Short capitalism video

[alexqr1]

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

 

[Carl Green]

Great video man, hopefully it gets plenty of views.

 

Maybe get a kickstarter going for a better mic though .  I'd pitch in.

[Armitage]

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 must completely disagree with most things you say in this video and I have legitimate reasons for that. You clearly know Capitalism very well, that's why you take such effort to explain it, but that's not the thing that's wrong with people who disagree with you. Their understand your point very well, the problem is, you don't understand their point at all. That is because they have a whole different set of goalposts which you don't know about, because they didn't bother to tell you. Why? Because as American founding fathers, "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

 

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, 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.

 

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.

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.

[alexqr1]

 

 

 

 

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.

[Armitage]

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.

I understand that, I just don't think that is a reason enough to give up! OK, people respond to supply with demand. Wonderful. So what kind of supply produces what kind of demand? Can demand be manipulated with supply?

 

I'd look at it a different way. What if human needs remain always the same, only abstract? And we seek concrete fulfillment of abstract needs in external objects and we can be fooled into believing that something will fulfill these needs. These needs met are pseudo-satisfiers, they satisfy only for a while and then we feel the need again, for something else, something same, whatever. Much of these preferences are caused by advertising that is designed by brain measurements to cause the greatest neurological response. Even that is OK by capitalistic theory, Economy 101 does not distinguish between a natural and brain-hacked preference... What if we don't need infinite resources, just a better philosophy?   

The Venus Project does not use the preferences theory of Austrian school. Here, have a look at these links. You are actually entering a discussion that has been going for a while. And Brandy Hume already addressed some of these arguments.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs

 

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.

I'm sorry for using disturbing metaphors, people in TZM are distinguished by having very vivid imagination.

A brain cell is to be compared to let's say a muscle cell, not to a person. For the purpose of model, that comparison is close enough. If that reassures you, each brain cell is unique and has literally thousands of preferences (synapses).

 

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.

 

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.

I have a method which allows people to understand and solve human problems. This method is based on learning a new "language" of how to think about economy. I learned three, the Economy 101 and the Austrian school economy, and then RBE. Each is a different way to think and by their comparison I learned a lot.

The words are still English, but the meanings under these words are different than an anarcho-capitalist means when using the word. This language opens a new way to think, to see old problems in a new light, by capturing meanings that your current language can not capture. If you have ever done translation jobs, then you know that some foreign words just don't have an exact equivalent in English. It's just like that with Stefan and TZM, they both speak English, but the set of goalposts behind their speech is different.

 

So for now I just say we need to work out communication protocols. I need to know what counts as an argument in your book or what do you mean by the words you use. But first I'd like you to tell me what do you think about the Brandy Hume's video. Maybe you'll derive from the context and from the Wikipedia page what does she really mean when she says this or that. Try not to assume she means the same thing that you hear. Especially if you don't like what she says, try to imagine the very best and wisest thing she might possibly really mean by the words she uses. Take it as an exercise 

[alexqr1]

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.

[Armitage]

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.

That's not the conversation you were having. Do you think I meant that "brain cell is an absolutely perfect model of a human being and we don't actually need to consider real human beings"? If that's what you think, then we really can't have conversation, because you don't grant me a shred of intelligence, good will and benefit of doubt.

 

I use many models to understand an aspect of reality, not a whole reality as such, no model can do that. But sometimes just an aspect will do. I use various models for various aspects. I think you're unsettled by my usage of models, because you have no idea which aspect of model or reality I mean, you think I reduce all reality to a model, which is not true. What is unsettling to me, is that you pick the most disturbing interpretation possible. If what you see sounds stupid, the thing we usually do is asking if we understood it right.

 

But "human action", that is a good thing to start. How would you defined it for me? I know Ludwig von Mises wrote Human Action, should I look at any chapters or will you define the concept for me, precisely as you understand it? 

Alternatively, can you tell me why would be the work of a 20th century Capitalist economist relevant for a system of 21st century? I'd rather prefer behavioral psychology that studies human action directly, not through the Capitalistic instruments.

[alexqr1]

That's not the conversation you were having. Do you think I meant that "brain cell is an absolutely perfect model of a human being and we don't actually need to consider real human beings"? If that's what you think, then we really can't have conversation, because you don't grant me a shred of intelligence, good will and benefit of doubt.

 

I use many models to understand an aspect of reality, not a whole reality as such, no model can do that. But sometimes just an aspect will do. I use various models for various aspects. I think you're unsettled by my usage of models, because you have no idea which aspect of model or reality I mean, you think I reduce all reality to a model, which is not true. What is unsettling to me, is that you pick the most disturbing interpretation possible. If what you see sounds stupid, the thing we usually do is asking if we understood it right.

 

But "human action", that is a good thing to start. How would you defined it for me? I know Ludwig von Mises wrote Human Action, should I look at any chapters or will you define the concept for me, precisely as you understand it? 

Alternatively, can you tell me why would be the work of a 20th century Capitalist economist relevant for a system of 21st century? I'd rather prefer behavioral psychology that studies human action directly, not through the Capitalistic instruments.

 

 

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.

[Armitage]

Yes, you're right about logic. It is a basis of all reason and discussion. If we don't think logically, there's no way we can communicate at all.My problem is not with logic itself, but what gets used as an input and output of logical arguments. Logic is a function, which means, its output is totally input-dependent. It is like a gun, it doesn't say who should be shot. Who will be shot, that depends on who holds the gun.Your description of human action coincides with Max Weber's concept of instrumental rationality. Weber is known for his studies on Capitalism and individualistic model of society. As leftist and collectivist as sociologists are, even most Germans, he was quite an exception together with Simmel.As you see from the name, instrumental rationality is an instrument. It chooses the most rational way towards an end. But what is this end, how do we choose it? How do we know there are any other, better ends? There has been much criticism of instrumental rationality, especially from the side of Frankfurt school, with which I sympathize.Logic is input-dependent, or more precisely, logic makes sure that the output is input-dependent. Which means we can choose an end goal as an output and then we can use reasoning to choose the best scenario, the "best" defined as leading most probably to our chosen output.So my problem is not really with human action, but what goes on before and after, the action choosing of one's ends. Over the course of history, people chose both good, evil, harmless and mediocre ends and pursued them with greatest rationality and efficiency.I agree with you on the instrumental rationality, especially about its effectiveness, but I wonder about the choice or motivation that steers it. As far as I know Mises, he seems to take an approach that anything goes, as long as it's non-violent. Non-violence is a good beginning, but it seems too much open-ended. A negative statement isn't a positive answer. How do we choose a goal? 

