tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post3733651721016665194..comments2024-03-28T07:34:33.613+00:00Comments on Man Against The State: Critique of 'Firing Back' by Ben McLeishGraham Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-56376959866049261912012-09-24T00:17:01.060+01:002012-09-24T00:17:01.060+01:00Hey Graham, well my opinion changed, that happens ...Hey Graham, well my opinion changed, that happens quite frequently, as I learn more... ;) <br /><br />But it has nothing to do with you, I am actually saying that I accept your way or any other way of dealing with mutually exclusive goals, may that be arbitrators, governments, armies, mafias, hierarchies, social classes, religions, countries, racism, businesses, police, prisons, war, property, laws, etc...<br /><br />I am not saying they don't exist, I am saying that I don't want to have anything to do with dealing with it, since I consider any engagement with culture consequences a waste of time, which can only worsen the problem. <br /><br />I want to ignore culture as much as possible, since culture always implies some form of violence...<br /><br />I've been learning a lot from Alan Watts, Joseph Chilton Pearce and Aldous Huxley, recently and this is how I've incorporated their elaborations in my conclusions.<br /><br />I don't have goals that can not be fully compatible with the goals of other humans, if you want to talk about the best way to accomplish those, (since you also acknowledge that they exist) we can.<br /><br />I think, as you will soon find out, that what you are trying to solve is a problem that was invented, and because it was invented, the only true way to stop having it, is to let it fade away... ;) <br /><br />The more you try to solve a problem that doesn't need to exist the more you feed it, so count me out... ;)Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-51596306778828828332012-09-23T17:31:01.337+01:002012-09-23T17:31:01.337+01:00Hi Carlos - it's been a while, but good to hea...Hi Carlos - it's been a while, but good to hear from you again!<br /><br />I actually felt the discussion was going in a useful direction, because we had identified the source of our disagreements. It wasn't going in a circle at all... until now. <br /><br />With these two posts, you are taking us right back to the beginning. See my post to you way back on 22 July, 17:03.<br /><br />You are now once again back to that point: dismissing everything I'm saying, because you are rejecting my two initial assumptions, even though in your later posts we had agreed that these assumptions are sensible. We had made progress. We agreed on the need for third-party arbitrators (because disagreements are possible) and I hoped we would start talking about the detail of how those arbitrators would make decisions and what incentives they would be faced with.<br /><br />But you have shied away from that discussion, and you've come right back to "if we all just got along, we wouldn't need arbitrators". I'm disappointed.<br /><br />I'm not interested in going over old ground. I refer you to my previous posts. <br /><br />I would however be interested in resuming the discussion if you would answer the two numbered questions from my last post (7 Aug, 22:24).<br />Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-67195289991169964842012-09-23T14:49:33.725+01:002012-09-23T14:49:33.725+01:00So the answer to your question becomes very simple...So the answer to your question becomes very simple: I used to be a differential advantage freak, until I had contact with enough knowledge to conclude that, the peace benefits from stopping wanting more material things than others are a lot more important to my happiness than those material things, which are harder to get anyway because we are always creating each other fake obstacles...<br /><br />If an enough number of people understand this, then we will cooperate between ourselves and if it works, others might follow. If not enough people understand this, then it won't matter anyway, because we will just self-destruct. <br /><br />I have no problem with extinction, species disappear everyday, I am just trying to do my best to help delaying ours... ;)<br /><br />So if you want give me a common goal example, I can describe how you can apply the scientific method to it. If you are talking about mutually exclusive goals, then I accept whatever anyone else wants to do about it as a symptom of our path to extinction.<br /><br />I see all mutually exclusive goals as consequence of culture and we need to overcome our culture if we want to survive as a species, the only way to overcome culture is to ignore it, if you try to change it, you will just become part of it... <br /><br />So if you want to waste your time trying to get the best solution to keep differential advantage going, be my guest, but I'll bet you will be exactly in the same place 30 years from now... ;)<br />Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-830443668375262082012-09-23T14:44:45.788+01:002012-09-23T14:44:45.788+01:00Well I think we are talking in cycles now, let me ...Well I think we are talking in cycles now, let me see if I can break it ;)<br /><br />What you are asking me, I could ask you. The fact that a third party is deciding things doesn't magically make it the best possible decision.<br /><br />The problem you have, is that you are assuming individual mutually exclusive goal and I am assuming common goals.<br /><br />This is very simple, if you have mutually exclusive goal you will always have fight and you will always have one of the parties not going to be happy.