First Woman to Win Nobel Prize in Economics Wins for Work Validating Anarchist Principles

dbzer0 3 months ago on Reddit

>I think I am actually left of you on the drug issue. lol. You are a PURITAN.

Are you high. Seriously are you having an imaginary discussing with me in your head? Because that's the only way I can imagine reaching such conclusions.

Right, I'm done, this is really becoming a waste of time as much as Sage_Advice. You simply go on and on as if I never said anything and claim victory . ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months ago on Reddit

I dont have time to go over every point. You can respond to this or not I plan a more complete answer later this week. I browsed reddit and saw your cogent response and felt compelled to clarify/try to find common ground.

>Not if in order ... future to institutes like the IMF.

True dat. I dont believe in neo-liberal policies and neo-liberal policies didnt exist. Chomsky had a great admiration for classical liberals. He suggests reading Adam Smith in full and mentions his disdain for corporations.

>This is true of classical liberalism in general. The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them. For example, Humboldt, like Smith, says, Consider a craftsman who builds some beautiful thing. Humboldt says if he does it under external coercion, like pay, for wages, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is. (Ed. not me) ...but certainly not under the kinds of ***external constraints that came to be called capitalism.***

Emphasis mine. I am not suggesting Chomsky is a capitalist. Just that he is keen and makes good points. Note, "came to be called." It is like what came to be called communism. Further, it is possible to have capitalist systems and without slave labor. It just requires that the people demand what they want and do not give in. I have nothing against freedom of association. You chided me once on shareholder liability as being anti-capitlalist. I think growth without responsibility is bad.

>Again, not even close to the scale of Capitalism and even then only caused by feudal landgrabbing and brutal taxations. We know historically that without such influence starvation was a very big rarity as humans know enough to save food for difficult times.

So called Capitalism as practiced by neomercantalists. Yes, I am sorry if I was unclear I feel the tragedy of the commons came about in the sense that richer countries led to population explosion instead of good

trade from my understanding.

>Not at all, this is not a tragedy of the commons since those are not commons that are being sold.

This is for clarification. I think we both agree that many nations have increased and colluded with elites of governments in poor and in the west making might over right. Both in the cases of "state communism" and in the cases of "state capitalism". I cant help what the states called themselves and what people believed they were living under.

>Population growth had everything to do with poverty and governments are only "corrupt" if you consider that taking care of the interest of the plutocracy is something abnormal for them, which it really isn't. That's the point of existing. So in fact that expropriations and taxations that led to starvation from the 16th century onwards were at the behest of the aristocracy and later the capitalists. In fact, without those forcing people to wage-slavery capitalism would have never taken off.

Agreed. Capitalists or Communists or anyone colluding with government is bad. It is why I am Anarcho. Again, I feel we share a distaste for imperialism.

>It's funny that you mention those statistics which accurately point to the flaws of capitalism where abundant food for all is not distributed according to needs but according to profit, which leads to mass starvations from those unable to buy it. I.e. it practically shows the inefficiency of the Markets to distribute according to demand.

I dont really see this as a flaw in capitalism. I see it as a flaw in government and supra-governmental bodies. We agree I think because you might call this state capitalism and imperialism. It is important not to steal and it is also important to deal fairly with others. I feel an educated populace and propietarian values lead to this with as much conviction as you do about libcom.

>As for the things you mention, they are of course mostly related to foreign interventionism and the results of colonization and slavery. As I explained in the first part of the comment, this is immediately to the benefit of the bourgeois nations, making them in aggregate as horrible as any totalitarian regime.

Again nations as such do not really exist in my philosophy. I can point out differences in nations as you did and engage in a comparative analysis. For instance, to my knowledge, Norway is not a particularly aggressive state and has its own oil supplies. It tries to take care of its people as best as it can. But it would get killed if it goes anarchist and lose everything. (I say this because anarchist states are almost an oxymoron and someone would probably take advantage of the situation). You might say certain states especially the lesser players are victims of imperialism and mercantalism by merely the way the game is rigged for the power elite.

Alot of what you attribute to capitalism, I attribute to imperialism.

>These are not the results of Market Anarchism/AnCap of course, since those theories are impossible in reality but they are the results of real existing Capitalism and neoliberal/libertarian-right policies.

I am leaving this open for later. But remember Iceland, Pennslyvania, and the American west are ok examples. But the same way your beliefs are squeclhed by the power elites so are mine.

>Same reasoning applies as for the first part. While women have more rights in the first world nations, this is counterbalanced by the lack of rights in the nations propping those up. Afghanistan is the perfect example in this instance really, where their secular government was overthrown by the US-funded Taliban when the former became positive to USSR interests. The results of this act for women's right are plain to see, even after their "liberation" in recent years.

>But if one is concerned about women's right, one needs to look no further than attempts at Libertarian Socialism where women earned equal rights practically overnight. The Spanish Revolution is a great example of this, although even the Early Russian revolution, while it was in its libertarian stages can also point to the same effect.

I think we can agree we cant blame every more and tradition on capitalism. Some are actually quite anti-capitalist. Female circumsion and capitalism?

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/african_studies_review/v052/52.1.winterbottom.html

The balance of what you complain I think is imperialism/mercantalism.

I think Anarchist Iceland lasted much much longer than those experiments which despite being more recent (presumably more advanced) were more bloody. (For the purposes of this discussion, I dont blame the syndicalists here or anyone else it is just how things turned out.)

>Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a "parliament," seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one. Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status based on rank or sex were relatively small; and its literary, output in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of Athens.[3]

>This Icelandic "thing system" survived for several centuries. It was eventually destroyed by the Christian church, which bought up all the godards (defense agencies) creating a state monopoly. For market anarchist scholar Roderick Long, this illustrates a flaw in the thing system which differentiates it from pure anarcho-capitalism - new "startup" mutual defense units were not allowed.[4][5]

>The social anarchist authors of An Anarchist FAQ took issue with Friedman's portrayal of the period, arguing that the Icelandic system was pre-capitalist in nature with numerous communal institutions.[6] Friedman accused them of misconstruing his position and not caring whether what they published was true.[7] The authors of the FAQ ***admitted to making mistakes***, but rejected the notion that they were uninterested in the truth, and maintained their analysis that Iceland was a communal system.[8]

Wiki.

I will take Friedman as an authority.

I think the more people exist the more hunger in nominal terms and violence. Anti-natalist much?

>You just did two ad hominems. Also you have not cited any authorities.

I just thought your sources were pandering to existing neo-liberal policy. If you had quoted Chomsky (I noted he appreciated the book on education I would have reacted differently).

Ok my sources, tongue in cheek. I dont have time but I did want to be friendly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=advantages+of+anarchist+capitalism&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

vs.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=advantages+of+anarchist+communism&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Google war, I win. =p

Seriously dont feel compelled to answer I just had some time so I tried to make some amends and I will clean this up in the next few days anyway. If you think I am trying to get the last word in answer. Do whatever you like as I know you will do.

I wont stab you in the back ever, if you get a good solid, intelligent thing going which in my opinion does neglible harm and does mostly good. But the same way you think I am deluded and utopian, I think you are deluded and utopian. And everyone else in the normal world (just about) thinks we are both deluded and utopian. /sigh ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

Wall of text hater writes walls of text.

OK, I will stop now. Do you see how you do the same thing?

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

Jeepers, THAT is a wall of text!

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

Wall of text. Double bad!

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>Yes, explanations to the collective are all important and his biological luck might pay your collective infinitive dividends you do not grasp tht is the point of genuis and insanity I suppose (notions that appear unintelligble to the masses but bear fruit or are just insanel barren ideas). /sigh. What if they cant even grasp it? There are many things I do not understand as I am sure you are no difficulty to point out.

We have science for that genius to point out his results. He can display his advancements empirically. The part of him having to convince people is simply to make sure that his idea has merit. I'm not prepared to give badly necessary resources for everyone who has a crazy idea. But hell, I may be alone in this anyway and he'll get what he wants. The more minds that think about an idea, the more potential holes they can find.

>People have killed out of spite. Not every murder, every crime, and possibly every war was entered into with the certainty of victory.

