Freedomain Radio Sunday Show 6 Sep 2009

[VaQm10]

@ Stef. I really appreciate your efforts to futher the cause of a stateless society. I'd like to comment on what you said about A-C. We should put the same effort in thinking out the details as if we were opening up a small grossery store, is what you said.

[VaQm10]

But Stef, we're not opening a small store. The system proposed is COMPLETELY different than the one we have now. All the work you put into opening that store is to calculate how you can profit and see how you get people to buy there. But the work should go into realising that which you and others NEED. (which probably isnt another little grossary store, competing with the 20 or so other others in the area)

[VaQm10]

Capitalism is highly inefficient, it diverts energy into making things work that do not really need or want. In regard to factories: if they are build only for profit, we dont need them. If we need them, we will build them. It's like your argument about the state, it works in averse conditions (capitalism), it will work better in optimal conditions(a free society). Thank you for the work!

[juliecranford]

How can a teacher say "don't hit each other, violence is wrong, oh and by the way if you try to leave this room without my permission, I or some other school officials will physically hold you down and maybe tie you to a chair."

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Calling you presumptuous is insulting and irrational? Man, you are quite the touchy one, aren't you?

It's alright, though; you look like a big baby, might as well act like one.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I feel a need to respond to you, Mr. Bravo, because you unjustly blocked me from your page before I could make my point, and you did so intentionally, to give the impression that you had silenced me.

You seem like the type of person who does not assert himself, but I do, and. you won't censor me into reticence.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

You know, I actually still retained an inkling of courtesy towards you. That was, however, until you commented my page and then blocked me, to make it appear as if you had outwitted me and gotten the last word.

Well, I never said I couldn't afford a webcam, you goblin, I merely said that I did not OWN one. I don't take Youtube seriously enough to make videos; I just enjoy the occasionally profound conversations that I can obtain from it.

Thank you for evincing you presumptuousness, though.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Not to get into another huge debate but a perfect example of this is Mac vs. PC. Macs are clearly designed by people that have a passion for: design, quality, efficiency, and enjoy creating products that others can enjoy.

PCs are made by people that want to make a profit. They're cheap, crappy, poorly made, poorly designed, and you have to buy a new one every year.

I'm on a 10 year old Mac right now and it runs circles around my new PC.

Passion vs. Profit

What world do you want to live in?

[utubehayter]

Profit

[utubehayter]

More people have already voted for the PC. They have not prohibited or hindered anyone from buying a MAC, the technology base for PC is much more free for people to build them than a MAC. So even by your own argument - a MAC does not represent more freedom, but rather restriction of freedom.

More people can afford PCs, replace them often and get things done. This is why regardless of how good MAC is - Most high end computing is now based on PC offshoots.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Wrong. The reason PCs dominate the terrain is because of price restriction and oppression of people - not choice. If people could afford either at the same price or no price - they would choose Macs I guarantee you.

But I don't want to get into a Mac vs. PC here - really it isn't worth it.

If you didn't understand the example you wont so please drop it.

[utubehayter]

So PCs are restricting price and oppressing people?

Here is an idea - produce your own Macs for cheap and sell it. If PCs are oppressing people - you can defend them by selling Macs cheap. Who is stopping you?

[PsyogiBottoms]

You have it backwards Hayter.

It isn't PCs are restricting price or oppressing people - it is that people are restricted and oppressed so they can't afford a Mac. PCs are the cheap alternative to what they should be allowed to own.

You can't make a Mac for Cheap - that is the point - Macs aren't created to make a quick profit off a desiring population. They were designed to be the ultimate personal computer - and that cost too much for slaves to purchase. The disparity is economics not choice.

[utubehayter]

allowed to own?

Macs aren't created to make "quick profit"? What other type of profit does exist? And why would a non-desiring population buy the product, much less provide profit to the seller?

Take a few hours and think over what exactly it is that you are saying. There are just TOO many holes that are contradicted by the existing reality.

It is possible that you are using a bad metaphor, but still - know when to drop it.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I know to drop it when you get completely irrational. All you do is take my states and twist them around to sound like they fit your argument but you have yet to establish that.

I think you're the one with Swiss Cheese for logic.

1. Macs weren't created to make a quick profit - they were designed (DESIGNED) to be the ideal personal computer 1ST.

2. There is profit built on integrity, value, demand - and on the opposite side of the spectrum VOLUME.

Have you even been to college? Econ 101.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Macs cost more because it takes more to create one AND the market will pay more. period.

The metaphor was to illustrate a 'hand made' car versus a production model for volume profits. There is a distinct difference between the tremendous amount of work that goes into a Porsche, so much so the DESIGN has not changed in 50 years!

It isn't just a vanity mobile - it is literally a work of Art. Hence the $150K price.

If you ever get the chance drive one ONCE.

The experience is MAC! (perfection)

[PsyogiBottoms]

You are the type of person that thinks they can argue the against something they probably have never even experienced or attempted. Which in Ayn Rand would call a 2nd Hander. The world is full of them.

I'm a creator, (her definition) I abhor 2nd Handing of others' work. Because your goal is to level the world down to your mediocre life by tearing down pinnacles of success. Mostly by slinging mud and bullshit. (sorry to be so heavy handed)

Maybe you'll get to wash a Porsche and see for yourself.

[PsyogiBottoms]

However - You have to actually have touched a Porsche for us to have this conversation - otherwise you are just talking out of your ass.

I own a Porsche so I know. And like my Mac - it is worth every freakin' penny because it is the pinnacle of success in automotive design and construction.

If you removed all your freshmen econ and profit driven bullshit from the world everyone would be able to enjoy that luxury as well.

But as long as you have to achieve EXCESS to live like a slave - U wont.

