A Resource Based Economy

[Erdogan]

Really, the tough part is the the transition between our current capitalist system, and some future post scarcity system.

In order to believe in "post scarcity," you must believe that in the future, all technological progress and innovation will stop. Otherwise technological progress that makes things less scarce will only open up our resources and time to create ever more complex technology and inventions, which will in turn be scarce until we figure out how to make them more efficient.

Progress will be scarce...

There will always be scarcity. If something is not scarce, it is simply excluded from the realm of economic goods. Like sea water.

[1714009730]

1714009730

[LightRider]

Really, the tough part is the the transition between our current capitalist system, and some future post scarcity system.

In order to believe in "post scarcity," you must believe that in the future, all technological progress and innovation will stop. Otherwise technological progress that makes things less scarce will only open up our resources and time to create ever more complex technology and inventions, which will in turn be scarce until we figure out how to make them more efficient.

Progress will be scarce...

There will always be scarcity. If something is not scarce, it is simply excluded from the realm of economic goods. Like sea water.

Which is exactly the problem. The money value analysis ignores reality in favor of some distorting value theory.

[Erdogan]

Really, the tough part is the the transition between our current capitalist system, and some future post scarcity system.

In order to believe in "post scarcity," you must believe that in the future, all technological progress and innovation will stop. Otherwise technological progress that makes things less scarce will only open up our resources and time to create ever more complex technology and inventions, which will in turn be scarce until we figure out how to make them more efficient.

Progress will be scarce...

There will always be scarcity. If something is not scarce, it is simply excluded from the realm of economic goods. Like sea water.

Which is exactly the problem. The money value analysis ignores reality in favor of some distorting value theory.

No, the things that are not scarce need not be governed by the market mechanism, precisely because they are not scarce. Sea water, sunsets, daylight. Scarce means they are wanted in greater quantity than what is available. The free market makes sure that those resources are channelled to the places where they are most wanted by everybody, not just the governments and wannabe government types.

[herzmeister]

That something else being?

work on your reading comprehension

[Cryddit]

Why do you have to make it so hard to understand? Do you charge your children for their meals because food is scarce? The term scarcity doesn't mean finite. It means not enough to go around to meet basic needs. It's about need, not greed. It's a choice, not an equation.

Oh, well, that's much easier.  All that would require is for there to be some agency capable of forcing all human beings and nations to cooperate whether they want to or not. 

We'll probably have that problem solved within another 70 years at the outside.  Could be within 30 if we're "lucky."

[cbeast]

Why do you have to make it so hard to understand? Do you charge your children for their meals because food is scarce? The term scarcity doesn't mean finite. It means not enough to go around to meet basic needs. It's about need, not greed. It's a choice, not an equation.

Oh, well, that's much easier.  All that would require is for there to be some agency capable of forcing all human beings and nations to cooperate whether they want to or not. 

We'll probably have that problem solved within another 70 years at the outside.  Could be within 30 if we're "lucky."

Government agencies don't force parents to feed their children. They choose to. It's just amazing to me how living in a developing nation opens your eyes to how generous poor people can be, especially with food. Maybe the world needs to be beaten back to the stone age in order to find their humanity.

[Cryddit]

Government agencies don't force parents to feed their children. They choose to. It's just amazing to me how living in a developing nation opens your eyes to how generous poor people can be, especially with food. Maybe the world needs to be beaten back to the stone age in order to find their humanity.

Of course.  But parents who feed their children have legally sanctioned power (at least in most societies) to force their children's cooperation.  The children are not permitted to undertake adult responsibilities.  Decisions are made for their welfare by other people. 

When all human beings are treated the way we now treat children, there will be no further obstacle to feeding, clothing, and housing them all.  Whatever agency is capable f treating them as children is capable of forcing them to cooperate.  And like a good parent, we presume that agency will feed, clothe, and house humans because it chooses to.  We could be wrong about this, but that's the optimistic view at least.

[LightRider]

The point of (left-) anarchists really has always rather been that free exchange and barter and markets may be fine and good, but the wealthier class would lobby the state in their interests, or, if there weren't any, create a state to protect their interests and their property.