The whole discussion started out of your phrase that you would only attack when you're sure of victory. I counter that you will never be sure of victory.

>I understood you for the second time now. I would be a counter-revolutionary agent to you so I could not be trusted.

No. It's not about trust. It's about your practical actions. If you sit on the other side of the barricades or if you try to scab you'll be actively opposing us. If you don't do any of those things nor support them vocally, I will obviously not consider you an enemy (but of course be wary of you given you ideology)

>However, in countries with more developed legal, ethical codes or just simply better mores there is less killing by the state.

I think you are missing the cause. It's not the developed legal and ethical codes that cause this. It's the increased egalitarianism which reduces the need for crime and focused on reformation rather than reprisal.

>As humans define and evolve their ethics, they decide plain and simply that killing is wrong.

Yes, but I believe that ethics evolve according to the social context. For example the reason why in the US the death penalty remains, not to speak of the massive prison population, even though it's considered a wealthy and developed nation, is not because of lack of ethics or progress but because the vast inequalities push towards a punitive mentality rather than a reformist and forgiving one. And while killing is wrong, there are other vile acts that American culture not only accepts but even on occassion supports, such as prison rape.

>This is great news. But you will kill just as the state would if you they dont yield to your demands to conduct their private affairs in a manner you deem counter-revolutionary say have employees or give up land you deem unusued and they deemed to be in use

Er no. I will not kill just as well. I will defend myself against violence. I will only ever kill against someone trying to take my life actively and offensively. And I hope I never have to.

If some act in a counter-revolutionary manner, then I will convince their employees to disobey them and the society to peer-pressure them. If some try to take possessed land by force because they assert ownership on things they do not use, I will refuse to help them.

>You would kill or at least force a conflict that could lead to death over an ideology. You would kill based on a vote of the mob.

Whatever you do this will happen. Including doing nothing and allowing the mob to starve to death. If I am considered to kill over an ideology, so do you and in far grander scale.

>Lets be frank this is all about an ideology. You might be wrong, you are admittedly imperfect (not claiming I am perfect, I am far from it) and anyone you kill will still be dead if you plans for this new world dont work out.

Better to kill by trying to bring a better world than to kill by not trying to do anything, like you.

>I am sure you have much vitriol.

Not at all. I simply point out that I have not attempted actively to insult you yet.

>However, I would adhere to your principles of no wage-labor and no private property if there were neglible or no violence involved if so goes the tide.

>The violence to me is appalling. The potential scope is unlike any in history. You can be out in protest in the streets and they can decide to fry you and all your friends without even moving a troop. I fear for you and I fear for me as collateral damage tucked safely in my home underneath a desk with my windows sealed as a result of massive state reprisal and resultant collateral damage.

Nobody has ever achieved anything by doing nothing and even worse to do nothing because those who oppress us will decide to oppress us even more when they might lose power is an theory that will go nowhere. All those peaceful revolutions you're talking about (2?) happened because those in power did not fear of losing it and this is obvious. The situations of exploitation did not change. The state and plutocracy was not abolished. You do not understand that if you wish to liberate yourself, your will always *always* be oppressed to prevent this. But this is not the fault of those wanting to liberate themselves. Again, by this ideology slaves and serfs should have never revolted either.

We do *not* seek violence. We do *not* seek to force violence. We seek to stop having violence inflicted upon us! You're like saying that we should never push away the bully who slaps us silly every day because we might start a fight and maybe an innocent onlooker might get a stray punch. This is a pathetic excuse to keep getting slapped. It's even more pathetic to moralize so to bullied people, when the same bully slaps you only once per month where others are getting slapped constantly.

>Selfish I know but necessary at this stage in my life to me.

You can rationalize your decisions as much as you wish. I cannot change you. I can only point that rational selfishness leads to irrational collective results. Simple game theory. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>We have science for that genius to point out his results. He can display his advancements empirically. The part of him having to convince people is simply to make sure that his idea has merit. I'm not prepared to give badly necessary resources for everyone who has a crazy idea. But hell, I may be alone in this anyway and he'll get what he wants. The more minds that think about an idea, the more potential holes they can find.

It is possible for someone to be so far ahead of the curve that she or he is not understood by his peers especially those in a revolutionary fervor.

>The whole discussion started out of your phrase that you would only attack when you're sure of victory. I counter that you will never be sure of victory.

I know but you said basically everyone beliefs that. I countered with no everyone does not.

>Whatever you do this will happen. Including doing nothing and allowing the mob to starve to death. If I am considered to kill over an ideology, so do you and in far grander scale.

If you equate revolutionary violence with merely existing. Then yes, but again I plead with you look where all your products are made look at who provides you internet connection computer, etc. you are supporting the same institutions as me perhaps. Plus, if I am cheaper and poorer than you and I probably am; I am consuming less and doing less harm. Of course, I dont talk a big game.

I also dont claim to have all the answers; I am not at ready to start a revolution for social justice when by your admission you are flawed. Risking death in your imperfect and possibly wrong struggle is problematic.

>Nobody has ever achieved anything by doing nothing and even worse to do nothing because those who oppress us will decide to oppress us even more when they might lose power is an theory that will go nowhere. All those peaceful revolutions you're talking about (2?) happened because those in power did not fear of losing it and this is obvious. The situations of exploitation did not change. The state and plutocracy was not abolished. You do not understand that if you wish to liberate yourself, your will always always be oppressed to prevent this. But this is not the fault of those wanting to liberate themselves. Again, by this ideology slaves and serfs should have never revolted either.

Actually, there have been two revolutions. But there have countless movements that have succeeded because people have done just that nothing. No work, no nothing. You see especially in the west if you can convince enough people not to show up to their jobs you have won a great many fights. Civil disobedience without violence is nothing and it has worked.

Slaves in the U.S. didnt win their freedom by revolt.

>We do not seek violence. We do not seek to force violence. We seek to stop having violence inflicted upon us! You're like saying that we should never push away the bully who slaps us silly every day because we might start a fight and maybe an innocent onlooker might get a stray punch. This is a pathetic excuse to keep getting slapped. It's even more pathetic to moralize so to bullied people, when the same bully slaps you only once per month where others are getting slapped constantly.

Rationalize and moralize as much as you want. But you cant precisely limit your slap to the bully and again you might be fighting the wrong fight as you are imperfect and maybe wrong. These are matters of life and death. You are also getting in the bully's face and he may retaliate against you and people not associated with you.

>You can rationalize your decisions as much as you wish. I cannot change you. I can only point that rational selfishness leads to irrational collective results. Simple game theory.

And you can enjoy your rose coloured spectacles, Except in the cowboy example I pointed out right between capitalist competitors. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>I doubt it. Human knowledge and rationality will not go away and revolutionaries will not ignore what has shown to work (i.e. science)

Doubt. Exactly you have no firm grasp and revolutionaries are very impassioned.

>Again, the difference between us is that I actively call for (and perform) non-violent methods to liberate ourselves in the here and now. You do nothing and you claim you will do even less if the state and plutocracy assaults your peaceful methods in order to prevent its peaceful displacement.

Yeah ok. Probably over 90% of the worlds developed population considers your notion of property rights taking what you deem unused to be theft against them and a form of violence. Good luck, utopian friend.

>You do not understand the anarchist movement. I do not nilly-willy call for an insurrection. In fact, I'd rather it not happen at all. I call for anarchist means which are all peaceful. Revolutions happen when the ruling elite realize that those methods are subversive and use the state to put a forceful end to them. You'd have people quietly submit, surrender all progress and go back to dying for the ruling class' benefit. You might as well be killing them yourself.

Yes, I can see how many lives you are saving. You might be trying mightly but I think an hour or two in the soup kitchen might do more good.

>Civil disobedience had a lot of violence. Violence inflicted by the state and by supporters of the status quo. Violence inflicted by those disobeying in self-defense. In fact, no civil disobedience achieved itself without peripheral violence. The Black Liberation had it's Black Panthers and Ghetto riots

There was violence inflicted by the state but not really in any meaningful way by those practicing civil disobedience. I would further argue if it hadnt been for the civil disobedience route the movement would have been stopped entirely as a violent one and quashed. King's rhetoric of civil disobedience and the previous precedent by people like Rosa Park's allowed Johnson's hand to move. Many of black panthers wound up very dead and fairly ineffective.

