Capitalism.

[crumbs]

Crumbs, I don't see anywhere in that post of yours where Lex Mercatoria was suggested for anything other than "To protect your property." Did you forget to quote something?

It's called context, sweety. 

"How does capitalism require a state?"
"To protect your property."
"If I'm happy to let lex mercatoria suffice for that, have you anything else?"

Now reread the thread, K tiger?

[crumbs]

Crumbs, I don't see anywhere in that post of yours where Lex Mercatoria was suggested for anything other than "To protect your property." Did you forget to quote something?

It's called context, sweety. 

"How does capitalism require a state?"
"To protect your property."
"If I'm happy to let lex mercatoria suffice for that, have you anything else?"

Now reread the thread, K tiger?

I reread the thread. New Liberty says he's fine with Lex Mercatoria providing protection of property. I pointed out that he isn't the only one, and that Lex Mercatoria is still alive and well, if under a different term, as the idea is being expanded and used for transnational trade by international businesses that don't have the option of submitting to laws and rules of a specific government. You erroneously claimed that Lex Mercatoria is dead, because it had a few amendments added to it by governments who adopted it and decided to defend it personally. A claim similar to stating that the biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is dead because governments have passed laws making murder illegal. Upon reading that, I've come to a conclusion that you are an idiot. Anything else I missed?

I could have a more cerebral & satisfying discussions with a rusty shovel.  All i'd have to do is write on it "No U R RONG!" and its replies would offer more finesse & erudition.
If i was really bored, i could spin the most intricate web of logic & bejewel it with the cleverest facts strung together by the most elegant of derivations...  The end result would stay the same: The shovel would, invariably, conclude: "NO U R RONG!"
Has the shovel amused me with its sparkling intellect?  I suppose.  Though you gotta agree, you're getting tedious.  I think it's best to let you get back to digging ditches.  Now GTFO of the van.

[ktttn]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

Anti male sexism is a vastly misrepresented myth.
Misogyny is real.
We are not and have never been dealing with mirror images, but a varied amalgamation of cues, traits and norms.
In order to explain this, a full course in radical feminism would be needed.
Perhaps another thread.

Edit: here's the thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=241717.msg2563187#msg2563187

[ktttn]

Crumbs, I don't see anywhere in that post of yours where Lex Mercatoria was suggested for anything other than "To protect your property." Did you forget to quote something?

It's called context, sweety. 

"How does capitalism require a state?"
"To protect your property."
"If I'm happy to let lex mercatoria suffice for that, have you anything else?"

Now reread the thread, K tiger?

I reread the thread. New Liberty says he's fine with Lex Mercatoria providing protection of property. I pointed out that he isn't the only one, and that Lex Mercatoria is still alive and well, if under a different term, as the idea is being expanded and used for transnational trade by international businesses that don't have the option of submitting to laws and rules of a specific government. You erroneously claimed that Lex Mercatoria is dead, because it had a few amendments added to it by governments who adopted it and decided to defend it personally. A claim similar to stating that the biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is dead because governments have passed laws making murder illegal. Upon reading that, I've come to a conclusion that you are an idiot. Anything else I missed?

Information cannot be destroyed. Practices become distorted, however.
It does not parse that any structure is "dead."

[crumbs]

Information cannot be destroyed. Practices become distorted, however.
It does not parse that any structure is "dead."

"Information can not be destroyed" stops being a catchy phrase once you ask yourself "what do i mean?"  Then it turns into something trivial like "love can not be destroyed":  sure, you can stop loving, though the concept itself persists.  Just like you can forget something, or beat up a HD with a sledgehammer, and you'll no longer have access to that information.  If yours was the only copy, nno one else would have access to it either.  Is it destroyed?  Well, what are we talking about?
How can you kill that which does not live? BoooOOooOooOo

[Zarathustra]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

You know nothing about anthropology. The absence of monogamous, sexist patriarchy has never been a sexist matriarchy. It was matrilineal anarchy.

[ktttn]

Information cannot be destroyed. Practices become distorted, however.
It does not parse that any structure is "dead."

