The myth is based on the US gini coefficient increasing by about 10% since WWII. However people fail to realize that capitalism has actually created the middle class in the first place, so it is absurd to criticize capitalism for any gini coefficient increases. Without capitalism it invariably becomes close to 1, like in historically feudal or contemporary communist states, with rich government elite and the rest dismally poor.
But if capitalism is not to blame, then what is? What has been happening since WWII in the US which could explain the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Let's see:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Wow, US government spending as percentage of GDP also increased by 10%... And that little only by ignoring the most recent war spending surge... Hmmm, why, isn't government spending supposed to be a boon for the poorest?
The increased spending must have been supported by some popular ideology. You must have surely heard about Keynes' widespread popularity among economists, politicians and intellectuals in the second half of 20th century. And how Keynesians want to help the poorest? By printing new money of course. Sometimes in a very roundabout ways, via government deficit spending (oh yeah, government spending) and increasing government debt, which, sooner or later, has to paid off somehow. How? No problem. Government does not even need to collect taxes. And they are right, government can always simply print money.
Now let's see how the system works in practice. Is the new money really helping the poor? New money usually gets created out of thin air by private financial institutions in our system of fractional reserve banking. A central bank needs only to make its interest rate low enough and boom, expansion of cheap credit begins. Nowadays interest rates are even lower than inflation rate, so you make money just by borrowing. But can anyone do that? Like the poorest? No, the privilege happens to be reserved only to the richest. Well, otherwise the whole system would break down in a matter of months... And it actually does, like in the most recent crisis when also the poorest were invited to get tons of cheap money via NINJA loans.
But the most recent Keynesian craziness apart, among your friends, who's got the biggest mortgage? The poorest one? No, the wealthier an individual, the bigger their mortgage, as simple as that. Same with companies, owned in turn by wealthy individuals. The bigger a company, the higher leverage it can obtain from financial markets. The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations are the biggest debtors out there.
And why are they so much in debt? Because it pays. Because loans are subsidized by ultra low rates thanks to new money, ie by inflation tax, ie by the poorest, as they are the biggest cash holders and on salaries fixed in nominal terms. How often do you get raises? Once a year, to offset previous year's inflation, if you are lucky. However, there is inflation every single month of that year before your get your raise.
Sure, truly wealthy people may not have to take mortgages but they take them anyway because they make money that way by investing their cash. Every financial advisor will keep badgering you into that. Similarily, why pay off your mortgage earlier if you can invest that cash with higher interest than your mortgage?
Then again if you buy a $1 million dollar house, are you wealthy? Not necessarily, usually you are just well paid and can afford a big mortgage. Still leftists often call such guys wealthy. And indeed higher middle class is wealthier than the poorest who subsidize their big mortgage ultra low rates via inflation tax. The system benefits most the richest, but you have to give some benefits to the higher middle class too. After all, they are the intellectuals who can make or brake the masquerade. And the poorest who actually pay? Don't worry, too ignorant, just give them some socialist pep talk and they will happily treat inflation as a moral obligation to help the country ;)
Now as for those corporations that are indeed creditors. You probably think of financial institutions like banks and that is correct, except they lend money they have created out of thin air in the first place. Every time you deposit a $100 bill in your bank, the bank is licensed to create exactly same amount (minus small reserve requirement of a couple percent) of new money and lend it. Yes, financial institutions are creditors but of a money they have stolen, via inflation tax, from the poorest in the first place. That is how the fractional reserve banking, best in tandem with Keynesian policies, works....
There is no better scheme to make money on the back of the poorest.. but then nothing has changed really, even before Keynes, when someone was calling himself a benefactor of the poor, the poor had better run and fast. However that does not really matter. Keynesianism, together with fractional reserve banking, has kept financial sector average profits consistently and considerably above economy average since WWII. Politicians powerful as ever. Legions of economists hired (private institutions like banks) trying to forecast what in turn another legions of economists will do with inflation tax (public institutions like central bank etc). Keynesianism will always be popular with government, financiers and economists as there are simply no better sinecures out there than economy tsars.
wtorek, 26 lipca 2011
niedziela, 8 maja 2011
Cylons of Collectivism
As is most often the case, Mike Huben's post was my inspiration, this time about altruist robots.
Now, neither Rand nor libertarians are obviously against altruism proper. They are merely against forced altruism (collectivist altruism?) which is indistinguishable from slavery run by parasites.
Altruists are as natural as parasites (apart from, obviously, producers) and both will inevitably arise during evolution process, be it natural or artificial. But it gets really interesting with the emergence of conscious thought and ideas, when parasites start to cloak their true motives under the guise of altruism. In other words, there always are charity volunteers and thieves, but what happens when thieves develop an ability to pose as altruists using clever ideas? Note the parasites do not even need to be conscious of that. In fact, to achieve the highest efficiency, they should not be aware of that, same as skin-job Cylons on the Colonial Fleet. They should rather believe wholeheartedly they are the good guys. After all, parasites have to convince producers they are altruists. There have always been con men, but we are talking nationwide, even worldwide scheme that involves up to billions of human beings. This is a tall task you need dedicated men for, men which actually believe what they preach. In short, you need ideas at least as strong as those that make religious fanatics commit suicide for the cause.
Hence the eternal fight between parasites and producers also starts to affect the higher level of ideas. Parasites can obviously never win completely because they would then die out too (like say in Pol Pot Cambodia), no matter what level they are working on. But can libertarians ultimately win the battle of ideas by proving to Cylons of Collectivism (using logical reasoning based on self-evident assumptions, like those of Mises and Rothbard) what they really are? Evolutionary-wise, highly doubtful. Note the general rule has always been, the less parasites there are, the more beneficial it is to be one. So no, we will never eliminate parasites by showing them what they are. Even if we do decrease their amount temporarily (like in late 18th and early 19th century thanks to classical liberals), evolutionary process will simply create more sophisticated parasites with ideas even more cleverly disguised as altruism (marxism of late 19th century, 20th century liberalism etc).
No, there is no other way than to give ideological tools to producers so they can recognize parasites on their own. In short, at least people's majority need to become libertarian before we get rid of collectivist parasites for good.
Can you imagine Mike Huben's feelings when he watches Battlestar Galactica now? But then again, he should not feel too bad, as he is no less natural than a producer or true altruist is. Cylon of Collectivism simply happens to be his evolutionary part, but it could have been any one of us.