<br /><br />The less happy party will try violence, to form a government or corruption or any type of differential advantage consequence, and I still fail to see how your arbitrators are going to be immune to corruption in a way that they will not sooner or later just become another type of government...<br /><br />Now what I am trying to explain to people is this: If we don't want wars and crime and governments or other type of aberrant behaviour, people need to perceive what happens as being fair...<br /><br /><br />This awareness can only come from understanding the reality of the planet regardless of political, social, national or other type of cultural conditioning... <br /><br /><br />For example, to satisfy all basic human needs can be a good starting point, and these are not subjective, they can be defined with the use of biology and the continuous improvement of neuroscience...<br /><br /><br />Once any common goal is accepted, then the best way of achieving it, is not a matter of opinion any more, the same way, the best way of building a bridge doesn't depend on what I think, it depends on the limits of current human knowledge, which will always improve... <br />Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-62131356179239367252012-08-07T22:24:30.314+01:002012-08-07T22:24:30.314+01:00"My idealization would be quite close to your..."My idealization would be quite close to yours, a third-party arbitrator sounds reasonable, except that in my world that arbitrator would have to impartially apply the scientific method and tools would have to be in place to make sure no party would benefit more from the solution than the others"<br /><br />1. How does an arbitrator "apply the scientific method" to help resolve disputes? Isn't the scientific method a method for discovering empirical laws? How does the scientific method help the arbitrator, who must decide whether individual A or individual B ought to have ultimate decision-making jurisdiction over rivalrous object X?<br /><br />2. What tools do you have in mind that would "make sure" that arbitrators are doing as you wish them to do? How do these tools work, and who wields them?Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-42029254052404726732012-08-03T02:00:59.671+01:002012-08-03T02:00:59.671+01:00The barriers to entry provided by property is actu...The barriers to entry provided by property is actually the only deal breaker for me, if you could sort this one out I will totally support the libertarian approach as a transitional stage to a RBE. I mean, what is a couple more decades of wasteful competition driven environmental collapse, right? ;) <br /><br />Barriers to entry are easy to understand: I want to produce gold watches and someone owns all the gold mines... <br /><br />Anyway I agree with you that most other barriers to entry are Government's work.<br /><br />If I would wake up tomorrow in the no barriers to entry libertarian world, you know what I would do? <br /><br />I would get my TZM tech friends and I would build the best self-cleaning modular reusable car and supply it for shared use at production cost to the entire world. And I would do the same to every single useful product until there would be no way to compete with it.<br /><br />Without people owning land just to let food spoil to make me do what they want in order to feed myself, without forcing people that want to work to be unoccupied and without having to waste time producing rubbish for the sake of the "market", I would simply work an hour a day, and spend most of my days in the beach or in the park with a lot of friends having free access to all these problem solving long lasting products... <br /><br />I would like to see how long the competition freaks would last working 20 hours a day without being able to afford even, what they produce, or unemployed homeless starving seeing empty foreclosed houses, until they would start thinking about imitating me... lol<br /><br />A RBE is unavoidable because the planet doesn't really care about our little made up "games" and sooner or later we will have to realign ourselves with nature, the later it will be, the more the current waste will affect our comfort potential, but without Goverments it could happen tomorrow...<br /><br />So you have my full support, as I think that most TZM likers would vote for Ron Paul, anytime... ;)<br /><br />But unfortunately I think you want the cause without the consequences and that seems difficult...Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-20243902136288943682012-08-03T01:57:36.990+01:002012-08-03T01:57:36.990+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-68088850921298873002012-08-03T01:14:13.278+01:002012-08-03T01:14:13.278+01:00Can you clarify this? When you say "have to&q...Can you clarify this? When you say "have to", it makes me think that a small group of people will use violence against any car producer who drives a car other than one he has produced. Is this the case?<br /><br />Well certainly not, violence is always absurd, when I say "have to" is in the same perspective that if you want to go from Europe to the US fast you "have to" take a plane...<br /><br />You don't change a system by forcing people to do anything, you change it by creating a parallel system that makes the old one obsolete...<br /><br />The same way I don't think you would use violence against a majority or minority if they wanted to form a government, right?