[PsyogiBottoms]

This has apparently been an unfortunate waste of my time and energy as I don't believe I've managed to enlighten you - or maybe you are just too dim. lol (sorry - that was over line)

However, (Big) IF you really want to learn and understand what the hell I'm talking about there is an excellent novel by Ayn Rand called 'The Fountainhead' which for most elicits a life changing experience.

She can illustrate my point with greater skill and talent than I. I know Mr. Molyneux is a big fan as am I.

[PsyogiBottoms]

No one voted for PC sorry. You just can't afford a Mac. That is a product of Statism - not freedom.

If both cost the same: you'd find the majority but a landslide would choose: Mac, iPhones, and to use OS X over Windows any day.

it is only because they are cheap and disposable that there are so many - not quality.

People that have used Macs - never choose to return to PC.

PCs were built for the slave race - Macs were designed for creatives. There is no comparison as Window 7 is a MacClone.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Just because the proliterate can afford to eat only cheap fast food - doesn't mean it is the best because of volume. It just means they can't afford to eat quality food and dine as those that appreciate good food and dining do.

Anyone can build a PC themselves for dirt - They can't a Mac and that is why PCs have dominion in the market place - not voted for.

If you used a G5 quad with Snow Leopard you'd never be happy on a PC again. It is like eating a shit sandwich after savoring a fine wine.

[Slug99]

PsyogiBottoms: If you believe in any of that it's pretty clear that you're just a product of macintosh propaganda and not rational thinking. IT'S JUST A FUCKING COMPUTER!

Seriously, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a Lambo and saying "Lambos are for people who like driving fast while Ferraris are for people who want to drive with style!". It's completely retarded.

[PsyogiBottoms]

You obviously are not a someone that can appreciate the difference. And no it is not the same as Ferraris and Lambos.

It would be more like Porches and Aztecs. If you can't see that you are retarded.

It isn't propaganda - it is empirical experience.

Only creatives and designers love Macs because they understand the beauty of them - I'm sorry OS X is the sexiest and most brilliant interface and PCs just hack and copy it ad nausea.

Only ignorant morons can't see that - sorry.

Apples vs. Turds.

[regresseur]

Only "creatives" and "designers" love Macs? First, what is a "creative"? Second, no designers love PC's? In the entire world? Third, I know countless people who are complete fucking retards and mental midgets who do nothing but chat and browse the Web with their Macs, and who only like them as a fashion statement and a form of social conformity. Fourth, my cousin had to send two Macs back before she got one that didn't have something profoundly wrong with it -- What's that about, huh? Douchebag.

[moonreft]

My experience exactly.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Your experience exactly - how? That you are retarded and can't learn a new OS or you had 2 Mac that had Profound Problems that you had to return?

[PsyogiBottoms]

Quite honestly I didn't want to use Macs originally either - I was perfectly happy with my PC until I was forced to have to work on Macs for my Graphic Design business.

Once you actually learn the interface and use one for more than a couple weeks - you can totally tell the difference in the passion, thought and consideration put into the Mac's overall design and interface for humans.

For those that 'get it' - The Design is practically pornographic. It is the sexiest OS out there bar none.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Well - first of all you don't need to insult me if you'd like an intelligent answer - asshole.

But for your FYI: A 'Creative' is anyone working in the 'Creative' industry, which is Advertising and Graphic Design or the Design Field in general.

It also denote individual that initiate new products, designs, concepts, that evolve our species. Ayn Rand used a term "Creators" which denotes people that have exceptional talent in their particular field of interest.

Most are attacked and destroyed.

[PsyogiBottoms]

'Creators' are always assailed by 'Second Handers' People that don't have any talent, hate others that excel or rise above other, and strive to steal ideas, bastardize brilliant design, and bring the world to a crappy mediocre existence so they can feel comfortable about themselves.

They must oppress and use the government often to do that - sort of like the NEA or any 'board' that decides shit.

Ex: A second hander would build a Camel instead of a horse - A Creator, an Arabian.

[PsyogiBottoms]

2. yes there are designers that love (er...) Like PCs. But most people that actually work on computer (outside of coding or programing or networking) - have REAL need, and a REAL job working on them are mostly in the Creative Field - i,e. Creatives.

As far as they are concerned there really isn't any comparison with the stability, efficiency or intuitive design of the Mac vs. PC.

Also, most everything PCs have are stolen (2nd hander) from Mac Design. Windows 7 is a bad clone of OS X. Period.

[PsyogiBottoms]

3. Can't help you - there are countless fucking retards and mental midgets everywhere - that is the job of education.

4. I'm sorry your cousin is retarded and probably couldn't figure out how to operate a Mac rather than a bad one - that is rare. What exactly was 'profoundly' wrong with it? It didn't work like Windows for her?

The point is, there is no need to defend PCs as like yourself probably only use them to jack off to porn or annoy people.

For those that actually have work to do ... Mac

[PsyogiBottoms]

Mac = Porsche. Simply put. If you can afford it - you enjoy it. If you can't you only envy and hate.

You may choose to use a PC and most have too because they just can't justify the cost of a Mac - which if you are only surfing the net and jacking off, yeah, is only worth about $299.

However if you run a Graphic Design Firm...$2000 for the most stable, brilliantly designed, and self-healing platform available.

Did I mention NO Viruses either? No Trojan, Malware, Adware, phishing. et al.

[moonreft]

The number of viruses is less because the largest number of users is in fact a PC. Linux can be used in this argument as well but your premise is a misnomer. The retarded commit goes to show that further conversation on my part would be futile. My experience is my experience. Good luck with your bait the switch tactics. Playing the shame game no longer works with people of a sound mind. This started to reverse in the mid 1980's

[PsyogiBottoms]

Well that is your opinion. I can not be held accountable for your personal interpretation of words. I meant 'retarded' as in the definition: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. I didn't not use the slang term 'a retard' in the negative *that's your own issue, I'm afraid.

