alexqr1

Saying “cosmetic changes” means nothing. Redefining is not only not necessary but incorrect. OK so now you are back at subjective meanings. Private property is logically derived from self ownership. If you want to redefine violence that is fine, but then your argument means nothing. It is not up to you to “provide ownership” or “provide access”. I can’t go past this, if you propose a system based upon violence, I cannot even consider it, even if you use other terms instead of violence. I am not interested in subjective meanings.Logic tells us we own ourselves, it follows that we own what we make. If you want to take that away from me or others then at least call it by its name: VIOLENCE

44% left, 56% right

This is how I think things would probably work. However, I am just one guy and a free market is a competition of everyone’s ideas so someone could have better ideas that I do. PDA P would consider C a liability, which would raise the cost of C being able to enter into contract with P. P may not even want C because of the trouble, but that would further raise C’s cost to contract a PDA, effectively enticing PDAs to make business with him which would in turn lower that cost to a level of equilibrium.If 10% of people won’t do business with a PDA that deals with animal researchers, then that will be calculated into what the level of equilibrium for the cost will be. Say 99.9% of people were against animal research, the cost for C would skyrocket making it economically impossible for him to contract one if he continues to research with animals. This would grant society the benefits of democracy without its violent shortcomings. That would only open the possibility that PDA C gets involved to help A’s customers. They would either help them for a cut of what they get back from B or A’s customers would freely mobilize towards C since A was not able to accommodate their needs.In a free society, the stronger an agency is, the more incentive there is for other agencies to counter it, so it would be in the agencies best interest not to become more powerful than they need to be because they would incur on a net loss. This would only enhance the incentives for other PDAs to help. Imagine how much people would be willing to pay in order to get out of such repression. This would keep PDAs from becoming repressive because they know ultimately they would incur in a net loss. The more they oppress, the more likely it is they lose everything. Again, the more oppression or destruction there is, the more incentive there is for other agencies to get involved, so it makes no sense to do it to begin with.