<br /><br />If I RBE was implemented, that would mean that the majority of the people would be cooperating to produce the best of everything, but only 1 of each, without the waste of competition, so there is no incentive to produce faults on purpose, because no one is going to help you make a better product just for you and you are not even selling it in the first place... lol<br /><br />Obviously this is only relevant to things. I am sure currently there are doctors keeping people sick so they can make more money, but in a RBE, you already would have access to the best that everyone can have, according to current knowledge so why would you do it?<br /><br />People could still try to have more then others but if the majority would understand that that is just silly self-destructive behavior they would simply not cooperate with that people, peacefully discouraging them, just like the hunter-gatherers use to do ;)Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-12224238439695314162012-08-02T16:00:59.496+01:002012-08-02T16:00:59.496+01:00Graham,
I think I've mentioned already that ...Graham, <br /><br />I think I've mentioned already that for me your video doesn't constitute a demonstration. A demonstration would be if you would point me to a working example, like in a country or subculture.<br /><br />If it makes you feel better, I also don't think all the videos about circular cities demonstrate that a RBE would work, If I would try to demonstrate it I would point you to working examples that have some communalities with it, like the Pirahã of the Brazilian Amazons or Marinaleda (yes there is a town in Spain of around 3000 people, where there is no Police because it simply is not necessary...) <br /><br />Reputation's based systems are very tricky, because reputation is not a static absolute thing, it depends on the brain that is interpreting it, right? <br /><br /><br />Most economic theories that we see in practice today fail, because they assume the perfect rationality of the consumer/voter when in practice we act a lot more like a herd, that is why you can have a large group of people still doing things that harm them, just because that irrationality is peer pressured. Interest concepts to grasp are "cognitive dissonance" and "Stockholm syndrome".<br /><br /><br />You probably would agree that even the current system would work a lot better if people were at least a bit more rational.<br /><br /><br />I understand better when you call your videos "your idealizations", if the only way we can communicate further is for me to idealize as well, I can do it. But please bear in mind, that I don't think my hypotheses have any more scientific relevance then your videos, and without measurable goals or rectifications processes I consider this to be just passing time ;)<br /><br /><br />My idealization would be quite close to yours, a third-party arbitrator sounds reasonable, except that in my world that arbitrator would have to impartially apply the scientific method and tools would have to be in place to make sure no party would benefit more from the solution than the others including the arbitrators, which is actually what it's currently keeping our so called "scientists" from doing it...<br /><br />To be honest, I fail to see how your third-party arbitrators wouldn't become just like a Government.<br /><br />If the objective is still to have more than others, what would keep the larger arbitrators from getting together behind close doors and just maintaining the illusion of choice? When people are so easily tricked, mislead and divided... Why not create a private police and then use it to bully the customers, Mafia style... I think you would end up needing a Government police to control this and the cycle would just repeat itself. <br /><br /><br />The "free market" of differential advantage is everything that happened since the abundance provided by the agricultural revolution. This was the path we took, don't ask me why, because it is all very random, there is no particular reasons why Europeans didn't just follow the American native's path, but I think that with the internet and other global communication tools we can now reverse these failed outcomes, and we are barely starting to do it before is too late, if you ask me...Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-84392408858038265652012-08-02T15:50:02.885+01:002012-08-02T15:50:02.885+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-5892428056458892942012-08-02T15:21:15.279+01:002012-08-02T15:21:15.279+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-82924969209659905392012-08-02T14:20:22.456+01:002012-08-02T14:20:22.456+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-18640131633646180652012-07-31T19:44:22.044+01:002012-07-31T19:44:22.044+01:00"I cannot guess the future, the planet is too..."I cannot guess the future, the planet is too complex."<br /><br />Well, that doesn't give me much to go on. Of course we can't know the future, but we can give illustrations of how our idealized future society might work. Earlier you said that "you can't enforce property without government" and my video proved that actually you can, because it shows a working model of how that can happen. I'm not saying this is how it will be. I'm saying this is an outline of how it could work, and some reasons to think it might work quite well, and better than the alternative (statism).