And you are incorrect 'in fact' that the no. of virus is due to largest number of users (that is a true misnomer).

It is because clients do not have direct code access to the OS - which was based on Linux.

[PsyogiBottoms]

And you have yet to explain 'your' experience - you have only stated - 'My experience exactly'

Did you, as well, have a niece that returned 2 macs because they couldn't get them to 'work' or had 'profound' (still waiting to hear what was so profound) problems?

That is like someone calling a complicated machine a piece of shit because they can't find the 'on' button.

One's lack of knowledge does not a Piece of Shit make - other than making one.

Unlike windows, Mac's OS is self-healing as well.

[PsyogiBottoms]

And if you find that Macs don't suit your needs - that is fantastic. Really. I don't really care. lol

But don't trash something because you don't understand it - that displays your ignorance in this conversation.

A lot of windows users don't get OS X, but that is mainly because they are expecting it to be as cumbersome and poorly designed as Windows and PCs remain.

Just as almost all cellphones copy the iPhone design (2nd hand) - why not just buy the REAL thing? If you can afford too. Most do.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Macs, by design, are for those people. Those that require the best and can afford to pay the little bit extra to have: Superior stability, intuitive interface, rock solid security, speed and MOSTLY reliability.

The aren't the most popular because there aren't that many Creators in the world.

However there would be more if everyone had access to the same tools. I believe.

It isn't the same as preferring Toyota over Honda, it is Porsche over Mustang. And don't even embarrass yourself trying.

[PsyogiBottoms]

However, yes, most rednecks would be intimidated and very out of element driving around in ta 911 Turbo. They are better suited to their hot rod trucks and Chevy kit cars.

But not everyone is a ignorant redneck, hopefully, and for the rest of us - we'll take the 911 over the Pick'em Up truck with its truck nuts to make it cool. lol

Yes pompous assholes buy these products because they want to appear elite - however that isn't the product's fault. That is just the desires of a 2nd hander.

[PsyogiBottoms]

However I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about Mac vs. PC - there isn't any comparison with a rationally intelligent person - only losers that want to defend the fact that they can't afford a quality product.

You might as well argue that McDonald's is voted superior to Fillet Mignon because a trillion eat McD's everyday but few eat Mignon.

However we all know - if it cost the same - you'd be eating Fillet Mignon - not a crappy cheap burger. That's Bullshit - and you know it.

Same.

[utubehayter]

If it costs the same?  Because you can make it cost the same? Why don't you make it so? I am sure you will be the only Fillet Mignon seller left if you can achieve that. And I would be glad to patronize your monopoly mignon shop - honest!

Now get to work and make me that Fillet Mignon for $3.85

[PsyogiBottoms]

Again, missed the point. It doesn't cost the same that was the point - IF they DID cost the SAME, then you'd see that PCs wouldn't dominate the market by CHOICE not because they are cheaper.

The point I was making is that people don't choose cheap shit or crappy products built to make profit over quality IF they had the CHOICE. Which they don't - disproving the argument that PCs win by popular vote.

That is a fallacy.

It demonstrates the disparity that exists in the world - people aren't equal.

[utubehayter]

IF ... That is a big big if. And I have no inspiration to resolve it - neither do you. The only inspiration that a creative genius might have to actually equalize them - you choose to demonize - PROFITS! Indeed, the world based on IFs can be as rosy as you want, but the folks that make it better run on the principle of profit.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I don't inherently think profits are evil or choose to demonize them. I can just unbiasedly call it what it is by definition.

Profit = The amount received for a commodity or service in EXCESS of the original cost. Notice the last part of that definition (Dictionary).

"IN EXCESS of the ORIGINAL COST" The Original cost is the True Value of goods and services - Profit IS Excess. We don't need anymore EXCESS in this world. There's already excess. Run on true value not inflation. That's the problem

[PsyogiBottoms]

The point being that if you want to live in a world where all things are created in their optimum level - you must remove profit and economy from the equation.

There would be a tremendous savings in waste prevention, medical problems, violence and quality of life.

It is this inequality and need for profit that generates the glutton for profits and scarcity.

I argue more money is spent in waste management than would be lost in jobs eliminated by allowing the slaves to be freed.

[mrebus]

PsyogiBottoms maybe you could define profit. and if it most be removed have you removed it from your life.

[PsyogiBottoms]

The government does that for me. lol

My definition of Profit is the same as Merriam Webster's Dictionary: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions.

It isn't a bad word, it is just what it is - excess over true value. That added amount is what drives the enslavement of humans.

We don't NEED profits to survive as a species - we only need the true value - which in an abundant society is 1=1 not 1=1+.566+7%+...

The point was we don't have to have money.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Using money is an election we choose - we shouldn't be forced to use it, forced to obtain it, forced to release it.

There isn't any need to 'make' any human do anything so another human can Profit.

That is the point.

[PsyogiBottoms]

And that is Mac versus ALL Brands of PC not just Mac versus Acer or Gateway or Compaq. One Brand against all. That is pretty significant in itself. You don't have Mac Clones anymore - and even those were cheap crappy PC mockups as Macs.

OS X - as well as the line of Mac that brought Macs back was designed by only one man (the Macs not the OS X) - He brought the vision to life (and Jobs - the guy was a designer). OS X reflects thoughtful consideration and the entire experience before it launched.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Actually I lied, I do have one more comment. You may be correct - possibly Stephan and I are the aberrant ones.

I am a creator - I must create or die. To force me to spend 50 years of my life stuck in a grey cubical under florescent lights so that you can pay for your house, buy your wife nice things, and put your kid through school is inhumane.

That's exactly what governments and money do.

Free range cattle produce more milk (by 4x). Evidence that freedom creates abundance. Money scarcity.

[PsyogiBottoms]

To end this I'll just sight this last example.

