Anarchy =~ Communism

[em3rgentOrdr]

Profit is not defined by money alone. It is defined by value and it can be expressed and possessed in various ways.

The notion of "free market" is a human construct with value strictly defined as "monetary".

You have been terribly wrong -- whomever taught you this.

Haha!!!  While I personally consider the set of all voluntary human interactions to be the market, I am aware of the smellyBobby type who has a kneejerk reaction to the term because they word associatte with nasty things like exploitation, theft, coercion, hierarchy, bossism, Republicans, etc.  Which is why I just call myself a Voluntaryist instead. 

[smellyBobby]

So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?

[Anonymous]

So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?

Yes, unless you're a shallow bean counter with no human empathy.

[em3rgentOrdr]

So there is something other than the pricing mechanism?

Trade or any other exchange between humans doesn't necessarily have to be denominated in some numerical amount of currency, don’t cha know?...

[smellyBobby]

Empathy -> Charity.

How many charities do you think would survive in the "free market" ?  We are going to live in a donation economy?

Charity != Business.

Two different constructs to serve two different purposes.

[Anonymous]

Empathy -> Charity.

How many charities do you think would survive in the "free market" ?  We are going to live in a donation economy?

They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.

Also, BitTalk.TV is becoming pretty viable from donations alone.

Charities are businesses by the way. A business is all about giving value (not just monetary) to its supporters.

[smellyBobby]

They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.

I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree.  I also think that people derive value from helping there fellow man. They won't care enough for charities to make a meaningful impact. They won't care enough for teachers to educate others to the same extent I outlined prior. How many people would teach someone else to replace them at their current job?

[Anonymous]

They would thrive. People derive a lot of value from helping their fellow man. Free markets are about serving desires and they do not exclude charitable ones.

I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree.  I also think that people derive value from helping there fellow man. They won't care enough for charities to make a meaningful impact. They won't care enough for teachers to educate others to the same extent I outlined prior. How many people would teach someone else to replace them at their current job?

Charity hospitals thrived prior to the 1920s in the United States. There's plenty of historical evidence that charities do in fact work and work better in voluntary societies. To address your teaching argument, look at wikipedia and all of this free information.

Plenty of people now and in the past have taken on apprentices. There's always a constant need for workers as our population expands. There's also an increasing need for innovation. In addition, jobs aren't scarce, when the economy isn't artificially limited. It's not a zero-sum game. Wealth can be created. It isn't limited by matter nor our current paradigm.

[Anonymous]

Also, there is something called marketing. Any charity worth its salt is going to make sure its cause is known.

[smellyBobby]

Charity hospitals thrived prior to the 1920s in the United States. There's plenty of historical evidence that charities do in fact work and work better in voluntary societies. To address your teaching argument, look at wikipedia and all of this free information.

Plenty of people now and in the past have taken on apprentices. There's always a constant need for workers as our population expands. There's also an increasing need for innovation. In addition, jobs aren't scarce, when the economy isn't artificially limited. It's not a zero-sum game. Wealth can be created. It isn't limited by matter nor our current paradigm.

Never heard of these voluntary societies, sounds like communism.

Ya ok, I'll concede half a point on the wikipedia and other internet sources of info. But there is a difference between quality and quantity.  I mean all this free information has done is raised the baseline level of education, assuming you have access to the net and can read. But there is still a gap created by the mode of delivery. I.e Private schools are more likely to be able to better deliver the content than say a struggling public school.

But I disagree with your second statement( of course !). Once all entitlements to essential resources within an economy are delegated, then there is no mechanism to force sharing with new inhabitants. So employment is dictated by those who hold entitlements to essential resources. And sure people had apprentices, but their intention wasn't to have them become better than themselves. The apprentice usually had to perform menial tasks before being taught, therefore providing an economic incentive to teach an apprentice. Nonetheless there would have been instances when an apprentice was taught out of good heart, but I do not believe this would have been common.

Also technology, generally removes employment. Sure there is some forms of technology that increase employment, like say a water-slide with lifeguards, but that is a form of individual consumerism. There is no mandatory mechanism forcing anyone to use the pool. If you have a collapse in consumer confidence then they are out of the job. Only those working to distribute essential resources will retain their job.

Charity and Business a two different things.

Charity is an entity that exists to make a loss. If it is not making a loss then it is not a charity. A charity's goals and a business's goals are completely opposite. When given cash a charity has to weigh-up weather to "waste" the cash, or re-invest in the hope of increasing "market-share". A business on the other hand can invest the cash to create future profit, and use the cash to further increase market-share. A business can grow at an exponential rate, a charity can not due to it's mandate.

[Anonymous]

Ya ok, I'll concede half a point on the wikipedia and other internet sources of info. But there is a difference between quality and quantity.  I mean all this free information has done is raised the baseline level of education, assuming you have access to the net and can read. But there is still a gap created by the mode of delivery. I.e Private schools are more likely to be able to better deliver the content than say a struggling public school.

Well, yeah, because public schools have no incentive to provide excellent education. They can't fail since they have a huge leap over voluntary services in being funded by slavery (taxes). The slaves are going to want some return in their investment and will obviously prefer something they already paid for as opposed to paying for another service that might be superior.

But I disagree with your second statement( of course !). Once all entitlements to essential resources within an economy are delegated, then there is no mechanism to force sharing with new inhabitants. So employment is dictated by those who hold entitlements to essential resources. And sure people had apprentices, but their intention wasn't to have them become better than themselves. The apprentice usually had to perform menial tasks before being taught, therefore providing an economic incentive to teach an apprentice. Nonetheless there would have been instances when an apprentice was taught out of good heart, but I do not believe this would have been common.