This is exactly the point Joseph makes in the Molyneux discussion.

[cbeast]

The point of (left-) anarchists really has always rather been that free exchange and barter and markets may be fine and good, but the wealthier class would lobby the state in their interests, or, if there weren't any, create a state to protect their interests and their property.

This is exactly the point Joseph makes in the Molyneux discussion.

They believe in a magic man that is firm and strong and always stands for principles. Then they also believe the principle of selfishness means you will vow to be non violent even if it's in your own selfish interest. I think libertarianism is a fetish.

[thejaytiesto]

RBU, no money and no private property makes sense. What can you gain if there is nothing to gain (everything can be lended) and properties have no value.

[Cryddit]

They believe in a magic man that is firm and strong and always stands for principles. Then they also believe the principle of selfishness means you will vow to be non violent even if it's in your own selfish interest. I think libertarianism is a fetish.

I've been watching the Hong Kong protests, and those people are committed to libertarian ideals in a way that is profoundly needed and even heroic.  It's very moving, and also WEIRD, to hear a thousand voices singing "Do You Hear The People Sing" from Les Miserables, in Cantonese!  The personal risks and self-sacrifice they are undertaking for the sake of their libertarianism are just stunning.  In a lot of cases you can see the fear on their faces or hear it in their voices, but they are there anyway, even knowing that it means they'll get hunted down like dogs later, or at least blacklisted from every possible profession, if they fail to get international support. And maybe even if they do, since the Chinese government is kind of like that.

And then I look at the irrelevant, stupid greedy crap that American libertarians are worried about, and how most of it seems driven (or at least co-opted) specifically by corporate wealth and greed and complete disregard for the society and people around them. The contrast is like night and day. 

This is kind of like the difference between labor unions in the 1890's "rail barons" era where the US was run by a tiny oligarchy of monopolists that viciously oppressed the laborers, and the people were driven to form unions out of desperation, and then in the 1970s in the US when labor unions had *BECOME* the inescapable monopolies and you couldn't even get a job without paying extortionate "union dues" that did nothing for you, and they had become the instrument of oppression by which the Mafia was sucking American business dry.   

You take the same rhetoric, some sort of version of the same ideals at work on the individual level, and completely different context and driving forces, and it makes it heroic in one instance and just venial in another.  And the venial corrupted versions always try to assert the moral authority earned by the heroic people who were driven to it by desperation and did it even though they faced harsh personal consequences for standing up for their beliefs when nobody else had the courage.

Nothing is the right thing all the time, in every context.  You've got to look around yourself and see the whole picture and decide what's right and wrong right where and when you are.

[cbeast]

They believe in a magic man that is firm and strong and always stands for principles. Then they also believe the principle of selfishness means you will vow to be non violent even if it's in your own selfish interest. I think libertarianism is a fetish.

I've been watching the Hong Kong protests, and those people are committed to libertarian ideals in a way that is profoundly needed and even heroic.  It's very moving, and also WEIRD, to hear a thousand voices singing "Do You Hear The People Sing" from Les Miserables, in Cantonese!  The personal risks and self-sacrifice they are undertaking for the sake of their libertarianism are just stunning. 

Do you know the difference between liberty and libertarianism? Ok, I know there are many loose interpretations, but when you say:

Nothing is the right thing all the time, in every context.  You've got to look around yourself and see the whole picture and decide what's right and wrong right where and when you are

it seems you think they are synonymous. You can have liberty without being libertarian. Perhaps the term was simply tarnished by Ayn Rand followers.

[Cryddit]

Do you know the difference between liberty and libertarianism? Ok, I know there are many loose interpretations, but when you say:

Nothing is the right thing all the time, in every context.  You've got to look around yourself and see the whole picture and decide what's right and wrong right where and when you are

it seems you think they are synonymous. You can have liberty without being libertarian. Perhaps the term was simply tarnished by Ayn Rand followers.

Ye gods, that bitch who had the hots for sociopaths and mass murderers?  If anybody took her seriously they need their heads examined.

