Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

What we really need, is an alien invasion.

[Lagslayer]

What we really need, is an alien invasion.

The sad part is, you are probably right.

[kaijyuu]

They'll come wondering how to serve man.

[SalmonGod]

So we have come full circle. How do we get leaders who don't become/are corrupt? How do we get enormous groups of different people to work together?

What we really need, is an alien invasion.

So now that we've finished constructing the pretense, who here is ready to contribute to the genetic engineering of a colossol psionic squid?

[Lagslayer]

SPACE KRAKEN! We shall rule the universe!



Or is it a reference I don't get?

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler: A Hint (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: And this one just made me laugh (click to show/hide)

[Buttery_Mess]

Stop worrying about 'the system'. There is no 'system'. It's a bunch of individuals, being dicks.

The way forward is for individuals to live the way that they want to live, to obtain capital and freely share it with others, to cooperate on projects in which all participants are willing members, and generally work towards specific goals that lots of people can get behind. Don't worry about changing 'the system'. Individual action is all that counts; if it can be synchronised with other individuals, so much the better.

[kaijyuu]

The way forward is for individuals to live the way that they want to live, to obtain capital and freely share it with others, to cooperate on projects in which all participants are willing members, and generally work towards specific goals that lots of people can get behind.

Bolded part works against most everything else you're advocating here.




If there isn't a "system" to rage against, there's certainly methods to. Procurement of wealth to the detriment of others is one of them.

[SalmonGod]

What you propose is, in fact, a change to the system.  Yes, it is comprised of a bunch of individuals, many of whom are just being dicks.  The problem is they're being dicks in an organized manner, which is designed to force participation on others who often don't even want to be dicks at all.  A bunch of individuals being dicks would be no problem.  There is actually more to it than that.

So the question is how we make use of our individual action in the face overwhelming coercion by the cooperative action of other individuals.  It's tricky because to free ourselves from that coercion, we must simultaneously free others of that coercion.  That's "the system."

[Lord Dullard]

They'll come wondering how to serve man.

"We come in peace. Take us to your leaders, so we may terminate them for your benefit."

[Buttery_Mess]

In economic terms, capital is a means to create wealth, for example farm machinery or a kiln. The capitalist doctrine is that capital should be owned privately and other people can only get to use that capital as the owner sees fit; i.e. by employing workers to operate it. The communist perspective is that all capital is owned by the state, with the capital used by workers as the need arises.

Whichever way you look at it, capital must exist. Without capital, there can be no creation of wealth; wealth being stuff like food, homes, electricity, etc.

From the anarchist perspective, capital is not really 'owned'. Ownership demands legal protection. The anarchist is not subject to rules (i.e. laws) unless he consents to them.

There are methods that a group of anarchists could use to equitably divide capital amongst themselves, and to cooperate in order to use that capital effectively. Anarchists are not averse to following rules, as long as they may elect to follow them or not as they see fit; there must be some benefit to following the rules, or some degree of penalty for not following them (e.g. have to deal with other anarchists shooing you away from access to the capital.) Effectively, when a group of anarchists labours to produce some capital, they then decide together how that capital is to be used and take it upon themselves to protect that capital. The task of protecting it may be farmed out to some other anarchists (like an anarchist police group).

Well I could go into anarchism in depth, but the point is that anarchists don't like to do anything that they don't choose. People want the opportunity to work towards things they want. Capitalism and communism may force people to work towards goals they manifestly don't want, out of personal economic necessity.

I, for example, have certain pie-in-the-sky goals, and until I find people who want to cooperate with me to achieve them, I have to work towards them on my own. That means I have keep working, wasting my time doing things I don't want to do, to pay off my mortgage and my bills and so on. My pie-in-the-sky goals (my project, as I like to call it) will require capital. So, I need to try to make myself self-sufficient, as part of the requisite capital for my project. This would be easier with other people, but until I find others, I need to take positive individual action to make it happen.

[Criptfeind]

After reading your post I find myself fascinated about what your point may be.

[kaijyuu]

I think he's refuting my assertion that gaining capital works against the other ideals he was touting earlier. Which works, btw.


Okie dokie, gaining capital is fine then. How do we prevent people's greed from overshadowing much greater concerns then? Capitalism certainly doesn't do anything.

[Truean]

I think he's refuting my assertion that gaining capital works against the other ideals he was touting earlier. Which works, btw.


Okie dokie, gaining capital is fine then. How do we prevent people's greed from overshadowing much greater concerns then? Capitalism certainly doesn't do anything.

Problem being people gain capital for doing the wrong things.... Capital stock raided an entire company in a buy, loot, sell standard operation, which unemployed an entire town? Great..... [sigh] 60 year old company, gone in 60 days.... Why? Short term goals screw us long term.

[Gantolandon]

Stop worrying about 'the system'. There is no 'system'. It's a bunch of individuals, being dicks.

It is not true. I will try to explain that in a slightly different way than SalmonGod.

The society in itself is a system, organized in one way or the other. Current problem is not a bunch of individuals being dicks, because these people are helped by the society organization: laws and organizations which are made to protect them, complacent population, the structure of production chain, etc. These properties don't have to be designed and maintained by any central organization, they may be (and most of them are) emergent - a sum of the people's ideologies, needs and fears.

Actually, most social systems will fare with changes on top extremely well. Monarchies stayed more or less the same even when a king was toppled by his subjects. Most of the time he didn't even bother with replacing or restructuring his kingdom's bureaucracy (or, earlier, vassals) which he relied on. For most of his people this sufficed, at least for a short amount of time. Only when the idea of divine right to rule has been questioned, the monarchies slowly got extinct in favor of representative democracies.

In fact, they are more stable than monarchies just because most people reason like that - it just suffices to change the few people on top and everything will be all right. Even if they don't, it's usually because they believe in some kind of shadowy cabal which micromanages the entire country. They don't usually believe that such traits as laws or social organizations can just emerge, shaping the way how the entire society works. The other forms of government which managed to prevail for a short amount of time either spread belief in shadowy cabals (fascism, particularly the German one), or provided their own systemic explanations why it's not enough to elect other leaders (communism).

tl;dr - there is a system and not believing in its existence makes it more stable.