Exposure to more of them. they are not a homogenous group you know. Many people calling themselves mutualists have very differing views. Further discovery. Etc.
I lean in a mutualist direction and do believe that within our current system it is the best option. I am wondering though, in the future if you can easily meet all human needs without markets or money, than what would be the purpose of them? The star trek world. I guess you could have a market for items beyond mere need. Thus you would have communism/collectivism where needs are gifted, but a mutualist free market for the extras of life.
yes fuck voluntary interactions, fuck humans acting in their own perceived self interest... seriously you fucking asshole... are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that what i support is the freedom to destroy others for my own gain?
lol
have you even listened to a fucking thing I have ever said? What would be the REASON for my damnation of the political means if I supported that?
You haven't explained away the state being a completely organic, eventual construct of free market capitalism. If everybody only sells what they produce there is no cooperation, and no capacity for reasonable scale survival. This is why capitalism is entirely anti-democratic, and in an anarchist context, impossible. Private gain, capital, and wealth is a misunderstood fascist framework and a very sure path to the development of state to protect it, of course on behalf of the wealthy minority.
Ummm, if I voluntarily trade two apples with you for two oranges, we are by definition are cooperating. If you hold a gun to my head and tell me to give you my two apples, or trade two apples for one orange, because you feel it is "socially just" we are by definition not cooperating. You are using violent force to expropriate my property, this is why it is a laughable and absurd notion to think that anything other than a free market could exist in the absence of coercive force (i.e. the state).
I never mentioned coercion, though, did I? Read something other than Ayn Rand, what you wrote has nothing to do with what I said, and shows a nearly psychotic pathology in your lack of reading comprehension.
Besides, we aren't talking about apples and oranges. Your analogy would lend well to a moneyless society (an interesting concept in itself), but is utterly useless in regards to the practical nature of profits and money, where money represents the value of absolutely everything which can, and sometimes which shouldn't be, sold. But that's Austrian market anarchism, it has absolutely no application to practical reality, and lives within a fantasy world of confused, childish theory and rhetoric.
Maybe in the society I am describing oranges represent the common denomination of all exchanges. Money is simply a common resource that people acquire in the expectation of using it to acquire other resources. It doesn't change what can and can't be sold, give me an example of where it does if you are going to make an absurd claim like that. No application to practical reality? That must be why Austrians predicted the great depression, the current crises, and failure of Communism.
Yes, and then supermarkets would be banks, and farmers would have to get a permit to print oranges....
I get a feeling talking to a lot of Austrians Anarchists that there is perhaps a basic cognitive function missing, and it prevents them from functioning beyond the level of a small child. Your obsessive orange and apple analogy reminds me of teaching 3 year olds the alphabet, an A for apple, an O for Orange. The difference is you think it suffices for politics, economics, and philosophy.
If you don't use coercion then how do propose trading my two apples for one of your oranges or simply taking them without the use of force? I certainly wouldn't give them to you. I think your the one who has no understanding of how the world works.
Keep your damn apples! I just recognize that everybody needs apples and oranges, and everybody needs grains and beans and various other harvested materials for sustenance. So given that this is a basic need, we need to be able to cooperate as a decentralized group, with other small groups, and work as a network of such groups, where nobody has any supreme authority, and nobody is going to be able to sabotage or undercut or exploit others growing the same crop in an attempt to cannibalize them.
If our only frame of reference is personal gain and isolated enterprise, that will always inform us when dealing with others. The problem with An-Cap thinking is to take it seriously, you need to exclude non-like materials, and the world is far more complicated than some childish oversimplification of free trade and anti-state catchphrases. It's also an impotent doctrine, because any revolution itself will require far more social thinking skills than you absolutist sociopaths are capable of.
Well the basic point is, nature and history teach us nothing but that competition is far less condusive to a thriving survival than cooperation. If you have never worked with others to reach a mutual creative goal, you will not realize benefit of combining many useful perspectives and contributions. The reason is that there are a lot more fruits than apples and oranges, and cooperation is the most effective and fruitful approach to a healthy society composed of specialized individuals.