[LightRider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69h_pWoLpHk

[Rassah]

I've been watching the Hong Kong protests, and those people are committed to libertarian ideals in a way that is profoundly needed and even heroic.  It's very moving, and also WEIRD, to hear a thousand voices singing "Do You Hear The People Sing" from Les Miserables, in Cantonese!  The personal risks and self-sacrifice they are undertaking for the sake of their libertarianism are just stunning.  In a lot of cases you can see the fear on their faces or hear it in their voices, but they are there anyway, even knowing that it means they'll get hunted down like dogs later, or at least blacklisted from every possible profession, if they fail to get international support. And maybe even if they do, since the Chinese government is kind of like that.

And then I look at the irrelevant, stupid greedy crap that American libertarians are worried about, and how most of it seems driven (or at least co-opted) specifically by corporate wealth and greed and complete disregard for the society and people around them. The contrast is like night and day. 

So, what are the specific differences between those in Hong Kong and those in America? (Besides the difference in how dangerous the governments are in each place)

[Cryddit]

Specifically?

I'd say that the American libertarians, as a movement, have mostly been "captured" by monied interests who are cynically using the libertarians to promulgate policies beneficial to those monied interests - with no regard whatever for whether the policies are also beneficial to the libertarians being used. 

The American libertarians, as the mouthpieces of corrupt monied interests,  mostly wind up speaking out in favor of the right of employers to pay as close to nothing as the labor market will bear, to provide nothing in the way of benefits, etc...  to make a 'race to the bottom' in terms of compensation for labor.  Most of them aren't employers, and would not benefit at all from such policies; in fact most of them would do substantially worse under those policies.  On the liberties that they would actually benefit from - free speech, freedom from surveillence, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, right to fair and speedy trials, and so on....  they are silent because agitation in favor of *those* liberties would not serve those who have captured their movement.

The movement in Hong Kong is much younger, and this kind of "capture" hasn't yet had time to take place.  Further, with the Beijing government much less responsive to speech in general and the Chinese labor market already deeply buried in that same kind of 'race to the bottom' for compensation, it's not clear that that kind of capture would be as beneficial for the corrupt money in China as it has been for the corrupt money in the USA.

[Erdogan]

They believe in a magic man that is firm and strong and always stands for principles. Then they also believe the principle of selfishness means you will vow to be non violent even if it's in your own selfish interest. I think libertarianism is a fetish.

I've been watching the Hong Kong protests, and those people are committed to libertarian ideals in a way that is profoundly needed and even heroic.  It's very moving, and also WEIRD, to hear a thousand voices singing "Do You Hear The People Sing" from Les Miserables, in Cantonese!  The personal risks and self-sacrifice they are undertaking for the sake of their libertarianism are just stunning.  In a lot of cases you can see the fear on their faces or hear it in their voices, but they are there anyway, even knowing that it means they'll get hunted down like dogs later, or at least blacklisted from every possible profession, if they fail to get international support. And maybe even if they do, since the Chinese government is kind of like that.

And then I look at the irrelevant, stupid greedy crap that American libertarians are worried about, and how most of it seems driven (or at least co-opted) specifically by corporate wealth and greed and complete disregard for the society and people around them. The contrast is like night and day. 

This is kind of like the difference between labor unions in the 1890's "rail barons" era where the US was run by a tiny oligarchy of monopolists that viciously oppressed the laborers, and the people were driven to form unions out of desperation, and then in the 1970s in the US when labor unions had *BECOME* the inescapable monopolies and you couldn't even get a job without paying extortionate "union dues" that did nothing for you, and they had become the instrument of oppression by which the Mafia was sucking American business dry.   

You take the same rhetoric, some sort of version of the same ideals at work on the individual level, and completely different context and driving forces, and it makes it heroic in one instance and just venial in another.  And the venial corrupted versions always try to assert the moral authority earned by the heroic people who were driven to it by desperation and did it even though they faced harsh personal consequences for standing up for their beliefs when nobody else had the courage.

Nothing is the right thing all the time, in every context.  You've got to look around yourself and see the whole picture and decide what's right and wrong right where and when you are.

They are taking a big risk. Unless the protests evaporate, it will be met with violence. The game is to  covertly introduce provocateurs to escalate tension until violence breaks out. The first victim may be a policeman (sacrificed by the government to mislead the public). If my kids were there, I would beg them to stay away.