<br /><br />That's all I'm asking from you about the RBE. Suppose A and B have different ideas about what ought to be done with object X, i.e. they have a conflict, which we both agree is possible. How could they resolve it, in an idealized, hypothetical RBE? Can they turn to a third-party arbitrator for help? Who can they turn to? On what basis will that arbitrator decide what should be done to resolve the conflict? These questions are the heart of political and moral philosophy.<br /><br />I'm really looking for a way to grasp what an RBE would be like, as I hope my videos helped you to grasp how you could have property enforcement and law without government.<br /><br />"In the videos when it says: “Because people wouldn’t want to be seen doing this…”<br />What do you mean, you are not talking about reputation?"<br /><br />I don't believe that to be a direct quote, nor the one you previously posted, and they change the meaning of what I actually said somewhat. <br /><br />I brought up reputation in my video because that is clearly a very important thing for an arbitrator trying to appeal to consumers. The State has a terrible reputation for being a fair, honest arbitrator (to say the least!) and I explained that this is due to its monopoly status, and that with competition, arbitrators with bad reputations would not attract as many consumers, and would be weeded out. Reputation is important for firms in many industries, but particularly the arbitration industry. That was my point there.Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-63754369807195529522012-07-31T19:44:11.746+01:002012-07-31T19:44:11.746+01:00"I produce a car with a fault which I am awar..."I produce a car with a fault which I am aware of, just so it needs a new part after warranty, so I can make more money servicing it."<br /><br />I've already addressed the planned obsolesence argument at length in my posts. I'm not going to repeat myself here.<br /><br />"In TZM you would have to drive the car you produce and you could only have a better car by producing a better car, so you have nothing to gain from not just doing the best you can."<br /><br />Can you clarify this? When you say "have to", it makes me think that a small group of people will use violence against any car producer who drives a car other than one he has produced. Is this the case?<br /><br />Also, does this principle extend to all production lines? Must a doctor treat himself? Must a hairdresser cut her own hair? I just don't see how this principle you describe could be applied universally.<br /><br />"in a “free” market people could just start producing their own cars, but there are 2 observable drawbacks:<br />1 - That is damaging the planet (increasing the scarcity of health) i.e. these faulty things that people have to trash… "<br /><br />Actually, the environment will fare well in a free market, but that's probably an argument best put to one side for now.<br /><br />"2 – The existing producers have the resources and the property that allows them to create barriers to new entries and they also have the marketing brain washing tools of propaganda to convince people to buy their product regardless of the faults…"<br /><br />Can you explain more about this? These firms can't use violence (there is no state to lobby to get regulations, licenses, prohibitions, tariffs, subsidies, etc, passed). So I don't know what you have in mind by "barriers to new entries".<br /><br />As for propaganda, can you explain how producers get information to potential consumers about their products in an RBE? It makes no sense to talk about how effective propaganda is in isolation - we need to compare it to something. Like we can compare information put out by firms and information put out by States and ask which is more likely to be propaganda. So how is information packaged in the RBE, and by who?<br /><br />...Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-91765957280730446812012-07-31T19:43:45.316+01:002012-07-31T19:43:45.316+01:00Hi Carlos,
"It is very important to define w...Hi Carlos,<br /><br />"It is very important to define wealth, in my view wealth is not about having “more”, it is about having more needs met."<br /><br />Then we have exactly the same definition of wealth. This is good.<br /><br />"Actually I think that you will agree with me, when I say that, outside the most basic needs, satisfaction is a collective notion, since it is not what one has but what one has compared to what one perceives others have, that is in the centre of the concept of competition as a motivational tool, right?"<br /><br />I don't agree with your wording of this. Satisfaction is never a collective notion. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual acts. It may be true that "envy" has a lot to do with how people decide what they want, but this is not relevant to economics, since economics isn't concerned with the CONTENT of man's ends, only with the fact that man HAS ends, which he uses means to try to attain. Why men are satisfied by some things and not others is a question for biologists and pyschologists, not economists or philosophers.<br /><br />This is exactly why wealth is so usefully defined the way it is above. It doesn't commit the economist or philosopher to saying anything about the content of man's needs, but just says a man is wealthy when he is able to satisfy more of his needs, whatever they are. Our task is to work out the conditions that enable wealth to be maximised.