[alexqr1]

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.

[Armitage]

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.

I am interested in issues and concepts which I know how to talk about to a Zeitgeister, but not to you. First we have to establish communication protocols. I have noticed a big problem. I can feel xenophobia when exposed to certain types of arguments from an anarcho-capitalist. And I believe I have seen signs of xenophobia as a response to me on this forum. I am trying to pin down what causes xenophobia, so that we can avoid it. I'm not yet sure how, except it has also nothing to do with ethics. We are probably ethically on the same level. I caught myself doing exactly the same mistake that I accused others and you doing. I think I saw some flaws or blank places in your arguments or definitions and my mind paranoidly tried to fill in the worst possible interpretations and possibilities, even though I had no reason for that. Most probably our blank places are truly blank, there are things we have never really thought of. For example, I have never thought of equating a whole person to a single cell in an organism, except in a very narrow and particular aspect and context of a private analogy to understand something better. And I won't even tell you what my paranoia tried to accuse you of.It's really quite unsettling, this trick that my brain played on me. I don't like this and I'll watch myself. Have you noticed it too?Let's say that within the current system I pretty much agree on things like freedom, ethics, self-ownership and so on. The problem is, I think we can have an even better system, with healthier life style with more leisure time and room for creativity. The problem is, all the current ethical values which we both admire are defined in relation to existing institutions - government, law, human labor, division of labor and so on. The new system which we can achieve will not have most of these things, so we must develop a new, more general way to define ethics, liberty, self-ownership, ownership and so on, perhaps we will need some entirely new or unmanifested rules and rights.(hence I object to your use of the word "principles", they are clearly not principal, they're derived from the current socio-economic institutions) 

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.

Is that a circular definition? Or is it just not important how do we choose a goal? I'd think that is extremely important.

Is what we want the factor that all economy should go around? In that case I am worried, because desire can be easily manipulated. People could control economy by social means such as neurological marketing, as it is done today.

 

Yes, the choice must be ours. But it absolutely must be an educated choice, or no choice at all. We need to be educated to know when to say "I don't know." If people had this rule, that saying "I don't know" is a noble thing, we'd save so much trouble. For example, nobody would create any new religions. And when we admit "I don't know," then we say "Let's go look it up on the net." That's just as important.

I am all for freedom and choice, but at the same time I affirm, ignorance is not freedom. An ignorant choice is not a free choice. I know that most of things I would do, I'd necessarily do ignorantly. There are only two good reasons for an ignorant choice, either consequences of inaction would be worse, or we're doing it on purpose, keeping notes as a scientific experiment. 

As I said, people need to be educated to do that. And yes, this education must be non-violent. If we can't educate people non-violently, then we've got no right to educate. When it comes to education, I do not mean school classes 30 kids within, of the same age and 1 bored teacher. Not at all. I wouldn't consider that non-violent. But the main point is, saying "I don't know" allows us to listen to someone, who has a better education and experience in that area and grant him our confidence in that matter for a moment. Of course, we may also learn something in the process.That's how we choose our goals. We already do that today, we don't repair our teeth, don't do surgery on our own organs and sometimes not even our plumbing, cars and computers,we call an expert. We don't design our bridges and that is probably a good thing, if I designed a bridge, that would be a big disaster. Of course it is also dangerous today. There are motivations of self-interest that may cause people to pretend they are experts on something while they are not. So this is explicitly a rule from The Venus Project, where I know of no such motivations, it's a very different environment. 

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.

Sounds good to me, this actually reminds me of the philosophical concept of "human dignity" from one lecture, which I would personally call "integrity". So this is a principle, I'd say. 

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.

I agree with this non-initiation of violence. However, this is an important thing and I don't think it is defined broadly enough to cover all dangers that we need to watch out for.Firstly, I wonder why do you place such an emphasis on damage coming from other people, when the damage coming from natural forces and processes is potentially much more dangerous. 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 I have heard Stefan talk in a very socially aware way and I believe he de facto understands structural violence very well and its effects too.Secondly, does any definition say on what to do to solve, prevent or punish the initiation of violence? Trust me, I have listened to many a talk on this topic by Stefan and I have had my lessons of Austrian economy and Coase theorem. However, settling things via monetary means and arbiter agencies exchanging lawsuits and contracts seems just bizarre to me. I could oppose this on many grounds, even aesthetic. Sure it is better than locking people up, but it sounds so... much like petty squabbles. Also, the idea of solving everything through money and fines seems as sinister to me as submitting to the judgement of one large almost self-aware computer would be to you.As I said, it's better than state prisons, but after I had understood The Venus Project, I can be satisfied with nothing less. Shortly said, TVP works with a design of environment in such a way, that a rational human action is preserved as in Capitalism, but some kinds of actions just don't make sense. For example when you're on a cruise at an ocean liner, the suppliers have data and methods on supplying the ship x days x passenger numbers, so that they are able to provide regular tables full of food. Passengers eat when they want and on such an ocean liner stealing food and stashing it in a cabin would be seen as completely irrational and practically would not occur. Technically, the act of food theft would cease to exist, it would not be legally classifiable. This is what I see as elegant.It seems to me that anarcho-capitalism is more of a bottoms-up approach to society, while TVP is, I don't want to brag, but it is both top-down and bottoms-up, it is basically fractal, each part is related to the whole and one change may affect the whole society at once. TVP is a very changeable system.The tricky thing to understand is, that TVP is very liberty-based, thus bottoms-up like ancap, but it is always an educated, scientific liberty. Science is there to resolve disputes, not money. I admire money as a great natural force, but I am also wary of them because of their dangers and side effects. For example, money are like government, in the sense that they do not produce goods and services, money are a passive, inert thing. Government does not produce anything, it steals by taxes. And even when the government prints money, it does not make us richer. But when scientists encounter a problem of shortage and use science to develop a substitute or a more streamlined solution, the whole planet is richer, the whole planet can replicate the process and provide more goods and services. Thus you can understand TVP as educated anarchism, I think that definition has a great deal to it.