Yes, it is normal that our mind will try to “fill-in the blanks” and the more we are aware of it, the better the communication will be. I have done that too in this conversation, however, I don’t think I did it with the analogy of human and cells. I think the analogy is incorrect because the two are not the same precisely in the sense we are talking about. However, you and I both agree that it was only an analogy or a metaphor and we can move on, since I know now you did not intend to prove a point with it and I know if the metaphor is incorrect, that would not mean your argument is incorrect.I’m not sure we are on the same on the same level when it comes to ethics but I am willing to assume we are to continue the conversation and if necessary call you out (you can do the same) if I feel you are straying away from our understanding of what ethics is. I do not agree with the current system whatsoever, however that is not really relevant because it is neither capitalism nor do I think it is the system you are proposing. I think this is precisely where we disagree. I don’t think these things can be subjectively defined or they lose relevance. Ethics is objective, regardless of the system. I think both you and I agree that the current system is unethical even if it portrays itself as ethical. It is not that it has redefined ethics or self-ownership; it is that it has “hijacked” the terms. So how do we know how to define those if they are to be objective? Well, logically, we have to go back to self-evident truths, namely axioms. That is a consequentialist argument. Besides, I do not see how in a truly free society, what you call neurological marketing would be economically efficient. This has a lot to do with how we raise children in a statist society and I’m not too sure that is where you want this conversation to go, but I am more than willing to go in that direction if you want. Also, a free society would create mechanisms to counter such marketing. I somewhat agree here. In the current system, many people are ignorant as a result of their ignorance being profitable to others. In that sense, I agree with you because those individuals have been put in a position where they will remain ignorant and it is not their choice. In a free society, an ignorant decision would be a choice, because someone’s ignorance would be their own choice. When you say “we need to be educated to know when to say I don’t know” you are straying away from what ethics is, because that would be a positive right and I thought we had agreed that there are no positive rights on ethics (or maybe I misunderstood you and you just meant that it would be better to be educated as opposed to having the right to be educated and others the obligation to do so, in which case I take back what I said). It suffices to say, I think, that in a truly free society, we WOLD be educated, not because we had the positive right to an education, but because it would not be harmful to others to be educated. But now you are describing a system which I am also against. That is kind of a straw man. In capitalism, it would be inefficient and against one’s self interest to pretend you are an expert on something you are not. In the current system, pretending is a virtue, not in capitalism. People are bound by social norms, but hunger, thirst, diseases and winter are not. this is why primordial people preferred the company of a tribe to company of hungry cave lions, even if there might be some violence and pecking order within the tribe. So if I'd propose something as ambitious as a new socio-economic system, I'd try to do it more thoroughly, firstly securing people from the natural dangers. I think that natural dangers may motivate people to commit violence against other people. Not just that a hungry person may steal, but businessmen may try to lower wages in winter, if the cold makes less likely that the workers would leave. (just a simple example) The workers would of course be unhappy against this and this would lead to stress, alcohol consumption and even direct acts of violence. This is similar to what many Zeitgeisters call "structural violence". Some anarcho-capitalists don't approve of this term, but in a very socially aware way and I believe he de facto understands structural violence very well and its effects too.OK, so we agree in those terms. According to this: ethics=human dignity=integrity, for future reference.We can’t hold nature to ethical principles. It makes no sense. I disagree with you here, but I will not expand because my disagreement is irrelevant to the conversation. I mean, you can do that and convince as many people to do it that way and that to me is perfectly ethical. I would not be robbing people of their integrity if you convince them to do this. The problem is, if you don’t convince me, would you force me into this system? This is very important and I think that this conversation is on the verge of collapsing because we are talking about way too many things (all of them important) in a single thread and we can easily get lost in so many arguments.I propose this part of our conversation to be the backbone of this “debate”, because it is the one that most resembles the topic of the video. What do you think? I’m not sure I agree 100% with Stefan here, but that does not matter. I have my ideas of how things would work in a free society in this respects, but I don’t want to direct the conversation in that direction, at least not before other things, more relevant to the video, are discussed. You see, in reality there is no system that is not “allowed” by anarcho-capitalism. Communism, Socialism, TVP, anything is perfectly fine within a capitalist system, as long as there is no initiation of violence. For example if you are a communist and find other communist and want to live in a communist society, that is perfectly ethical and acceptable, and no capitalist has the right to keep you from doing that.That is why I am an anarchist and not a capitalist. I know I have no right to force others into my economic system of choice. I am an anarchist because anything else is immoral; I am a capitalist because I think it is efficient.I don’t have a problem with individuals who disagree with me on which economic system is best. I would defend anyone’s right to abide by the principles of the economic system of their choice with others who share that choice. But I DO have a problem with anti-anarchists who would try to force me into their system.I am not accusing you of not being an anarchist, I assume that you are. What I mean is, even if we disagree about economic systems, I cannot force you into capitalism and you cannot force me into

OK, so the way I understand the issue is that you are more concerned with which issues should we occupy our minds. Non-violence is actually too open ended, which is why it is more than just a catch-phrase. Non-violence has to actually be defined. I prefer the phrase non-initiation of violence, which would also have to be defined and in order for the definition to be relevant, it has to be objective, universal and logical. Now we are entering the realm of ethics, which is the part of the video I now believe you are most interested in. How do we choose a goal? There is just one ethically correct answer to that: that is entirely up to you. You choose the goals you want to choose. If you accept self-ownership then that is the only correct answer, if you don't, then the whole conversation is futile and your arguments irrelevant. Negative rights follow logically from self-ownership. They are universal, objective and logical. One can "acquire" positive rights with regard to other individual(s) through an agreement or a contract or as a result of non-contracted destruction of value or violation of negative rights. That too follows from self-ownership. Any violence that is initiated without it being a result of the violation of my rights is the initiation of violence. Capitalism is the only economical system that upholds the principle of non-initiation of violence. You may be aware of another one and I am always willing to listen. Or you may think I committed a logical error arriving to my conclusions and I am also open to that.