[orsotheysaid]

I've been watching the Hong Kong protests, and those people are committed to libertarian ideals in a way that is profoundly needed and even heroic.  It's very moving, and also WEIRD, to hear a thousand voices singing "Do You Hear The People Sing" from Les Miserables, in Cantonese!  The personal risks and self-sacrifice they are undertaking for the sake of their libertarianism are just stunning.  In a lot of cases you can see the fear on their faces or hear it in their voices, but they are there anyway, even knowing that it means they'll get hunted down like dogs later, or at least blacklisted from every possible profession, if they fail to get international support. And maybe even if they do, since the Chinese government is kind of like that.

And then I look at the irrelevant, stupid greedy crap that American libertarians are worried about, and how most of it seems driven (or at least co-opted) specifically by corporate wealth and greed and complete disregard for the society and people around them. The contrast is like night and day. 

So, what are the specific differences between those in Hong Kong and those in America? (Besides the difference in how dangerous the governments are in each place)

America has freedom, yes freedom, compared to China. These people have big balls and are feed up of the situation, they are taking a big risk.

[Rassah]

Specifically?

I'd say that the American libertarians, as a movement, have mostly been "captured" by monied interests who are cynically using the libertarians to promulgate policies beneficial to those monied interests - with no regard whatever for whether the policies are also beneficial to the libertarians being used.  

The American libertarians, as the mouthpieces of corrupt monied interests,  mostly wind up speaking out in favor of the right of employers to pay as close to nothing as the labor market will bear, to provide nothing in the way of benefits, etc...  to make a 'race to the bottom' in terms of compensation for labor.  Most of them aren't employers, and would not benefit at all from such policies; in fact most of them would do substantially worse under those policies.  On the liberties that they would actually benefit from - free speech, freedom from surveillence, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, right to fair and speedy trials, and so on....  they are silent because agitation in favor of *those* liberties would not serve those who have captured their movement.

The movement in Hong Kong is much younger, and this kind of "capture" hasn't yet had time to take place.  Further, with the Beijing government much less responsive to speech in general and the Chinese labor market already deeply buried in that same kind of 'race to the bottom' for compensation, it's not clear that that kind of capture would be as beneficial for the corrupt money in China as it has been for the corrupt money in the USA.

So, American Libertarians are Libertarians, who believe in the free market, including believing that the free market will be enough to raise wages to sustainable amounts without the need for government intervention (which, ironically, is how China wages have increased from practically nothing, to relatively good wages they have now), and Hong Kong Libertarians are not libertarians, but are pro-democracy socialists?

America has freedom, yes freedom, compared to China. These people have big balls and are feed up of the situation, they are taking a big risk.

Ah, so the difference is that Hong Kong libertarians actually have gripes with regards to freedom of speech and assembly, and American libertarians are free enough, and should shut the fuck up about it and not protest (or, put another way, America should become like Hong Kong in regards to libertarian protestors). Okay.

[Cryddit]

Yeah, this is something I never agreed with the 'pillars of the community' here about; Heck, even Hal thought Ayn Rand was somehow not a psycho.  I'm okay with disagreeing about that.

Let's just say there are limits to how far you want to push any ideology.  If the word 'absolute' appears in your political agenda, whether it's on the left, right, top, or bottom of the political spectrum, I kind of don't want to live wherever you're in charge.

I'm optimistic that we'll find a good way to do things and that a lot of what now seem to be intractable problems of human nature will be diminished by progress just as what had seemed to be intractable problems of human nature have been diminished by progress in the past.  I'm confident that neither absolute Laissez-faire capitalism as espoused by the wealthy elite, nor absolute revolutionary socialism as espoused by the ignorant and oppressed, nor absolute anything else, is the right answer.   

I think we probably need a lot less complexity in our legal system, because the question today is more 'whom do you want to prosecute?' rather than 'who has broken the law?'  Laws so numerous and complex that you must choose which to enforce and in what cases are merely tools for extortion and bribe-seeking rather than a solid basis for a rule of law.  But that would be true no matter in what political direction we wanted to reform our laws.