Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[Zarathustra]

To be economically self-sufficient means here nothing more than to be self-sufficient from economic interaction with other economic operators. I cannot remember of a discussion here to be independent from anything. That's the case in nirvana and nowhere else.

I admit to being baffled by this.  You have strongly stated that to be self sufficient is to be not dependent, but now you do not remember a discussion to be independent from anything.  

That this only can mean to be economically self-sufficient should be crystal clear to everybody in this discussion.
To be not dependent from everything means to be non-existent (nirvana). Here, we are discussing about human being, but not about non-being. That's another story.

So it does seem that what you are proposing is nirvana-like.  

No, I don't propose non-being. I simply propose the non-violent, autarchic, self-sufficient life style beyond the so called society, which is violent at an exponentially increasing pace.

It seems so unreal and hard to even imagine. I need some help to imagine it.
What are the other economic operators from which you will be self sufficient?  (people, animals, plants, communities, or societies)?

Independent from economic interaction (trade) with people beyond the consanguineal community.
That's the difference to the people within a society, who are enforced to trade with strangers to generate surpluses and savings.

How will you avoid sharing air, water, land, weather, earth with these other economic operators without a pure isolation?
How will this isolation/sharing be maintained without inter-dependency?

To share and to trade is a completely different story. To share water is no problem. To trade and accumulate water is the problem.

Best regards.

[ktttn]

Statism, statism.  I think i found a paradise for you guys: Somalia!

I was going to suggest Pitcairn Island.
The population looks smaller than "Dunbar's number" so we should be able to fit a couple dozen Libertarians and An-Caps on there.

Seasteading, space travel and transhumanism.
Not neccessarily in that order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx_WSfOUsrg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[NewLiberty]

Statism, statism.  I think i found a paradise for you guys: Somalia!

I was going to suggest Pitcairn Island.
The population looks smaller than "Dunbar's number" so we should be able to fit a couple dozen Libertarians and An-Caps on there.

Seasteading, space travel and transhumanism.
Not neccessarily in that order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx_WSfOUsrg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You probably don't have to worry about the an-caps and libertarians.  They already have picked a geography:
http://freestateproject.org/

[NewLiberty]

To share and to trade is a completely different story. To share water is no problem. To trade and accumulate water is the problem.

Distinguishing between sharing and trading seems an essential problem.
Avoiding accumulation may be another problem.

Consanguinity is fine as an arbitrary rule.  It works like most arbitrary rules, for some-but-not-all.
By matrilinial I suppose that you mean the women are the ones that don't wander and switch consanguineous groups, and the men have the choice of which consanguineous group they wish to attempt to join in order to prevent complete inbreeding?

So far it doesn't seem very pleasant, or any any way preferable to even the shambles we have today, so I am very curious as to what makes it excellent.  I am sure that I don't understand it yet.

[Rassah]

Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.

You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe?

[MoonShadow]

A state - free Capitalist loses his stockpile.

...but you're not willing to learn something new.

Is that an objective fact or an opinion?

It's a perspective developed from observations.  So yes, that's my opinion.

[Rassah]

The wild animals belonged to no one until the hunter killed it, and the fruits of the pawpaw tree belonged to no one, until someone picked it. It was rudimentary, but it was certainly an example of a belief in the right of private PERSONAL property.

FTFY

Define your difference between "private" and "personal," as I consider them synonyms.

[Rassah]

To the anarchocapitalist, the state seems socialist/communist.
To the anarchocommunist, the state seems capitalist.

It is just so much theory and hubris to plan this battle at the theoretical end.

Luckily for us anarchocapitalists, those other guys don't believe in violence.
Or maybe they do, since some of them seem to be against "non-aggression"... I'm so confused 

[MoonShadow]

Dunbar's Number is an internet meme.  A chunk of interesting research picked up by halfwits & kludged into a pseudo-science.  Each time you use it, a kitty dies.

Just a little bit of research into the topic for which you attempt to speak would have saved you from shame, assuming you actually feel shame.

"In 1992 [5] Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).[6]

Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans. Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter–gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories — small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes — with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number#Research_background

It can't work only because it's simply not scalable.

[Can i haz Fact Cat?]

Capitalism may appear harsh from a certain perspecitive, but it's both sustainable and scalable.  The assertion that it requires some degree of slavery or government force to function is false, and provablely so.

[Can i haz Fact Cat?]

The sad fact is that, yes, slavery has historicly been found coincincidntal to capitalsim. It's also been found coincidental to just about every other known form of governance, including those matriachies that certain posters seem so fond of.  Corrolation is not causation.

Of course not.  Just like smoking doesn't cause cancer  Sure, there's some correlation, but causation?  The only difference is in smoking & cancer, the correlation is much weaker than in capitalism & slavery.  Fact Cat agreez.

Trolling again.