<br /><br />Competition is not a "motivational tool". Competition is just the state of affairs you have when you have no monopoly. In other words, with a monopoly, everyone is forced to go to the monopolist if they want the product that is being monopolised. Competition means there is no monopolist, so people can go to whomever they please for the product. This tends to result in several different individuals (or collections of individuals called firms) offering similar products and trying to attract as many consumers towards their products as they can. <br /><br />Competition is not a "tool", at all. It is a state of affairs, or a process, and the process is that producers who are relatively poor at satisfying consumers get "weeded out" in favor of producers who are better at satisfying consumers. Motivations don't necessarily change whether you have competition or monopoly, only the consequences that result... a wasteful monopolist firm will endure (consumers have nowhere else to go), while with a wasteful firm in an environment of competition will get weeded out via the market process (because customers are free to go elsewhere).<br /><br />...Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-63040899714151350402012-07-30T12:58:37.545+01:002012-07-30T12:58:37.545+01:00Ok, when I talk about your system, I talk about gi...Ok, when I talk about your system, I talk about giving tools to people to benefit from problems, for example:<br /> <br />I produce a car with a fault which I am aware of, just so it needs a new part after warranty, so I can make more money servicing it. And with that money I will be able to buy a better car and even pay the eventual problems originated if those producers are doing the same…<br /> <br />In TZM you would have to drive the car you produce and you could only have a better car by producing a better car, so you have nothing to gain from not just doing the best you can. You don’t need all these wastes that democracies and governments create trying the impossible task of controlling someone from abusing power if that someone has nothing to gain by controlling himself…<br /><br /><br />I understand the logic, that in a “free” market people could just start producing their own cars, but there are 2 observable drawbacks: <br />1 - That is damaging the planet (increasing the scarcity of health) i.e. these faulty things that people have to trash… 2 – The existing producers have the resources and the property that allows them to create barriers to new entries and they also have the marketing brain washing tools of propaganda to convince people to buy their product regardless of the faults…<br /><br />I’m just trying to tackle the problem in the motivational root, instead of trying to patch it, which was the original intent of most governments any way… <br /><br />If I would use my imagination to tell you how we would solve conflicts, I would be doing the same I criticize about your videos, it is like trying to predict all the laws and institutions that came out of the current mad differential advantage paradigm… <br /><br />I would say that removing governments completely including their ability to enforce property and manipulate the media, in order to allow people to put in to practice the current technical ability of feeding the world, and then see what would happen, would be a good start…<br /><br />After we have a global population of well informed and nutritioned brains, we would see what problems would we be left to deal with…<br /><br />I cannot guess the future, the planet is too complex. All I can do is to contribute to feed the right cycles and then learn and rectify my actions ASAP, based on the results of trying…<br /><br />In the videos when it says: “Because people wouldn’t want to be seen doing this…” <br />What do you mean, you are not talking about reputation?Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-91423217007613120842012-07-30T12:50:45.281+01:002012-07-30T12:50:45.281+01:00Hi Graham,
Well I am not surprise to be able to f...Hi Graham,<br /><br />Well I am not surprise to be able to find common ground, since the TZM is just about being as pragmatic about ways of maximizing human happiness/survival, as possible… When someone presents a good argument we simple incorporate it, regardless of any prior believe… <br /><br />There is some common ground with communists too. All theories out there, have some logic, otherwise people wouldn’t follow it…<br /><br />Most of the times I find that people are not searching for that common ground, because of ego driven reasons, I am just glad we are.<br /><br /><br />“If by that you just mean that as we become wealthier (i.e. develop better production/distribution processes)” <br /><br />It is very important to define wealth, in my view wealth is not about having “more”, it is about having more needs met. For example, if I work 20 hours a day, and have 10 Ferraris and a 5 Mansions but have no friends or family to satisfy my emotional needs, I am not wealthy regardless of how much Prozac I take trying to ignore it. That is why you notice several cultures were people have very rudimentary production/distribution methods but still have a lot less conflicts than in some more developed countries…<br /><br /><br />Actually I think that you will agree with me, when I say that, outside the most basic needs, satisfaction is a collective notion, since it is not what one has but what one has compared to what one perceives others have, that is in the centre of the concept of competition as a motivational tool, right?<br /><br />When I talk about scarcity I talk also about scarcity of friends, family, health, piece of mind and all other human needs that are both very hard to quantify using monetary abstractions and also don’t depend so much on production or production methods (although if these help reducing waste of time and increase leisure time for the same amount of needs satisfaction, they can also be important).Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-65113828936307793422012-07-30T00:23:21.046+01:002012-07-30T00:23:21.046+01:00This is a real discussion, credit to all involved....This is a real discussion, credit to all involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-30578329151225269862012-07-26T19:52:32.050+01:002012-07-26T19:52:32.050+01:00"Yes I agree with C - conflicts are possible ..."Yes I agree with C - conflicts are possible (due to scarcity)."<br /><br />Good, then we have found some common ground.<br /><br />"Now, this means that sometimes there is the possibility of having no conflicts, right?"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"I would say that this can only be, in environments of perceived abundance."<br /><br />If by that you just mean that as we become wealthier (i.e. develop better production/distribution processes), we tend to have fewer conflicts, then yes I agree.<br /><br />"My argument is that we should come up with a system that tries to minimize the occurrence of conflicts"<br /><br />That is my argument too ;). So I guess we've just reached different conclusions about the best system for minimizing conflicts.<br /><br />What is the mechanism for resolving conflicts in your system? <br /><br />"In my opinion, the way you propose to deal with conflicts, makes it very difficult for the non-conflicting cases to arise.<br /><br />All the "players" in that process would have more to gain from conflict/perceived scarcity than from less, that is what gives them their "jobs" and their "profits"...<br /><br />In other words, your solution would create the problems it proposes to handle..."<br /><br />When you say "the way you propose to deal with conflicts" and "your solution" are you referring to anarchism (i.e. a system where disputants have the choice of which arbitrator to go to for help resolving conflicts, as opposed to a system with a monopoly that arbitrates on all conflicts) or libertarianism (i.e. the set of principles that I'd like arbitrators to base their decisions on when helping to resolve conflicts)?<br /><br />Whether you're talking about anarchism or libertarianism, can you explain how you think it creates problems - and what you are comparing it to?<br /><br />"You say that people would do what they should, because of their reputation."<br /><br />Where did I say that?Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-42500816272970712202012-07-25T14:59:07.860+01:002012-07-25T14:59:07.860+01:00Yes I agree with C - conflicts are possible (due t...Yes I agree with C - conflicts are possible (due to scarcity).<br /><br />Now, this means that sometimes there is the possibility of having no conflicts, right? I would say that this can only be, in environments of perceived abundance. <br /><br />My argument is that we should come up with a system that tries to minimize the occurrence of conflicts, or at least, that lets the natural progress of technology influence our perceived scarcity with the minimum external, vested interests, interference, as possible... <br /><br />In my opinion, the way you propose to deal with conflicts, makes it very difficult for the non-conflicting cases to arise.<br /><br />All the "players" in that process would have more to gain from conflict/perceived scarcity than from less, that is what gives them their "jobs" and their "profits"... <br /><br />In other words, your solution would create the problems it proposes to handle...<br /><br />You say that people would do what they should, because of their reputation. But as you know, propaganda causes a very big distortion on the "free" market. <br /><br />That doesn't come only from Government, it comes also from private marketing companies. Even the current or any system would work a lot better without it... <br /><br />My point is that, the only way you have to know if no one is lying to you, is if they have no reason to lie.<br />Money, property and all other differential advantage enforcing tools, that you don't seem to be able to question, seem to me the biggest reasons we presently have to lie to each-other...Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-39293483158158949082012-07-25T08:53:46.962+01:002012-07-25T08:53:46.962+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-3483463332429322342012-07-24T19:42:13.971+01:002012-07-24T19:42:13.971+01:00Hi Carlos,
Let me clarify assumption [A] further...Hi Carlos, <br /><br />Let me clarify assumption [A] further:<br /><br />[A]: Diversity of interests - SOME individuals have different goals and different ideas about how SOME objects ought to be used.<br />[Not-A]: NO individuals ever disagree about how ANY objects are to be used.<br /><br />Hopefully this is clearer and they are now indisputably MECE (Mutually Exclusive & Collectively Exhaustive). Either A is true or Not-A is true.<br /><br />It sounds like you agree with assumption A.<br /><br />[B]: Scarcity of objects - there exists some objects which can be used for multiple incompatible purposes.<br /><br />It sounds like you also agree with assumption B but that you believe that at some time in the future B may not be true, i.e. Not-B will be true, i.e. no scarce objects will exist.