Also, you didnt address my problem about slaves in America. They got their freedom without an uprising. As a matter fact, most developed nations outlawed slavery even without war.

As far as Ghandi:

>Hindu and Sikh refugees had streamed into the capital from what had become Pakistan, and there was much resentment, which easily translated into violence, against Muslims. It was partly in an attempt to put an end to the killings in Delhi, and more generally to the bloodshed following the partition, which may have taken the lives of as many as 1 million people, besides causing the dislocation of no fewer than 11 million, that Gandhi was to commence the last fast unto death of his life.

Source: http://saieditor.com/stars/bapu.html

I think you number is exagerratd by an order of magnitude .It was the religious fighting, etc. It wasnt the British killing or even the movement for sovereignity directly. It was people leaving the new pakistan thanks to British colonialism. I hope 11 million didnt die.

>No, that was not rational selfishness. It was mutual aid. The competitors in that instance put aside their competition to promote their collective good. It just so happened to be the same as their individual good which is the whole point of game theory. But you, by looking only after yourself and your family do not look for the collective good, but only for the greatest benefit to yourself. If everyone acts like this, then the collective result is irrational.

Or it could just be:

>Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest. [1][2][3]

>I have far from rose-coloured spectacles. I see no easy victory or naive hopes of bloodless revolutions against the ruling elite.

Oh but you do. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>yeah, I guess this is why production in catalonia was so boosted duing collectivization, because everyone was being irrational and going around just killing people.

Yes, I guess so lets take credit while we ignore the repression and murders gotcha and statism. You admit imperfection and I am just saying good and bad judgments are possible. In the case of production, you gleefully smile and say see Anarchism-Syndicalism but when it is violence it is just aberrant. Maybe people were scared into production.

>People change their mind, especially the more they're being exploited. If that wasn't the case, no revolution would have ever even been started. Not only this, but as soon as some try it, it has a snowball effect.

Yes as evidenced by N. Korea. You got all the answers.

>No it won't. One hour or two in a union march or anarchist demonstration or a Food Nor Bombs meal possibly. But not on charity

A statist incorporated union. Disgusting.

>Also called: Mutual Aid. Whatever the name you give it, you're not doing it.

Again they were capitalists they would have put each other out of business if the could and bought up the whole range it wasnt mutualism no matter how hard you try to fit a square peg in a round whole it was intelligent self-interest.

>Alright then, take yours off and I'll take mine.

Already have my friend.

>Yes, obviously because West Germany achieved that by themselves only and the power of Capitalism. Of course.

I said nothing of the sort. You minimized the differences between the Stasi State and West Germany a social democracy. This is crazy. It was night and day. Speak to survivors of the Stasi regime.

>The difference of freedom of Liberal Democracies to Stalinists regime is like the difference freedom between Brave New World and 1984.

>They simply traded one capitalist master for another and in exchange got to reap the result of capitalist imperialism along with the other western nations.

Sure. Except try even voicing dissent in one of those places. Go to North Korea if they let you in and tell me what it is like for you. If you see no substantial differences, you are really blind and greedy. All you care about is material. There are so many more freedoms in Germany than there were in Stassi Germany or N. Korea.

This is it I hit it. All you care about is others not having more wealth. You cant tell between murderous regimes; those that kill their own people in purges in the middle of the night and those that dont. You need to talk to people that have lived under both so you can appreciate the incredible differences. Having to work 8 hours a day or not, it is under threat of death in any liberal democracy.

>I would take a Rich Nation over a Poor anyday. So what? You simply trade a nation which exploits its own people with one that exploits foreigners in 3rd world nations. The brutality of both regimes is about the same. You simply get to avoid fouling your rosy glasses while you're at it.

Are you crazy? ***It has nothing to do with poverty. You are greedier than any AnCap.*** I would take any free democratic poor country over East Germany or North Korea with wealth. The brutality is not about the same. You have no idea what you speak of. In Germany, you can claim disability and not have to work a day in your life. In Stasi, Germany they would bug your apartment, follow you and your friends and take you out in the middle of the night. They would review what books you read. They would bug your house and come get you if you talked to wrong people and they would shoot you if you tried to leave.

You obviously havent seen much of the world and have not experienced brutal regimes first hand. It is night and day.

In most poor central Americans, they dont do this.

Go talk to someone who knows about these regimes and ask them to compare relative freedoms between any liberal democracy, rich or poor, and Stasi Germany or North Korea and how they compare in terms of repression. If they are of good conscience, they would say probably we manufacture willing consent, etc. and we trick our people into being docile. However, the person would if intellectually honest admit that Stasi Germany and North Korea would just kill him outright for speaking out.

You have eyes but can not see. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>Speak to the survivors of US imperialism.

Pick any country you want with a decent democratic regime and basic freedoms.

I dont care how poor. Pick any and it would be better Stasi Germany or North Korea. North Korea and Stasi Germany are valid examples because you attempted an equivalence argument with Stasi Germany, which was in many regards like north korea, and you failed .

Pick the Colonies under British rule. It doesnt matter.

The fact that you equated Stasi Germany to liberal democracys is beyond minding numbing. Pick almost any form of government you want and it would be miles ahead of Stasi Germany and North Korea.

Let me just say that you probably have never been to a totalitarian state. So, you cant appreciate the difference. You havent seen the look of fear in people eyes and how they speak in whispers.

Your concerns are almost entirely economic as to a large extent are mine. However, you forget even here people make money if they work hard and have a talent I know an immigrant who put two children through medical school. He had no particular talents except an incredible work ethic. He mowed lawns for a living.

But you are really naive if you think you can trade Stassi germany for any liberal democracy, rich or poor.

To put it another way, you are free to write here almost anything. In the states I speak of someone would already have been at your door or at least trying to track you down.

As far as your other points, I would just say cooperation works sometimes competition others. Have you ever played a teams sport or received a trophy for being best?

Have you ever heard the phrase too many chefs spoil the soup?

Sometimes cooperation is best other times competition is.

I do thank you for a good chuckle and a nice start to my weekend.

Thanks, I have really enjoyed it. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months ago on Reddit

First stawman much?

You selected this as my quote and even here it is qualified:

>Pick ***almost*** any form of government you want and it would be miles ahead of Stasi Germany and North Korea.

Emphasis was in original I believe.

Also see, the other qualifiers before it.

>For the mother who's children are dying of starvation It won't be. For the child who is slowly starving whenever it's not eating rotten food it won't be. I can go on and on.

>For every example of abuse in Totalitarian regimes, I can find an example of sufferring caused by Capitalism. We only compare atrocities of a similar scale. ***Perhaps North Korea is worse than everything else in the world, but it's worse only marginally.***

Emphasis mine

>You are really naive if you think that people starving in Africa wouldn't choose Stasi germany in a heartbeat. ***You're really naive if you think those indians toiling under debt-slavery for 14 hours a day in coal mines wouldn't choose Stasi Germany. You're naive if you think those 14 year olds working for 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end in Taiwanese sweatshops wouldn't choose Stasi Germany.***

Emphasis mine.

Wow, all these terrible countries but you defend Stasi Germany and clearly state: ". ***Perhaps North Korea is worse than everything else in the world, but it's worse only marginally.***"

But if they would leave all these horrible countries to better their conditions to places such as Stasi Germany (where people committed suicided, were murdered by the state, and also took chances close to suicide to leave) where they can eat then not only is there a difference between North Korea and the rest but the also other countries you mention where people starve or children work 14 hour or work in coal mines day and nights and the rest of the world which contradicts your point entirely. Thus, there are countries many countries better than Korea and also the countries better than those with starvation, sweatshops and coal mines you mention.

". ***Perhaps North Korea is worse than everything else in the world, but it's worse only marginally.***"

Lol all those countries you pointed out that people would leave.

Of course, you would now say to me the sweatshops and coalmines are the fault of capitalism and so is the starvation in Africa. I disagree but wont engage in that because you already conceded the far more repressive regime (Stasi Germany compared to modern) was a better place for people from the economically oppressive countries and that only North Korea was worse. Howver, I clearly demonstrated a non-binary strata to you and using your own words.