Now, neither Rand nor libertarians are obviously against altruism proper. They are merely against forced altruism (collectivist altruism?) which is indistinguishable from slavery run by parasites.
Altruists are as natural as parasites (apart from, obviously, producers) and both will inevitably arise during evolution process, be it natural or artificial. But it gets really interesting with the emergence of conscious thought and ideas, when parasites start to cloak their true motives under the guise of altruism. In other words, there always are charity volunteers and thieves, but what happens when thieves develop an ability to pose as altruists using clever ideas? Note the parasites do not even need to be conscious of that. In fact, to achieve the highest efficiency, they should not be aware of that, same as skin-job Cylons on the Colonial Fleet. They should rather believe wholeheartedly they are the good guys. After all, parasites have to convince producers they are altruists. There have always been con men, but we are talking nationwide, even worldwide scheme that involves up to billions of human beings. This is a tall task you need dedicated men for, men which actually believe what they preach. In short, you need ideas at least as strong as those that make religious fanatics commit suicide for the cause.
Hence the eternal fight between parasites and producers also starts to affect the higher level of ideas. Parasites can obviously never win completely because they would then die out too (like say in Pol Pot Cambodia), no matter what level they are working on. But can libertarians ultimately win the battle of ideas by proving to Cylons of Collectivism (using logical reasoning based on self-evident assumptions, like those of Mises and Rothbard) what they really are? Evolutionary-wise, highly doubtful. Note the general rule has always been, the less parasites there are, the more beneficial it is to be one. So no, we will never eliminate parasites by showing them what they are. Even if we do decrease their amount temporarily (like in late 18th and early 19th century thanks to classical liberals), evolutionary process will simply create more sophisticated parasites with ideas even more cleverly disguised as altruism (marxism of late 19th century, 20th century liberalism etc).
No, there is no other way than to give ideological tools to producers so they can recognize parasites on their own. In short, at least people's majority need to become libertarian before we get rid of collectivist parasites for good.
Can you imagine Mike Huben's feelings when he watches Battlestar Galactica now? But then again, he should not feel too bad, as he is no less natural than a producer or true altruist is. Cylon of Collectivism simply happens to be his evolutionary part, but it could have been any one of us.
piątek, 29 kwietnia 2011
Adolescent Collectivists
For Michael Gerson there is one simple explanation for Objectivism: adolescence.
Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship.
Michael obviously seems to know what he is talking about. Either himself or many of his friends and family must have been egotistic, self-involved and immoral hero worshippers during their youth. So basically what we are dealing here with is a social circle of JOCKS.
Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others.
Unfortunatelly, Michael hasn't grown out of it. When jocks discover they can no longer beat up people without going to jail, they do seek alternative ways of abuse. Soon they discover political means to do so, ie collectivist ideologies, which give them a moral right to force other people into servitude. Thus, a jock eventually joins one of the strands of modern collectivism, be it religious, conservatist or liberal. In theory their sport heroes get replaced by either God, Nation or Society. In practice however they all worship Government as the hero that forces other people to serve their goals. So no wonder Michael must obviously hate Rand's moral commandment never to sacrifice others to himself. He rants against "selfishness" so that at the end of the day he can enjoy a society molded and bullied by his hero Government. A society where our lives become "tied to the benefit of" Michael Gerson and the like.
Brrr...
Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship.
Michael obviously seems to know what he is talking about. Either himself or many of his friends and family must have been egotistic, self-involved and immoral hero worshippers during their youth. So basically what we are dealing here with is a social circle of JOCKS.
Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others.
Unfortunatelly, Michael hasn't grown out of it. When jocks discover they can no longer beat up people without going to jail, they do seek alternative ways of abuse. Soon they discover political means to do so, ie collectivist ideologies, which give them a moral right to force other people into servitude. Thus, a jock eventually joins one of the strands of modern collectivism, be it religious, conservatist or liberal. In theory their sport heroes get replaced by either God, Nation or Society. In practice however they all worship Government as the hero that forces other people to serve their goals. So no wonder Michael must obviously hate Rand's moral commandment never to sacrifice others to himself. He rants against "selfishness" so that at the end of the day he can enjoy a society molded and bullied by his hero Government. A society where our lives become "tied to the benefit of" Michael Gerson and the like.
Brrr...
sobota, 9 kwietnia 2011
The Whitest Kids U' Know
WKUK is a very talented group, especially Trevor Moore, I love him. Some brilliant sketches. Here are basically the best out of the first three seasons, some are simply hysterical:
Bad Panda, Brain Tumor, Heaven, Opposite Day, Mall Bitches, Ten Easy Steps to Have a Perfect Relationship, Girl Sympathy, Moon Bears, 911 Call, Joining The Army, Ninja School, Accidental Puke, Call Of Duty, Gandalf, Grapist, Throw Up Employee, Earthquake, Accidental Puke, White Castle Cheesburger, Summer Vacation Story, Gallon of PCP, Get a New Daddy, Saturday, Good Morning Dad, Happy Birthday, Line Leader, Take My Face Off, The Never Song, Trevor Talks To Kids, Whiskey, Dinosaur Rap, God Says Song
Now down to business. WKUK is pretty liberal. Which is usually good for comedy. Conservative biased shows are rarely funny. There are outstanding exceptions like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but liberals are usually the open minded ones. Take Sniper Business. Pretty funny sketch (not nearly as funny as some of the above though). WKUK tells us business is like a war. Funny, but false. Precisely zero people die and rarely any assets are destroyed when a company goes bankrupt. Rather, people change jobs and assets get reallocated to more efficient uses. Actually, business is precisely the opposite of war. It happens to be the one and only way for society to increase its standard of living. However yes, free market competition does not guarantee life employment and eternal status quo. Sorry, that is reserved for Heaven.
So I have nothing against funny liberal sketches, but then Backseat killed me. I have never seen anything so explicit in a comedy group before. It's not much of a sketch really, but a detailed recap of WKUK political views:
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair. If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism.
Now, we know the guys are brilliant. As such they are another example for Bread & Butter, my very first post. I admire WKUK. But then, the guys are retarded, at least as far as economics goes.