Resources with an economy are never delegated permanently. Entities will fail. Inhabitants will want better services. Employment is dictated by the services that offer the most value for their employees. Apprentices surely can stumble upon knowledge and become just as great as their teachers. How do you think man has advanced over the centuries?

Also technology, generally removes employment. Sure there is some forms of technology that increase employment, like say a water-slide with lifeguards, but that is a form of individual consumerism. There is no mandatory mechanism forcing anyone to use the pool. If you have a collapse in consumer confidence then they are out of the job. Only those working to distribute essential resources will retain their job.

Uh, no it doesn't. It actually opens up for more skilled labor and increases the demand for higher education. It benefits everybody. If there is collapse in consumer confidence, there's an opportunity open in the industry for more exciting and safer products in said industry.

Those who provide value to people will always have a job.

Charity and Business a two different things.

Charity is an entity that exists to make a loss. If it is not making a loss then it is not a charity. A charity's goals and a business's goals are completely opposite. When given cash a charity has to weigh-up weather to "waste" the cash, or re-invest in the hope of increasing "market-share". A business on the other hand can invest the cash to create future profit, and use the cash to further increase market-share. A business can grow at an exponential rate, a charity can not due to it's mandate.

No, no charity operates at a loss. It derives value from accomplishing its cause. Profit for a charity is helping people. It's a very selfish business just like monetary ones.

A charity can grow as long as it meets the needs of it supporters by accomplishing its objectives. It's not all about money.

[The Script]

I was going to post in this topic, then I read what Atlas posted and I didn't need to post anymore.  +1

[smellyBobby]

What about Nordic public schools? They have no incentive, except from the electorate. They seem to be doing alright.

When an entity fails the entitlements will go to someone else who already has entitlements to essential resources, they will trade essential resource for non/essential or essential resources. Therefore the subset of the population that was initially allocated the essential resources will retain the essential resources.

[Edit]
Of course I have simplified, the scenario. And there is obvious cases where there are gifted individuals who do not hold rights to essential resources, yet sell something in exchange for essential resources. The subset who hold the rights to essential resources are not forced to give up their rights. So if someone is not imaginitive enough, to produce something that the "essential right holders" want, then how do they get essential resources?

Your assuming that the new technology actually needs people. Look at the outcomes from the industrial revolution. The technology your talking about is based on the demand from individual consumerism. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources, reduces the need for people.

If there is a collapse in consumer confidence, that means people will be out of work and less likely to spend.

[Anonymous]

What about Nordic public schools? They have no incentive, except from the electorate. They seem to be doing alright.

They would do much better if they had to be in line with what its customers wanted, which is only possible in a free environment with actual choice.

When an entity fails the entitlements will go to someone else who already has entitlements to essential resources, they will trade essential resource for non/essential or essential resources. Therefore the subset of the population that was initially allocated the essential resources will retain the essential resources.

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

Your assuming that the new technology actually needs people. Look at the outcomes from the industrial revolution. The technology your talking about is based on the demand from individual consumerism. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources, reduces the need for people.

Technology isn't self-sustaining. Somebody has to maintain it. Any technology that makes it easier to acquire new resources is the wealth creation I am talking about. It makes everyone more happy and goods cheaper. It opens up more innovation and more opportunity for those people in the end.

Regardless, if technology was self-sustaining,  we would be living in LightRider world with no scarcity. We wouldn't be arguing because we would all have our needs met by machine slaves. ; )

If there is a collapse in consumer confidence, that means people will be out of work and less likely to spend.

Wide scale insecurity only happens when jobs and innovation are limited. If viable investments are abundant, with no limits, there are no issues.

[smellyBobby]

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

It's a non-question. People naturally trade and are always willing. Everyone perishes without trade.

[smellyBobby]

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

It's a non-question. People naturally trade and are always willing. Everyone perishes without trade.

I hope you realize what you imply. People have not always traded essential resources for non-essential. The Great-Depression and Industrial Revolution shows this. Big Business today understands what will happen if they don't trade essential resources for non-essential. That is what they use individual-consumerism for, it has allowed them to retain entitlements over essential resources. While the masses run around the consumerism merry-go round.

And anarchism doesn't even acknowledge this. I have never heard the clause stating: Under circumstances, where the 5 people will not share with the 6th, the 6th can use his gun to get what he needs. Therefore violating the property rights of the other 5. Unless I'm wrong your expecting that people under anarchy will not commit the same mistakes back in the Great-Depression and Industrial Revolution.

[billyjoeallen]

I really don't understand the word "entitlement". Nobody is entitled anything except the owners of said property. The property will go back to the supporters of said business that are owed. The original supporters will try to make back their loss in either restarting the failed venture or investing in one that is succeeding.

I'm asking the same question I asked here:

Just throwing it out there.

Island Economics: Redistribution under Anarchy.

Lets imagine an island with 5 people all the essential resources on the island have been allocated. How does any new person gain access to essential resources if no one is willing to trade.

At-least communism has this figured out.

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor. 5 people would be competing for that labor and willing to trade resources for it. This is so difficult for you to figure out? Did you go to public school?

[Anonymous]

billyjoeallen, thank you for raising my IQ by a point or so.

[smellyBobby]

On such an island, there would always be a high demand for labor.

Include a point to support your own perspective, therefore missing the whole point of the hypothetical. Did you go to school at all?