Mark Carolus

Ah, see there you are again, this is basically the same trick you always play, so please allow me. I don't have to define meanings every single time I make an argument in order for that argument to be acceptable, I only need to do so, if my definition is massively different to that which is generally accepted. My definition of "harms way" or what I consider to be "putting people in harms way" ought to be quite obvious, I shouldn't have to explain this for you. Funny enough though, I did actually give a few examples later on, which you decided to ignore, or have unintentionally missed. If you read my original post again, you will also notice, that it answers you right there "the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally?". The question of what would constitute "harms way", is a question you raise after you agree that "putting people in harms way" is wrong. Your argument looks a bit like this to me "if you want to claim that punching people in the face is wrong, than you first have to define what punching people in the face means".

The argument is made in relation to the video of Stefan, in which he advocates defooing friends and family if they "support you getting shot" I'm sure you know which video that is. I have nothing against defooing, so please don't equate me with one of those who attack Stefan on that. Here's a few situations in which I would support the use of violence (violence within reason of course) Drunk driving. Excessive speeding where it clearly isn't appropriate (obviously doing 200 MPH on route 66 doesn't really hurt a fly, figuratively). Leaving your used heroin needles in a children's playground.

I support the use of violence against you. If you put others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally. I'm pretty sure Stefan would agree with that himself, but the problem with agreeing to that, is that as soon as you do, the next step in the conversation would be: what/which behaviour is it that puts others in harms way, either intentionally or unintentionally? As soon as the conversation reaches that point, you'll have an argument for a governing body, whatever form that might take.

I would like to hear opinions on the Bayh-Dole act, from the anarcho capitalist community. Not so much in the way of how it would work in the true free market, but in the economic system as is. Personally, I think it's a fraud, I mean it is public money being used for private profits. I imagine cancer research for example, people pay taxes, some of these taxes go to cancer research, others give money to charity, which also goes into the same research. Now a new drug has been developed and a private company makes big buckets of profit, I feel this is highly immoral and the results of the research should always be in the public domain, free to use by everyone who wishes to do so, good for competition good for keeping the prices down.

Have you watched the video? if you did, how is this comment of yours relative to the fact that the problem exists? How will a "free-market" capitalist voluntary nap society prevent such things?

Capitalism is about making a profit. Put simply, I need to produce or sell for 100 dollars worth a day, in order to make a 10 dollar profit after my 90 dollar expenditure. It is mathematically impossible, for everyone to do so.

Things they desire, this is exactly what I am talking about. I get the market and the market in itself is good, however, when people can be manipulated psychologically into wanting things for whatever reason, you will always have a unnecessary part of the market. This does not mean that these parts of the market are 100% bad, not at all, but it cannot be said that they are vitally important, the only thing they are vitally important for, is for keeping people employed (unnecessarily as in not technically needed to supply one with a very decent way of living). I think that, if advertising in any way shape or form was illegal, we would have a vastly different world right now. Whether this is better or worse can be debated, but I feel it would actually be much better. I am not saying the way I (and many like me) live should be forced upon everybody else, but I am living proof that you can live a fulfilling life without infinitely desiring bucket loads of stuff that you in actuality rarely use. I have a computer and I buy a new one about every 4 years, I have a 1986 Toyota MR2 which i keep in good running order and I have a few things here and there which need replacement from time to time, but other than that, i have absolutely nothing i would require money or a market for. The average human being has (according to the latest studies) about 70 up to 90% stuff they hardly use, whereas I have about 5% at most and am thoroughly happy.

Well, it is very true that (especially in my country) government is making it quite hard, but at the same time, it was also the government that forced the electricity companies to pay people for delivering electricity back into the grid. About 10 years ago, back when solar panels were not that popular yet, i convinced my pops to get solar panels (something he didn't regret till he died 5 months ago). Back then, there were no laws forcing the electricity companies to do this and in fact, none of them actually did (To be fair, they did have contracts for farmers with large wind-mills, but this was electricity delivery on a gigantic scale). So in short, anyone that made more electricity during the day than they needed to run their appliances, was basically shafted. Of course, it is debatable that the free market would eventually get there as well, so i can't really use that as a way to legitimize any form of government (just so you know ). I actually didn't buy the house, I built it with a friend of mine who at this time still lives with me, until we are finished building his earthship. About 80% of all the materials used are recycled materials, some of them I actually got money for, in stead of having to pay for them. The other 20% is very expensive, they are solar panels, water purification filters, wiring, the cistern tank, water tanks (quite huge) and plaster for the walls (might miss one or two thing there, but those are the most important ones). The problem with the government in this country, is that you are forced to be connected to the gas, water, sewage and electricity network by law. Funny thing is, I don't even use water, gas and the sewage system at all (only the electricity network comes in handy for me, because i actually make about 5 Euros a day on the extra electricity I make) but i do have to pay for them..... it's retarded.

I have 3 battery banks with an automatic switch, making sure i always have at least 2 fully loaded battery banks. I have never used more than 25% of battery bank number 2, number 3 has never been put to use and is just sitting there fully loaded. I grow fruit and vegetables in a hydroponic greenhouse and even have tomato and cucumber plants in my front room. My water is purified by a 3 stage filtering system and it comes from rain water, with a secondary backup taking water out of a large pond (which i never needed though). Grey water (sink water, shower water and other types of water that has already been used) is used in the toilet. Black water (after the toilet), is dumped into a cistern with a glass top, which causes it to promote bacteria growth, making the water usable in the outside garden. I don't really need heating, but i do have an air-conditioning system, that can be used on demand, but I never really had to use it. While i don't have enough money to buy a Tesla Model S yet, the house could actually provide me with enough energy to power such a car and then some. I consider my life quite fulfilling and i use about 1/20th the amount of resources the average American uses.