Going backwards, the last sentence: Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism. Of course they are! Socialism is a religion with God replaced by Society, another abstract being that does not exist in reality. No one has ever talked with Society except prophets of socialism, who seem to know in detail what Society's needs are. How is that different with God prophets? We had Industrial Revolution 200 years ago when capitalism was invented, and not 10,000 years ago (or whatever) when first religions were. WKUK guys do seem to be aware of religion pitfalls in God Says Song. Still, no clue, no idea how to connect the dots.
It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. I agree it should be as easy as possible to be a decent person. But then, as Einstein has said, you should try making everything as simple as possible, but never simpler. It is fallacious to believe there can exist a system which makes it easier to produce than to steal. Laziness is easier than productivity, sort of fundemental thing in our universe, no matter what solar system you are on, if you think about it.
If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. No, in real (not fairy tale) socialism you have to pay bribes or be close friends to get anything done, because no one has financial motivation to work. Defrauding the company you work for is pretty much okay (each is sort of worker owned, at least in theory), so if you work at a toilet paper company, you steal toilet paper and barter with other guys who, say, work in a grocery or butcher's shop etc. But this is all redundant in capitalism. You don't need other people to love you or bribe them to provide you with goods and services you need. You simply pay them using goods you've previously earned by offering your own services and goods to yet other parties, money working as an intermediary. You don't eliminate greed by eliminating capitalism. Rather you merely eliminate the only non-violent and honest method of cooperation (ie helping everybody else out) between strangers.
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair.
I mean, really, you should take Heaven and replace Suicide with Socialism there.
Bad Panda, Brain Tumor, Heaven, Opposite Day, Mall Bitches, Ten Easy Steps to Have a Perfect Relationship, Girl Sympathy, Moon Bears, 911 Call, Joining The Army, Ninja School, Accidental Puke, Call Of Duty, Gandalf, Grapist, Throw Up Employee, Earthquake, Accidental Puke, White Castle Cheesburger, Summer Vacation Story, Gallon of PCP, Get a New Daddy, Saturday, Good Morning Dad, Happy Birthday, Line Leader, Take My Face Off, The Never Song, Trevor Talks To Kids, Whiskey, Dinosaur Rap, God Says Song
Now down to business. WKUK is pretty liberal. Which is usually good for comedy. Conservative biased shows are rarely funny. There are outstanding exceptions like It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but liberals are usually the open minded ones. Take Sniper Business. Pretty funny sketch (not nearly as funny as some of the above though). WKUK tells us business is like a war. Funny, but false. Precisely zero people die and rarely any assets are destroyed when a company goes bankrupt. Rather, people change jobs and assets get reallocated to more efficient uses. Actually, business is precisely the opposite of war. It happens to be the one and only way for society to increase its standard of living. However yes, free market competition does not guarantee life employment and eternal status quo. Sorry, that is reserved for Heaven.
So I have nothing against funny liberal sketches, but then Backseat killed me. I have never seen anything so explicit in a comedy group before. It's not much of a sketch really, but a detailed recap of WKUK political views:
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair. If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism.
Now, we know the guys are brilliant. As such they are another example for Bread & Butter, my very first post. I admire WKUK. But then, the guys are retarded, at least as far as economics goes.
Going backwards, the last sentence: Yeah, it's like the principles that every single religion teaches are directly opposed to the principles of capitalism. Of course they are! Socialism is a religion with God replaced by Society, another abstract being that does not exist in reality. No one has ever talked with Society except prophets of socialism, who seem to know in detail what Society's needs are. How is that different with God prophets? We had Industrial Revolution 200 years ago when capitalism was invented, and not 10,000 years ago (or whatever) when first religions were. WKUK guys do seem to be aware of religion pitfalls in God Says Song. Still, no clue, no idea how to connect the dots.
It's almost like, if you really work on developing your soul and being a good person, capitalism is constantly throwing obstacles in your way. I agree it should be as easy as possible to be a decent person. But then, as Einstein has said, you should try making everything as simple as possible, but never simpler. It is fallacious to believe there can exist a system which makes it easier to produce than to steal. Laziness is easier than productivity, sort of fundemental thing in our universe, no matter what solar system you are on, if you think about it.
If you think about it, socialism's like everybody helping everybody else out and capitalism's like greed. It's weird. It's like the only reason capitalism works is because it plays on man's biggest flaw. No, in real (not fairy tale) socialism you have to pay bribes or be close friends to get anything done, because no one has financial motivation to work. Defrauding the company you work for is pretty much okay (each is sort of worker owned, at least in theory), so if you work at a toilet paper company, you steal toilet paper and barter with other guys who, say, work in a grocery or butcher's shop etc. But this is all redundant in capitalism. You don't need other people to love you or bribe them to provide you with goods and services you need. You simply pay them using goods you've previously earned by offering your own services and goods to yet other parties, money working as an intermediary. You don't eliminate greed by eliminating capitalism. Rather you merely eliminate the only non-violent and honest method of cooperation (ie helping everybody else out) between strangers.
If you think about it, socialism's not really that bad. Yeah, I guess you're right. It's kind of like, being really nice and fair.
I mean, really, you should take Heaven and replace Suicide with Socialism there.
środa, 23 marca 2011
Libertarian Heavens On Earth And Beyond
Hugo Chavez claims capitalism has ended life on Mars. He fails to understand that, according to liberal reasoning, Mars is ultra capitalist even now. The reasoning goes like this. Libertarians hate government, right? There is no government in Somalia, right? Hence, Somalia is libertarian. Mars? Even more libertarian.
Sounds good superficially, same as any liberal retarded reasoning. We have to look at the starting liberal assumption again. Do libertarians really hate government? After all, aren't they complaining about government programs all the time? Calling government evil? The less government the better?
No. In fact, libertarian state would have the strongest government imaginable. Libertarians do not hate government as such. Libertarians hate government aggression, that is when it infringes on private property rights. Government programs are government aggression because they are financed from taxes. Some may be unavoidable, but we should always strive to reduce their number to a minimum. Hence, libertarian minimal state. However libertarians would actually increase government programs that protect private property rights if need be, like police, courts and the army. Unless I guess we finally manage to privatise them, but even then the overriding goal should always be private property rights protection. Libertarian state is the strongest one imaginable because its only purpose in life is to protect citizens' private property. Its whole might would be directed at this one single purpose, rather than dispersed among thousands of disparate programs rendering contemporary government a lobbyist heaven.