Look at nature as your guide. In the wild no animal species is sitting around on its ass shooting heroine staring at a square rock all day.

You find that behavior only in Zoos where animals are caged. Caged animals chew their nails, stare listlessly for hours, go insane, bite themselves.

In the wild they run, play, work, bask, and nurture each other.

You tell me what you see when you look around yourself. I see nail biting, self abusing, insanity.

[enotdetcelfer]

the simple reality of the "we can have anarcho-communism after capitalism provides the infrastructure/means of production" argument is that industry must always adapt and advance or it dies. The A-Cist's argument assumes that we need only maintain our post industrial revolution factories and we could live in utopia. It's like saying "now that IBM made all these computers, we don't need capitalism, we can have communism" we would still have punch cards. Profits get Reinvested in the next cycle.

[rayyf69]

When the anarcho communists argue that the capitalist mode of production develops the infrastructure yet exploits the worker and the dialectical process leads to revolution and to socialization of capital they ignore the fact that markets are not static. Demand and technology constantly change and adapt. Without a market they are have no means of rational economic ( not technical) calculation. Extreme efficiency will be the result.

[utubehayter]

you meant extreme INefficiency, right?

[rayyf69]

yes i had two correctiosn and they didn't post :(

socialization of capital they ignore the fact that DEMAND/ production opportunities are not static.

Extreme INefficiency will be the result.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I think your biggest obstacle is that you are trying to 'adapt' ideologies and societies into each other - like compromise - which not only doesn't work, but isn't necessary. Think outside the box outside your cell. You only work to pay others - if you didn't have to pay others you don't necessarily have to work, but that doesn't mean you would not.

Frontiersmen for example - 'settlers' they carved out their lives off the land - left alone they wouldn't have to pay someone to defend themselves.

[rayyf69]

1 It is the compromise that is irreconcilable. When you try to hybridize the market with the central planning you vitiate the market making it bound to fail. In a free market capitalist society there is no reason you cannot organize with other Marxists and form a community with whatever type of economic system you want.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Absolutely - My point was that you don't have too. And MONEY doesn't have to be the currency of exchange or the measure of success.

Material possession like vanity are transient and are ethereal by design. The truly never existed. It is concept, construct, not true or real in an empirical way - they are 'symbols' that hold value - but value, like you said, is subjective.

I am richer than many millionaires I know - not in cash but in fulfillment and comfort in my life.

You may choose whatever.

[rayyf69]

Money is needed because social currency does not scale in markets based on memory. See Trivers (71) journal of American biological sciences with regard to population viscocity.

Vanity is not an arbitrary construct. For a biological explanation see honest signals. Vanity is very critical for certain species survival. I dont know what you mean not true or empirically. Beauty has metrics like female waist :hip ratios tend to elicit best response from male at 0.7

[rayyf69]

2 The problem, I believe, is that you may be insistent that I must come along with you, even if its unwillingly. I dont care if you attempt socialism (I dont think it will work) but think you should be free to try, but I do care when you attempt to forcibly integrate me.

[PsyogiBottoms]

No - I would not force anyone to come along. I mere would invite others to join. They are free to come and go as they please. I am not dependent on their labor nor their contribution - hence, the community would be entirely symbiotic and not parasitic in nature. You may choose whichever society you want to live in - as long as it doesn't threaten to enslave or impose upon the one I belong too.

As a creator, and designer, I've created numerous societies in my mind all of which would be success.

[rayyf69]

1I dont see how you will evade Von Mises Economic calculation problem, or the tragedy of the commons, or the fact that love doesnt scale, Arrows impossibility theorem, Institutional entropy, Risky-shift . Fundamentally I dont think you can evade exploitation. All organisms are constantly trying to exploit each other at all moments of the day, even when they breed; humans are no different. These are all structural problems marxists have no solution for!

[rayyf69]

2Markets drive systems toward mutualism. Individuals who find the market offers them bad deals have the option to opt out or defect to other suppliers unless monopolies exist (this is how information is created in markets, 1 firm profits at anothers expense). This Exit variable is shown to have parity in biological systems involving parasitism and in markets. In fact exit is the essence of markets.

[PsyogiBottoms]

In my society - Education is free, medical service is free, clothing is free, entertainment is free, there isn't any obstacles to education, training or changing vocations and no hours of operation or time clocks or bills or collectors or accountants or bureaucracy. If I designed it (like Next Gen) everyone would just be asked to contribute 4 hours a day to labor of some sort and 4 hours in self ed. or ed.ing others - the rest is yours.

You want to learn to be a Dentist - go learn. Its Free.

[rayyf69]

Sounds like heaven. Good luck. I will decline to be involved for reasons i've already stated.

[PsyogiBottoms]

And that is perfectly acceptable.

[utubehayter]

What is funny is that this is straight out of Marx's theories. These people never learn. Rothbard's law applies - No one quits. Ever!

[QIQrrr]

Anarcho-statism is the future.

[ks100001]

Without statism, there is no need for anarchism. It is crucial to know when to stop fighting; when self-defense becomes assault.

[ks100001]

FDR1450 was really, really, really, really good (not that this wasn't :)! The caller was so much like me...

[Jangaboo]

competition based system makes me feel awful about others

[rayyf69]

Competition is critical to collect data as to what are wasteful methods of production and what are not. There is no other way to organize production that would not result in extreme waste. Waste effects teh poor in a more deleterious fashion then the rich as the rich have excess resources to endure shortages caused by waste.

[Jangaboo]

but i don't feel good about my fellow human i'm competing with in grades to get an opening for a job

i like playing sports for fun but it gets really awful when there's such a strong need to win, hate enters in and i don't feel good about myself or others when that happens

competition is good? NO, maybe for businesses not for human beings relations to each other

[rayyf69]

there is alot of "i don't feel". I think your position is highly subjective, i know i don't share it. My point was exactly about business competition. But on in regards to games or other things i don't think one persons subjective analysis about competition should model future interactions between individuals that would be more receptive to highly competitive non-business activities.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I don't agree. Here is why: If everyone was allowed to freely exchange ideas and information and work together without the oppression of profit margins and/or 'Statist Control' myriad ideas and experiences would create pools of knowledge that would eliminate wasted or unforeseen issues.

