Libertarian Economic Logic (chart attached)

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 05:29:59AM +1000, jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> > jamesd at echeque.com wrote:
> > > The reason you need a boss to make a pencil is that almost no one knows
> > > how to make pencils
> 
> On 2019-09-20 04:59, Punk wrote:
> > 	unhinged nonsense
> 
> Let us see you make a pencil.

I am confident I could learn to make a pencil, work to obtain
required tools and inputs, and make a pencil.

"So you could be the boss" perhaps you say?

Possibly I could be a reasonably competent coordinator for some
number of other humans, although I am at times brash, fail to listen
sufficiently, get impatient and subsequently angry, and other
interpersonal traits which aren't so good in a "boss", though these
negatives are softened somewhat by a significant capacity to listen
and empathize when I put such a hat on.

I know those who who struggle to cope just when looking at a
mathematical formule such as volume of a cylinder. That's a gulf of
consciousness differential right there. And there are those with so
much capacity/ natural ability on various axii that I wonder at the
gulfs I can only hope to cross.

Some of the concepts inherent in the word "boss" are useful to grok
and apply in the world.

Some of the common (mis/)conceptions arising in people's minds when
the word "boss" is used, are useful to avoid.

It appears far too easy to hold intensely to words which convey
unnecessary dichotomies. There may be more effective ways to
communicate, such as getting grounded in actual (possible) plans,
hopes, intentions.

I am not particularly interested in rockets or establishing a colony
on Mars.

I would like to see the sovereignty, rights and inherent dignity of
humans upheld, rather than quashed as is often the case within our
current schooling and political "democratic" systems for example.

When a competent human with sufficient clarity of communication, and
apparent persistence, patience, empathy (and perhaps one or two other
traits) shows up, there I carefully consider contributing, supporting
and or in some way working with. You may call this treating that
person as "a boss", but that term is a little too overloaded for my
taste.


> > 	by the way, arguments regarding the ANARCHIC and distributed
> > 	nature of 'knowledge in society' are usually presented as
> > 	arguments against central planning. Notice how the fascist
> > 	shitbag donald is trying to turn them on their head.
> 
> They are arguments against one big central plan, arguments for having lots of
> plans by lots of people, rather than one big plan.  But to build a rocket,
> build a building, or make a pencil, or run a restaurant, the *restaurant*
> needs one man with one plan, and everyone working at the restaurant follows
> his plan.
> 
> A business, like a family, has to be internally socialist, has to be
> externally market oriented.  But that a father has to run his family does not
> mean it is a good idea for the King, or the family court, to run everyone's
> family.
> 
> Knowledge is necessarily distributed, but that does not mean that everyone
> knows everything.  It means that very few people know anything of value.  And
> those people have to run stuff, or stuff just does not get produced.
> 
> Recollect all the attempts to build a gun in a home workshop entirely from
> plastic and metal that was not already shaped into gun parts.
> 
> For a long time, no one could build a complete gun.  They always had to buy
> some of the parts, or else the gun would blow up. Eventually Ivan the Troll
> succeeded, using subtractive electrolytic machining on the parts that had to
> be made of high strength, high melting point, steel. But an awful lot of very
> talented people failed.

If we for a moment set aside technicalities of minutiae objections to
particular words, and say hypothetically you're right on each of the
above positions, we can now ask "what of it?"

 - a functional family requires interpersonal cohesion

 - a functional restaurant ditto

 - functional manufacturer ditto

Got it.  Of course we can agree with such a principle.  Lack of group
cohesion means effectively a dysfunctional group, at whatever
granularity we look at - and the Communist central government steps
on many heads, thus betrays national cohesion and asks for its demise
(as does "Western democracy", may be not quite as badly).

We can have cohesive groups, whilst also respecting absolutely the
sovereignty (freedom to act) of the individual. As long as we're not
communisticly imposing (by fiat and force), various "bosses" over
those who don't consent, we might be able to find some common ground.

Again, the free software movement (thank you RMS for the GPL
manifesto), was a significant cause for globally distributed cohesion
within the self selected anarchic group "free software community".

Highly functional indidivudal humans were attracted to this group,
gave enormously of their time, attention and efforts, over decades,
in the face of (in the early days) gargantuan opposition, to overcome
most all obstacles and literally dominate the world of computer
software today.

Anarchic/ anarchism success story par excellence.

 - RMS was a "boss" in the sense that he held staunch the grounds
   laid out so clearly in the GPL, encouraged (often times in quite
   confronting ways) those he spoke with to do likewise, and in the
   early days was the primary worker (coder) coding up Emacs, GCC and
   other software.

 - RMS was not a "boss" in the sense that he had no power to force
   anyone to "work for the cause/ group" and likewise had no power to
   fire anyone from the group for any reason.

So, the word "boss" is not the most apropos word by a long shot...

Good luck, and create our world,