Thanks Juan :)

2015-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:19:29 +0100
Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
> Juan:
> > That sounds like true capitalism (savings) whereas the system
> > Lodewijk is advertising is mercantilism/consumerism/fascism.
>
>  I argued that time expended readily outweighs cost saved.

        I argue that the market is distorted by the financial mafia, by
        big (and even some small) business, by public 'education' (makes
        people stupid) by religion (makes peoples stupid *and* evil), by
        'fashion' (advertising) - and more.

        As a result, people buy useless and 'fashionable' stuff,
        produced by privileged firms, and financed by 'cheap' (i.e. fake) credit.

I mostly agree. I hope the situation will better. I think one of the big things that's needed is a superior alternative to Republics. From there, something so fundamental, perhaps we can see more improvements. (note: I'd like your suggestions)
 
> Not anything else. (I have fixed things for fun and cost savings, like
> Razer argued makes sense, but then it's entertainment - not
> economically wise choices)

        'economically wise' choices can be made in a free market, not
        in the current mercantilistic/fascist system.

There's still wise choices in a skewed system. They're just not always realistic, sometimes even bizarre. The better the system the better the wise choice.
 

        So a criminal monopoly is going to define what 'justice' is,
        and enforce it, too.

What's worse, it'll redefine criminal! 

        You can keep repeating absurd, mainstream propaganda without
        any regard to logic, but what's the point? What can you
        achieve?

Complex agreements, abstaining from violence, huge organizations, etc. These are valuable, aren't they?

Ideally, there's a political game that is able to generate "appropriate" political choices. It's not a republic, a trade union, tribal understandings, etc, etc, per se, but there's always something.

Without this system we are screwed anyway. If we do have that system we should use it.

And we can use it to determine the absolute widest boundaries of what is permitted, boundaries which you may not wander out of. We can produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior. In fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions.

We've yet to find a system that works. (also on the account of those pesky flawed humans making up the systems)

> and 2. invest in the advancement
> of the human race (think space travel, science).

        So your criminal monopoly is not only going to pretend that
        their crimes are 'just' and 'fair'. They are so enlightened that
        they are also going to 'advance' 'science'.

        Come on Lodewijk. Why don't you do your homework? Learn the ABC
        of poltical theory.

I tried doing homework, but the books were full of propaganda.

Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"?
 
> But, there is no nations.

Ah, so your monopoly of crime is going to tyranize the whole
planet. Cute.

The system spans the globe, the crimes are all the peoples'.
 
> That is to say, a mixed economy. Again.
> > mercantilism/fascim/state socialism/state communism.
>
> I think some products are best rendered without competition, and some
> are best rendered with competition.

        I think your baseless, economically ignorant opinions are just
        that. Baseless and ignorant.

        Plus, you thik you have the 'right' to force people to conform
        to your 'utopia'. Do you mind explaining how you acquired that 'right'?
        <----fundamental question.

        Do you mind answering fundamental questions?

Well, atm I'm still dreaming up the utopia. So far I have no convertees, either :)

I have the right because I can. Powers are rights. Or, rather, rights do not exist until a criminal monopoly invents justice, and grants people a promise of abstaining from using power; a right.

IIRC you have this philosophy of inalienable rights, or natural rights, or rights you would always claim, whatever. It doesn't matter. If you haven't the power to claim a right, you do not have it. Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other animals we do whatever we want to. Ask the mountains thought to have spirits. Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of strength.

Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this.

I think in practice it will be easier to make the system a compelling opt-in. If you don't want to be in it, it is probably not good enough. It's important to be a bit selfish, not help people that don't opt-in. It's only fair ;)
 
> So long as the drive to do best
> exists we do not really need to replicate effort. Eg: Patents are
> only good for preventing people from using the best available
> methods. It's a hack to make investments more worthwhile, and secrecy
> less important. If we didn't need a profit incentive there would be
> no need for patents.

        So, you are also defending the 'intellectual property' mafia?

I stated "it makes investments more worthwhile, and secrecy less important". I think most people that have patents don't need their investments to be even more worthwhile. I think patent licensing systems like mpeg, dolby, proprietary connectors, etc, do not help anyone. I think copyright has crippled the economy and creativity, and served mostly to produce Justin Bieber.

I do like that there's no more (at least much less) need for secrecy. And I like the idea that an independent inventor is able to to make a living. There's some research-only companies that have a very good market position thanks to copyright law, whereas otherwise they'd be at the whims of producing companies.

Understand, then improve upon.
 