[alexqr1]

I am interested in issues and concepts which I know how to talk about to a Zeitgeister, but not to you. First we have to establish communication protocols. I have noticed a big problem. I can feel xenophobia when exposed to certain types of arguments from an anarcho-capitalist. And I believe I have seen signs of xenophobia as a response to me on this forum. I am trying to pin down what causes xenophobia, so that we can avoid it. I'm not yet sure how, except it has also nothing to do with ethics. We are probably ethically on the same level. I caught myself doing exactly the same mistake that I accused others and you doing. I think I saw some flaws or blank places in your arguments or definitions and my mind paranoidly tried to fill in the worst possible interpretations and possibilities, even though I had no reason for that. Most probably our blank places are truly blank, there are things we have never really thought of. For example, I have never thought of equating a whole person to a single cell in an organism, except in a very narrow and particular aspect and context of a private analogy to understand something better. And I won't even tell you what my paranoia tried to accuse you of.It's really quite unsettling, this trick that my brain played on me. I don't like this and I'll watch myself. Have you noticed it too?

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.

Let's say that within the current system I pretty much agree on things like freedom, ethics, self-ownership and so on. The problem is, I think we can have an even better system, with healthier life style with more leisure time and room for creativity. The problem is, all the current ethical values which we both admire are defined in relation to existing institutions - government, law, human labor, division of labor and so on. The new system which we can achieve will not have most of these things, so we must develop a new, more general way to define ethics, liberty, self-ownership, ownership and so on, perhaps we will need some entirely new or unmanifested rules and rights. (hence I object to your use of the word "principles", they are clearly not principal, they're derived from the current socio-economic institutions)

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.

Is that a circular definition? Or is it just not important how do we choose a goal? I'd think that is extremely important.Is what we want the factor that all economy should go around? In that case I am worried, because desire can be easily manipulated. People could control economy by social means such as neurological marketing, as it is done today.

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.

Yes, the choice must be ours. But it absolutely must be an educated choice, or no choice at all. We need to be educated to know when to say "I don't know." If people had this rule, that saying "I don't know" is a noble thing, we'd save so much trouble. For example, nobody would create any new religions. And when we admit "I don't know," then we say "Let's go look it up on the net." That's just as important.I am all for freedom and choice, but at the same time I affirm, ignorance is not freedom. An ignorant choice is not a free choice. I know that most of things I would do, I'd necessarily do ignorantly. There are only two good reasons for an ignorant choice, either consequences of inaction would be worse, or we're doing it on purpose, keeping notes as a scientific experiment.

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.

As I said, people need to be educated to do that. And yes, this education must be non-violent. If we can't educate people non-violently, then we've got no right to educate. When it comes to education, I do not mean school classes 30 kids within, of the same age and 1 bored teacher. Not at all. I wouldn't consider that non-violent. But the main point is, saying "I don't know" allows us to listen to someone, who has a better education and experience in that area and grant him our confidence in that matter for a moment. Of course, we may also learn something in the process.That's how we choose our goals. We already do that today, we don't repair our teeth, don't do surgery on our own organs and sometimes not even our plumbing, cars and computers,we call an expert. We don't design our bridges and that is probably a good thing, if I designed a bridge, that would be a big disaster. Of course it is also dangerous today. There are motivations of self-interest that may cause people to pretend they are experts on something while they are not. So this is explicitly a rule from The Venus Project, where I know of no such motivations, it's a very different environment.

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.

Sounds good to me, this actually reminds me of the philosophical concept of "human dignity" from one lecture, which I would personally call "integrity". So this is a principle, I'd say. I agree with this non-initiation of violence. However, this is an important thing and I don't think it is defined broadly enough to cover all dangers that we need to watch out for.Firstly, I wonder why do you place such an emphasis on damage coming from other people, when the damage coming from natural forces and processes is potentially much more dangerous.

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?

Secondly, does any definition say on what to do to solve, prevent or punish the initiation of violence? Trust me, I have listened to many a talk on this topic by Stefan and I have had my lessons of Austrian economy and Coase theorem. However, settling things via monetary means and arbiter agencies exchanging lawsuits and contracts seems just bizarre to me. I could oppose this on many grounds, even aesthetic. Sure it is better than locking people up, but it sounds so... much like petty squabbles. Also, the idea of solving everything through money and fines seems as sinister to me as submitting to the judgement of one large almost self-aware computer would be to you.

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.

As I said, it's better than state prisons, but after I had understood The Venus Project, I can be satisfied with nothing less. Shortly said, TVP works with a design of environment in such a way, that a rational human action is preserved as in Capitalism, but some kinds of actions just don't make sense. For example when you're on a cruise at an ocean liner, the suppliers have data and methods on supplying the ship x days x passenger numbers, so that they are able to provide regular tables full of food. Passengers eat when they want and on such an ocean liner stealing food and stashing it in a cabin would be seen as completely irrational and practically would not occur. Technically, the act of food theft would cease to exist, it would not be legally classifiable. This is what I see as elegant.It seems to me that anarcho-capitalism is more of a bottoms-up approach to society, while TVP is, I don't want to brag, but it is both top-down and bottoms-up, it is basically fractal, each part is related to the whole and one change may affect the whole society at once. TVP is a very changeable system.The tricky thing to understand is, that TVP is very liberty-based, thus bottoms-up like ancap, but it is always an educated, scientific liberty. Science is there to resolve disputes, not money. I admire money as a great natural force, but I am also wary of them because of their dangers and side effects. For example, money are like government, in the sense that they do not produce goods and services, money are a passive, inert thing. Government does not produce anything, it steals by taxes. And even when the government prints money, it does not make us richer. But when scientists encounter a problem of shortage and use science to develop a substitute or a more streamlined solution, the whole planet is richer, the whole planet can replicate the process and provide more goods and services. Thus you can understand TVP as educated anarchism, I think that definition has a great deal to it.