So there is no libertarian paradise neither on Mars nor in Somalia. There are actually many other countries that are pretty close to Somalia, like Haiti, most African, basically all third world countries. Their governments either do not exist or are too weak to protect private property rights. Sure, they often protect property rights of the ruling elite, but that's no different than in ancient, feudal, absolutist or mercantilist states. On the other hand, capitalism needs "blind" private property rights. Every citizen should have exactly same negative rights to buy and sell private property. This was the trigger of Industrial Revolution. And it is still certainly not the case on Mars, Somalia or Haiti.
Are the thrid world countries socialist then? Well, they are certainly much closer to socialism than libertarianism. After all, socialist government's only purpose in life is to infringe on private property rights. It's no different really from armed gangs in third world countries. More eloquent, yes. Substantively different, not. No wonder then that their GDPs per capita are similar.
Sounds good superficially, same as any liberal retarded reasoning. We have to look at the starting liberal assumption again. Do libertarians really hate government? After all, aren't they complaining about government programs all the time? Calling government evil? The less government the better?
No. In fact, libertarian state would have the strongest government imaginable. Libertarians do not hate government as such. Libertarians hate government aggression, that is when it infringes on private property rights. Government programs are government aggression because they are financed from taxes. Some may be unavoidable, but we should always strive to reduce their number to a minimum. Hence, libertarian minimal state. However libertarians would actually increase government programs that protect private property rights if need be, like police, courts and the army. Unless I guess we finally manage to privatise them, but even then the overriding goal should always be private property rights protection. Libertarian state is the strongest one imaginable because its only purpose in life is to protect citizens' private property. Its whole might would be directed at this one single purpose, rather than dispersed among thousands of disparate programs rendering contemporary government a lobbyist heaven.
So there is no libertarian paradise neither on Mars nor in Somalia. There are actually many other countries that are pretty close to Somalia, like Haiti, most African, basically all third world countries. Their governments either do not exist or are too weak to protect private property rights. Sure, they often protect property rights of the ruling elite, but that's no different than in ancient, feudal, absolutist or mercantilist states. On the other hand, capitalism needs "blind" private property rights. Every citizen should have exactly same negative rights to buy and sell private property. This was the trigger of Industrial Revolution. And it is still certainly not the case on Mars, Somalia or Haiti.
Are the thrid world countries socialist then? Well, they are certainly much closer to socialism than libertarianism. After all, socialist government's only purpose in life is to infringe on private property rights. It's no different really from armed gangs in third world countries. More eloquent, yes. Substantively different, not. No wonder then that their GDPs per capita are similar.
niedziela, 6 marca 2011
Pedophilia, Zoophilia and Child Murder
This post was inspired by libertarianism definition in Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED). Obviously, in ED you should expect blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly, according to their About, but that's precisely why it accurately reflects the most popular misconceptions about libertarianism.
Every libertarian will, sooner or later, be called child/dog fucker/murderer. Interestingly though, according to ED itself, the crimes are always perpetrated by non-libertarians. After all, ED claims libertarians are either 13 year old boys, fratboys who watch South Park, people that want to appear "alternative", or paranoid survivalists living in tiny cabins in Montana where they stockpile weapons and food for the dreaded day when Big Brother comes 'round tryin' to implant fail chips in their brains. I mean, pedophile 13 year old boys? Okay, I can see a paranoid survivalist occasionally fucking some stray dog high up in Montana, but that's basically it. So ED has to resort to fantasizing as in Glenn Beck case (assuming he is a libertarian) instead.
This got me thinking though. As a utilitarian minarchist, I could dismiss the whole issue immediatelly. I don't give a fuck about libertarian principles. If there is to be a legal child market for pedophiles, then fuck it (or more accurately, not fuck it), I prefer collectivism. But then the principles are not that bad anyway. Parents do not own their children. I can't see where that sort of primitive libertarianism even comes from. Also, children do not fully own themselves. That's all according to libertarian principles themselves and this is one of the grey areas where collectivism should kick in and find the most efficient utilitarian approach. Okay, so some children will die from hunger because they can't make a living in any other way than prostitution. But then we'll save so many children from sex abuse. Careful weighing of pros and cons. Problem solved, at least for children and retards (who are basically adult children).
Now, what about dog fucking? Does utilitarianism apply here? But what is utilitarianism really? Doesn't it rely on a hidden assumption of a right to happiness? Utilitarians often claim they do not believe in natural rights. But they do. They believe people have a natural right to happiness. Obviously, liberals/conservatives believe there exist positive rights, while libertarians only acknowledge negative ones. At least as far as humans are concerned. Neither liberals nor conservatives would like a dog to have a positive natural right to happiness though. After all, liberals/conservatives might suddenly find themselves in an awkward situation where a dog has a right to fuck them. This is actually a good illustration why positive rights are BS. Dogs do have a negative right to happiness, so fucking their asses should be illegal on that in fact utilitarian ground, but dogs do not have positive rights, so our own asses are safe too. Unless, I guess some genius can prove dogs love to be raped by other species. Since this seems to be one of our own gratest boogeymen (as any alien abductee can attest), we can easily assume dogs feel the same.
Finally, this brings us to the most common variant of child murder, abortion. Naturally, on utilitarian grounds, it causes more harm than benefit trying to prevent women from killing their unborn children, so we shouldn't. But then libertarian principles are not so pro-life either. If a child's existence was caused by deliberate action, parents would be responsible, and a mother would have an obligation to carry her child to full term. However, sex is a process where organisms form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. In other words, our species would have never evolved if sex was something we could choose to perform. We have to perform it, same as breathing, and rational reasoning has little impact on a man when he sees a sexy young coed, or on a woman when she sees a male that can support her offspring. Hence, children are conceived in a heat of passion, parents should not be legally responsible, and mother should not be forced to carry the child to full term. But doesn't that also legitimize child prostitution? After all, pedophiles also act in a heat of passion. No. Note I have nowhere said that a father has a right to fuck its unborn child, only that a mother does not have an obligation to carry her child to full term. Yes, technically the end result is the same as child murder, but the means are different. That's why we also make rape illegal, even though its end result (children) is same as in voluntary sex. Uffff...