Example, New Tech. development - individuals are forced to work in isolation to protect valuable assets, whereas if all were free, all would benefit, all would participate in the creation contributing experience.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I believe, akin to Ayn Rand, that if people are left to freely pursue their interests in life they would do it for free and would work tirelessly at their chosen vocation - I myself would love to spend all my time devoted to working with other designers just in the exploration and creation of new innovative products and development. As long as I had food, comfort and freedom to do as I please I would build cities in the stars for eons freely for fun! However under Statist rule I do not.

[rayyf69]

disagree. Leisure is of incredibly high value to many people and many would chose to perform this rather then do productive things that they may even enjoy. The pursuit of profit enhances productivity. However in an anarchist society there is no reason why a group of people ,with similr beliefs to yours, canot organize society without a market in the factors of production. Your only restriction would be dragging me kicking and screaming into your Utopia. I will wish you good luck with it though.

[PsyogiBottoms]

No you are incorrect I fear. Leisure is not the same as Apathy. Or emotional depression. All humans exhibit a desire to be involved, to create and to explore - most grow bored with complacency. That is why children are so frustrating to most adults - they want to be involved, they want to learn, they desire to share, to build, to play.

Only adults that have had this beaten out of them prefer to anesthetize themselves into a coma.

Free people, like our founding fathers, evolve exponentially.

[rayyf69]

I didn't say leisure = apathy. I said that leisure is of very high value. That value will often out compete productive fun things people can be doing. An added incentive is needed, that is the ability to provide for more leisure and happiness for oneself. Otherwise leisure will outstrip all other productive endeavors. There will probably be those that continue to produce value, but they will be disincentive to do so by those that lounge and still obtain their product.

[rayyf69]

Profit is absolutely critical for information discovery. Profit is analogous to the measurement of fitness in evolutionary optimality analysis. This is Schumpeter's notion of creative destruction. Freedom implies the ability to work in isolation and deny others the ability to reverse engineer what you make. If a particular market could benefit ( profit wise) from information sharing then the market would discover this as long as the state doesn't run interference for companies via rent seeking.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Profit is only of value in a scarcity mentality and where a measure of value must be established. I think in an abundant world (which we do live in) without the rape and extortion of our labor and creations people would be motivated by the sheer velocity of their consciousness.

Ex: I garden, love gardening, and give most of all I grow away without concern or care. Because I enjoy doing it and I CAN do it. I don't need a profit and it doesn't motivate me to go sweat in my garden for hours.

[rayyf69]

Also your assuming abundance which isn't the case. That abundance only occurs through schumpterian creative destruction(firms and inefficient methods of production are eliminated).

Abundance only exists because of profit. In a world without price signals rational economic calculation canot occur 5wood + 4 plastic = 4 wood + 5 plastic. There is no way to economize and only technical efficiency can occur. Please see Von Mises economic calculation problem.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Again, no. Abundance does exist. Without government predation there are excessive resources and ample food for everyone. EVERYONE. It is only because we support a huge parasitical monster that can't feed itself nor do anything for itself that we all must be enslaved and suffer.

If that parasite were gone - there is way more than enough on this planet for us all.

[rayyf69]

Actually the government subsidizes food production making food more abundant then it need be. But ultimately you will need price signals to avoid economic inefficiency. I don' tsee how you can get around von Mises argument. Alternative methods of production that are wasteful must be purged and the capital / land be transferred to others who have proven themselves in a free market.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Actually if you researched that you'd find the exact opposite. Governments don't subsidize anything really - they just steal and make their friends wealthy by extortion.

The free and voluntarism would solve those issues immediately if it were not for Government intervention and restriction - trust me it is all about profits.

[rayyf69]

I agree subsidy if theft. I also agree its all about profits but what is the diff. between a politician getting a 2nd term bcs of subsides to local industry and you enjoying your gardening. both a profiting and neither are monetary. Profit is immutable everything either profits or suffers losses through its action or the action of something else, somebody who engages in extreme altruism profits. And as you yourself say I am richer than many millionaires

[rayyf69]

Why do you give all your stuff away ? Is the stuff you grow of no market value ? is it to time consuming to find a market ? do you enjoy the feeling of charity ? do you want to clear away the stuff that is fully grown and make way for new stuff? <--- if you do any of this then you basically profit in a non-monetary sense. Economizing time or social currency(see Trivers (71)).

All these may be valid reasons but they are subjective adn of no use to enforce on others.

[PsyogiBottoms]

"Why do you give all your stuff away?" Because I can. Period. and no I do it mainly to avoid waste and rotting food. I don't believe in Charity, nor do I need the added profit or income. I love to garden, I produce shitloads of food my family can't consume - I don't 'need' to make a profit and if someone else enjoys the things I grow and make - that is enough.

I don't need a Rolls Royce to be fulfilled - I only need to do what I want with my own life. I think others feel the same. Read Rand.

[rayyf69]

But value is subjective as you've just demonstrated. I hate to garden personally. You do and you do so much you produce excess, but i can't imagine people will enjoy treating sewage lines so much they will just go out and do it for free. Gardening is a hobby, my mother does it for stress. An economy is not going to be organized by people engagin in their hobbies. Also your growing food inefficiently, there are more efficient ways to produce food.

[PsyogiBottoms]

The point is its 'Work' without profit nor necessity as motivation. I think there are people that would create an entirely new way of disposing of waste products, not to mention a massive decline in waste production.

