Mister Mister

Yes...There is a myth that before money, people had direct barter systems, trading chickens for wheat for lumber and so on, and that money eventually emerged as the most "tradeable" commodity based on certain physical characteristics, typically gold and silver as they are non-corrosive, soft, scarce, and so on. My understanding is that there is no evidence this was ever the case. Most primitive, pre-money societies trade on a kind of mutual credit system. That is, one person might give something to, or do something for, his neighbor, and the neighbor will remember and in the future do something for him. This kind of exchange is more natural than the "on-the-spot" transaction of direct barter, but also relies on trust and reputation. In the same way, with your friends and family, you may "trade" favors, but without ever accounting for those trades. It's interesting to think about how the exchange of money between intimate relations is seen as weird and gross...people close to you generally would prefer you buy them a coffee or a beer or lunch or something, rather than paper money. When exchange goes beyond the local, familial relationships that can be enforced socially, it is necessary to provide some accounting system. Merchants used to write a kind of IOU, a promise to deliver goods/services in the future, this promise could also itself be traded in the marketplace. Many businesses still do this in the form of coupons, frequent flier miles, etc... Places like Ithaca, NY and Breckenridge, CO, have developed systems where multiple businesses pool their "coupons" into a more fungible kind of "community" money. The advantage to this kind of system is that the people who are producing value are now producing money, rather than banks who have gold or governments who have power. It cuts out the overhead of having to mine gold or bitcoins, which people don't actually need to survive, and gives the power to create money to those who have a reputation in the community for producing value. Hope that makes sense, just an alternative perspective I've found very compelling.

Can you elaborate? I get the sense this isn't about riding bicycles.

bugzy, if you wanted to argue against the universality of property rights, why not just come out with it? why come at it with this "nothing will matter in a billion years" stuff, and then move on when a number of people pointed out how ridiculous that approach is? I found it kind of annoying and it seems to me a little manipulative. yes, property is a social convention, like the scientific method, language, or the rules of chess. nobody I've ever heard take a principled stand in defense of property rights, has said otherwise. nevertheless, property rights in 99% of cases, follows a reasonable and consistent methodology, which everyone can follow and agree to, even a 3 year old. and the 1% of gray areas, are important and worth talking about, but I'm not sure what angle you're really taking. my frustration with your previous posts is, "where is all this going"? Is there a conclusion you're getting at? Are you defending taxation, or Syndicalism, or spanking, or something like that? I'm just wondering where you are trying to take us, and I would appreciate if you would come out with it, so we know why this is even worth discussing.

Wait, you don't think that government funding has any negative effects on the effectiveness of a program?

I would be sympathetic to your arguments, and I think so would many others here, but your approach I think is lacking in humility and sensitivity required for this very big topic. I would recommend, take some time, calm down, try thinking about how to communicate this with the rigor necessary for the topic, start a new thread, and invite people to ask certain questions, rather than accusing everyone who disagrees with you of irrationality if they don't immediately agree with your very volatile . It would be like if I went to a political rally and shouted Government is a Violent Religion of Bigotry and Entitlement, and then hurled rapid-fire verbal abuse at anyone who disagreed. But, to be fair, hasn't science in the last 100 years operated almost entirely in the realm of government licensed and subsidized universities? And hasn't a lot of data come out recently about the tenuous nature of peer review and so on?

neither does rape or even nuclear war. so what? property matters to me and you and billions of other people living on earth right now. I remember a kid in high school putting forth this argument. A few years later I heard he committed suicide. I don't mean to shock you, and I realize this is not an argument, but your post made me think of him.

you're making the same mistake as Donnadogsoth. Those women didn't necessarily commit a crime per se, but that doesn't mean we can't vehemently criticize their behavior. In the same way if someone ostracized a person for being homosexual, they haven't initiated force or fraud, but I can still criticize them for being cruel and bigoted and irrational.

Not sure I want to let you hijack another thread, but I have to point out you're making the common fallacy towards libertarianism, that a lack of violent force towards something is approval of the action. Telling someone to commit suicide is clearly verbal abuse. It is not righteous or virtuous in any sense, but I'm not sure we can then use legal force against that person, as they are not responsible for the other's death in the same way a murderer is. Similarly, saying mean things to black people, or using heroine are not "righteous" I don't support those behaviors in any way, I'm just not willing to point guns to peoples' heads to prevent them from doing things I disagree with. I hope that clarifies things for you, though you seem to me to have an aversion to clear language.