It's a balance of motivations, however.  You can look at trade as an advesarial relationship (a conflict) if you like.  That's not a completely unsupportable position.   However, trade is almost always more profitable for both parties when both parties benefit, because voluntary exchange is less costly than war.

I absolutely agree.  That's why armed mugging is so popular  I point a gun at your face & offer you a profitable trade:  Your life for your wallet.  After a quick negotiation, you conclude that it's in your enlightened self interest to part with your wallet & not your brains.  Another deal done
[/quote]

Mugging is popular where you live?  Perhaps you should move, or choose another profession.  That one will get you killed where I live, and I do mean that literally.

In the cases that voluntary exchange is not mutually beneficial, such exchanges cannot (by reason) be voluntary.

Depends on what you mean by "voluntary."  In the above trade, you could have chosen to keep your wallet & pick your brains up off the sidewalk.  I love freedom of choice.

That wouldn't have been my choice.  My choice would as likely to have been to shoot you in the face, since I'm more than confident that I'm both fast and accurate enough to defeat you, since I actually can afford to practice.  Again, I live in a city where at least ten percent of the adult population possesses a permit to carry a weapon concealled.  I was 32 before I even met anyone who was mugged in my city.  To this day, in a city of roughly one million people, the reported muggings are less than 100 in a year; half of which occur within a three block radius of a particular housing project in the west end of town, and almost all of them after dark.  I've never been in that neighborhood after dark, and don't know anyone who would.

I cut out the remainder of your trolling, BTW.

[MoonShadow]

[...]
Can't have crime without the state.

Murder is not a crime, in your opinion?  Rape?  You require a state to define your mores for you?

That depends on how you define "crime."  Murder and Ayn Rand are both, arguably, crimes.  Murder, with a few notable exceptions, is currently prohibited by the US law.  US is a state.  If i'm murdering in US, i run afoul of US law.  Ayn Rand is a different story -- totally unregulated in US.  I can walk down any US street, flaunting a copy of Atlas Shrugged with nothing graver than a few stifled giggles & pointed fingers as consequences.  That's the kind of liberty we have in US.  Watch us, the rest of the world, and envy.

Our government doesn't codify all mores into law, just a select few -- the acts that will be punished: crimes, violations, infractions.  So, strictly speaking, unless you consider violating municipal bylaws to be crime, crime is defined by the state.  Crimes against nature, God & "OMG that blouse is a crime" don't count.

Seriously?  You don't think that there is a rational reason that murder and rape are crimes regardless of government?

We're not even speaking the same language.

[crumbs]

Statism, statism.  I think i found a paradise for you guys: Somalia!

Incidentally, I just found a paradise for you guys, too: North Korea! (which is also the Best Korea)

I already lived in a paradise much like that -- ya iz toy je stranyi kak tyi, moy daragoyi

[ktttn]

The wild animals belonged to no one until the hunter killed it, and the fruits of the pawpaw tree belonged to no one, until someone picked it. It was rudimentary, but it was certainly an example of a belief in the right of private PERSONAL property.

FTFY

Define your difference between "private" and "personal," as I consider them synonyms.

Core problem.
Private is not as quantum entangled. It's a mere claim. Secreted away from dirty fingers and prying eyes.

EDIT: Personal is defined in bitcoin as providers of hashing power. I'm sure someone else can fill that definition in quite nicely.

[Zarathustra]

Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.

You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe?

The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time.

[Rassah]

The wild animals belonged to no one until the hunter killed it, and the fruits of the pawpaw tree belonged to no one, until someone picked it. It was rudimentary, but it was certainly an example of a belief in the right of private PERSONAL property.

FTFY

Define your difference between "private" and "personal," as I consider them synonyms.

Core problem.
Private is not as quantum entangled. It's a mere claim. Secreted away from dirty fingers and prying eyes.

EDIT: Personal is defined in bitcoin as providers of hashing power. I'm sure someone else can fill that definition in quite nicely.

"Private" does not cause another atom to spin/vibrate the same way as the word "private?"   
"Personal" means "miners?"     
I was using the definition of "private" to mean the opposite of "public" as opposed to "blocked from public view"

[NewLiberty]

Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.

You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe?

The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time.

pan paniscus = bonobos

Is this the plan for your matrilinear consanguineous campground?  You may have something there!  I <3 bonobos.
And because I have some capital, I can share the love with http://www.bonobo.org/

Whether it is more communal or capital based, I wouldn't know.

[crumbs]

Dunbar's Number is an internet meme.  A chunk of interesting research picked up by halfwits & kludged into a pseudo-science.  Each time you use it, a kitty dies.

Just a little bit of research into the topic for which you attempt to speak would have saved you from shame, assuming you actually feel shame.
[long wikip quote]

Wow, that was enlightening!  I feel so low. [you can tell sarcasm when you see it, right?]
My oxygen-starved friend:  Why would i call something that i've never heard of a meme?  What do you think makes a meme -- obscurity or repetition.  Still thinking?  Oh, come on, i'll give you a hint, it's the last one.  ... Give up?  Ok, it's the last one, repetition!  Yeah, sure you were about to say that.  [protip: highlight->right-click->search.]