Just think of the Animals and the world. No one is employed to take care of them, nor clean up after them, nor feed them. And the Earth takes care of waste removal itself.

We could learn from it - rather than fight it. If you gen. your own elec. no one has to cable to your home.

[rayyf69]

you think people will develop this ? That's sheer speculation. I don't think they would be. Under pure socialism nobody would do these jobs.

Take care of animals in the world ? I don't know waht that means? you mean stray animals ?

[rayyf69]

Also the destruction of land occurs because it is owned by many - it is socialized. This is an example of the tragedy of the commons.

Also i don't think people will be climbing into sludge tanks or septic systems to repair damage or clear away problems. There are also jobs like underwater welding that are tremendously risky. These individuals deserve more compensation for their taking dangerous or undesirable labor.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Here again - if the concept of labor doesn't exist or profit I believe (maybe falsely) that people would create more intelligent self sustaining designs for living.

Again, Ex: I have huge Koi pond that is filtered by my hydroponic garden (benefits both) there is no unpleasant cleaning of fish shit or filters.

Its an intelligent design - anything unpleasant can easily be elevated by technology - technology expands through freedom not profit nor force. "Need is the mother of invention"

[PsyogiBottoms]

It removes a tremendous amount of waste and gluttony from our society.

Scarcity, enslavement, restriction - this breeds a need to own, possess, have.

We live in the Garden of Eden - there could not have been created a more fantastic home for us as a species.

I think you'd see a complete change in the human race if the needs were removed and replaced by desires.

The point about gardening is that when people enjoy their lives they tend to be incredibly gracious, giving and helpful for free!

[rayyf69]

Problem. Gardening is not going to grow all the food on the planet. If everybody was a gardener that would be fewer drs, technicians engineers, material scientists. Your gardening Utopia comes at a tremendous costs of technological development. Massive economies of scale produce more food at lower costs (time/use of water space).

Also its not free because that time your spending gardening is time wasted providing something the people either need or want more.

[PsyogiBottoms]

No again, you think too limited in scope. The idea isn't that we all do the same vocation - we share, educate and diversify. Some work the self sustaining gardens and fish farms/livestock, some engineer, some train, some make clothes, some cook, some manage recycling, so maintain the power plants - we all share the bounty. Free electricity, food, homes, clothes - because people work at what they enjoy and share talents. You make my bedroom furniture I feed your family, she doctors. All Freely.

[rayyf69]

No, Ownership is critical to survival. The locus of control of productive capital must be decentralized or rational economic decisions will not be made, and society will impose its costs on each other individual because each other individual is paying for their dinner. Costs (in the non-monetary sense) become invisible. Information is unavailable to the individual and they will behave recklessly with the abundance they have.

[Moragauth]

Arguing with another Venus project literati?

[rayyf69]

Sounds like a planned economy (reading wiki on this). I knew a guy that said everybody would have a bike in their house and pedal to generate energy(power lifters are gonna hate that!) then trade it. I don't think

PsyogiBottoms wants prices to exist at all though in a resource based economy.

[PsyogiBottoms]

You forget is that the only thing that holds people back from attempting to do more or learn or explore is MONEY.

If you had all the money in the world - what would you do? So if everyone around the world had all the money in the world - what do you think they would do? So why not just get rid of the money?

If it doesn't cost too much, isn't too expensive - you'd do almost anything and everything - and why not? Don't people enjoy sailing? Throwing parties? Helping others? U R Not a slave B Free.

[rayyf69]

I can't possess all the money in teh world( this is economically impossible) because i cannot supply value to all people on the planet just trading with them all their money for whatever value i create.

Solve Von Mises calc problem which was foisted upon socialist half a century ago. ( actually earlier attempts where made at the economic calculation problem). Many socialists are now called market socialist because of it. Cost accounting is impossible under socailism without a market in FOP

[PsyogiBottoms]

That wasn't the point of the exercise. It was to consider what you and everyone would do without the restriction of money.

If you had no barrier to your ability to explore, travel, experience or learn. 98% of all the problems we have is caused by the vocation of accounting for money. Remove it and you have nothing to impede progress.

Assessing value becomes irrelevant - Like my example of Star Trek's Next Gen ?

People do what they want to do - there doesn't need to be a monetary value assessed.

[rayyf69]

That question is unanswerable because it assumes a world that cannot exist.

You second point is paradoxical Value is still assessed. A market allows others to obtain the information about what people value and then allows them to deploy their current assets to attempt to service others by satiating that demand driven by that value. In your society whats to stop people from playing video games all day or doing narcotics, watching tv ?

[PsyogiBottoms]

The society is predicated on the idea that individuals being raised in this society will be nurtured from birth with free education, health care, and resources - there will not exist a need to 'escape' into video games or drugs as in an enslaved society.

Free people rarely take advantage of others in their society - as education and progress would be the ultimate goals any individual that was aberrant to such an extent would feel ostracized and alone.

You do this tomorrow - but in time.

[PsyogiBottoms]

You keep thinking that there must be an exchange and that people by nature are lazy and prefer to be stupid. This isn't bore out in any investigation in an environment without restriction.

Escapism wouldn't be fulfilling in a free world where you could do or achieve anything. It would be about personal bests. Discovery and growth for the sear joy of exploring and creating.

It is as though you can't live in a world without money, but you can. WE have.

If there is no oppression = no depression.

[PsyogiBottoms]

You wouldn't be able to do this tomorrow I meant to say - but in time. My wireless keyboard is dying.

lol Sorry.

Perfect example: Individuals would make things to last, or work the first time. Not break, fall apart or need to be 'repurchased'.

Fuel cells would be optimal, clothing durable, food the highest quality - not for profit, but because its yours. Think of the waste that would be avoided because you wouldn't need to sell more. You'd want it to last or be the finest there is no profit.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I've posted like 12 comments that for some reason don't show up here. Sorry.