Thanks for making my point for me. You are stuck in a false dichotomy.

There are countries that have considerably more respect for the citizens than others. ***Just look at countries where women can participate in society as opposed to those where they cant.***

You are binary and betray a wealth of errors with your position here due to your ideological blinders. All or nothing really isnt a path for progress but a path for gamblers.

You state Africa and sweatshops worse than many countries and how many would prefer to move to Stasi Germany. I would say even if they werent killed in Stasi germany they would prefer ***almost***any liberal democracy where they can eat and also have political freedom. This is again especially true for women in many states today because they have less political power and are treated almost like chattel.

Even Chomsky urges Americans to vote Democratic and stated at one point that he believed that was the last liberal president was Nixon. He even prefers certain states in South America.

Wow, he can see in shades and is not stuck in the binary of 1/0.

Anyway, sorry, it took so long to get back to you. I have been busy.

Remember you said this:

>For every example of abuse in Totalitarian regimes, I can find an example of sufferring caused by Capitalism. We only compare atrocities of a similar scale. Perhaps North Korea is worse than everything else in the world, but it's worse only marginally.

Then, you spend much time contradicting by pointing how people would like to leave other bad places too.

I am keeping it simple for you. Lets put it this way non-imperial, non-belligrent democracies allowing for basic human freedoms are considerably better than repressive states or states where people starve. Even from your worldview, I think you have to concede these countries are smaller players often forced into a state-capitalist world order.

>Indeed. Co-operation is best for anything requiring even a modicum of intelligent though. Competition is best only when you don't have to think at all and just try to reach a goal.

>intelligent though

(just kidding I have more typos than you by far the context was funny, however)

Citation needed please? As human beings are so diverse and even in science can have so many differents ways of trying to prove or disprove a proposition why should people always cooperate? If I think and am right about a way of solving a problem in science, I dont want to cooperate or convince a billion naysers who think otherwise. Truth especially in science is fairly objective and numbers (in the sense of bandwaggoners dont matter Comrade Lysenko =) )

Sorry for the sloppy text. Be back when I can. Might be a week.

Stay well. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>As far as the ecosystem being ruined I will say more transformed, Bison out cattle in. Grass stays.

It's not that simple, especially when you have an ecosystem (plants, animals etc) which are built around the existence of roaming Bisons. Anyway.

>Moreover, many hungry people had to be fed. Bison didnt support as large a population (not domesticatable). Would you protect all the Bison in a libcom world at expense of people starving.

As you said, if you're going to support doing what it takes to support a larger population, then improving agriculture is the way to go. Even further than that, improving the social system is a far better options to avoid starvation. In any case, those who could afford meat where certainly not the ones who would be threatened with starvation in the first place so I don't think your alternative fits the picture.

But I think we're digressing from our original point of protecting the commons.

>I presented it briefly to make a point about it being bloody towards innocents of different beliefs compared to other revolutions in history, peaceful ones and ones that focus only on threatening antagonists.

Such as?

>I wasnt being dishonestm, hypocritical, lacking candor or sincerity.

Again, it wasn't about you. The way the article was put was lacking sincerity since it was missing the very important context of the raging civil war in the background. This does not mean that you're dishonest yourself as I do not think you did it on purpose.

>Basically you are saying, the end justify the means, lets minimize means.

Depends on how you use that phrase. [The ends, at the end of the day, always justify the means](http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/12/do-ends-justify-means.html), no matter which way you cut it. But as an anarchist I'm also saying that the means colour the ends as well and thus even the best end, when it had the most horrible means, can be criticized on that basis.

>The Anarchist revolution was bloody and was as human nature flawed. To continue into an anarchist society, it would probably carry such flaws into it.

Seriously, a few thousand deaths, in the midst of a raging civil war killing hundreds of thousands is not a "bloody revolution". Lets have some context here. Furthermore not everyone on the Republican side was an anarchist or living by anarchist principles so I don't even think you can blame such death count to Anarchism in general.

Again, I cannot stress enough how you cannot avoid the context in this situation. It's not as if the Syndicalists just one day woke up and decided to do a revolution come-what-may. It was a case of the republican government being assaulted by a military coup and as a reaction people dismissing their pathetic government and starting to fight back and live by anarchist principles. This did not happen everywhere at once nor all the way. At that point of time, the alternative to NOT doing a revolution was to be show your belly to the fascists.

>Since you show violence works, people fear you and we have seen how many populist revolutions claim egalatarian principles have turned into bloodbaths. Soviet Union, Peoples Republic, Catalonia, etc.

Again, using words as "bloodbaths" for revolutions you don't know a lot about is disingenuous and an appeal to emotion. The Russian revolution of Feb '17 was practically bloodless while on Oct there was more violence as the counter-revolution was pushing for a military coup. The Spanish revolution was not a bloodbath in any sense of the word if one consider the existence of a civil war (which has such casualties or political opponents in all historical cases).

What I'm trying to say is that the Spanish Revolution was **not** based on violence and oppression. That was the result of the Civil War.

>Further what is the point of burning Churchs? Anarchists of some stripes fail to grasp the broken windows fallacy. If the people are really with you, just turn the Churchs into something else that serves the people.

I agree with you but I also understand the people that did those acts.

>is a very strong argument against collectivsm. Everyone is different and imperfect in their own why that is why everyone should be left to their own devices to seek failure or success on their in their own manner collectively or singularly, even as employer and employee if both acquiesce.

Actually it's not. Not if you consider that people will chose to collectivize in order to avoid the imperfections of human nature by socializing the risks. The point is that people *left to their own devices* choose to form collectives.

>Otherwise, they heap their singular let alone compounded collective imperfections on innocents who want no part of them.

That doesn't make sense.Those who want no part of them don't have to join. Such was the case during the collectivization of Catalonia for example. However this does not mean that those who want no part of it are allowed to set the rules for everyone else such as via claiming ownership rights on things they do not occupy and use themselves. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

ghibmmm 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

It's a step in the right direction.

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

HAHAHA

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Yes dbzer0, you don't have a defense. I never set up any strawman.

You can't defend your "peer pressure" means to achieve your desired ends. That's all that is happening here.

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

*yawn*

Reply

skobrin 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

What do you have against deontological forms of market anarchism?

Don't be hatin'.

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

>In a scenario where everyone had the same exact amount of property would you? How about if everyone was given the same amount of property to start? Or where they have the same amount and are free to hire others? Or if merely they are allowed to hire others but at the end of the day it is communal.

Anarchism is all about abolishing hierarchies and authorities. Yes I am opposed to them but no, I'm not going to force anyone to not submit to them. I'm simply going to promote a system which makes them systematically impossible. As such, the questions you ask will always be judged on the relation to which they facilitate such hierarchy.

>All these questions for the most part can eliminate the problem of hierarchy and pose the instead the vexxing problem of money/property are you ok with someone making alot more if they are genuis but they arent allowed to hire others or use the labor of others?

I wouldn't have a problem with it no. I only have a problem with money because it allows such domination of others due to the social power it repressents. A possessive system (such as would have to be the case in your example) using money and trade like mutualism is unlikely to create any serious inequalities in wealth as those are only possible via accumulation or land, capital and money and the use of those to earn non-labour income. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Well looks who show up to the party. Whether it is a shot at me or someone else. I accept it knowing the source and welcome your commentary as always.

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

I am not the only one who writes walls of text you know.

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

well, basing political theories on actors not being rational isn't a great idea.

Reply

shibumi 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

> No individual is excluded from their use. You don't need to ask for permission before you step foot on them.

IF you're part of the community. Mexicans that want to set foot on American soil know...

Countries are self-governing communities. That the way that this self-governance is implemented varies from less-than-perfect to atrocious is merely (very) unfortunate. Remember, Elinor Ostrom is a political scientist trying to improve on that. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>After all, critics and him recanting are two different things.

I don't think he ever recanted entirely. I just seem to remember reading somewhere that he said that the name he used for this theory (i.e. "

commons") was misused or somesuch. I am trying to find this myself since I can't imagine just imagining something like this on my own of him.

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>Also in the other thread, you suggested that eliminating passive ownership such as corporation or other limited liability ventures wouldnt reduce short sightedness. I disagree.[...]

