Shiny stuff and designer societies

[Juan]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:23:39 +0100
Lodewijk andré de la porte <l at odewijk.nl> wrote:

 
>         So a criminal monopoly is going to define what 'justice' is,
> >         and enforce it, too.
> >
> 
> What's worse, it'll redefine criminal!

	Of course. So, why should any sane person support such a
	system? 

> 
>         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?

	Abstaining from violence? States are the most violent
	organizations on the planet. As to the complex arrangements
	that can exist in a society, you don't need the state to
	have them. 

	It's also debatable why huge organizations are 'valuable'.


> 
> 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.


	That's vague. What system are you alluding to, and who is 'we'? 

> If we do have that system
> we *should* use it.

	Statism? That system is designed to benefit special interests.
	Unless you belong to some special faction, it won't do you any
	good.

> 
> And we can use it to determine the absolute widest boundaries of what
> is permitted, boundaries which you may not wander out of. 

	Determine, how? 

> We can
> produce incentive schemes, to encourage the correct behavior. 

	What is the 'correct' behaviour?

> In
> fact, if the system works it needs no restrictions.
> 
> We've yet to find a system that works.

	Define 'works'.


> >         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.

	Well yes, there are varying levels of propaganda in political
	philosophy. There are some sound principles too. 

	You think people should be free, and things organized according
	to 'market principles' in some areas, but not in others.
	Problem is, being 'free' to follow arbitrary rules isn't
	exactly freedom. 
	
> 
> Do tell me Juan, how do we prevent a "criminal monopoly"? Isn't it
> better to make a very good "criminal monopoly"?

	Literally? A very good criminal monopoly would excel at being
	criminal. I don't think that's what you want? 

	
> 
> 
> > > 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'.


	Whatever. A world state is a pretty bad idea. 


> I have the right because I can. Powers *are* rights. 

	That's not what 'right(s)' means. Or rather that's the kind of
	'rights' that governments rely upon. Arbitrary dictates backed
	by force.



> 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. 

	You are misunderstanding what natural rights are. Natural
	rights are a more legalistic description of common sense
	morality. 

	You can probably kill a few random people right now if you
	want. Say, use a car to run people over. But the fact that you
	*can* kill people means killing people is morally right?

	Same thing with natural rights. The fact that natural rights
	can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist.



> Ask the pigs, cows, rabbits, ferrits, birds, and all the other
> animals we do whatever we want to. 

	We are not talking about political philosophy applied
	to non-human animals right now. 

> Ask the mountains thought to have
> spirits. 

	That's a poetic license.

> Listen to them and you will hear but weeping for lack of
> strength.
> 
> Ofc, I'm the asshole for saying this.


	Well, at least you are sincere...

	I would point out (again) that  1) your understanding of
	natural rights isn't...right. 2) that even current states
	pretend to get their powers from 'natural rights'. 

	It's called 'representative government' and it's allegedly
	based on 'consent'. Look it up =P 


> 
> 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. 

	Oh that's a good point. So now you wearing your anarchist hat?
	=P 



> 
> >         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)
	
	Yep.





> 
> > > 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?


	It's a reductio ad absurdum of the  "power = rights" argument.

	"might makes right" is sarcasm, not a literal statement. 




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

	All corrupt firms operating in a highly regulate


> 
> 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).