"Information can not be destroyed" stops being a catchy phrase once you ask yourself "what do i mean?"  Then it turns into something trivial like "love can not be destroyed":  sure, you can stop loving, though the concept itself persists.  Just like you can forget something, or beat up a HD with a sledgehammer, and you'll no longer have access to that information.  If yours was the only copy, nno one else would have access to it either.  Is it destroyed?  Well, what are we talking about?
How can you kill that which does not live? BoooOOooOooOo

I agree with everything in this post.

[Rassah]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

Anti male sexism is a vastly misrepresented myth.
Misogyny is real.
We are not and have never been dealing with mirror images, but a varied amalgamation of cues, traits and norms.
In order to explain this, a full course in radical feminism would be needed.

I think you missed my point. Unless I misunderstood "matrilineal community" as still having specifically defined gender roles with the female being the dominant one as opposed to the male one we have now. I'm against the idea of gender roles.

[Rassah]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

You know nothing about anthropology. The absence of monogamous, sexist patriarchy has never been a sexist matriarchy. It was matrilineal anarchy.

Ok, I may have misunderstood, but then, could you please explain what the hell "determining decent through the female line" has to do with absolutely anything at all here?

[Zarathustra]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

You know nothing about anthropology. The absence of monogamous, sexist patriarchy has never been a sexist matriarchy. It was matrilineal anarchy.

Ok, I may have misunderstood, but then, could you please explain what the hell "determining decent through the female line" has to do with absolutely anything at all here? Capito?

It has to do with the topic, with Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism, which always was archist, which is the opposite of anarchist, which has always been matrilineal.

[Rassah]

Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism

Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"?

[herzmeister]

In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.

[ktttn]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

Anti male sexism is a vastly misrepresented myth.
Misogyny is real.
We are not and have never been dealing with mirror images, but a varied amalgamation of cues, traits and norms.
In order to explain this, a full course in radical feminism would be needed.

I think you missed my point. Unless I misunderstood "matrilineal community" as still having specifically defined gender roles with the female being the dominant one as opposed to the male one we have now. I'm against the idea of gender roles.

I'm against and above binary gender roles. Gender roles in a more fittingly complex framework are part of everyone's personality, will and identity.
Biological functions like thought and pregnancy- egg fertilization, are coincidental to gender, but determine the generation of the species.
Dominance is not relevent here. tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.

[herzmeister]

...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.

lex mercatoria

I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.

Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.

Total world-wide equality and solidarity is an illusion, but non-corroding property rights at the individual level are an illusion as well. You need a state to enforce such property rights. If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island. If they are civilized enough to know there's a paper that says someone owns that island at all in the first place, that is. They'll give a shit about any lex mercatoria.

From that perspective, property underlies the laws of entropy, just like anything in the universe.

Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.

So, again: property is just a piece of paper.

Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.

And are these squatters just lazy bums and deserve it? No, maybe they're just from poor families, never could get proper education in Aynrandistan. They weren't lucky enough to be privileged and inherit land just like you. That's how social strains come about in the first place.

"Supplied by the state", but these forces can also be supplied by private organizations, you say? But what difference does it make to a state? That it's more "voluntary"? Also today you can vote with your feet. So the question is only about scale here.

Or, to put things in another way: If you (really) own some land, then you are the state of that land. And you're a dictator even at that. There's no essential difference between your idea of property and a state. Only about scale.

At the end of the day, without a state, you can only call property what you can defend yourself. Just how Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist puts it:

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

This is much more logical than the US Libertarian view. And once you understand that, you'll see that a more co-operative and syndicalist way of self-organizing is just more rational and more economical.

[ktttn]

Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism

Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"?

How do groups of people behave?
All sorts of ways, these are some names for them.
It's rather tricky to describe behaviors linked to capitalism without using words that describe how people behave.

...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.

lex mercatoria

I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.

Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.

Total world-wide equality and solidarity is an illusion, but non-corroding property rights at the individual level are an illusion as well. You need a state to enforce such property rights. If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island. If they are civilized enough to know there's a paper that says someone owns that island at all in the first place, that is. They'll give a shit about any lex mercatoria.

From that perspective, property underlies the laws of entropy, just like anything in the universe.

Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.

So, again: property is just a piece of paper.

Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.

And are these squatters just lazy bums and deserve it? No, maybe they're just from poor families, never could get proper education in Aynrandistan. They weren't lucky enough to be privileged and inherit land just like you. That's how social strains come about in the first place.