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

[Armitage]

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.

No, I don't speak of subjective definitions either. The thing I disagree with is deriving basic rights from current socio-economical arrangement. What you mean by a change of the current system (less or none government intrusions) is merely a cosmetic change by my standards, leaving most of the problems untouched. TVP is much more radical than that, the redefining goes much deeper.For example, ownership is not a basic principle. It is a legal fiction and in my Law studies I have dealt with multiple ownership definitions.TVP does not provide ownership, it provides access. Access is even better than ownership, because ownership means you also have to care for the thing, protect it, repair it, recycle it and most of the time it is sitting around idly, which is a waste of resources that makes us all poorer. So if you'd argue that ownership is a basic right or some kind of axiom, I'd disagree, access to resources, goods and services is a basic right, even more basic than ownership. We create ownership artificially by access to nature. 

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.

Nevermind, I think it is much more efficient to remove any root causes of motivations that create such marketing, than to create mechanisms to counter it. We should take charge of our environment and design it, so that our families are not the only islands of safety and good manners. Why should our parental efforts go against the environment? Why can't we design our environment that it supports our parenting efforts? Why do we have to prepare our children to face all the vendors and ads, religious sects and homeless drunks, sweets, drugs and junk food, and especially, all this badly designed city traffic, going about the business?Most of socially pathological phenomena have to do with poverty, commercialism and the self-propagating cultural memes. Lack of education and the need for money on every step messes people up and it messes up our environment as well. We know how a proper living should look like. We don't need the market to figure that out every day. 

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.

Well, the question is, what education can we have in order to earn money? In TVP this is quite unnecessary, but in any kind of Capitalism... What do you think about technological unemployment? Automation destroys jobs. The most popular jobs are the jobs that destroy human jobs. They throw blue collars and some white collars out of economy. The economy itself gets so fast, that schools can not keep tracks of what should they educate for. Most employers today seek college degrees as fetishes, we actually learn the job at work.In TVP we don't have this problem, we can learn anything we want, because we do not need to earn money in order to have access to economy. TVP does not have a work for reward mechanism like money, thus people are motivated to do only what they are motivated to do intrinsically or for something they care about, such as the community. 

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.

What if profit motivates people to distort the market, weaken the competition and ensure future profit? 

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?

C'mon, this one is a no-brainer. Violence is out of the question. We have to educate people. If we can't do this non-violently, we have no right to educate. However, be aware that social processes are mass and no social change ever happened with 100% consensus. If 100 % consensus was required, nothing would ever change.Basically, I believe in ethics, but I also believe in environment. The current environment is a hand-down from primordial ages and it was designed by very unethical people and mindless forces of nature. Therefore, it is not an ethical or ethics-friendly environment. If we want to be truly ethical, we have to re-shape our environment. The way our cities are built, cars are designed, economic and governing systems established, it is not ethical, it is all dangerous and affecting us in an undesirable way. Of course, nature does not obey ethics, it obeys technology. However, people are a part of nature as well and in a purposefully designed environment where ethical acts are the natural thing to do, we become naturally more ethical. Basically, I believe in the same ethics, but I require to use its principles in technical engineering of the environment. 

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

Yep, I'm an anarchist as well and nobody I'd know of is forcing anyone. Forceful revolutions create a group of people who used their force successfully and will use it again to maintain power.One of problems that many Zeitgeister have with capitalism, is that capitalism uses natural forces to force them into capitalism. Work or perish, basically. There is no unconditional basic income or living standard. And today, when the technological unemployment kicks in, there's no help.Yeah, capitalism is compatible with many kinds of systems, but it is NOT compatible with RBE or TVP. Why? Because TVP presents an alternate mechanism of resource distribution, that is NOT money. It works almost the same way as money, but it is not money. It is completely and decidedly opposed to money for many reasons.Obviously, we can't have two radically different socio-economical orders existing on top of each other, if only for legal reasons, like keeping track of ownership. TVP does not use laws either, it uses technical solutions where legal disputes might arise. Laws are a sign of badly designed environment.

[alexqr1]

No, I don't speak of subjective definitions either. The thing I disagree with is deriving basic rights from current socio-economical arrangement. What you mean by a change of the current system (less or none government intrusions) is merely a cosmetic change by my standards, leaving most of the problems untouched. TVP is much more radical than that, the redefining goes much deeper.

Saying “cosmetic changes” means nothing. Redefining is not only not necessary but incorrect.

For example, ownership is not a basic principle. It is a legal fiction and in my Law studies I have dealt with multiple ownership definitions.TVP does not provide ownership, it provides access. Access is even better than ownership, because ownership means you also have to care for the thing, protect it, repair it, recycle it and most of the time it is sitting around idly, which is a waste of resources that makes us all poorer. So if you'd argue that ownership is a basic right or some kind of axiom, I'd disagree, access to resources, goods and services is a basic right, even more basic than ownership. We create ownership artificially by access to nature.