As we can see, pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder would all be illegal in a utilitarian minarchist libertarian state, except for abortions, which are not really child murder proper, but rather a legitimate right to not having to carry the child to full term. But exactly same end result we get with libertarian principled approach, at least wherever property rights can actually be defined. In other words, libertarian principles do not support pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder, they are agnostic here and should be extended with utilitarianism so we can also account for children, retards and dogs.
Every libertarian will, sooner or later, be called child/dog fucker/murderer. Interestingly though, according to ED itself, the crimes are always perpetrated by non-libertarians. After all, ED claims libertarians are either 13 year old boys, fratboys who watch South Park, people that want to appear "alternative", or paranoid survivalists living in tiny cabins in Montana where they stockpile weapons and food for the dreaded day when Big Brother comes 'round tryin' to implant fail chips in their brains. I mean, pedophile 13 year old boys? Okay, I can see a paranoid survivalist occasionally fucking some stray dog high up in Montana, but that's basically it. So ED has to resort to fantasizing as in Glenn Beck case (assuming he is a libertarian) instead.
This got me thinking though. As a utilitarian minarchist, I could dismiss the whole issue immediatelly. I don't give a fuck about libertarian principles. If there is to be a legal child market for pedophiles, then fuck it (or more accurately, not fuck it), I prefer collectivism. But then the principles are not that bad anyway. Parents do not own their children. I can't see where that sort of primitive libertarianism even comes from. Also, children do not fully own themselves. That's all according to libertarian principles themselves and this is one of the grey areas where collectivism should kick in and find the most efficient utilitarian approach. Okay, so some children will die from hunger because they can't make a living in any other way than prostitution. But then we'll save so many children from sex abuse. Careful weighing of pros and cons. Problem solved, at least for children and retards (who are basically adult children).
Now, what about dog fucking? Does utilitarianism apply here? But what is utilitarianism really? Doesn't it rely on a hidden assumption of a right to happiness? Utilitarians often claim they do not believe in natural rights. But they do. They believe people have a natural right to happiness. Obviously, liberals/conservatives believe there exist positive rights, while libertarians only acknowledge negative ones. At least as far as humans are concerned. Neither liberals nor conservatives would like a dog to have a positive natural right to happiness though. After all, liberals/conservatives might suddenly find themselves in an awkward situation where a dog has a right to fuck them. This is actually a good illustration why positive rights are BS. Dogs do have a negative right to happiness, so fucking their asses should be illegal on that in fact utilitarian ground, but dogs do not have positive rights, so our own asses are safe too. Unless, I guess some genius can prove dogs love to be raped by other species. Since this seems to be one of our own gratest boogeymen (as any alien abductee can attest), we can easily assume dogs feel the same.
Finally, this brings us to the most common variant of child murder, abortion. Naturally, on utilitarian grounds, it causes more harm than benefit trying to prevent women from killing their unborn children, so we shouldn't. But then libertarian principles are not so pro-life either. If a child's existence was caused by deliberate action, parents would be responsible, and a mother would have an obligation to carry her child to full term. However, sex is a process where organisms form offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. In other words, our species would have never evolved if sex was something we could choose to perform. We have to perform it, same as breathing, and rational reasoning has little impact on a man when he sees a sexy young coed, or on a woman when she sees a male that can support her offspring. Hence, children are conceived in a heat of passion, parents should not be legally responsible, and mother should not be forced to carry the child to full term. But doesn't that also legitimize child prostitution? After all, pedophiles also act in a heat of passion. No. Note I have nowhere said that a father has a right to fuck its unborn child, only that a mother does not have an obligation to carry her child to full term. Yes, technically the end result is the same as child murder, but the means are different. That's why we also make rape illegal, even though its end result (children) is same as in voluntary sex. Uffff...
As we can see, pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder would all be illegal in a utilitarian minarchist libertarian state, except for abortions, which are not really child murder proper, but rather a legitimate right to not having to carry the child to full term. But exactly same end result we get with libertarian principled approach, at least wherever property rights can actually be defined. In other words, libertarian principles do not support pedophilia, zoophilia and child murder, they are agnostic here and should be extended with utilitarianism so we can also account for children, retards and dogs.
piątek, 18 lutego 2011
Primitive Libertarianism
How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist is a great story on libertarian propaganda failure.
Chris Wilson claims this is a personal story on his "transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism". Surprisingly, this is very accurate statement, but likely not as Chris meant it. If someone talks about "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianism, then I argue he has never actually parted with the most common fallacies in the first place. I'm not saying there are no "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianisms, there obviously are if people say there are, except I call both primitive libertarianisms, no less primitive than "right-wing" and "left-wing" dichotomy in general.
Typically people become libertarian when they get infatuated with Ayn Rand (at least in US), even if just for a short period like in Wilson's case. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with Ayn Rand fiction. Quite contrary, Rand's a genius, at least as far as Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are concerned. They are both very true precisely because they contain relatively little philosophizing, they are simply dramatized morality and psychology stories. They are not just fiction though. I'm sure there have existed many actual persons that closely reflect Rand characters both psychologically and ideologically. It's true it's a relatively fictional world when we consider it from our 2010s perspective, but it is more accurate of say (no wonder), 1930s-1950s when they got published (or derived their inspiration from). Collectivism was then if full swing. Even most businessmen honestly believed all collectivist propaganda. But even then real people must have been significantly muted versions of Rand heroes and antiheroes. Still, Rand nowhere presents their heroes and antiheroes as common stock, there's always the background of indiscriminate masses. And it's a perfectly valid literary technique to focus only on psychological features that matter for whatever reason author deems them to matter, provided they are real psychological features.
However, Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are only then (mis)interpreted by many libertarians, including Ayn Rand herself in her Objectivist works. But they are all in fact no different than (mis)interpretations of the real world around us. Objectivism does not quite follow from Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are therefore not automatically rebutted (as if you could rebut reality) just because you've rebutted Objectivism. The most important (mis)interpretations of primitive libertarians are as follows:
1) Entrepreneurs have to be honest for the free market to work, that is never deceive customers nor seek government privileges.
2) Objective truth can be determined also on what consumer value scales (human action ends themselves) should be, rather than just on what constitute honest measures to achieve them.
3) Principles should overrule utilitarian arguments when it comes to specific policy recommendations (as opposed to principles in methodology of deducing them).