Voluntary is what it's all about. But a free market in the defined sense of the word is rarely a fair market, which is what matters more. I do hope you give a serious study of these subjects in the future so you will understand things a little better. It's a shame to lose a decent mind to intellectual laziness and empty rhetoric.
What is a "Fair Market"? Who decides what is "Fair"? Where I am forced to surrender the products of my labor against my will? I fail to see how involuntary redistribution of wealth is "Fair."
Mutualism is VOLUNTARY socialism... if your profits are gained through exploitation of the 3rd world, state subsidies, deception and hatred of organized labor, you're not one to cry unfairness.
The problem with monetarists is they'd have you believe history never happened. This von Hayek-von Mises laissez-faire approach to economics has led to ~40 years of monetarist-inspired deregulation (e.g. the legalisation of derivatives in 1982 by Reagan, the abolition of the FDIC Glass Steagall Act in 1999, and so on...).
Put simply, the Viennese idea of free market and free trade is a monetary myth. The State is not the problem, it is Wall Street.
Hayek and Mises were not Monetarists. They were Austrians. The notion of Reagan being some great free market savior is a myth, he was criticized by Austrians and other truely laissez-faire folk. Murray Rothbard being one.
I would also like to see where this supposed deregulation comes from. De regulation in my experience is always just re-regulation. Repackaged control with a veneer of free competition painted thinly over it.
Futures Trading Act of 1982 (signed by Reagan in 1983) amended the Commodity Futures Trading Act of 1974, legalising options trading on agricultural commodities (one of the earliest forms of the derivative market).
Also, the price of crude oil has nothing to do with "the state" any more than it has to do with the convenient myth of peak oil.
It is driven by Wall Street speculation using hedge funds, a practice Goldman Sachs knows all too well. In short, these "free market" instruments are nothing short of criminal.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on whether the greenback should return to a gold standard.
The price of oil has everything to do with state being that they regulate the industries competition into the ground. Corporations are a government charter, they are quasi private institutions. As for the ancient blame upon speculators... well maybe you should just read up on it from an economist
No I do not support a return to the gold standard. I do not support government monopolies on currency. NO standards. If gold is a CHOSEN medium exchange on the market then so be it.
"The price of oil has everything to do with state..."
Care explaining how?
"... well maybe you should just read up on it from an economist"
An economist whose discussion of subjectivism is based solely upon the principle of anarcho-capitalist philosophies? Logical fallacy---appeal to authority---noted.
Your last paragraph is equally flawed. I suppose you believe Rothband's assertion that free-market monopolies are a mere myth too.
suggestion to read: because the discussion is a bit long for youtube comment wars
monopolies: yes I agree with rothbards theory, which is NOT unique to him and classically understood, monopoly arises through state intervention on behalf of monopolists.
Care to explain to ME exactly what is flawed about an opposition to monopolies on the provision of currency?
there is a tendency for some libertarians to confuse some things with the free market that are not truly the result of free markets. If you have not had this experience then I envy you :-)
EXACTLY. It's nice to see that there are still people out there who are willing to challenge the idea that the free market has anything to do with corporate abuse.
A corporation is not evil because of it's bigness. However, it may very well be big because of its evilness.
Nice moustache.
Nellsing 7 months ago
Dude, what the fuck happened to you? 2 years later you were ranting against mutualists on the FLL and calling them "faggots".
vaguelyhumanoid 11 months ago
@vaguelyhumanoid
Exposure to more of them. they are not a homogenous group you know. Many people calling themselves mutualists have very differing views. Further discovery. Etc.
problem?
thorsmitersaw 11 months ago
I lean in a mutualist direction and do believe that within our current system it is the best option. I am wondering though, in the future if you can easily meet all human needs without markets or money, than what would be the purpose of them? The star trek world. I guess you could have a market for items beyond mere need. Thus you would have communism/collectivism where needs are gifted, but a mutualist free market for the extras of life.
Spillers72 1 year ago
FUck the free market! FUCK HUMAN GREED!! Fuck your liberty to destroy the world for your own profit.
longliveavalon 2 years ago
yes fuck voluntary interactions, fuck humans acting in their own perceived self interest... seriously you fucking asshole... are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that what i support is the freedom to destroy others for my own gain?
lol
have you even listened to a fucking thing I have ever said? What would be the REASON for my damnation of the political means if I supported that?