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

[Armitage]

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

Private property is legally defined as an abstract legal norm, one that creates a duty to all people on Earth to respect the relationship between me and some object. I don't understand how that applies to self-ownership. I understand self-ownership as a philosophical concept of human dignity or integrity, which has nothing to do with property or what we think is our property.Property can be gained and lost, dignity or integrity can't be, it's a deeper, primary principle. So I don't understand why would you derive the greater from the lower. Basic rights can not be given up even voluntarily, property can.I have an impression that anarcho-capitalists are so focused on the economy, that they seek to derive all the other laws and principles from it. But economy itself is derived culturally and from environment.I don't know about the definition of violence. It seems to me that a violation of basic rights is enough of a definition of violence. If someone declares ownership of a continent, is he deprived of it if other people land on the continent and colonize it? What about a planet? Do we somehow extend our personhood on the things we declare as our own?If private property did not play such a great economic role and if our economy wasn't so vital part of our lives, such a thought would never enter our minds. For example, during most of our history, at least 90 % of people were farmers. Ownership of land was such a great aspect of the medieval culture that land was supreme, people belonged to the land as serfs, a noble would first buy land and the serfs would come as part of the package. Today farmers are only about 5 % of the modern technological society and ownership of land is not seen as a big deal. Each socio-economic system creates its own property laws, even though human needs and physiology remain largely the same.Our socio-economic system is very archaic, so is our environment and so by necessity are our laws and legal definitions, which are derived from it. A change of environment and socio-economic system by necessity requires a re-definition of the way we understand the human.What we actually are trying to do by employment, work and purchasing is gaining access to the use of objects. TVP seeks to eliminate unnecessary owhership and work towards it by the existence of access centers. What we today call ownership may be seen as a semi-permanent form of access. This arrangement would provide services at much lower consumption rate of resources, thus providing a higher living standard for everyone, using such methods as a strategic design for maximum durability, modding and recyclability of objects.

[alexqr1]

I don't know about the definition of violence. It seems to me that a violation of basic rights is enough of a definition of violence.

If I own myself, I own the product of my labor. If you don't see that then you don't truly think we own ourselves. If I own the product of my labor, then I can do with it as I please as long as I don't directly harm someone's negative rights.Now, if you want to take that away from me, that is the initiation of violence by your own definition. What you propose is not anarchy, it is the opposite of that, and yet you claim that anarcho capitalism is just a cosmetic difference from the current system?You see, if you think TVP is so great, I won't stop you from achieving it because I'm not your dad, your president or your state police. If I believe in capitalism and being able to trade the product of my labor with others for whatever we agree to trade, will you stop me? If you will, who are you, my dad or my state?If you won't then we agree on basic principles. In a free society you can go live your TVP life with others who think like you and I can live an anarcho-capitalist life with others who think like me.And this is just the ethical part, which you thought we agreed upon. Then there is the economical side, which I think we also disagree, but if we can't get past the ethics of this issue, economics is not even that important. If you think you can give or take rights then economics also becomes subjective so who cares?

[Armitage]

If I own myself, I own the product of my labor. If you don't see that then you don't truly think we own ourselves. If I own the product of my labor, then I can do with it as I please as long as I don't directly harm someone's negative rights.Now, if you want to take that away from me, that is the initiation of violence by your own definition. What you propose is not anarchy, it is the opposite of that, and yet you claim that anarcho capitalism is just a cosmetic difference from the current system?You see, if you think TVP is so great, I won't stop you from achieving it because I'm not your dad, your president or your state police. If I believe in capitalism and being able to trade the product of my labor with others for whatever we agree to trade, will you stop me? If you will, who are you, my dad or my state?If you won't then we agree on basic principles. In a free society you can go live your TVP life with others who think like you and I can live an anarcho-capitalist life with others who think like me.And this is just the ethical part, which you thought we agreed upon. Then there is the economical side, which I think we also disagree, but if we can't get past the ethics of this issue, economics is not even that important. If you think you can give or take rights then economics also becomes subjective so who cares?

Of course we agree on ownership, I just can think about ownership from so many points of view, that you don't recognize it. We agree on ownership in the current socio-economic system. But what I want is a thorough change of the socio-economic system, which mean that the current definition of ownership will not make sense. So you have to be able to define ownership within one system and re-define it within another system. All systems are objective, thus their definitions of ownership are objective as well. But they are not the same.Do you agree that the law, including property law, such as ownership, is derived from socio-economic conditions, such as resource pool, tradition, religion and so on?Or do you rather claim that ownership has been always exactly the same and unchanging principle for all human history?There is no "stopping" or "forbidding" or "taking away" in TVP. It is anarchy, even freer than capitalism, because it is free from the carrot and stick. You get "paid" by default by mass-produced or custom-produced goods and services. If you want some other or some more or improve the existing, you go to work, because you want the product to be available and you'll be motivated to mass-produce it as automatically as possible. If there is a shortage that affects you, you can either go doing something else and keep your free time, or you go and try to learn how can you help with the shortage and solve the problem.You might want to check out this magazine issue, it writes about ownership:http://www.joomag.com/magazine/mag/0710708001379549455?feature=archive

[alexqr1]

Of course we agree on ownership, I just can think about ownership from so many points of view, that you don't recognize it. We agree on ownership in the current socio-economic system. But what I want is a thorough change of the socio-economic system, which mean that the current definition of ownership will not make sense. So you have to be able to define ownership within one system and re-define it within another system. All systems are objective, thus their definitions of ownership are objective as well. But they are not the same.Do you agree that the law, including property law, such as ownership, is derived from socio-economic conditions, such as resource pool, tradition, religion and so on?

Look, you keep using the same straw man, I am not for the current socio-economic system so why is that relevant.Also, I already said I have no interest in subjectivity. Systems do not define self ownership, you don’t do it either and neither do I. It is a concept logically derived from an axiom.Either point me to where that logical construct is wrong or admit you are wrong.Or do you rather claim that ownerhip has been always exactly the same and unchanging principle for all human history?

There is no "stopping" or "forbidding" or "taking away" in TVP. It is anarchy, even freer than capitalism, because it is free from the carrot and stick.

OK so TVP is anarcho-capitalism then. Great!So if there is no stopping of forbidding or taking away, then surely no one in a TVP society would have a problem with me trading the product of my labor with others. Do you agree with that? Or are there asterisks and small font I did not read when you said “There is no "stopping" or "forbidding" or "taking away" in TVP”?

[Armitage]

Look, you keep using the same straw man, I am not for the current socio-economic system so why is that relevant.Also, I already said I have no interest in subjectivity. Systems do not define self ownership, you don’t do it either and neither do I. It is a concept logically derived from an axiom.Either point me to where that logical construct is wrong or admit you are wrong.Or do you rather claim that ownership has been always exactly the same and unchanging principle for all human history?