You have yet to explain what a "democrat economy" is, and to convince me why it is something to strive for, and what makes a democratic company different from a parasitic one. "Under capitalism, those who produce things are using the tools owned by other people" Again, you're just repeating Marx's ideas with no reference to the arguments against them.

Untile these basic concepts are understood...by whom??? Because this post indicates some great confusion about these basic concepts on your part. Let's examine them... Capitalism is the result of general respect for property rights and free trade in the culture. I don't know what you mean "money can buy power", if you mean political power, then NO, because political power is explicitly defined as the power to intervene in property rights and free trade. Enforcement of a contract by government is a regulation??? No, contracts are explicit voluntary agreements, regulations are arbitrary unilateral contracts imposed by force. Also, governments generally don't enforce contracts effectively at all - unless there is a LOT of money, and you have massive legal resources at your disposal, it is not in your interest to take a violation of contract to court. Under anarchy, contracts wouldn't be enforced? Can you point to a single An-Cap philosopher who makes this claim? Because pretty much all of them that I've heard, argue that contracts are what would essentially replace the government. Are you familiar with these arguments? Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Stef, and others have all offered excellent explanations how this would work. Also, have you ever heard of eBay? "Capitalism requires giving up the right/freedom to violate contracts" - again, I don't know what this means. Of course, you can renegotiate a contract, or you can even break it. A person's actions are not bound by words on paper (like the Constitution or the Bible), but there are consequences for violating socially accepted ethics. "Since I strongly believe in freedom, I believe that the government should only enforce contract that do violate the public good." What you believe has nothing to do with philosophy, and is not binding on all of society. What is the public good? How can you objectively determine or calculate the public good? Again, are you familiar with some basic arguments against these ideas? Sorry, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the article you posted, which is an argument for corporations to be run democratically, i.e. Syndicalism. Now you are arguing that we need a government to selectively enforce contracts which are "good" but not those which are "bad". You'll have to examine your claims and definitions, and reclarify if we're to discuss this any further.

Ahh, but it is morally different. Morality is based on universal principles, not effects. Assisted suicide has the same effect as murder. Boxing has the same effect as assault. Charity has the same effect as theft. Peer pressure is morally no different than force? Do you really expect to be able to assert something like that here without being called out or questioned on it. I think dsayers is right, I'm done. Thanks for the dialogue.

If I understand, this argument is, if 99.99% of people have been persuaded of this great idea (which, atm, most people haven't heard of), but .0001% of people are not persuaded, and the idea cannot be implemented without violating their property rights, then don't we NEEEED to use force against them for the greater good? Before arguing for force, you have yet to persuade people that this is a good idea to begin with. Which seems like a big job ahead of you. Of course it's a lot easier to force people than to persuade them. I think it's very interesting though, that rather than trying to convince people in general this is a good idea, you are asking a bunch of Ancaps on the internet if they would betray their core principles in a hypothetical future scenario.

He takes a really long time to get to the point, but ultimately gets to it - wage labor is a form of slavery. The "workers" are really the one's responsible for the products, and the difference between their wages and the profit from the products is somehow stolen through the arbitrary owners of capital. This is just rehashed Marxism, and necessarily ignores all of the arguments against Marxism - specifically that the labor theory of value is invalid. It's really an effect of the Dunning-Kroger effect, people with no understanding of business and economics don't understand the great deal of skill involved in capital investment, management, and so on...so they assume the large salaries of these people are unearned. A free market system actually allows for a Democratically run Corporation, but you don't see this model because it is dysfunctional. Management and effective business decisions are real, specialized skills, and if you just have factory workers and janitors vote on these decisions, it is not likely to work out well. Also, ownership entails responsibility - ownership of debt, liability for damages, responsibility to the consumers, and so on. Many people would prefer a paycheck to these responsibilities. I have heard some Socialists argue that the Spanish Company Mondragon is an example, but I don't know a lot about it. The last thing I would say is, any "critique of capitalism" that fails to acknowledge the massive interventions in property rights and free trade that is rampant in every modern Western democracy, is fundamentally ignorant or dishonest. Govt spending in the US is nearly 40% of GDP, Debt exceeds GDP in this and many other countries, Taxation is nearly half of many peoples' incomes, Central Banks constantly interfere with the market, and every business has thousands of pages of regulations to overcome. But the real slavery, they tell you, is selling your labor for a wage, when you can renegotiate or leave at any time. Gimme a break.