Go fuck yourself
thorsmitersaw 2 years ago 7
You haven't explained away the state being a completely organic, eventual construct of free market capitalism. If everybody only sells what they produce there is no cooperation, and no capacity for reasonable scale survival. This is why capitalism is entirely anti-democratic, and in an anarchist context, impossible. Private gain, capital, and wealth is a misunderstood fascist framework and a very sure path to the development of state to protect it, of course on behalf of the wealthy minority.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
Ummm, if I voluntarily trade two apples with you for two oranges, we are by definition are cooperating. If you hold a gun to my head and tell me to give you my two apples, or trade two apples for one orange, because you feel it is "socially just" we are by definition not cooperating. You are using violent force to expropriate my property, this is why it is a laughable and absurd notion to think that anything other than a free market could exist in the absence of coercive force (i.e. the state).
priapus512 2 years ago
I never mentioned coercion, though, did I? Read something other than Ayn Rand, what you wrote has nothing to do with what I said, and shows a nearly psychotic pathology in your lack of reading comprehension.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
Besides, we aren't talking about apples and oranges. Your analogy would lend well to a moneyless society (an interesting concept in itself), but is utterly useless in regards to the practical nature of profits and money, where money represents the value of absolutely everything which can, and sometimes which shouldn't be, sold. But that's Austrian market anarchism, it has absolutely no application to practical reality, and lives within a fantasy world of confused, childish theory and rhetoric.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
Maybe in the society I am describing oranges represent the common denomination of all exchanges. Money is simply a common resource that people acquire in the expectation of using it to acquire other resources. It doesn't change what can and can't be sold, give me an example of where it does if you are going to make an absurd claim like that. No application to practical reality? That must be why Austrians predicted the great depression, the current crises, and failure of Communism.
priapus512 2 years ago
Yes, and then supermarkets would be banks, and farmers would have to get a permit to print oranges....
I get a feeling talking to a lot of Austrians Anarchists that there is perhaps a basic cognitive function missing, and it prevents them from functioning beyond the level of a small child. Your obsessive orange and apple analogy reminds me of teaching 3 year olds the alphabet, an A for apple, an O for Orange. The difference is you think it suffices for politics, economics, and philosophy.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
If you don't use coercion then how do propose trading my two apples for one of your oranges or simply taking them without the use of force? I certainly wouldn't give them to you. I think your the one who has no understanding of how the world works.
priapus512 2 years ago
Keep your damn apples! I just recognize that everybody needs apples and oranges, and everybody needs grains and beans and various other harvested materials for sustenance. So given that this is a basic need, we need to be able to cooperate as a decentralized group, with other small groups, and work as a network of such groups, where nobody has any supreme authority, and nobody is going to be able to sabotage or undercut or exploit others growing the same crop in an attempt to cannibalize them.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
If our only frame of reference is personal gain and isolated enterprise, that will always inform us when dealing with others. The problem with An-Cap thinking is to take it seriously, you need to exclude non-like materials, and the world is far more complicated than some childish oversimplification of free trade and anti-state catchphrases. It's also an impotent doctrine, because any revolution itself will require far more social thinking skills than you absolutist sociopaths are capable of.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
I cracked up when I read this.
priapus512 2 years ago
Well the basic point is, nature and history teach us nothing but that competition is far less condusive to a thriving survival than cooperation. If you have never worked with others to reach a mutual creative goal, you will not realize benefit of combining many useful perspectives and contributions. The reason is that there are a lot more fruits than apples and oranges, and cooperation is the most effective and fruitful approach to a healthy society composed of specialized individuals.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
Voluntary exchange is cooperation. There is nothing anti-cooperation about free markets.
priapus512 2 years ago
Voluntary is what it's all about. But a free market in the defined sense of the word is rarely a fair market, which is what matters more. I do hope you give a serious study of these subjects in the future so you will understand things a little better. It's a shame to lose a decent mind to intellectual laziness and empty rhetoric.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
What is a "Fair Market"? Who decides what is "Fair"? Where I am forced to surrender the products of my labor against my will? I fail to see how involuntary redistribution of wealth is "Fair."
priapus512 2 years ago 2
@priapus512
Mutualism is VOLUNTARY socialism... if your profits are gained through exploitation of the 3rd world, state subsidies, deception and hatred of organized labor, you're not one to cry unfairness.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
The problem with monetarists is they'd have you believe history never happened. This von Hayek-von Mises laissez-faire approach to economics has led to ~40 years of monetarist-inspired deregulation (e.g. the legalisation of derivatives in 1982 by Reagan, the abolition of the FDIC Glass Steagall Act in 1999, and so on...).