You base the concept of self-ownership on the concept of ownership. Is ownership the axiom? Can you define it for me? You have to be able to define it, or it's just a word without meaning. I know we've owned stuff so far, but I am deliberately playing dumb to get a definition of ownership, if that is the axiom you mean. (it can't be self-ownership because it already has ownership in it) If you can make one definition, perhaps you can make another definition. 

OK so TVP is anarcho-capitalism then. Great!So if there is no stopping of forbidding or taking away, then surely no one in a TVP society would have a problem with me trading the product of my labor with others. Do you agree with that? Or are there asterisks and small font I did not read when you said “There is no "stopping" or "forbidding" or "taking away" in TVP”?

Why would you want to work for products and engage in this practice of mutual taking and mutual giving up? People do that out of necessity, because scarcity is great enough to make you act this way. TVP is a systematic elimination of scarcity below this threshold level where people feel the need to trade or to defend ownership rights and codify them.For example, near water springs or waterfalls the rate of water theft is virtually zero. Water theft or water ownership is known only in the desert areas. Free access to resources eliminates both theft, ownership and capitalism. TVP is a systematic elimination of conditions that motivate people into capitalism. Capitalism is impossible if resources are freely accessible above our needs and TVP uses technology to achieve and maintain these conditions. Capitalism is not forbidden, only unnecessary.

[alexqr1]

You base the concept of self-ownership on the concept of ownership. Is ownership the axiom? Can you define it for me? You have to be able to define it, or it's just a word without meaning. I know we've owned stuff so far, but I am deliberately playing dumb to get a definition of ownership, if that is the axiom you mean. (it can't be self-ownership because it already has ownership in it) If you can make one definition, perhaps you can make another definition.

Come one now you’re all over the place, I know you are playing dumb but you are over-doing it. You know what the definition of ownership is and you know that is not axiomatic. The concept of self-ownership is however axiomatic and you had already agreed to that, can I trust you when you agree to something?If you are asking how private property follows from self-ownership all you have to do is go back one or two posts. But I am a lot more interested in the second part of your post because our conversation is coming close to an end and I’ll explain why.

Why would you want to work for products and engage in this practice of mutual taking and mutual giving up? People do that out of necessity, because scarcity is great enough to make you act this way. TVP is a systematic elimination of scarcity below this threshold level where people feel the need to trade or to defend ownership rights and codify them.

Let’s say I WANT to work for products, or let’s say you can’t convince me to do otherwise, pick your reason.If I do not agree with you, are you willing to use force to make me follow the rules of TVP? Please, be specific and non-contradictory with your answer.The reason our conversation is close to an end is that there are only 3 possible answers to that question; either you:1)Admit that you would force me, in which case you are for the initiation of violence2)Say no one would force me to abandon my capitalistic ideas and I would be free to exercise trade in which case I would wish you good luck with your project and I will go on with mine knowing you are not an impediment to my freedom3)You negate my capacity to make decisions for myself and assign that capacity to yourself or someone else or a computer or whatever, in which case your argument would be completely subjective because I could say the same thing and I would have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who thinks they can remove my ability to decide for myself.Oh, and please don't say there are no rules in TVP because we would not even be having a conversation if that were the case. There is no money in TVP, that is a rule. There is no private property in TVP that is another rule.

[Armitage]

Come one now you’re all over the place, I know you are playing dumb but you are over-doing it. You know what the definition of ownership is and you know that is not axiomatic. The concept of self-ownership is however axiomatic and you had already agreed to that, can I trust you when you agree to something?If you are asking how private property follows from self-ownership all you have to do is go back one or two posts. But I am a lot more interested in the second part of your post because our conversation is coming close to an end and I’ll explain why.

 You can not have an axiomatic concept of self-ownership, if it has the word ownership in it, which you just admitted is not axiomatic. 

I don't use self-ownership, I use integrity or human dignity, which can be philosophically deduced from basic principles. (I'd have to refresh my memory, the proof is a bit lengthty, my old teacher had it on Youtube and it wasn't in English) However, integrity does not necessitate the sacredness of private property. I really get an impression that you're tailoring your definitions on purpose so that they defend the monetary and capitalistic system. 

Let’s say I WANT to work for products, or let’s say you can’t convince me to do otherwise, pick your reason.If I do not agree with you, are you willing to use force to make me follow the rules of TVP? Please, be specific and non-contradictory with your answer.The reason our conversation is close to an end is that there are only 3 possible answers to that question; either you:1)Admit that you would force me, in which case you are for the initiation of violence2)Say no one would force me to abandon my capitalistic ideas and I would be free to exercise trade in which case I would wish you good luck with your project and I will go on with mine knowing you are not an impediment to my freedom3)You negate my capacity to make decisions for myself and assign that capacity to yourself or someone else or a computer or whatever, in which case your argument would be completely subjective because I could say the same thing and I would have no interest in continuing a conversation with someone who thinks they can remove my ability to decide for myself.Oh, and please don't say there are no rules in TVP because we would not even be having a conversation if that were the case. There is no money in TVP, that is a rule. There is no private property in TVP that is another rule.

When I said capitalism isn't forbidden in TVP, I meant it. Number 2) it is.

However, I think you're missing something important. There is a plenty of room for private business in TVP, but it has to be a non-profit business, because there is no currency. What can you buy and sell if there's no money? In TVP you can only share. You can get real rich on a social credit for running the best brewery in the city, but besides that your reward has to be that anywhere you go in the city, it's stocked with the best beer. You do it either for the beer and for the people, or you better don't do anything, because sure as hell you won't be able to do it for money. If you get any money, they'll be just papers.

 

We do not make rules to abolish money and private property, we produce a technical infrastructure that makes them obsolete. If there's free stuff available, people will prefer it, because

a) it does not restrict their economical level in other areas

b) it does not cost them time to earn the money

c) free stuff can be equal or better than anything we have today, because the production is not motivated to decrease quality to increase profit margin. Quite opposite, the production may be motivated to use all the available resources, so that they don't go to waste.

d)  anyone can join and offer help if they're not satisfied with quality/quantity.

There are different rules in TVP, rules like saying "I don't know" when I don't know. AFAIK, there is no physical violence in TVP, except physically restricting people who are themselves physically dangerous.