As for 1), it is evident we would have never achieved modern levels of prosperity if it were true. Entrepreneurs are human, so they habitually deceive customers and virtually always seek government privileges. As it turns out, even being ardent libertarian may not help, see eg this article about Kochtopus. Established entrepreneurs are actually the biggest threat to free markets, bigger even than socialists. Socialists create clear-cut anti-examples, while entrepreneurs, via government privileges, become parasites on what relatively can still be called a free market, but in fact is a collectivist system (corporate socialism) ridden with government aggression.
As for 2), here Rotbard rocks as usual in Mozard Was a Red. I don't think that sort of Randian is actually that popular nowadays though. At least it does not happen to apply to Chris Wilson's case. However, I'm not from US so maybe I underestimate Randian extremism popularity. See eg this American Beauty review. Dude, relax, even trash can be beautiful too, no need to make a libertarian case out of everything out there.
As for 3), I just don't buy this, even as an ardent Rothbard fan. Maybe I'm too stupid for Rothbard, but I still can't help being a utilitarian. I'm perfectly aware that easily 99% of utilitarian arguments out there are false and have been repeatedly used to agitate collectivism. Still, libertarians should "simply" rebut them all and present their own correct utilitarian arguments, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water. If it's a lot more work, so be it. As Albert Einstein, an ardent socialist, has said, make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. Which also happens to show why we should never accept any argument based on authority only (or reject on lack thereof).
Now we can proceed with Chris Wilson's article to see that he remains as ignorant as he was before the "transition":
"I concluded that one who hoards land is placing a restriction upon the liberty of others to use it or to travel by way of it without justification, and hence the claimant should compensate them by paying a land value tax to earn exclusive rights to it."
I agree with Chris in that there should be real estate tax (see my position). It's easy to tax something though. Chris fails to mention where this money is supposed to go. I'd spend it on the army. But this is secondary, let's assume Chris would simply subsidize some legitimate government investment or process, so we could further lower eg head tax. Cool. I don't like his justification though. I can't really see why it is less legitimate to restrict the liberty of others to travel as oppposed to the liberty of others to use whatever I've produced out of land's fruits previously. I prefer taxes as fees for unavoidable government services, no more, no less, I can't see why there should be any distributive justice. Still, from this argument it is already obvious what Chris will state explicitely later, that "principles always came *first* for me -- not economics." And that's where point 3) applies.
"I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices perpetrated by corporations."
That's a valid critique against some other primitive libertarians, which Kochtopus shows. But then Chris could never become more critical of corporations if he did not share the fallacy from point 1) in the first place.
"I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless as any multinational."
If Chris did not share fallacy from point 1), he would understand it is fallacious to require them not to be ruthless. They should be as ruthless as they can. That should be their highest priority, because it lowers consumer prices, hence raising the standard of living for all. But then:
"the more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit from state privilege"
then later
"If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is typically their *aim* to receive them."
Of course, it's only natural. That's why libertarians try to make society aware that only minimal government (rather than "benevolent") is technically unable to grant privileges.
"becoming a hardcore Linux user in the process"
I wonder what exactly Microsoft's state privileges were? Or maybe just because Microsoft became "ruthless" in eliminating competion on the free market? That's precisely what Microsoft should have been doing, maximize its profits, for the sake of the consumers. Historically, it is obvious Microsoft was the victim of government aggression, rather than a beneficiary. Microsoft was even sued just because it wanted to bundle more of Windows components for free. Yes, free products are collectivist boogeyman, because we are informed that once they achieve large market share, their prices will sky rocket leaving society in ruins, even though there has never been a documented case of such fairy tale actually happening before. Note the collectivist threats (in fact again established competition lobby) always concern some indefinite future. As a result, even most businessmen still believe we should have anti-trust bodies, quite like in Rand stories.
"it gave me an appreciation for the extent to which corporations screw their customers"
Right, but then every company can screw their customers. Hence, all other things being equal, companies with best products win. It's analogous to the alledged problem of false advertising propaganda. Every company can lie via false advertising, so all other things being equal, companies with best products win.
"it finally truly sank in that businesses couldn't *care less* about principles"
And it shouldn't, business should care only about profits, otherwise it jeopardizes economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"those who run the company still think of the employees as a cost to be minimized"
And they should, owners should care only about profits, otherwise they jeopardize economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"I've taken on many more responsibilities than just tech support, but my wages haven't risen."
Maybe (just maybe) you have been paid too much in the first place. Have you ever asked yourself why not the other way around? Have you ever stopped to worry that it is you who exploited your employer? After all, it's perfectly symmetrical. Maybe your employer thought you were worth more, then found out he could had hired similar employee cheaper. Or maybe you were originally paid right, but then with time your value to your employer kept dropping. Or maybe you were indeed paid too little, it's also possible. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Oh, well, then you should have simply left the company and get your fair price, whatever you believe it should amount to, elsewhere. Reality check!
"The advocates of capitalism believe that one can sign away or sell off one's liberty, whereas anarchists do not."
As a utilitarian, I don't care about people rights. But I believe selling off one's liberty is economically efficient. Slavery, protest collectivists hand in hand with anarcho-capitalists! Right, as if that was the actual problem with 19th century slavery, as if blacks were selling themselves voluntarily on the market, rather than having been first captured by government-licensed slave traders, with their enslavement for life regulated by government legislation. What an ignorance. With such thinking, even Soup Nazi suddenly becomes slavery.
"I didn't realize in my early "anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more than what the worker initially agrees to give."
Wow, that's pretty fundamental. All summer jobs at your uncle, huh? But you still fail to undestand it's symmetrical. Analogously, workers always demand more (salary) than what the capitalist initially agrees to give. So who is try to exploit who? Both each other. It's only natural. But the free market does not cease to function just because people negotiate, quite contrary, the bargaining is precisely the engine of the free market.
"Jones is entitled to much better"
In that case Jones should get the fuck out and get the so "much better" elsewhere, simple.
"anarcho-communism doesn't provide an avenue for capitalism to reestablish itself and it has had partial revolutionary success in the past histories of countries such as Spain and the Ukraine"
Sure it has. Communists specialize in revolutions. They are always successfull. Communism/socialism inherent problems are not in revolutions though, but in economic calculation problems after revolutions.