        It's a 'necessary evil'? (doubly retarded since you don't
        believe in 'evil' eh? )

I honestly do not know.

This is a very complex issue spanning all industries. I think the patent system is a steaming pile of mercantile shit. The core idea is not so crazy though - idea's can be stolen, so they must be property. But you don't lose the idea when it gets stolen.

It ruins the creative industries - we've made our fantasies protected property, subject not to the potential for art but the will of businessmen. Countless stories go untold. The stories that do get told are smudged with corporate inserts and ruinous inserted political messages. (look for racism/feminist inserts, they're everywhere and they usually fail to actually be unracist or feminist)

Software is such a broken industry (thanks huge sw companies!) that any sense of right or wrong is already pre-broken. I think software was probably more fun when nobody could protect it. We could develop software based on bounties. There's another game theory problem, but at least software would be fun again. (note: copyright is ineffective at protecting software atm, if it were effective the market might actually be well developed but still not fun)

Should Kia be allowed to copy exactly what Ford is doing? It seems like theft to me. Ford invested and created something (a car design), why should Kia customers not pay for that effort? Secrecy is an expensive (and impractical) solution.

Fortunately, if we just let them figure it out they will have to find the optimal way of dealing with it. Not us. I think merging all car companies, making manufacture a non-market activity (product price = costs + 10% instead), sales can still do whatever it does now, allow the designers to self-organize and support the projects they believe in, reward them more when their products work out.
 
> A similar argument is possible for shrewd advertising, why lie to
> people if you do not profit from it? One helps everyone most by
> providing correct information. (*this is not true, people regularly
> need to be coerced to act in their best interests.

        Sure. What if I beat you to a pulp? For your own good of
        course. Oh, 'your own good' is whatever I say it is. I am the
        government.

I don't see where this goes. Perhaps a powers = rights argument?

> But coercion for
> the better is really not that bad.)

        Okay. You can keep repeating the same totalitarian
        'progressive' nonsense ad nauseam. But I had enough.

Sorry.
 
> In the real world we oft encounter duopolies. Basically a monopoly
> with a state-protected laggard. The monopolist ensures the laggard
> continues existing, for example by increasing it's own prices to a
> kind of unreasonable height. That ensures sales for the laggard, and
> maximum profit. Basically this whole system is then fucked, as there
> is no real drive for advancement (the laggard cannot overtake the
> monopolist, it has not the funds. But it also cannot fail, the
> monopolist prevents it. So why even put up a fight?) and humanity is
> helped no better than the laggard performs. It happens with all our
> huge markets, from shipping to silicon to telecom to food to housing
> to government to diamonds, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
>

Clueless rambling. Or ill intentioned, self-serving propaganda.

Microsoft/Apple, Intel/AMD, ATI/Nvidia, most telecoms actually form cartels with more than 2.

The basic principles are:
* There is a market leader
* There is competition
* If the market leader claims the entire market, it will be destroyed by government (anti-monopoly law)
* The market leader will calibrate it's effort to stop short of claiming the entire market (likely preferring to reward shareholders, divest, etc)
* If the competition advances, the market leader will advance as much (it has more resources to advance, and will typically succeed at maintaining it's lead)
* Any advance the competition makes is now wasted, as the market leader will match the advancement
* The competition has no reason to advance, except upon itself (other competition)
 
I'm not so wise on the world, I am no expert on the actual state of markets and corporations. I'm sure someone reading is.

> > Lodewijk is just a run of the mill fascist who thinks he has
> > the 'god given' right to 'design' 'society' according to his
> > fuckingly retarded tastes.
> >
> > Also, he likes to pretend that the bad outcomes of his fascist
> > system are caused by innocent lambs who actually want to do the
> > 'right' thing. Sick.
> >
>
> I'm too minarchist to be a facist, but otherwise you're spot on. Try
> not to confuse my designs with the current world.I am not a
> supporter of the status quo,

...says a supporter of the status quo who is parroting
mainstream propaganda in a more or less radical mailing list.

I rarely get accused of being mainstream. I almost feel normal now.

Please don't mistake pointing out advantages for being a supporter.
 
> but I will attempt to understand it, and
> I will say there's hardly an evil actor out there.

        Well, I can say the moon is made of cheese.

What if it is?
 
> We just collectively fuck up according to our fuckingly retarded tastes. 

        Sure. Soldiers and wall street bankers are just as innocent as
        4 year old children.

Some 4 year old children are soldiers. Bankers are ageist and pretentious, so they prefer white 25 to 60 year olds (in-corporate ranks are age-pinned).