[alexqr1]

When I said capitalism isn't forbidden in TVP, I meant it.

OK then, so In a free society I would be a capitalist selling and buying stuff and you’ll go on with your TVP, no conflict there then.

Number 2) it is.However, I think you're missing something important. There is a plenty of room for private business in TVP, but it has to be a non-profit business, because there is no currency.

Wait, wait, did you not just say you meant it when you said capitalism is not forbidden? I know of many people who in a free society would make sure currency exists, I am one of them. So if there is no forbidding in TVP then there would be currency because many of us understand its importance, whether you like it or not. I would make sure there is currency because if there is a vacuum in that area, I myself would create the currency. If you say there is no forbidding in TVP then you can’t say there is no currency and there are no for-profit businesses. That is a contradiction.

What can you buy and sell if there's no money? In TVP you can only share.

Again, will you violently make sure there is no currency? because the only way to keep me (and I know there are millions like me) from using currency is using violence against me. I don’t care about a communist society or a free-for-all society or a “sharing” society because I understand it is impossible without coercion. For the sake of argument, even if I were wrong, you can only force me out of my ignorance through violence. I would for sure not use violence to force you out of your ignorance, would you?

We do not make rules to abolish money and private property, we produce a technical infrastructure that makes them obsolete.

Good, so then there would be money, even if you believe it to be obsolete. Many of us would NEVER consider it obsolete so we would make sure it exists. There is no talking around this question, either you violently forbid money or money will exist. There is not a non-violent version of TVP without money.

[Armitage]

Well, so do we agree that ownership and private property is NOT necessary for an integrity of human being? I mean, there are a plenty of people, specially in eastern religions who make a point of renouncing private property and they lose nothing of their humanity. Furthermore, technically, children in families don't own anything as well, they are provided for, they have access to resources and stuff, but they don't have purchase contracts on anything. Do you understand the point, that access is even more primary and important than private property?

OK then, so In a free society I would be a capitalist selling and buying stuff and you’ll go on with your TVP, no conflict there then.Wait, wait, did you not just say you meant it when you said capitalism is not forbidden? I know of many people who in a free society would make sure currency exists, I am one of them. So if there is no forbidding in TVP then there would be currency because many of us understand its importance, whether you like it or not. I would make sure there is currency because if there is a vacuum in that area, I myself would create the currency. If you say there is no forbidding in TVP then you can’t say there is no currency and there are no for-profit businesses. That is a contradiction.

TVP is a free society where people make sure that all available things are available without currency. So capitalism is not forbidden, it's just not technically possible, not for currency, anyway. In TVP many of us understand the importance of providing stuff for free, thus making currency and exchange obsolete, whether you like it or not. There is no vacuum in that area, there is a global computer network and resource database that serves in place of currency. If you want to do some project, you hook it up to the network and it will provide the supply and demand info for you. No currency necessary. In fact this network would put any currency out of competition, because no currency can compete against a sum of global resources.There is no profit in TVP, because if done right there is no competitive interest between you and any other person. Any benefit is a shared benefit. Trying any separate method of distribution on the side would cut you off from that benefit. There just wouldn't be much things to buy for the currency to bother with it. 

Again, will you violently make sure there is no currency? because the only way to keep me (and I know there are millions like me) from using currency is using violence against me. I don’t care about a communist society or a free-for-all society or a “sharing” society because I understand it is impossible without coercion. For the sake of argument, even if I were wrong, you can only force me out of my ignorance through violence. I would for sure not use violence to force you out of your ignorance, would you?

If you really insist, some currency might theoretically exist, though TVP is all about eliminating the need for currency. Its purpose is not to forbid it, but turn it into worthless papers, as the things we'd buy for it should be strategically mass-produced and available for free. And TVP is not a good system for consumerism of a notorious capitalistic variety of products, because there is no sharp division between producers and consumers. TVP does not make it profitable to produce 30 various kinds of ice cream and 50 kinds of soda. Such production would die off for a lack of interest. People would never invent such things on such a scale by themselves. Business to which nobody has a personal relationship will probably die off. 

Good, so then there would be money, even if you believe it to be obsolete. Many of us would NEVER consider it obsolete so we would make sure it exists. There is no talking around this question, either you violently forbid money or money will exist. There is not a non-violent version of TVP without money.

We just got to one important point, that the function of money can be replaced by a global digital network and resource database. Money is not some kind of magical essence, it's a basic way of moving information around. It's an information aggregate, which means a price can mean multiple things. It's limited, which means if you give it away, it's not there to move information.A digital network is not limited, it can carry signals continually. In the current system we have a lot of scarcity, so limitation of money is important, so that people don't take too much. But in TVP scarcity is strategically decreased, so that people are not motivated to take too much. They take what they need at the moment. If done right, people will treat the computer as an extension of their own backpack, so that they'll reach into it when and only when they actually need something, never to stock up on supplies. The system will be seen as their stock.If you can't understand that, you can still be educated. Non-violent education can take many forms. It's not just sitting in class with 30 more people. It can be your own observation and experience. Some things you can't understand just off the bat, you have to go on a journey. Some things I can't explain, if I don't know what concepts do you use in your thinking.

[alexqr1]

If you really insist, some currency might theoretically exist, though TVP is all about eliminating the need for currency.

