have anything wrong with the way they are traded and mined...

i'm not saying we have free markets... but if that's what we want, we need regulation (to prevent monopolies) and universal healthcare (which helps prevent barriers to entry for small businesses).
 

JDTAY

Half Pepperoni, All Cheese
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
714
Age
32
Location
North Carolina, USA
Random thought of the day: If we keep firing talented people for that one time they did something sexist or racist, eventually there will be no talent left.

The victims aren't even conservative either. See the latest victim, James Gunn, director of Guardians of the Galaxy, for example.
 
Top