I only saw this edit just now. I guess I'll reply tomorrow as well :)

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>Anyway, to your quote above, I do not know the nature of those firms so I will concede that they look like capitalist firms combining for mutual aid. However from the few things I know about such firms, I believe they had a more egalitarian structure than a factory or a corporation no? I believe this would affect the social relations between them to a big degree.

No, they were probably run hard as hell as cowboys with no rest living outdoors, no forty hour weeks, living outdoors, while firm owners directed everything from home or wherever they wanted it was probably very hierarchal and ruthless as you point out and almost contradict with the notion that they were more egalitarian:

>So it seems first of all that the first thing the entepreneurs did was to enact the tragedy of the commons, even though the indians managed to preserve the bison populations for hundreds of years.

However, they didnt want Bison because if you read:

>The Great Plains contained a vast expanse of lush grasslands, well suited for the ***support of cattle.*** Immediately after the war, however, millions of bison still occupied the area, along with numerous Indian tribes whose cultures revolved around using the big beasts as a source of meat, robes, and hides. ***Because bison proved unsuitable for domestication and no one possessed effective private property rights in the peripatetic creatures***, they became a classic case of the “tragedy of the commons”—a common-property resource on the hoof that hunters had an incentive to kill so long as an animal had enough value to justify the marginal cost of killing it. In two decades, the bison were nearly annihilated.

>Of course you can undo what has been done. If you see that how people act is a result of their social circumstances and how easily such behaviour changes when the circumstances do not select for it, then such behaviour can very easily be turned back. In fact recent years have proven just how much people are willing to resist this mentality in favour of various other ideologies. Environmentalism, socialism, philosophy, poverty etc. If this behaviour is possible within a system opposed to it, then it's certainly possible within a system built in to support it.

Sure, it is possible to reeducate the masses we have seen it done before. Plus, many people work under no threat of starvation but work fto simply have more. People like having more since they saw the first person with more than them I really dont think it is a problem with capitalism. I think it predates all that and its human nature. However, I dont have cites of proofs for this it is just my opinion.

>I want people working as hard as possible voluntary and not because they are forced to do it with threat of starvation. not to mention that material rewards are horrible in promoting creativity which is something that medicine or generally all science requires. As such, it is far more likely that people working at their own pace and using the psychological rewards of doing they job they like and doing it well for the benefit of others, will have far better results, even with less time devoted to it. Not only because they will do it more creatively but because more people will be able to contribute and co-operate first when patents and copyrights are taken away and secondly when the barriers to entry (say costs of studying medicine thus restricting the profession to upper-middle class people) are not there.

Agreed. AnCap is basically the same no barriers to entry maybe even giving educations to the gifted as soon as possible in the field of endeavor right? All An-suffix is against meaningless credentialism. AnCap enterprises and individual would seek out gifted people engage them in contract, educate them and get them producing asap, imho. Kind of like pro-teams with players but probably much more egalitarian as NAP and personal liability would be involved. No, they wouldnt be slaves. Personal ownership is a foundation of AnCap. I dont know why you threw in copyrights and patents in there. I am not statist maybe you dont know me.

>OK, you need to first be aware of the grander scale in which this collectivization happened. It was not in a time of peace, nor was it done without pressure. I happened in a time where Franco's fascist army backed by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was marching against them and killing all anarchist sympathizers, union members and assorted leftists to a huge degree. In such a time of strife, it's only to expect those who had suffered loses to be far less forgiving to those they perceived to be in the opposing camp and trying to kill them and destroy their new way of life. To put this quote up without this context is I believe disingenuous.

I wasnt trying to be disingenuous we are deep in thread now and no one I believe is watching save maybe people from /anarchist mebbe /libertarian? But this is the ***tu quoque***. You know we had it rough so it is ok to do this. I think any revolution can claim this. There will be opponents and sympathizers. You might have to kill opponents that threaten your life and limb, but you dont ever kill people because of their beliefs and you dont burn down there structure of worship. This is especially true when I think 75% percent of the people in that area of Spain were syndicalist? (Correct me if I am wrong I dont have a cite for that it is off top of my head from something I read months ago.) Did the American Revolution kill nuetrals en masse for merely being branded loyalists? (if it did I am unaware, I aware it had other problems native americans, slavery so I am not holding up as a beacon to follow)

>Don't apologize. I have no problem continuing this discussion (even though you're quite a demanding debater ;) ) since it's being kept in a very reasonable tone which makes it a pleasure to have. Unfortunately I can't say the same with most of my discussions on reddit which end up devolving into a "who-will-win" insult-fest.

Thanks for the compliment but honestly it is very difficult to even try to keep up with you. I feel like Buckley against Chomsky. And I feel Buckley had his ass handed to him in their debate. (Also, I didnt agree with Buckley in that debate.) ... See all content Hide content

Reply

noarchy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Page works for me now. Infoshop does have its issues, at times. A bit of a chronic problem, at times. Still a great website when it does work.

Reply

david_z 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

It is working for me just fine, 22:50 Eastern time zone, U.S.

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Depends on the definition of selfish. There can me two kinds of self-interest. Interest **of** the Self (which basically includes anything people do for their psychological benefit) and Interest **in** the Self (which is explicit interest in improving one's material or social position).

This of it as the "Selfish Gene" idea. It doesn't mean that all genes are purely selfish but rather that their end result is to pass on their genes. And the best way for that is usually mutual aid and co-operation

This guy [goes into this in a bit more depth](http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/05/rational-self-interest.html). ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

That's a very limited choice you're setting. The reason is that I denounce that people require money to thrive. In fact I believe that people can only thrive if they don't have to worry about costs in a monetary perspective.

Your question is nothing more but a Prisoner's dilemma where you put me in a scenario where my act has no other reprecursions (how is this spelled?) but it is extremely simplistic and unrealistic. Much like the prisoner's dilemma's nature makes the most rational choice for each actor to be defector so does your question make the most rational choice to be between 2d<n and D-1. But it is only so because you've defined what makes people thrive as it being a lot of money and nothing else.

However it is not as simple, it is not the mere choice in game theory that matters, it's the iterations. And in iterations of a prisoner's dilemma we find out that the best strategy is not permanent defection anymore but rather tit-for-tat. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

logic is mathematically defined. there doesn't exist variations of it. logic is just an application facilitated by our underlying faculties. There are many ways to implement logic, however the application of it is always the same.

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

sense of logic? we either use logic or we don't

Reply

spiralproppy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>You don't conduct reasoned debate by asking your interlocutor to disprove himself.

When I posted the NPR segment (have you listened to that?)it was because the person *who wrote the paper that this post is about says that what she wrote does not show what the submitter (dbzer0) says it does*

*that* was my debate point. In a debate about the meaning of *her* theory it's not a bad one, either.

his response-which I've already re-quoted because it's such a gem-implies (actually more than *implies*) that he (I'm assuming dbzer0 is a he) has a better understanding of her ideas than she does.

It's weird-she ends up being cited as a reference, but then when her ideas don't match up they are simply negated. Imagine a drug trial run like that: some were cured, some died-conclusion:100% effectiveness.

Anyway the "well then what *doesn't* prove your point" at the end is kind of meant to be sarcastic-I'm not expecting him to go "oh, so glad you asked, I'm shaky on the following things...etc etc." At that point it seems to me that this is a matter of faith for him and there is no debate. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

cyantist 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

It's not over-priced, I'm just underfunded. It's been used as a text book, so I hope she has been well rewarded. You know $100 wouldn't make a dent into her labour-time producing it.. things aren't priced to reimburse, they're priced to market. Guess I'll go to the public library and not pay a thing. But your comment was cute, thanks.

Reply

spiralproppy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>This is like asking someone who believes in evolution what they find to disprove their theory.

They do that without even being asked. Continuously. That is why they have such a good theory.

Reply

IrrigatedPancake 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

.

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

why would someone fish more out of the ocean that is sustainable, if the goal is to feed people most efficiently, and not sell fish to get relatively richer than everyone else.

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>Ok, buddy. I guess that settles that. If we are going to say the author is irrelevant; it is pointless.