Logic is always relevant, regardless of the time or individual. Reading Mises would be great but I don't think it is necessary in this case. We could define human action as the use of reason to identify which of multiple scenarios is the best choice to satisfy one's ends. I did not mean to insult your intelligence, I am sorry if you felt offended. My point is that the whole concept of a non-capitalist economic system would be immoral or faced with a logical contradiction of assuming that human action (as defined above) is something that objects can have. With that in mind, your model is useless because it does not deal with the reality it is trying to explain. You are mistaken in thinking human action is a result of the capitalist system or that it was created to justify capitalism. Human action is an axiomatic truth about human beings. You could try to postulate that humans don't act and if you prove it, you will bring down with it all of Mises' work. However, because of it axiomatic nature, proving humans don't act is impossible. Thinking that human action was invented to explain capitalism is like thinking gravity was invented to explain the general theory of relativity. You have them the other way around. You say you prefer behavioral psychology, however when trying to find the truth, what you (or me for that matter) prefer is irrelevant. We need to deal with logic. Human action, is a logical axiomatic truth. If you disagree, prove it wrong.

I'm sorry. I just can't pretend to have a serious conversation with someone who not only thinks brain cells have preference but that they make decisions based on those preferences the same way humans do. Objects fall to the ground when dropped, a body in motion will continue in motion unless forces are applied to it, water freezes at a certain temperature, brain cells pass electrical signals to other brain cells in the brain. None of that have anything to do with preference, until you understand that difference, I don't think you would understand economics, or any other social science for that matter. It is not that this is not something that can be discussed, but I am more interested on a conversation starting from a higher understanding of the fact of human action.

If you have defined scarcity as ever-present and abundance, its opposite, as infinite resources, then obviously there is no way we can have abundance. But is that a honest argument? Who right in their mind would argue there are infinite resources on Earth? No, what the Zeitgeisters mean is rather that human needs are not infinite and so all we need is finite, yet sustainably recyclable resources. We may of course expand the economy, but not infinitely. Who said that human needs are infinite? Was it some psychologist or neurologist? Show me his name, credentials and peer-review! That is sure a big claim to make. I already addressed the Economy 101 thing, If you do understand Economics 101, you understand that the difference between infinity of resources and ever-present abundance is irrelevant for economics. Demand responds exactly the same way to both. It is really not too hard to understand but if you need further explanation I would have no problem explaining it. it's not necessary to repeat. But all I see in Capitalism, I see a system that has some vital functions, like spreading information (to coordinate the economy) and you think that is the only way a system can work. However, I see many working systems around. One such system is a human body, it's an integrated system and it does not compete with itself. The intestine does not compete with stomach, it does not seek for better competing providers of food. The blood is a network that provides resources freely and all the cells are programmed to take only as much resources as they need or release them when they get a signal. There is a central computer which controls all the body directly and through a set of endocrine glands that secrete hormones and so on. All the organs are pretty much automatic, there is only one general purpose organ in human body and that is the brain. The brain cells are a nice metaphor for people in RBE, they do not sow, do not reap, and yet they live and have this wonderful conversation right now. Really? You think that is an argument? Are you truly comparing individuals with brain cells? I would tend to believe there is a difference between an individual with needs, aspirations, preferences, ideals, ideas, desires, values, emotions, intelligence, capacity to learn, etc, etc, etc and brain cell. If you don’t understand the fundamental difference the two then I can fully understand how the Zeitgeist movement makes sense to you. So I'd say Capitalism is not the only possible, viable and efficient system and if we try to mimic the nature and its design of organisms, we may come up with a whole better design than Capitalism and still have free will, freedom and so on. Excellent, tell us about it. But it needs to explain reality the way it is, and human beings are not legs and cells, they are human beings, acting individuals. If you want some argument from the video addressed specifically, just tell me. I disagree with them nearly all, so I don't know which one do you want to talk about the most. Honestly, from your non-arguments so far, I don’t think I’m interested. But hey, if you have an efficient and moral economic system to deal with HUMAN BEINGS that is not capitalism, then let us know.