Attempting again. Think of it as if there were never any restriction on your education or ability to travel or learn and your entire environment was based on nurturing growth, discovery and promoted development of the individual as an asset to the whole.

If could go at any time and learn a new trade, language, skill, or teach, or assist others to achieve goals that benefit everyone and didn't have to pay someone to live

[PsyogiBottoms]

We need to take this to the FDR boards so I can actually make a statement without loosing it or having to verify.

Anyway - as I was saying. If you didn't have to worry about paying someone or buying something you wouldn't just sit and become a vegetable. Especially if you grew up in that society. Education would be the currency and everyone could have all they could carry. Would you not help someone build their home if they in-turn provided your family with free medical care? How Selfish are you

[PsyogiBottoms]

Would it kill you to spend 4 hours helping to paint a house if you could stay as a guest for the weekend anytime you wanted and go scuba diving?

I mean that sort of selfish, narcissistic disorder would evaporate in such an environment where people don't have to reassure themselves they are doing well by buying shit.

Your quality of life would demonstrate your attractiveness to others.

How would feel in a world where most are accomplished in multiple fields and did nothing and had no excuse.

[PsyogiBottoms]

See you'd have justify to yourself as you aren't restricted by anything. It isn't too expensive or too costly - its free. An anyone that selfish or self absorbed would be a pariah - shunned. You wouldn't mate - your genetic line would end. Case closed. Survival of the most adapted and well educated.

Think of it, your lifetime would be full. You could be: a doctor for 10 years, an Astronaut for 12, a builder, cook, writer, performer. All in one life because you could afford to be. Its Free! Share

[bjarczyk]

Stefan, some good history of anarcho-communism/syndicalism is in the 1936 spanish civil war. The CNT/FAI organizations were highly organized and very efficient. It was Barcelona I think that was an anarchist society for 3 whole years before being put down.

Sure, it was 1936 but it's a good example of how it was done and the methods being put into practice.

The caller also said that he wasn't going to explain all those details to you because there are tons of books on it.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Isn't it completely edifying to witness first hand that your long held theories and beliefs prove correct in your own experience with your daughter?

I have the same rewarding experience with my 5 dogs, they are amazing and awesome and it really freaks everyone out that I can command them without leases, without abuse, and that they are so intelligent and self-governing, which is the reflection of my own concepts about 'parenting' as I have no children to observe. They work with me - willingly.

[CollumBrian]

I think you were really unfair with the gentleman from Germany. Perhaps unintentional, but unfair nonetheless.

15 minutes is hardly enough time to highlight any school of anarchy.Although I'm not a proponent of Anarcho Communism, I do understand their perspective and with ample time I think the two of you could have had a very entertaining, enlightening, and enjoyable debate.

I respect your point of view and recognize the depth to which you thought and discussed AnCap.

[CollumBrian]

Although I disagree with you, it is nice to get such an informed opinion from you school of thought.

For comparative reasons, I think there is a great benefit to be had by inviting the German gentleman to a 1:1 debate or discussion. That is assuming he is knowledgeable about AnCom. It's hard to tell because your time together was, understandably, brief. Even if he is not, it shouldn't be hard to find someone of that subject matter, or even another branch of anarchism.

[CollumBrian]

I very much enjoyed your debate with Jan and it seemed well received by your viewers. I'm sure you will have debates in the future, but the debate or discussion with an AnCom would be awesome, imho.

Again, thanks for making your books and videos. Even though I strongly disagree with Anarcho Capitalism, I think what you are doing is worth while and important to Anarchism as a whole.

Take it easy Stef.

[PsyogiBottoms]

That might be caused by the fact that there isn't any need for the second part of that hybrid. Anarchism is all that is required, the Capitalism or Communism is irrelevant as in if we could achieve true anarchism it would inconsequential and irrelevant.

I understand the 'utilitarian' aspect of 'communal property' but honestly if people were truly free - there wouldn't exist a need for 'possession' or 'my stuff' as everyone would generous in abundance. Think of all the resources freed up.

[CollumBrian]

I see your point. I would agree with you if you said, "There isn't a need once we have Anarchy, but there is a need in achieving it."

I don't identify as anything but anarchist. I think all branches have their uses, as you have said. However, I am completely against Anarcho Nationalism. I would never be an Anarcho Christian, and I don't like Anarcho Capitalism. I will say, that of those three, Anarcho Capitalism has the most utility.

[QIQrrr]

What about anarcho-statism?

[PsyogiBottoms]

That is an oxymoron. lol

[QIQrrr]

Not at all. Anarcho-statism is in essence democracy: mob rule by consensus, just as anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-nationalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-whatever...

[PsyogiBottoms]

Yes and Anarchism abhors being 'ruled' by a mob. So that is like a Christian Scientist - its counter positive.

[QIQrrr]

Anti-backward negative is probably a better way to put it, but then again, what has reality to do with anarchism? Nothing at all, and that's why you have to believe in it.

[PsyogiBottoms]

OK this sounds like a semantic argument - the point is: Anarchy is the 'belief' that there doesn't need to exist any government for society to exist. Whereas all the other -(blank) added to the end are all beliefs in an ideology of governance or government.

Hence - Atheism is to Anarchy as Religion is to (blank government ideology). Without the 'belief' system the counter would not spontaneously appear.

Without Religion Atheism would not have come into existence on its own. Same with Anarchy.

[PsyogiBottoms]

What I would say is that Anarchy is actually just a natural state of existence - It did not need to be created or labeled until the invention of 'The State'.

Just as Atheism is a natural state that exists without label prior to the invention of Religion - Without Religion no one would have reason to label anything Anarchist. Because it is the belief in the non-existence of something not the existence of something.