It can't work only because it's simply not scalable.

[Can i haz Fact Cat?]

Capitalism may appear harsh from a certain perspecitive, but it's both sustainable and scalable.  The assertion that it requires some degree of slavery or government force to function is false, and provablely so.

[Can i haz Fact Cat?]

The sad fact is that, yes, slavery has historicly been found coincincidntal to capitalsim. It's also been found coincidental to just about every other known form of governance, including those matriachies that certain posters seem so fond of.  Corrolation is not causation.

Of course not.  Just like smoking doesn't cause cancer  Sure, there's some correlation, but causation?  The only difference is in smoking & cancer, the correlation is much weaker than in capitalism & slavery.  Fact Cat agreez.

Trolling again.

Huh?  If i am, should be trivial to prove me wrong.

It's a balance of motivations, however.  You can look at trade as an advesarial relationship (a conflict) if you like.  That's not a completely unsupportable position.   However, trade is almost always more profitable for both parties when both parties benefit, because voluntary exchange is less costly than war.

I absolutely agree.  That's why armed mugging is so popular  I point a gun at your face & offer you a profitable trade:  Your life for your wallet.  After a quick negotiation, you conclude that it's in your enlightened self interest to part with your wallet & not your brains.  Another deal done

Mugging is popular where you live?  Perhaps you should move, or choose another profession.  That one will get you killed where I live, and I do mean that literally.

a)No.  
b)Perhaps you should make more money & move to my hood -- it's safe & rich totally free of unsightly undesirables.

In the cases that voluntary exchange is not mutually beneficial, such exchanges cannot (by reason) be voluntary.

Depends on what you mean by "voluntary."  In the above trade, you could have chosen to keep your wallet & pick your brains up off the sidewalk.  I love freedom of choice.

That wouldn't have been my choice.  My choice would as likely to have been to shoot you in the face, since I'm more than confident that I'm both fast and accurate enough to defeat you, since I actually can afford to practice.  Again, I live in a city where at least ten percent of the adult population possesses a permit to carry a weapon concealled.  I was 32 before I even met anyone who was mugged in my city.  To this day, in a city of roughly one million people, the reported muggings are less than 100 in a year; half of which occur within a three block radius of a particular housing project in the west end of town, and almost all of them after dark.  I've never been in that neighborhood after dark, and don't know anyone who would.

You're rambling, save the war stories for your buds.

I cut out the remainder of your trolling, BTW.

Noted.

[Zarathustra]

Murder was rare in anarchic paleolithic, pre-patriarchic, pre-state communities. War and organised violence was non-existent. The expression of violence against conspecifics is non-existent on paleolithic art (rock and cave paintings); in post-neololithic, patriarchic, collectivist (socialist, feudalist, capitalist) environment it is the norm. Socialist, feudalist and capitalist collectivists are determined to ignore history. They spread Science Fiction, Religion and an oxymoronic, orwellian vocabulary ("anarcho-capitalism, "communism") instead. They don't understand the difference between archic and anarchic.

You've never heard of territorial animal packs fighting each other for territory? Don't some types of apes that live in pack communities war with each other all the time, including to the point of killing members of the opposing tribe?

The patriarchal chimps, yes, they fight sometimes against each other. The closest related species to the homines sapientes, the non-patriarchal pan paniscus, don't. They make love instead of war, all the time.

pan paniscus = bonobos

Is this the plan for your matrilinear consanguineous campground?  You may have something there!

Whether it is more communal or capital based, I wouldn't know.

It is not a plan. This is the history of the homines sapientes for several hundred thousand years, until this life style had been destroyed 10'000 years ago, as they began to collectivise the animals and then themselves.

[crumbs]

Statism, statism.  I think i found a paradise for you guys: Somalia!

Incidentally, I just found a paradise for you guys, too: North Korea! (which is also the Best Korea)

I already lived in a paradise much like that -- ya iz toy je stranyi kak tyi, moy daragoyi

Ah. Well, I guess that explains why you are still defending the motherland, while the rest of us got the fuck out in the 80's/90's.

If you think admitting that the rock's as bad as the hard place = defending, then why, pray tell, are you defending this statist disaster?

[legitnick]

Unless you live deep in the amazon jungle you have to pay taxes, anywhere in the world. Theres no getting away from it.

[Zarathustra]

Unless you live deep in the amazon jungle you have to pay taxes, anywhere in the world. Theres no getting away from it.

Yes.

She said: What is history?
And he said: History is an angel
being blown backwards into the future
He said: History is a pile of debris
And the angel wants to go back and fix things
To repair the things that have been broken
But there is a storm blowing from Paradise
And the storm keeps blowing the angel
backwards into the future
And this storm, this storm
is called
Progress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWuNEw0EHMc