"On one hand, there are the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be beneficial if its development is directed by workers themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it affects."
I can't really see a difference between the two. If you accept technology only after it has been somehow deemed "beneficial" to someone by someone (how exactly?), established businesses (via guilds, regulation bodies, etc) in practice start to dictate which new technologies can be implemented and how. Obviously, none, because each new technology causes many companies go bankrupt and many people lose their jobs. It's a lot of pain. That's why the Middle Ages people thought they could well do without the pain. And they did, for a 1000 years. That's also why communism is just an atheist form of feudalism, and that's why Industrial Revolution was not started by religious communists like Anabaptists or first American pioneers, but by a classical liberal realisation of the benefits of free trade competition, even as primitively formulated as it was at the time.
"Working within the computer industry, I also understand that when technological complexity transcends our ability to understand it, this is an instance of the machine being in control of us and not vice-versa."
Rather, you have simply watched too much sci-fi. Also, I would never hire you as a programmer. Sorry, boss, this system's technological complexity tanscends my ability to understand it, it has just started to control me rather than vice versa. Wow, impressive. You should take some time off, looks like you're losing it. Also, get a book on object oriented programming.
"Whether technology is a form of liberation or domination is a topic hotly debated by anarchists"
No doubt they have many ratarded discussions. Technology is merely a tool. A conscious person uses tools as means to achieve ends. Now, some tools may indeed be better suited to achieve liberation vs domination ends, but it is ultimately up to the conscious person what ends she chooses for herself. Arguably we have had a perfectly libertarian state in 10th century Iceland and a perfectly communist state in 20th century Cambodia.
"but they agree, contra the right-wing "libertarians", that a society in which human-created circumstances force people to "agree" to subject their will to that of a boss is by no means "free". "
Before you start another revolution, can't you just call 911 when someone forces you to subject your will?
Chris Wilson claims this is a personal story on his "transition from right-wing to left-wing libertarianism". Surprisingly, this is very accurate statement, but likely not as Chris meant it. If someone talks about "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianism, then I argue he has never actually parted with the most common fallacies in the first place. I'm not saying there are no "right-wing" and "left-wing" libertarianisms, there obviously are if people say there are, except I call both primitive libertarianisms, no less primitive than "right-wing" and "left-wing" dichotomy in general.
Typically people become libertarian when they get infatuated with Ayn Rand (at least in US), even if just for a short period like in Wilson's case. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with Ayn Rand fiction. Quite contrary, Rand's a genius, at least as far as Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are concerned. They are both very true precisely because they contain relatively little philosophizing, they are simply dramatized morality and psychology stories. They are not just fiction though. I'm sure there have existed many actual persons that closely reflect Rand characters both psychologically and ideologically. It's true it's a relatively fictional world when we consider it from our 2010s perspective, but it is more accurate of say (no wonder), 1930s-1950s when they got published (or derived their inspiration from). Collectivism was then if full swing. Even most businessmen honestly believed all collectivist propaganda. But even then real people must have been significantly muted versions of Rand heroes and antiheroes. Still, Rand nowhere presents their heroes and antiheroes as common stock, there's always the background of indiscriminate masses. And it's a perfectly valid literary technique to focus only on psychological features that matter for whatever reason author deems them to matter, provided they are real psychological features.
However, Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are only then (mis)interpreted by many libertarians, including Ayn Rand herself in her Objectivist works. But they are all in fact no different than (mis)interpretations of the real world around us. Objectivism does not quite follow from Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead are therefore not automatically rebutted (as if you could rebut reality) just because you've rebutted Objectivism. The most important (mis)interpretations of primitive libertarians are as follows:
1) Entrepreneurs have to be honest for the free market to work, that is never deceive customers nor seek government privileges.
2) Objective truth can be determined also on what consumer value scales (human action ends themselves) should be, rather than just on what constitute honest measures to achieve them.
3) Principles should overrule utilitarian arguments when it comes to specific policy recommendations (as opposed to principles in methodology of deducing them).
As for 1), it is evident we would have never achieved modern levels of prosperity if it were true. Entrepreneurs are human, so they habitually deceive customers and virtually always seek government privileges. As it turns out, even being ardent libertarian may not help, see eg this article about Kochtopus. Established entrepreneurs are actually the biggest threat to free markets, bigger even than socialists. Socialists create clear-cut anti-examples, while entrepreneurs, via government privileges, become parasites on what relatively can still be called a free market, but in fact is a collectivist system (corporate socialism) ridden with government aggression.
As for 2), here Rotbard rocks as usual in Mozard Was a Red. I don't think that sort of Randian is actually that popular nowadays though. At least it does not happen to apply to Chris Wilson's case. However, I'm not from US so maybe I underestimate Randian extremism popularity. See eg this American Beauty review. Dude, relax, even trash can be beautiful too, no need to make a libertarian case out of everything out there.
As for 3), I just don't buy this, even as an ardent Rothbard fan. Maybe I'm too stupid for Rothbard, but I still can't help being a utilitarian. I'm perfectly aware that easily 99% of utilitarian arguments out there are false and have been repeatedly used to agitate collectivism. Still, libertarians should "simply" rebut them all and present their own correct utilitarian arguments, rather than throw out the baby with the bath water. If it's a lot more work, so be it. As Albert Einstein, an ardent socialist, has said, make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. Which also happens to show why we should never accept any argument based on authority only (or reject on lack thereof).
Now we can proceed with Chris Wilson's article to see that he remains as ignorant as he was before the "transition":
"I concluded that one who hoards land is placing a restriction upon the liberty of others to use it or to travel by way of it without justification, and hence the claimant should compensate them by paying a land value tax to earn exclusive rights to it."
I agree with Chris in that there should be real estate tax (see my position). It's easy to tax something though. Chris fails to mention where this money is supposed to go. I'd spend it on the army. But this is secondary, let's assume Chris would simply subsidize some legitimate government investment or process, so we could further lower eg head tax. Cool. I don't like his justification though. I can't really see why it is less legitimate to restrict the liberty of others to travel as oppposed to the liberty of others to use whatever I've produced out of land's fruits previously. I prefer taxes as fees for unavoidable government services, no more, no less, I can't see why there should be any distributive justice. Still, from this argument it is already obvious what Chris will state explicitely later, that "principles always came *first* for me -- not economics." And that's where point 3) applies.