"Supplied by the state", but these forces can also be supplied by private organizations, you say? But what difference does it make to a state? That it's more "voluntary"? Also today you can vote with your feet. So the question is only about scale here.

Or, to put things in another way: If you (really) own some land, then you are the state of that land. And you're a dictator even at that. There's no essential difference between your idea of property and a state. Only about scale.

At the end of the day, without a state, you can only call property what you can defend yourself. Just how Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist puts it:

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

This is much more logical than the US Libertarian view. And once you understand that, you'll see that a more co-operative and syndicalist way of self-organizing is just more rational and more economical.

*standing ovation*
Required reading.

[Rassah]

tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.

Question

... and please, keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is a royal count, with a very rich family history spanning centuries, from Italy, through Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, from someone who comes from a long history of very prominent and well known scientists, who's great*3-grandfather even has a giant portrait and permanent exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC ...

Why bother tracing one's lineage, whether through mothers or fathers, in the first place? What's so special about the dead people you came from?

[Rassah]

If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper.
...
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.

Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.

Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

[ktttn]

tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.

Question

... and please, keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is a royal count, with a very rich family history spanning centuries, from Italy, through Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, from someone who comes from a long history of very prominent and well known scientists, who's great*3-grandfather even has a giant portrait and permanent exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC ...

Why bother tracing one's lineage, whether through mothers or fathers, in the first place? What's so special about the dead people you came from?

Tracking the genetic and situational-familial predispositions that may tend towards skill in arbitration gives you an arbitrary way to distinguish arbitrators.
Kings made kings cause it was convenient.
Other than that super-marginal factor, nothing.

[Rassah]

In that case, why not simply track relationships (family, friends, and business) and networks same as we do now? We are already slowly abandoning the idea of gender affecting our relationship and interaction with people, thanks to gender being mostly invisible online.

[NewLiberty]

...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.

lex mercatoria

I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.

Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.

Total world-wide equality and solidarity is an illusion, but non-corroding property rights at the individual level are an illusion as well. You need a state to enforce such property rights. If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island. If they are civilized enough to know there's a paper that says someone owns that island at all in the first place, that is. They'll give a shit about any lex mercatoria.

From that perspective, property underlies the laws of entropy, just like anything in the universe.

Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.

So, again: property is just a piece of paper.

Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.

And are these squatters just lazy bums and deserve it? No, maybe they're just from poor families, never could get proper education in Aynrandistan. They weren't lucky enough to be privileged and inherit land just like you. That's how social strains come about in the first place.

"Supplied by the state", but these forces can also be supplied by private organizations, you say? But what difference does it make to a state? That it's more "voluntary"? Also today you can vote with your feet. So the question is only about scale here.

Or, to put things in another way: If you (really) own some land, then you are the state of that land. And you're a dictator even at that. There's no essential difference between your idea of property and a state. Only about scale.

At the end of the day, without a state, you can only call property what you can defend yourself. Just how Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist puts it:

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

This is much more logical than the US Libertarian view. And once you understand that, you'll see that a more co-operative and syndicalist way of self-organizing is just more rational and more economical.

None of these examples invalidates the principles of voluntary agreement and non-violence, or even lex mercatoria for that matter.
You can keep saying I need a state to defend my property, but I am happy without that state doing it.  Maybe you aren't, because you keep trying to sell me on the idea of needing it, but I am not buying.

I have a property far away, one I don't use much.  I have a friend that has done heroic things but is down on his luck.  I say to my friend, "friend go and stay at my place on the beach".  Take care of it and see what you can make of it.  There were some squatters.  They were not good custodians and were persuaded to leave without any authoritarianism or threat.  If instead they had been good custodians, they easily could have stayed and shared.

I have never called the police for anything, and never asked for anything from them.  I supply my own security and am happy to remain doing so.  
The way you sound is that there are all these monsters roaming about looking to destroy and loot and steal so we need to run to our government constantly to protect stuff, but in the real world, if I have a problem with someone, I deal with it directly myself.  Personal security is one of the costs of personal property.  If you can't afford that part of the cost, then you cant afford to own it in the first place and are better off putting the resources to some charitable purpose.  Because property rights do corrode.  Time is our ultimate judge, and you can't take it with you.