While I do work, I most certainly do not need it to eat, I live in an Earthship. If i wasn't forced to pay property taxes, I actually could live quite well without any money.... untill one of my solar panels breaks, or my water filtering system fails or something. O and i need to pay for my computer and the internet i need to type this on this board with.

Can't find any videos on dairy farms, but do some research on Lely farm systems, they have fully automated that as well. So uhm.... how is agriculture going to be the next big thing in our lifetime?

That was just a pun, felt like posting it. It is basically how i see a totally free market ending up in.

To the federal reserve, aka, the 1% (as it has become popularly known). In a true gold backed currency economy, the government (or whoever/whatever if there is no government) can only print x amount of dollars. Each dollar buys x gold, so the more gold you have, the more dollars you can have, but the dollar itself does not lose value, in other words, you generate real wealth. There are other methods of course, but this is pretty much what is generally accepted as the "correct" way to do it.

If you asked me, the only have to there is, is the one that inevitably comes after I want to. You want x, then you have to do...... y, z or whatever

“Our economy is based on spending billions to persuade people that happiness is buying things, and then insisting that the only way to have a viable economy is to make things for people to buy so they'll have jobs and get enough money to buy things.” Philip Slater With or without government, with or without coercion, with or without violence and with or without anarcho capitalistic markets, I am 100% sure this will always be true, as long as we have a market......

Actually, there is no money in captain Picard's Star Trek (The next Generation). In fact, you probably couldn't find a more communistic show than Star Trek, this is why some people refer to Zeitgeist as the Star Trek economy sometimes.

While I fully agree with you, how would this ever come to be?, this is what i mean. How would we change those incentives, if the people keep voting for the people who will never implement it? You put great points on the table, but I cannot seem to find the answer to the root of the question.

Great point, you make a lot of sense. This leads us to the heart of the problem though. Seeing as people have the tendency to always want things in the short term, it becomes obvious that we (I say we for ease of use) have to educate/teach a critical mass of people about these things. As long as the majority stays oblivious of these points and keeps going for the things that work in the short term, we can not (or at least hardly) make the change we need to make, in order to get there. This is one of the main reasons, I personally don't see this ever happening. If we merely look at popularity alone, just popularity nothing else (for the sake of the argument), we can clearly see that Zeitgeist thinking and/or socialist/communist thinking is in the vast majority. Whether it is a good thing or not being beside the point, that which is most popular, has the biggest chance of succeeding (succeeding as in being implemented or at least being tried).

Hmmmm, yes, i guess that could be true in the long run, in fact, it is true for the long run. But how about the short run? i think one of the reasons things are going down the drain, is exactly because people don't like to think long term, if it doesn't do good in the short term, people don't do it.

I myself own some Bitcoins and quite a lot of Dogecoins, so it's not that i don't like them or anything. However i do want to hear some opinions on the following. At the moment, Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) are subject to huge price-swings. It is believed that the value of these coin will become less volatile sooner or later and i think this might very well be true. But there is an issue (I think). Deflation vs inflation. In a world where money is subject to inflation, i can buy a house today at 100.000 Dollars (for example) and pay it back over 30 years. In those 30 years, every Dollar in itself will have less value, therefore the house I bought will go up in price (but not necessarily value), this means that, over time, i pay less relative Dollars for my house. In a world where money is subject to deflation, i can buy a house today at 100.000 Dollars and pay it back over 30 years. In those 30 years, every Dollar becomes more valuable, therefore, the house I bought will go down in price. This means that, over time, i pay more relative Dollars for my house than the amount i bought it for in the first place. In short: Value of Dollar goes up = I pay to much for my mortgage. Value of Dollar goes down = I pay less for my mortgage, in relation to the average value of the house in the long term. Now here Bitcoin comes in. Bitcoin is worth x amount of Dollars right now, however as soon as Bitcoin becomes a mainstream currency, while their cap remains at 21 million Bitcoins, it will more than likely be subject to deflation. It is for this reason, that i think Dogecoin does a better job, at least in terms of being/becoming a useful real-life mainstream currency. Its cap is increased by 5 billion each year (perhaps that is to much, perhaps not, only time will tell), meaning that as usage increases, so does the supply, making it far less scarce a resource and therefore less likely to deflate. Your opinions please.

Capitalism does not require 3% growth, or any growth at all to "work" Agreed, if this were the case, there would be no problem at all. However, this is freedomainradio. Freedomainradio is the forum/message board that is founded on the principles of a man called Stefan Molyneux. I have regularly heard Stefan Molyneux say growth is a good thing. What am I missing here?

The argument is not (to me at least), which is a better model and which isn't. The argument is only that reductionism isn't a correct way to describe the entire economy. I don't believe you can compare scientific reasoning (the way atoms behave under certain circumstances etc etc) with anything that involves something as complex as a human being, let alone millions or billions of human beings interacting with each other. I am also not trying to offer a "better" method/model, however, a more communistic view makes just that bit more sense to me than a capitalistic one. For example: I live next to a forest. In this forest i usually pick wood for my stove. Now someone with more money than me (obviously), buys the forest. Now i can't go into the forest to pick wood for my stove, because I'd be trespassing on private property, or I'd now have to pay someone for something I've always done for free. I don't see how this in any way shape or form could be seen as even remotely fair, yet, the wealthy now new forest owner didn't coerce or force me in any way right? about me being a hypocrite? Well, yes, if you look at it that way, I am a hypocrite, but I pointed out that capitalism does not work because growth does not work and why growth does not work, is scientifically quantifiable, ergo it can be reductionistic.