Ahem

>>Her perspective is too limited and she wasn't trying to fit her explanation into a communist framework.

.

>However, it makes even a stronger case for private property when there are no commons there is no need to associate in this way.

Not at all since Private Property suffers from its own "Tragedy" stemming from the grow or die framework of capitalism which always look to the short term profit regardless of the impact. From a sustainability perspective, the commons in LibCom are a better option.

>The point is that people cooperate when there is danger of wiping out a scarce resource. It doesnt make an especially communist point it even cites Hayek.

Again, it's especially communist because communists base their whole socioeconomic system in such a common ownership which means that the article provides ample proof that such a socioeconomic system will not implode. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Some of my replies to similar questions are [in the other thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/9y52n/first_woman_to_win_nobel_prize_in_economics_does/c0f1227). I'll reply to what is left.

>AnCap is a more sustainable growth. It even eliminates passive investment by eliminating corporations.

Eliminating Corps however does not mean that individual property owners and capitalist will not overextend their resources for short term profit due to market pressure.

>Additionally, what makes you think in a libcom world people wouldnt want more always?

Two reasons. It's been shown that the needs for endless luxury is a constructed mentality which happened during the manufacturing of consumerism as the root framework for capitalism. This happened in the early 20th century quite purposefully once psychology started being understood and used for advertising purposes. As such, there's a large history of humans being quite capable, either rationally (say via Epicurism or Environmentalism) or traditionally (say via Religion) to have a mentality focused on sustainability. In fact, the more the exhaustion of the environment makes itself known to humans, the more their reason makes them put sutainability on a higher priority. We can even see this now, within the capitalist system which inherently promotes disregard for the long term (i.e. sustainability), that people still focus on it and turn to other measures to check the effects of the system.

Further to that, in a LibCom world, such a mentality would be further reduced since needing more stuff would translate to more work for those involved and when you have a fulfilling life (a work you like to do, no stress about survival etc) you do not have to turn to greedy consumption to (unsuccessfully) cover the emptiness of human existence as is the case within capitalism. When one has the choice of more work or more leisure, they generally prefer the latter. This is simply not the case within capitalism as you do not control the amount of work you do (i.e. you cannot usually select the amount of hours you will work). Thus the choice becomes one of simply what to do with one's extra money. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

spiralproppy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>What does Anarcho-Capitalists find that doesn't?

I has no idea.

Reply

spiralproppy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

It seems like you were assuming that I *was* an Anarcho-Capitalist when you said:"What does Anarcho-Capitalists find that doesn't?" Which would mean that you should be asking yourself that question.

I really don't know what you mean about clever comeback-or why you asked the questions you did. Did you listen to the last bit of that NPR interview with her? In it she basically sweeps aside the idea that her work can be interpreted as Anarcho-anything, and expresses annoyance at the eagerness with which people try to stretch it that far.

which prompted this from dbzer0:

>I am perfectly certain that the author might not be willing to understand that her evidence supports LibCom, but this is irrelevant. The point is that the facts are there and Anarcho-Communists find that they fit their theory perfectly.

Then I went after him a bit for being ideological about things. Maybe you're fine with that. All I'm saying is that theories are for testing, not "advocating". ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Scholastic assumptions about axioms of human nature with no relation to reality.

Reply

mariox19 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

If the facts of reality were different than what they were, I would be all for whatever philosophy matched them.

Reply

Rudd-O 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Wait, you are sending me to Locke and trying to teach me "democracy" (as if I hadn't had enough of that in school and college classes)... and I AM THE IDEOLOGUE?

Shit, one can't make this kind of humor up.

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

wow. just wow.

Reply

abraaten 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Twitter

Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win a Nobel in Economics, did so by advancing anarchist principles: http://is.gd/4ElCT

Reply

pandemik 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Maybe "the paradox of the commons" would be a better phrase?

Taking the fisheries example, lets say a fishery replace 50% of its fish each year. If the total harvest is 50%, this maximizes profit for all fishermen. However; individual, profit-maximizing fishermen will inevitably take more than 50% of the resource, which reduces overall profit.

The "paradox" is basically a situation where the invisible-hand of individual rational decisions do not add up in a way that maximizing collective benefit. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

jdub2255 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Her point was that government regulation often fails, while individuals cooperating together within the right conditions often come to workable solutions

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>Wikipedia reports on what the tragedy of the commons relates to. But the problem is that the name "Commons" is wrong in this case. Commons originally meant exactly this: a resource which was used and managed by a group of people in common. The originator of the phrase, merely assumed that such commons were not managed and he later admitted that the name he chose was wrong.

Citation needed , please. You must have this one handy. So for my edification.

>If there are outsiders which wish to join a community, of course they will be able to join work in any of the commonly held resources they wish to according to their abilities or even start working on their own as part of the commune. The common ownership is not at all incompatible with LibCom.

Wait, hold on. I am asking about these cases. Not your hypothetical utopia. Are you sure they would let more people in? Citation again, please. Dont blow sunshine and extend conclusions where they dont exist. You are pushing your Anarcho-Communist agenda unto real world examples. I am wondering how these people would react to others coming in and taxing their resources when they feel they already have the right mix in the organization.

>Not really. A Private Property claim assumes ownership irrelevant of occupancy and use. A stake, even a lifetime one based on the resource one is using is a form of possession and is only natural as no two humans can occupy the same spot at any point. If you're asking why should someone be allowed to lay a stake of possession on a particular resource, the answer would be, why not? He's not preventing anyone else from doing their own thing as is the case with Private Property where the owner can forbid others from using what he claims to own but does not use or occupy himself. As such, others would be able to use the wealth of the resources around them and lay stakes of their own.

This begs the question of how big a stake one may plant. A more efficient ingenius person may get by on a average size lot and turn a profit. One not so gifted may starve on a claim twice as large. Moreover, the article clearly expresses hierarchies as I pointed out to you:

>1.Active involvement of those most likely to be using the commons in the monitoring of use. The ones who care the most need to either directly involve themselves or ***else delegate to monitors who are accountable to them.***

The most important task in protecting the commons can be delegated away to a third party so that those who are more expert at the job can perform specialized labor. Sounds pretty capitalistic. How long before the jobs themselves are given to younger people for a stake? I mean if monitoring the fish can be delegated why not the fishing? ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>It means that anyone can potentially use it but those who do use it currently have a higher say in its management.

What good is "say"? The issue we must consider is who *physically enforces* the "higher say". For physical force is the only way to guarantee long term existence of whatever rules are in place. "Saying" is not enough. People must be prepared to use physical force to justify their "say" if that "say" is to have any practical effect.

Suppose you have a community like the one Ostrom studied, which by the nature of the real world must exist in a statist society.

Suppose some other group comes in and tries to use the land for themselves against the wishes of the members of that community.

If the members of the community react against these foreign invaders by using force against them, as is their right, then the piece of property cannot be said to be "common" for all mankind. It is only "common" for the members in the community, and from the perspective of every other individual and group in the world, that property exists as if it were an individual's private property and the people meeting him at the gate to protect the community are the individual's bodyguards. Again, this is from the perspective of *individuals qua individuals*.

From an outside individual's perspective, what difference does it make if that land is privately owned or owned by a government or owned by any other individual or collection of individuals by any label? He is physically prevented from entering and using that land for his own benefit. That property is thus enforced by violence.

Now, the "commons" in the term "Tragedy of the Commons" *is* in fact land that is free for all, in a particular sense. The real world cases of the tragedy of the commons, for example oceans, forests, and grasslands for example, *are all lands that the governments of the world prevent from being privately owned*, either by individuals or by voluntary communities as per Ostrom.

The way it works in the oceans is that the government grants licenses to fish to private individuals, but since the government prevents those lands from being privately owned, the fishermen have no incentive to ensure that they don't "overfish". Likewise, in the forests that the government prevents from being owned privately, the loggers there have no incentive to replace trees as they are cut.

The reason there is no incentive for the fishermen or the loggers to maintain a productive piece of land is because for any individual resource extractor, the *costs* of doing so would not benefit them, for they do not own the land and if they do replace resources, there is no way to control whether or not the government will grant a license to *another* fisherman or logger who will benefit from that replacement.

