Shiny stuff and designer societies

Thu Oct 29 14:23:39 PDT 2015

Thanks Juan :)

2015-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>:

> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:19:29 +0100
> Lodewijk andré de la porte <l at 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).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 16980 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20151029/e6679d18/attachment-0002.txt>