Hey! Please don't send them this way. We have plenty of crazies here already, way more than our fair share.

Austrian Economics usually get a bad rap because of the fact that they disregard empirical observation as opposed to natural sciences and other economic theories. I uploaded this video to try to explain why that is. If you think it accomplishes that goal, please like it, comment but most importantly, I am not trying to preach to the choir here so share it with someone you think can learn something from it.

Dignity: Being in a position where you are not responsible for your actions or in control of your life. Having a violent organization define and take care of your needs by using someone else's money and effort to meet those needs. Budget Cut: Spending less than originally proposed, regardless of how that amount compares to the amount spent on the previous period. Money: Paper with dead people's faces on it that people of a geographical area are forced to use to trade. Constitution: A document with random laws created by random people that arbitrarily are interpreted by random people and that most individuals in a geographical area must abide by. Self-ownership: A group of actions that individuals are allowed to do by a small group of people that form a violent organization. Objective: Subjective Scientific evidence: A group of propositions which may or may not be logical or scientific, that are used to justify a conclusion that was arrived to before the assembling of such propositions. Reason: Set of opinions School: Organizational misinformation Children: A group of individuals of certain age, usually less than an arbitrary number set by a violent institution, who are usually owned by their parents, whose ideas, needs and knowledge must be deemed as inconsequential, inferior, less important than those of the rest of the population.

Hey I think we are taking this the wrong way, I actually see a possibility for trade here. e Yer, I will think about miracles and and Jesus the bastard Semi-god on christmas when many celebrate his birth and you think about logic an reason on every other day of the year when we don't celebrate his birth. Deal?

Hello, I recently uploaded a video in which I try to make both an argument from efficiency and an argument from morality for capitalism. If you have a few minutes and are interested, please watch it and let me know what you think. Thank you

I recently read a book by Hugh Howey (not a well-known sci-fi author I think) entitled WOOL. It’s actually an omnibus version of a series. I found the book to be very entertaining and also to have an anarchistic message. I know for a fact the book was not written to send that message, but it’s one of those things where a piece of art has sort of its own “life” beyond what the author was trying to create. The book is about a dystopian future society of people living inside of a silo underground as a result of a toxic atmosphere. If you like that type of book and are looking for a good read, give it a try and let me know what you think. Also post other book titles of books you think relay an anarchist message. http://www.amazon.com/Wool-Omnibus-Edition-Silo-Saga-ebook/dp/B0071XO8RA

I live in Spain and I was aware of this case. I wonder how this would work on a global scale. Where would they steal the resources from? In a communist society there is no Carrefour (the supermarket in the video) to steal from. Every resource comes from somewhere, if one small town steals resources then I'm sure it can be sustainable. But if every town in the world or even in a country steals from each other, how can the system sustain itself?

Hello everyone, my name is Alex. I actually registered last year but bearly even posted before. I'm hoping to have more time to interact with people here. I'm a 34 year old guy in Spain. I've been a fan of FDR (not the president though, you maybe guessed that but I still had to say it) for quite some time and I started a youtube channel a couple of months ago. I'm hoping you may have the time and interest to check it out and if you like it, suscribe and tell others. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiw that's the link, I hope you like it.

How about this one? The forum I got it from has a post that reads: "Doesn't even mention the framework of commercial law that makes operating his business possible." So I guess without commercial law commerce would not be possible. And my personal comment from the picture is "standard day and time (GOV)". Thank goodnes for governments, without them, we all would have a different time on our watch and a different day on our calendar.