<br /><br />In fact B will always be true, no matter how productive we become. It seems that you are attaching to the term 'scarce' some baggage that I am not. You seem to think that there is some threshold of production beyond which objects become non-scarce... the threshold being something like 'when everyone has "enough"'. This is simply not part of my definition. It doesn't matter how many apples exist, each individual apple is always scarce in my strict definition of the term: person A could use the apple, or person B could use the apple, but not both. Do you agree that apples (and all material objects, including human bodies) will always be scarce given this definition?<br /><br /><br />By combining these two assumptions we conclude that: [C] Conflicts are possible. In other words, because of the assumptions, it is possible that at some time and some place, two individuals may both want to use the same object for different purposes, and they cannot both do so. Only one of the individuals can get their way, the other will be dissatisfied - so there is a conflict. <br /><br />Do you follow the logic from [A] and [B] to [C]?<br /><br /><br />If we can agree that [C] is true, we can start to talk about systems of conflict avoidance / resolution that humans have evolved / developed. <br /><br />Alternatively if you want to assert...<br /><br />[Not-C]: conflicts are impossible<br /><br />... or that at some time in the future they will be impossible (and that therefore it is "completely void of relevance" to discuss systems of conflict avoidance / resolution), then make your case.Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-12644100073779989282012-07-24T13:56:41.209+01:002012-07-24T13:56:41.209+01:00Hi Graham,
Sorry I thought I was doing that and m...Hi Graham,<br /><br />Sorry I thought I was doing that and more... ;)<br /><br />OK so I will try again :<br /><br />[A]: Diversity of interests - individuals have different goals and different ideas about how objects ought to be used.<br /><br />I don't see any evidence that completely supports A:<br />This is how I would improve it:<br />[A]: Diversity of interests - some individuals have different goals and different ideas about how objects ought to be used. And this is connected to the way they perceive there environmental which dynamically changes over time.<br /> <br />[B]: Scarcity of objects - there exists some objects which can be used for multiple incompatible purposes.<br />With B I agree, I would just add the "so far..." in the beginning. But in my opinion you are not using this assumption right, this is not the same as saying that there will never be enough apples for everyone. Apples are probably not even scarce as we speak are just being mismanaged...<br /><br />Again, technology has an impact on substitution and the purpose is only incompatible if there are needs left unmet...<br /><br />If you want to meet me half way, just create a theory that deals with scarcity the way you advocate and that deals with abundance the way TZM advocates... ;) <br /><br />Regarding these:<br />[Not-A]: Individuals never disagree about how objects are to be used.<br />[Not-B]: No scarce objects exist. That is, there are no objects that can be used for multiple incompatible purposes.<br /><br /><br />Common Graham, that sounds like politics, we are both smarter than that... <br /><br />The opposite of something wrong can also be wrong, especially when you use words like never and always, which very rarely are observed in reality, outside the laws of physics, and almost never in human sciences... Ex: I sometimes drive to work, therefore both: "I always drive to work" and "I never drive to work" are equally wrong assumptions...Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-56054468884654338312012-07-22T21:35:34.708+01:002012-07-22T21:35:34.708+01:00Carlos, try to remain focused on the source of our...Carlos, try to remain focused on the source of our disagreement so that we can move forward. <br /><br />You said that my arguments are "completely void of relevance" because you do not accept my initial assumption. I am asking you which of my initial assumptions you do not accept. Can you answer that question please?Graham Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07288585420579413704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8459524305954814481.post-22048636153828180752012-07-22T20:38:11.927+01:002012-07-22T20:38:11.927+01:00Do you seriously believe that some century and a ...Do you seriously believe that some century and a half old theory could even be remotely applicable to the cultural changes being induced by theological possibility, as we speak? <br /><br />Even the concept of a RBE we have now, will be completely outdated by the time we will get to implement it... I just trust the TZM to be able to adapt to changes and new information, a lot faster than these all other Dogmatic self-perpetuating institutions... ;)<br /><br />"Individuals never disagree about how objects are to be used" - well they do, but not as much as they used to, people from all over the world are starting to talk, mostly thanks to the internet, and we are starting to realise that since we have common problems, we might as well have a common solution... <br /><br />Do you see my point? Things change, you can't develop a self-perpetuating system based in the assumption that scarcity will always be there, because then that system will generate the scarcity it needs as part of the same algorithmic rule of self-perpetuation. <br /><br />It is like if you never stop taking the pills would will never know if you are still sick or not...Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219815976004108369noreply@blogger.com