[QIQrrr]

Yes, and living like cavemen is more natural than civilization. Being a child is more fundamental than being an adult. Non thinking is more basic than logic reasoning etc. That's why we need to go back to anarchism because it precedes the concept of 'The State'. In fact we should get rid of conceptualization and abstractions and start dealing with immediate concretes instead. This is the letter A - what is it?

[PsyogiBottoms]

It is to build your foundation on stable ground first.

As Steph always repeats - He return to the fundamentals of logic. Empirical evidence sound reasoning. It can be tested.

Its all the other BS that corrupted everything - like Religion. Once Ignorance was dispelled knowledge set the ape free.

You only lose your way when you step out of the searing bright light of truth into the deception of darkness and rationalization. IMHO.

As Buddha even said - If you don't buy it - don't buy it.

[rayyf69]

I'm not a logical positivist.

[PsyogiBottoms]

No you are an Heretical Conservative. lol

[rayyf69]

No i'm a rothbardian anarcho capitalist who is agnostic and believe morality evolved. I do not subscribe the the idea that traditionalist systems are optimal(conservative). I prefer spontaneous and rapid emergence from market systems.

[QIQrrr]

I've always found the notion of anarchism to be somewhat buddhistic in nature. Buddha said:

"All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else."

And then came Aristotle and solved the mysteri, identity, cause and effect, and then there was anarchy and everything disappeared again. And they lived in complete darkness for thousands of years, and their king was Stefan Molyneux.

[PsyogiBottoms]

LOL yeah.. Actually I see Mr. Molyneux as a Beacon of Bright Light in the fog that is Bullshit. lol

We think almost identically and to a greater or lesser degree live what we preach. That is the true test of one's character and belief.

The Proof is in the Pudding. And as Steph has found, as I have myself, we find our beliefs are supported by empirical evidence everyday as we experience success in what we believe - not failure. Others are looking - whereas we have found - the answers. Truth.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Sorry I meant Atheist not Anarchist in that example.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I agree completely.

The hard problem is how do we get from here to there? As long as monopolies on violence do exist elsewhere we are at risk of violent overthrow.

Resistance and passive aggression seem to be the only effective method - we must either create a 'fever' to kill off the parasites, or starve them out and off by not contributing and publicly assassinating Statist ideology so that it become embarrassing and unfashionable to be so ignorant and un-evolved.

[ks100001]

People will respond very negatively if guilt-tripping and accusations are made.

Providing a positive alternative and pointing out the predatory nature of statism is the best way to convince people.

Every single one of us is currently involved with the state, directly or indirectly, whether we want it or not. Dropping off the grid is fine if you can do it (I'm currently "missing" as far as the state is concerned :), but billions of people cannot do so. They need to work and eat and so forth.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Unfortunately I don't agree with the first part of your statement. I didn't mean to use guilt necessarily. I meant to make it distasteful to participate in such endeavors rather than supporting them publicly. (I too am currently missing) I live where it is unheard of to question the government or God - it is considered sacrilege not informed or evolved. That needs to change and unfortunately the Proud and Ignorant respond faster to shame than praise in deterring negative behavior. Unfortunately.

[ks100001]

Hostility is by far the most common reaction whenever I bring up the violence of the state in a conversation.

That's people, I'm afraid - they don't get angry at the state, they get angry at YOU for pointing out the violence. That's why I think it's wise to proceed cautiously and to figure out who is open to such ideas. The personal ramifications of this stuff is very disturbing to most people.

Just plant little seeds here and there - not every patch on the field is fertile soil.

[PsyogiBottoms]

I concur totally. For those that can be reasonable yes - however there dogmatic and ignorant people that are conditioned by influences in their environments. To make something distasteful avoids any necessity to overcome objections or defense mechanisms that these parasitical philosophies implant.

Not the use of violence or coercion but distaste.

Just as it is distasteful to beat your children publicly or defaecate in public off the side of a sidewalk like a dog - not guilt, just offensive. lol

[ks100001]

Of course, what works in the US might not work over here in Finland - we have e.g. male conscription that really affects people's views. It's just bizarre how many people want to get back the areas that were lost to the Soviets in WWII.

Then again, the system makes people see the coercive nature of the state quite clearly. When you live in a country where they lock you up for 6 months if you refuse military/civil service it isn't hard to argue that we have the Thought Police. :)

[rayyf69]

I would have liked to have heard more also but i think Stefan did the right thing. He was practically impossible to understand. I think this was largely sound quality, but being from America doesn't help with some of the more exotic euro accents.

[utubehayter]

If the guy was anything close to An-Com, it is based on violent revolution. Along with the things Stef pointed out - it is really arrogant to declare that a person trying to understand your philosophy is "wasting time" - Instead he should immediately accept it and start plotting on how to deal with military response in counter revolutionary mode.

Once he said that - it pretty much sealed the deal for me. Stef was not only fair but generous to the man (definitely not a gentleman).

[PsyogiBottoms]

There is a definite difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. If you have taking the path - you find there exists a disparity between the 'theory' and the 'practice'. For Sure.

Tell them to turn down the volume on their computer when they are talking to you - it will get rid of the echo. They have to listen to you 'on the phone' not off their computer.

[PsyogiBottoms]

Isn't amazing how self-aggrandizing Statist can not believe anyone wouldn't Want to be enlisted to serve them. It is really completely Narcissistic.

"What - you mean you don't WANT to be a servant to the State?" "I just can't comprehend you don't want to serve the royal families...how is that even possible?" lo Seriously - it is literally Insane.

You know Obama is sitting there thinking - "They want to know what the government can do for them? WTF - No! They serve us - how ludicrous." Tragic

[furyofbongos]

Maybe some day YouTube will work out the sound/lip sync thing. It's several seconds off.

[PsyogiBottoms]

And the constant pausing while videos down load - I am constantly having to sit and wait for the next 10 seconds to load - then pause - then play - then pause. It is mind annoying.