The only way these individuals would have an incentive to replace trees and fish is only if they owned those lands and benefited from the subsequent sales that would come after investing in the land and incurring costs. If you deny these individuals the ability to own the land and control its disposition, then you give them no incentive to upkeep any of it and every incentive to take as much as they can from it before some other fisherman or logger gets there before him.

This is how the tragedy of the commons must be understood. It should *not* be understood as what would supposedly occur on a piece of land that is privately owned by many individuals at the same time, in a "community", where each individual agrees to certain rules of conduct, etc. This is not a "commons". It is a private community whose rules and land ownership extend to a particular boundary that excludes everyone else not in that community.

Ostrom's work does *not* "refute" the tragedy of the commons. It is as real now as it was in the 60s when it was first introduced. What Ostrom's work shows is that it is possible that individuals can get together and voluntarily agree to a certain set of rules for a particular piece of land and live in that land without any one person claiming to own everything.

This form of ownership exists not only in voluntary communities, but also voluntary corporations. In voluntary corporations, there are more than one "shareholder", no one individual necessarily has final say over the conduct of the corporation. There could be a group of shareholders each of whom have equal rights to control. Anyone who does not want to be a part of this corporation does not have to be a part of it. They can form voluntary communities as per Ostrom.

The fundamental issue in all of this is whether or not the individual has the freedom of association *as well as* the freedom to protect his own property or the property of the community he represents by force against any other individual who wants to initiate force against him, his property, or the property of the community he represents. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>I know what the theory implies which is why I'm saying that it's not talking about commons.

But this is a discussion about the commons in the *Tragedy of the commons*.

This isn't about a group of people who voluntarily get together and agree to abide by certain rules over the disposition of a piece of land they live on.

>Not necessarily, peer pressure should suffice .

It "should", but it doesn't in the real world. If we want to make something work in the real world, then the usage of physical force is a necessity, in order to ensure that those who want to use physical force against a community cannot simply walk over everyone and kill everyone.

I think you underestimate the extent to which some people engage in violence in our world, which is amazing, considering how much violence there is. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

I see you dodged the points I made by invoking the tried and true "polylogism" argument against me, i.e. "you just don't get the logic I am talking about because your logic is bourgeois and hence evil whereas my logic is proletariat and hence good. You will not be able to understand the logic I am putting forth unless you too become a proletariat."

Here's an idea. Instead of labeling my arguments "capitalist expectations", and then discarding them completely, why don't you consider them as an individual's arguments that counter yours and try to counter them as such?

Every individual's brain, no matter what their political persuasion, are made of the same logical structure as everyone else, except in extraordinary circumstances of course such as brain injury and/or mental illness.

You made the (incorrect) assumption that the connections between means and ends for human action will somehow change if the society type changes. That is an incorrect assumption because ends require *definite* means in order for an individual or a group of individuals to achieve their ends. I am asking you about the means you will use in order to achieve your desired ends. It doesn't matter what system is in place, the means you will have to use must be definite if you want to achieve certain ends.

I am not talking about which socioeconomic system exists or will exist or does exist. I am talking about individuals and what individuals must do in their means in order to achieve their ends.

In order to achieve the end of ensuring that a collective who currently uses a piece of land has a long term "higher say" that everyone else regarding that land, then it doesn't matter which socioeconomic system is in place. Definite means must be used in order to accomplish that end.

I am proposing that the only way to *guarantee* that those who are currently using a piece of land have "higher say" in its disposition and control is if and only if those individuals on that land are prepared to use physical force in order to ensure that the rule: "Those who currently use a piece of land are entitled to have the "highest say" in its disposition" is a permanent rule.

If the people who currently use the land are prevented - by another group of people's use of force - from using physical force to ensure that their "say" is "highest", then there is no way to stop the people from being ejected off the land by the invading group. To add insult to injury, the invading group can then use the rule against the old owners. The invaders can claim that since the invading group is now using that land, the invading group now has the "highest say" in how that land is to be controlled and used.

These are not "capitalist" expectations, these are the expectations of someone who is arguing about what means will need to be used in order to accomplish definite ends, no matter what the social system.

You seem to think that the logical structure of the human mind changes depending on the social system, but the reality is that the logical structure of the human mind is independent of class or society. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Sage_Advice 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>Way to miss the point. I did not say that your syllogism is bourgeois. I said that you are expecting capitalist social relations within a LibCom society which is absurd.

No, I never invoked any "capitalist social relations". I invoked a proposal for which definite means must be used to accomplish specific ends. You seem to not understand this and so you continue to cower behind a fake veil of *labeling* my expectations "capitalist", when in reality they are not capitalist, but individualist. They concern what an individual must do in order to accomplish a desired end.

>As to your contention, I will refer you to bushwakko's answer which I think puts it in a nice perspective.

I don't want perspective. I want to know why you think your chosen means to acquire your desired ends will work. I am challenging your choice of means, which is "peer pressure". I am saying that this is not enough. I am saying that peer pressure won't work on individuals who don't care about peer pressure. I am saying that peer pressure is not an effective means to achieve your desired ends. I am saying that those means simply must include *physical force* if they are to be upheld. You have chosen to evade this accusation because you know deep down peer pressure won't do diddly squat.

>Now if you're talking how common land will be setup and used during the transitional period towards LibCom then yes, I will accept that defending one's possessive claim will be required. Not only because they will have to defend against state and capitalist/landowners but also until the point where the mentality of not violently assaulting others possessions has been discouraged.

OK, that's good. You accept that initiating physical violence is the only way to achieve the first stage of Marx's, or whoever else motivated you to accept, the transition stage in the three stage framework.

>I'm not exactly certain where you're going with this.

Where I am going is the world you are thinking of after the transition stage, after all land has been re-allocated to whoever you think is more justified in owning it. I am asking you what means will you have to use in order to make the resultant society a permanent one?

You didn't think that no human actions will be required after the transition is complete did you? I know that Hegel thought so but he was inspired by religion more than anything.

I am asking you what do think people will plan on using as means in order to maintain whatever society is in place? You have told me that violence is required to enter the transition stage, but what about after? How will those who will eventually control a piece of land defend their ownership of it against everyone else?

>Common land claims, much like take-overs of capital or general strikes during the period leading up to a revolution are certainly doing to revolve around stuggle of some sort. Until the state is abolished and the monopoly of force ceases to defend the established plutocracy this is to be expected no?

My contention, that you have yet to address, is that there will still need to be individuals who threaten others with the use of violence in order to maintain whatever ownership structure of land you think is justified.

>Now post-revolution is a bit different of course. First because for the revolution to even have happened successfuly (i.e. the state has been smashed) the number of such common claims and collectivization must be very large, implying that the mentality of people is already positive to acceptance of possessive claims of ownership. At this point we are at a situation where peer-pressure should be enough.

In other words, there must be a new set of property owners who will ensure that no individual "steps out of line" with the new rules, and the only way to ensure that every individual agrees with the economic plan is if those new property owners are prepared to use physical violence against those people who do not agree with the single plan you are putting forward, or there must be independent group(s) of people that perform that function.

My fundamental point here is that I do not share your belief that violence can be eliminated by hoping that people will become "pacifists" in the new society. It is contradictory because you have already agreed that extreme violence is required in the transition stage.

In what can only be described as a civil war, you are asking me to believe that the people who will win that civil war, namely the group of people that you support, will be willing to give that power of using physical force up for good once they have succeeded in winning by using physical force. I don't know what world you have been studying, but that has never happened and never will happen. Those who choose to engage in initiating violence in the first place are the very same people who want to rule others by force.

What you are asking for is to have a war between violent people who like using violence to achieve their goals, and then once a victor emerges, their personalities will all of a sudden change and they will no longer threaten anyone with force ever again.

Do you see how "peer pressure" cannot possibly work on people who like to initiate physical force against others?

I am not questioning anything other than your chosen means to achieve your desired ends. You won't be able to achieve a violence free society by your chosen means of wanting those who like to initiate violence against others to win a battle. That kind of thinking is what resulted in 80 years of Soviet terror. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

ah yes, exactly what I was trying to say with my example above. taking means of production by force only gives you access to producing those goods. however to get access to the rest of the goods in this society you need to cooperate and contribute. if you're taking over a shoe factory in this society, you'll have to eat the shoes aswell.