Put simply, the Viennese idea of free market and free trade is a monetary myth. The State is not the problem, it is Wall Street.
Anyway, nice video (very thoughtful).
Peace.
camb702 3 years ago
Hayek and Mises were not Monetarists. They were Austrians. The notion of Reagan being some great free market savior is a myth, he was criticized by Austrians and other truely laissez-faire folk. Murray Rothbard being one.
I would also like to see where this supposed deregulation comes from. De regulation in my experience is always just re-regulation. Repackaged control with a veneer of free competition painted thinly over it.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
"this supposed deregulation..."
Futures Trading Act of 1982 (signed by Reagan in 1983) amended the Commodity Futures Trading Act of 1974, legalising options trading on agricultural commodities (one of the earliest forms of the derivative market).
"Deregulation...is always just re-regulation"
Doublethink much?
"...Murray Rothbard."
He didn't happen to be a landlord by any chance?
camb702 3 years ago
(cont)
Also, the price of crude oil has nothing to do with "the state" any more than it has to do with the convenient myth of peak oil.
It is driven by Wall Street speculation using hedge funds, a practice Goldman Sachs knows all too well. In short, these "free market" instruments are nothing short of criminal.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on whether the greenback should return to a gold standard.
Peace.
camb702 3 years ago
The price of oil has everything to do with state being that they regulate the industries competition into the ground. Corporations are a government charter, they are quasi private institutions. As for the ancient blame upon speculators... well maybe you should just read up on it from an economist
No I do not support a return to the gold standard. I do not support government monopolies on currency. NO standards. If gold is a CHOSEN medium exchange on the market then so be it.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
"The price of oil has everything to do with state..."
Care explaining how?
"... well maybe you should just read up on it from an economist"
An economist whose discussion of subjectivism is based solely upon the principle of anarcho-capitalist philosophies? Logical fallacy---appeal to authority---noted.
Your last paragraph is equally flawed. I suppose you believe Rothband's assertion that free-market monopolies are a mere myth too.
All the best.
camb702 3 years ago
oil: barriers to entry... again
suggestion to read: because the discussion is a bit long for youtube comment wars
monopolies: yes I agree with rothbards theory, which is NOT unique to him and classically understood, monopoly arises through state intervention on behalf of monopolists.
Care to explain to ME exactly what is flawed about an opposition to monopolies on the provision of currency?
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Good video, but the Austrians can smell statism better then anyone else around as far as I'm concerned
lengthyounarther 3 years ago
I would agree for the most part. Take note that I do consider myself an 'Austrian'
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Man, I missed your videos.
-Gendou
gendou57 3 years ago
I don't know a Libertarian who doesn't note the state's involvement. That however is just what with whom I run around with.
KushinLos 3 years ago
there is a tendency for some libertarians to confuse some things with the free market that are not truly the result of free markets. If you have not had this experience then I envy you :-)
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
In due respect though, I may not have noticed it either.
KushinLos 3 years ago
Down with vulgar libertarianism!
Rorshak1313 3 years ago 7
up with mini skirts!
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Indeed!
Rorshak1313 3 years ago 2
EXACTLY. It's nice to see that there are still people out there who are willing to challenge the idea that the free market has anything to do with corporate abuse.
A corporation is not evil because of it's bigness. However, it may very well be big because of its evilness.
Honestly, it's just common sense...
BlackSabbath84 3 years ago
See my comment in the anarcho-capitalism group on Myspace from the other day (I'm calling a trend). hehe.... Just thought I'd throw that out there.
AlexAnCapAdvocate 3 years ago
More Austrian than the Austrians. :P
brainpolice2 3 years ago