"I did become much more critical of corporations, and I became upset with other libertarians for their lack of focus upon the injustices perpetrated by corporations."
That's a valid critique against some other primitive libertarians, which Kochtopus shows. But then Chris could never become more critical of corporations if he did not share the fallacy from point 1) in the first place.
"I've seen all these companies become just as ruthless as any multinational."
If Chris did not share fallacy from point 1), he would understand it is fallacious to require them not to be ruthless. They should be as ruthless as they can. That should be their highest priority, because it lowers consumer prices, hence raising the standard of living for all. But then:
"the more prosperous of these companies are now seeking to benefit from state privilege"
then later
"If they don't actually receive favors from the state, then it is typically their *aim* to receive them."
Of course, it's only natural. That's why libertarians try to make society aware that only minimal government (rather than "benevolent") is technically unable to grant privileges.
"becoming a hardcore Linux user in the process"
I wonder what exactly Microsoft's state privileges were? Or maybe just because Microsoft became "ruthless" in eliminating competion on the free market? That's precisely what Microsoft should have been doing, maximize its profits, for the sake of the consumers. Historically, it is obvious Microsoft was the victim of government aggression, rather than a beneficiary. Microsoft was even sued just because it wanted to bundle more of Windows components for free. Yes, free products are collectivist boogeyman, because we are informed that once they achieve large market share, their prices will sky rocket leaving society in ruins, even though there has never been a documented case of such fairy tale actually happening before. Note the collectivist threats (in fact again established competition lobby) always concern some indefinite future. As a result, even most businessmen still believe we should have anti-trust bodies, quite like in Rand stories.
"it gave me an appreciation for the extent to which corporations screw their customers"
Right, but then every company can screw their customers. Hence, all other things being equal, companies with best products win. It's analogous to the alledged problem of false advertising propaganda. Every company can lie via false advertising, so all other things being equal, companies with best products win.
"it finally truly sank in that businesses couldn't *care less* about principles"
And it shouldn't, business should care only about profits, otherwise it jeopardizes economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"those who run the company still think of the employees as a cost to be minimized"
And they should, owners should care only about profits, otherwise they jeopardize economic efficiency, rendering whole society poorer.
"I've taken on many more responsibilities than just tech support, but my wages haven't risen."
Maybe (just maybe) you have been paid too much in the first place. Have you ever asked yourself why not the other way around? Have you ever stopped to worry that it is you who exploited your employer? After all, it's perfectly symmetrical. Maybe your employer thought you were worth more, then found out he could had hired similar employee cheaper. Or maybe you were originally paid right, but then with time your value to your employer kept dropping. Or maybe you were indeed paid too little, it's also possible. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Oh, well, then you should have simply left the company and get your fair price, whatever you believe it should amount to, elsewhere. Reality check!
"The advocates of capitalism believe that one can sign away or sell off one's liberty, whereas anarchists do not."
As a utilitarian, I don't care about people rights. But I believe selling off one's liberty is economically efficient. Slavery, protest collectivists hand in hand with anarcho-capitalists! Right, as if that was the actual problem with 19th century slavery, as if blacks were selling themselves voluntarily on the market, rather than having been first captured by government-licensed slave traders, with their enslavement for life regulated by government legislation. What an ignorance. With such thinking, even Soup Nazi suddenly becomes slavery.
"I didn't realize in my early "anarcho-capitalist" days that capitalists almost always demand more than what the worker initially agrees to give."
Wow, that's pretty fundamental. All summer jobs at your uncle, huh? But you still fail to undestand it's symmetrical. Analogously, workers always demand more (salary) than what the capitalist initially agrees to give. So who is try to exploit who? Both each other. It's only natural. But the free market does not cease to function just because people negotiate, quite contrary, the bargaining is precisely the engine of the free market.
"Jones is entitled to much better"
In that case Jones should get the fuck out and get the so "much better" elsewhere, simple.
"anarcho-communism doesn't provide an avenue for capitalism to reestablish itself and it has had partial revolutionary success in the past histories of countries such as Spain and the Ukraine"
Sure it has. Communists specialize in revolutions. They are always successfull. Communism/socialism inherent problems are not in revolutions though, but in economic calculation problems after revolutions.
"On one hand, there are the anarcho-primitivist luddites who eschew all forms of complex technology and wish to return to a hunter-gather society, and on the other, there are the anarchists who feel that technology can be beneficial if its development is directed by workers themselves in a manner that is accountable to the communities it affects."
I can't really see a difference between the two. If you accept technology only after it has been somehow deemed "beneficial" to someone by someone (how exactly?), established businesses (via guilds, regulation bodies, etc) in practice start to dictate which new technologies can be implemented and how. Obviously, none, because each new technology causes many companies go bankrupt and many people lose their jobs. It's a lot of pain. That's why the Middle Ages people thought they could well do without the pain. And they did, for a 1000 years. That's also why communism is just an atheist form of feudalism, and that's why Industrial Revolution was not started by religious communists like Anabaptists or first American pioneers, but by a classical liberal realisation of the benefits of free trade competition, even as primitively formulated as it was at the time.
"Working within the computer industry, I also understand that when technological complexity transcends our ability to understand it, this is an instance of the machine being in control of us and not vice-versa."
Rather, you have simply watched too much sci-fi. Also, I would never hire you as a programmer. Sorry, boss, this system's technological complexity tanscends my ability to understand it, it has just started to control me rather than vice versa. Wow, impressive. You should take some time off, looks like you're losing it. Also, get a book on object oriented programming.
"Whether technology is a form of liberation or domination is a topic hotly debated by anarchists"
No doubt they have many ratarded discussions. Technology is merely a tool. A conscious person uses tools as means to achieve ends. Now, some tools may indeed be better suited to achieve liberation vs domination ends, but it is ultimately up to the conscious person what ends she chooses for herself. Arguably we have had a perfectly libertarian state in 10th century Iceland and a perfectly communist state in 20th century Cambodia.
"but they agree, contra the right-wing "libertarians", that a society in which human-created circumstances force people to "agree" to subject their will to that of a boss is by no means "free". "
Before you start another revolution, can't you just call 911 when someone forces you to subject your will?
Subskrybuj:
Posty (Atom)