Please understand, this is all entirely normal - the fear of rejection, the fantasizing about the future, and so on. It shows to me that you are sensitive and intelligent, which are positives, but also present challenges. My impression is that you tend to over-analyze things to the point of being paralyzed, is that right? Also the conflict between short-term fun and long-term depth totally makes sense. But I think that is all jumping the gun. Based on your story, in my opinion you probably need some practice asking women out, dating, and so on. It's totally normal to imagine a future, or even get carried away by fantasy, but I would suggest you remain curious, that's the key. What makes a relationship special is that you don't know what the other person is going to say or do. Take the time to find out.

In my experience, I always used to go too slow. In other words, I know that I will see a girl frequently, and I talk to her in those situations of coincidental proximity, but I would never make a move in terms of taking a risk, clearly expressing interest, and eventually the girl would lose interest or get confused. So the answer is No, you haven't been rejected, because you haven't put yourself out there to risk rejection. You are going to have to get used to it, get over the fear of rejection, just doing this much will impress a lot of young women. I just wish someone would have told me this before I was like 25. Instead all I remember from Sex Ed was pictures of anal warts. Another challenge you are facing, as a younger man, is that clearly you have strong sexual/romantic feelings towards a person you don't know so well. Do you also fantasize about being with her? This is perfectly natural, but is also a major hindrance towards depth, as your hormones will try to prevent you from risking sex by pursuing honesty and intimacy and so on. So my advice would be, make a move to let her know you are interested and willing to make a risk. Instead of just talking to her when your lives randomly happen to coincide, ask her if she'd like to do something with you - dinner, movie, concert, sport, whatever. And if it works out, go slow - take the time to be curious, after a date, think about the things she has said and done after your hormones cool down, talk about it with your mother and/or others you trust. So in short, my advice is, don't wait around to express interest in a woman, but also give yourself time to see through the fog of your hormones and emotions. Good luck!

so what you're saying is you want to exploit and oppress women?

Yes I completely understand that. I'm talking about a criticism of the model with the rubber sheet representing space time. I'm saying, why does an object make a depression in the rubber sheet in the first place. Anyway I'm going to read the stuff shirgall and Graham sent in an effort to understand better.

Sorry I don't think you understood. I am just pointing out that, in this model, an object creates DOWNWARD depressions in the rubber sheet of space-time, cause a seeming attraction because objects tend to fall DOWNWARDS. If you set up this same model on a space shuttle it wouldn't work without the pull of gravity already. I understand it is an attempt to mathematically describe how gravity works, I just never thought it was a very good model. I also never understood how supposedly Einstein rejected Ether theory, but his theory rests on gravity as the curvature of spacetime. But if spacetime can curve, then it has substance right? So what is the difference between Aether which moves in vortices, and spacetime which can curve and compress. Also I realize we've strayed from the topic a bit, I just hoped you could clarify for me.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/unsealed-transcript-shows-how-a-judge-justified-ross-ulbrichts-life-sentence?trk_source=popular Another person's life ruined by the State. Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and so many more we've probably never heard of. Has Stef covered this story? I think it's worth telling the public about this tragic figure.

Yes I'm familiar with that model, I always found it weird because it seems like it already assumes gravity in its model - also it seems to me like because of friction, all orbits would eventually decay which we don't see. You can say that gravity "curves space", but if we designed this model way out in space, it wouldn't work - it only works when we conceptualize the Earth underneath the model pulling the objects down - so to me it still doesn't describe why objects fall towards large masses, or what mass even is in the first place. Maybe there are answers to these questions but it doesn't totally make sense to me.

I seriously doubt that definition, and anyway, I'm not sure if that is a yes or no to my question. I'm asking if an effect of gravity is the flow from cold to hot. For example, the Sun attracts matter from the cold of space and compresses it into the heat of matter.

Money is a contract. It is a promise on future labor.

But you think you can create an accountable oligarchy through more magic words on paper? Do you know some secret that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin didn't? Because their attempt to create an accountable oligarchy through words on paper has been one of the great failures of modern history.

he's a board member here...search under members and you'll find him

I like Mercedes coming out and speaking about theses issues, but I wish she would put her enormous gorgeous tits away so I could more clearly listen to and process what she is saying.