Look you continue to dance around the issue and honestly it is getting boring. I will not discuss anything else until this is decided. You keep saying there is no forbidding capitalism or even currency and then I find ifs and buts.Look, all I need is a simple yes or no answer and then we can discuss everything else, but I do not like to discuss with people who believe they can use violence against me because there really is no discussion there.In a TVP society there would be a demand for money and for trade, like I said, millions of us understand the importance of those things. You keep saying they would be no need for it and yet I am telling you that my freedom depends on it and I am certain that is true for millions of people regardless of your beliefs. So if there is no violence, there would be money, there would be trade and there would be markets because people like me understand their importance to our freedom. You may not and that is fine, but this is not about you, it is not about me, it is about all individuals alive.If there is no violence, there would be capitalism, do you think the use of force against that if capitalism arose in a free society would be justified that is all I need to know. Yes or No. If your answer is No, then you have to agree that trade and money would exist because millions of us want them to. No if and buts, this is the last chance I give you.You can try to convince me all you want, but you have to realize there is a chance you will never convince me. Even if you found a way to make everything free for everyone I would still not want that, do you understand that? I value my work and that of others, I value my freedom.If you agree that the only way to eradicate capitalism is through violent means then we can discuss other issues, I saw your other arguments in the post, but arguments are irrelevant if there is a gun pointed at me.If there is no violence, there would be capitalism, do you think the use of force against that if capitalism arose in a free society would be justified that is all I need to know. Yes or No. If your answer is No, then you have to agree that trade and money would exist because millions of us want them to. No if and buts, this is the last chance I give you. (Yes I posted this twice on purpose) YES OR NO?

[Armitage]

Look you continue to dance around the issue and honestly it is getting boring. I will not discuss anything else until this is decided. You keep saying there is no forbidding capitalism or even currency and then I find ifs and buts.Look, all I need is a simple yes or no answer and then we can discuss everything else, but I do not like to discuss with people who believe they can use violence against me because there really is no discussion there.In a TVP society there would be a demand for money and for trade, like I said, millions of us understand the importance of those things. You keep saying they would be no need for it and yet I am telling you that my freedom depends on it and I am certain that is true for millions of people regardless of your beliefs. So if there is no violence, there would be money, there would be trade and there would be markets because people like me understand their importance to our freedom. You may not and that is fine, but this is not about you, it is not about me, it is about all individuals alive.If there is no violence, there would be capitalism, do you think the use of force against that if capitalism arose in a free society would be justified that is all I need to know. Yes or No. If your answer is No, then you have to agree that trade and money would exist because millions of us want them to. No if and buts, this is the last chance I give you.You can try to convince me all you want, but you have to realize there is a chance you will never convince me. Even if you found a way to make everything free for everyone I would still not want that, do you understand that? I value my work and that of others, I value my freedom.If you agree that the only way to eradicate capitalism is through violent means then we can discuss other issues, I saw your other arguments in the post, but arguments are irrelevant if there is a gun pointed at me.If there is no violence, there would be capitalism, do you think the use of force against that if capitalism arose in a free society would be justified that is all I need to know. Yes or No. If your answer is No, then you have to agree that trade and money would exist because millions of us want them to. No if and buts, this is the last chance I give you. (Yes I posted this twice on purpose) YES OR NO?

NO, there is no violence. Lots of prevention through careful design, but (or because of that) there is no violence in the design.

 Do you have any idea what the topic is? The topic is something that is a replacement for capitalism and all the currency, trade, market, prices and so on, a whole new economic system, that does not need to have capitalism alongside.And all you're interested in is again your capitalistic stuff, the one we're NOT talking about. Are you interested in how TVP works? If so, then talk about TVP, not about capitalism. Capitalism is not the only possible form of economy. Capitalism is not the only natural law, it is not the only form of freedom. There are other natural laws and kinds of freedom. Do you want to learn about them? Yes, in case there would be some unimaginable obstacle or catastrophe, we can always return to some kind of capitalism as the way of last resort if countless failsafes fail, but that's besides the topic right now. What is TVP about? That is the question.As long as I know more about capitalism than you know about RBE, we're not done. You'd be about to learn a new way to look at economy, freedom, society, the whole world. It is always useful to learn a new way to look at things. We see things accurately only when we look at them from multiple perspectives. I have learned the classical Keynesian economy, the Austrian economy and RBE. 

 

Yes, I realize it must be scary for you. There is only one way of life imaginable for you and it is not the topic right now. No wonder you keep returning to it. It's like discussing a life without God with a Christian, who can not imagine a life without God, or can imagine it only in bleakest and most depressive colors. I know that Christians picture atheists as depressed, sad people without a moral backbone or purpose and joy in life. All their joy is God-related, even if not in practice. I assure you, any economic system that would replace capitalism has to be not just equal, but even better in providing the freedoms that you value. It must keep all the good stuff and provide new benefits, or it's not worth of changing. And I assure you, most of things that make our life worth living can not actually be bought for money, they depend on free time, health and basic subsistence, regardless of the economic system. TVP is better for them, because it offers more free time and simplier life style.

[alexqr1]

I can't believe I was so patient with you and in retrospect I should not had.

You have this belief that you can forecast my preferences in a particular situation even better than I can and even further you believe you can forecast the preferences of all individuals. For that reason I have lost patience and I lost interest in the conversation. It is like talking to someone who keeps dancing around the issues to explain why magic really exists. I have nothing to discuss with people who believe they have godly-like abilities like you.

Never mind the irrational "economics" behind the resource based economy which we never got to discuss. Seeing things from different perspectives does not mean you have to be open-minded about irrational solutions to a problem.

 

I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you and now I realize why you have such negative reputation.

[Armitage]

I can't believe I was so patient with you and in retrospect I should not had.You have this belief that you can forecast my preferences in a particular situation even better than I can and even further you believe you can forecast the preferences of all individuals. For that reason I have lost patience and I lost interest in the conversation. It is like talking to someone who keeps dancing around the issues to explain why magic really exists. I have nothing to discuss with people who believe they have godly-like abilities like you.Never mind the irrational "economics" behind the resource based economy which we never got to discuss. Seeing things from different perspectives does not mean you have to be open-minded about irrational solutions to a problem.I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you and now I realize why you have such negative reputation.

For your information, TVP does NOT predict people's preferences. TVP uses empirically recorded people's preferences, just like capitalism. No change there, none at all. What do you mean, you didn't know that? Well, now I'm telling you. I have never claimed predicting people's preferences, your mind filled that in. Do you think that capitalism is the only system that can possibly use people's preferences? Every survey or questionnaire does that. Every traffic counter on a website. TVP does not reject people's preferential information, TVP embraces it with all its digital capacity.

 

We didn't have a conversation, you had a conversation with a straw man of me that you created. So, are you interested in having a real conversation?