Reply

bushwakko 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

I actually agree with you, I'm just trying to articulate that i Sage_Advice's example of someone using physical force against a community to get their means of production, is fairly useless. since what you'd win is the able to use the means of production to create one type of good, while what you'd lose is the cooperation of all the other communities, which has all the other goods you'd need. since the assumption is that society is egalitarian anyway, actually what you produce doesn't matter, just that you do contribute labor. So they could just as easily do something else, and gain all the benefits. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Rudd-O 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

PROTIP: Whether something is old or new has no bearing on its validity. The only qualifiers that validate a belief / theory / statement are logical coherency (*sine qua non*) and evidentiary rules.

Reply

orijing 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Suppose it's 2000 years ago and there are two communities. Suppose, by some epsilon measure, one community is more tightly-knit than the other, and instead of grabbing resources all for yourself, they share it in a more communal way. Chances are, more from the closer community is likely to survive, and since behaviors are partially encoded in our genes, that behavior is likely to be passed on. Now , the probability of a big difference emerging at this stage isn't high, but combine the effect over 2000 years--80-100 generations--and you'll realize that there is a particular selective pressure for social cohesion--because helping your "kind" survive is helping part of your gene survive. Think about it--this is about brothers, cousins, even mates of your second cousin so that she can also pass on a shared ancestry.

Hence, rather than refuting the obvious--which is that a community of selfish people who only cared about their own well-being will ruin themselves with public ownership--this is demonstrating that we humans have evolved a communal, social predisposition--because it helps us propagate our common ancestry.

I'm an economist, but that doesn't mean I assume that individuals aren't affected by others' joy and suffering. In fact, I believe everyone is affected by those around them.

But all that would be part of our individual utility functions :) ... See all content Hide content

Reply

orijing 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

> The problem isn't greed, but the lack of a price system.

Nowhere did I say that the problem is greed.

> Both actually do care about the health of the ocean 30 years from now

If they're selfish, then they only care insofar as it affects them.

Reply

orijing 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

In that case, yeah, but as long as the marginal cost to them is less than the marginal benefit to them, they're gonna go ahead and do it. In the case of fishing, the marginal cost to the individual doesn't reflect the social marginal cost, so yeah, "greed" overrides social concern.

Reply

JasonHitchcock 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Twitter

first woman wins Nobel Prize in Economics for refuting the tragedy of the commons. http://bit.ly/1GncIZ #tcot #p2

Reply

orijing 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

> outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories

So what? If you take absolute strangers who care only for themselves, and give them a shared resource, the scenario is completely zero-sum--that's what tragedy of the commons is about.

Reply

orijing 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

That doesn't happen. Look at OPEC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

You don't even have to say the right things. The Nobel committee needs to just think you *might* say the right things in the future.

Reply

besttrousers 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Agreed. There's been a rush to characterize her research in terms of one ideology or another, but she's really been looking at intitutional *diversity*, not trying to score points. Different resources may be best controlled by government, private, or community forces - Ostroms work gives a way of identifying the facets of a resource and thinking about which system would be best.

Reply

nerox3 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

I wouldn't call it a refutation but rather a refinement. Communal property can work if certain conditions are met but otherwise the communal property is abused. The conditions required are all quite common sensical based on there being an identifiable community of interest that can enforce their rules about the use of the commons. That to me is pretty much the equivalent of a local government. Then it just becomes a matter of semantics to say whether or not the local government entity "owns" the commons. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

nerox3 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

I don't disagree that I was stretching the meaning of word, but I think your definition of local government is overly constricting. Local governments don't have to have a minority setting the rules for everyone else unless you define it to mean that. Counter examples are New England townhall meetings and classical Athens. But this is semantics, I believe we aren't disagreeing on anything but the definition of "local government" ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>So even if ostensibly there isn't a minority setting rules for everyone else, practically speaking, human relations tend towards this.

Ahem, Athenians were a minority. There were the citizens and then there were the non-citizens (slaves, immigrants, women etc) which constituted the large majority.

Reply

theone3 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

I can't believe anyone took the tragedy of the commons seriously in the first place. I laughed it off when I first heard it explained to me - there's a commons near my grandparents house that's been there for an age and a half, and it's doing just fine...

Reply

pandemik 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

So our ocean fisheries are doing great? Nobody ever dumped toxic waste off the coast of Somalia? If CO2 turns out to be as problematic as they say, it should be easy to regulate?

Reply

pandemik 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

That makes sense.

The tragedy of the commons is an idea more applicable to large commons with little person to person contact.

Reply

hajk 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>I can't believe anyone took the tragedy of the commons seriously in the first place. I laughed it off when I first heard it explained to me - there's a commons near my grandparents house that's been there for an age and a half, and it's doing just fine.

Then you ought to look it up. you may also want to look up the "Enclosure Movement", which formalised private appropriation of public land in the 19th Century.

Successful commons exist, but usually by balancing the interests of various groups very carefully and providing a place where disputes may be resolved. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

hajk 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>The fundamental misunderstanding of a commons is that it's about rationing scarce resources. A commons is a statement about a community. It's about common wealth, not rationing scarcity.

An interesting case of the "Commons" is the New Forest in England. Like many things their with "New", it is of course quite ancient and sitting in the middle of a dynamic equilibrium. The Forestry Commission who have overall responsibility manage game (originally for the royal hunt) and grown/extract timber (originally for the naval yards). Various persons with property adjoining the forest may have "commoners rights". Two of the more interesting rights are that of Pasture and that of Mast.

Pasture means that you can release your ponies in certain months of the year to graze on the forest. Areas with young trees are protected by fences but otherwise they keep the undergrowth controlled reducing the risk of fires. As trees grow, the fences are removed. The horses must be taken off the forest at certain times of year such as when there are acorns (poisonous to the horses), at that point the right of Mast allows pigs to be released which will forage for the acorns.

Any disputes are handled in the Verderer's court which has foresters there together with representatives elected from amongst the commoners.

The point being that each interest is balanced and it works because everyone knows that. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

dbzer0 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Convincing arguments for the practicality of anarcho-communism for one. More specifically that people can control and manage resources sustainably far better communally than by basing this on a government or a private proprietor. The original article uses each point to explain the implications.

Reply

theone3 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

No, he means communism practiced with spiders.

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>3. Active involvement of those most likely to be using the commons in the monitoring of use. The ones who care the most need to either directly involve themselves or ***else delegate to monitors who are accountable to them.*** Again, central planners, especially government officials who are accountable, if at all, to a much wider variety of people than those most interested in the commons in question and for a larger variety of activities than just the management of specific commons, cannot effectively monitor them and be held accountable. If the people who most need the commons can’t fire those who fail to protect it, the tragedy is inevitable.

No hierarchies you say? Sound like a hierarchy and class exploitation. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

another_account_5 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

>Convincing arguments for the practicality of anarcho-communism for one. More specifically that people can control and manage resources sustainably far better communally than by basing this on a government or a private proprietor. The original article uses each point to explain the implications.

You said this. It is just as convincing for any form of collective arrangement and in fact task delegation and specialization of labor are apparently already in place. It has never been in doubt by anarchists of any stripe that ownership or a stake for profit or not would yield better management of the commons. It is just dont make a convincing argument for anarcho-communism anymore than for anarcho-capitalism in which people on various parts of land and have to agree to share common resources of lose them. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

liveinvt 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

You _may_ have a use for your degree!

Reply

liveinvt 3 months, 1 week ago on Reddit

That's true. Logic and "science" seem to be mutually exclusive with "political" but we all pray for the occasional exception to the perceived rule.

Reply

sfultong 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

government is the middleman in upholding society's social contracts, and I like eliminating middlemen

Reply

spiralproppy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

then blow up reddit and go speak to drunkentune directly

Reply

spiralproppy 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

OK. Call it off. Don't blow up reddit.

Reply

impatientbread 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Reddit

Forgive me for having a smirk at the economic (supply/demand) implications thereof.

Reply

LuisGordillo 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Twitter

http://su.pr/2mXHmd

Reply