Layoffs coming...

[abandonconflict]

I would truly love to believe in progress. In fact, in my informal history of ideas I think of the 20th as the Century of Progress. Every (approximate) century has had its central idea, its mythos. The 18th embraced Enlightenment. The 19th embraced Romanticism (far from a reaction to Enlightenment per J. Barzun, but rather an effort to complete it) on the academic side and Industrialization on the economic. The 20th saw an aberrant pulse of technical progress that has deeply shaped how we view even nontechnical things, and it is my considered opinion that the concept of human progress is an artifact of these three centuries in succession, but especially the one that took us from horse-carts and the odd balloon to people denying the Moon landings on Youtube.

I have become disabused of the concept of steady or even monotonic human progress. There have been remarkably enlightened societies in the past, but the pattern of decadence, dissolution, replacement by ruder more vigorous sorts ... rinse, repeat ... has not been broken yet. I fear that the Western (and with globalization, the entire industrialized) world is in a condition of increasingly brittle decadence, and when it breaks, the Enlightenment will most likely go the way of republican Rome.
I would not underestimate the sheer destructive power of people looking at a social or economic order and thinking to themselves "how to turn this to my advantage?"

I do not see real human progress in the offing until we have the capacity to change our physical substrate. But just as I see the Century of Progress to be over, with this age's mythos as yet undetermined (from my constrained perspective at its beginning, my best guess is a nostalgic lament for our lost environmental innocence) ... and the promises of Rapid Advances not being fulfilled. We are returning to a more usual rate of technical advancement, even though our ways of life and thought have been deeply shaped by the breakneck speed of improvements in standard of living brought on by almost cost-free petroleum. "It's ovah, Rock; it's ovah." cn

Please elaborate this "physical substrate". From reading this, I am convinced you believe in the idea of progress, yet not in the possibility that it can be maintained. I hope you're wrong.

 

[cannabineer]

Please elaborate this "physical substrate". From reading this, I am convinced you believe in the idea of progress, yet not in the possibility that it can be maintained. I hope you're wrong.

I hope I am wrong as well.
(You can imagine what I fear however.)

But what I mean by "physical substrate" has to do with the dawn-glimmer promise of genetic engineering. Imo it will be at least a century or two of uninterrupted research before we get there, but one day, our will will feed back into the carrier of that will: our neuroanatomy. The potential for truly spectacular mistakes is there, but not until that point do I think we stand a chance of leaving our inherited animal drives behind. That will be the great singularity: the Burgess Shale moment of posthumanity. After that, I predict a vigorous evolutionary discourse (read: total interstellar war) between the different new blueprints reified. I have written short fiction à propos this very vision ... neither utopian nor dystopian, perhaps transtopian. cn

 

[Carthoris]

Then you seek the freedom from goverment that only exists in a few countries in the world.
May I suggest a destination. Somalia is your dream state, Low taxes, small goverment and the freedom to rise to your full potential.

You suggesting that Somalia is what Libertarian government looks like is the same as saying that the USSR is what Democratic government looks like. Libertarians are not against government. Most of us realize quite plainly that the government has a purpose and a place. Somalia's problems are something else. Somalia is a failed socialist country. You realize that, right?

Let us recap:

Somalia = Result of Socialism. IE: Failure.

Death = Result of too much government power.

Libertarianism = Closest thing to libertarianism was the founding of America. You know, the most successful country in the world that is now in decline due to leaving the founding principles.

 

[Carthoris]

most of the republicans just call themselves libertarians out of embarrassment. then they argue as to why women shouldn't have the liberty to control their own bodies and why gays shouldn't have the liberty to marry the partner of their choice. these people are morons and, quite often, sock puppets.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults by contract. As far as womens rights: I wouldn't vote against pro-choice, but it is a still a evil thing to do by my standards. That is the difference between Liberty and Republican/Democrats ideas. I realize that sometimes my moral guidelines force me to be for things that I personally find abhorrent. You guys feel that whatever you like is the right thing to do. The fact that you all fall into the same mold for beliefs means you really just follow the parties completely and it has nothing to do with beliefs.

 

[abandonconflict]

You suggesting that Somalia is what Libertarian government looks like is the same as saying that the USSR is what Democratic government looks like. Libertarians are not against government. Most of us realize quite plainly that the government has a purpose and a place. Somalia's problems are something else. Somalia is a failed socialist country. You realize that, right?

Let us recap:

Somalia = Result of Socialism. IE: Failure.

Death = Result of too much government power.

Libertarianism = Closest thing to libertarianism was the founding of America. You know, the most successful country in the world that is now in decline due to leaving the founding principles.

Actually the constitution doesn't favor free-market capitalism at all. In fact, socialism is quite compatible with the constitution.

 

[Carthoris]

Libertarianism in America is not what Libertarianism was when the term was coined. The very new movement which is associated with opposition to all things leftist has vigorously attempted to divorce the term from it's original meaning. Libertarian Socialism was around a century and a half ago and was the first form of anti-statism. Quit using our word for your right wing movement. A consistent anarchist opposes not only government but also the power derived from the consolidation of wealth. If you support the private ownership of the means of production of finite resources with private armies controlled by said owners (see anarchocapitalism) you are no anarchist, you simple wish for a new master.

Government is the lesser of two evils. At least government is theoretically supposed to protect the interests of citizenry. The people who would benefit from complete deregulation will destroy the environment and starve you (or replace all the goods in your store with GMO food) for profit.

Liberalism as an ideology existed long before a century and a half ago. I disagree with Republicans and Democrats. Communism without government would be a voluntary association of the type they tried in Catalonia. Essentially, it was free people freely entering into this without government coercion. In the end, however, the power would of ended up with the leaders of parties just like it has here in America. I think this matches Cann's version of Utopian thought. IE: impossible to sustain because it depends on people doing the right things. The very definition of liberty means that the usage of the word to describe communism is pretty retarded.

Liberty: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

 

[Carthoris]

Actually the constitution doesn't favor free-market capitalism at all. In fact, socialism is quite compatible with the constitution.

Socialism as an ideology and lifestyle are not the same thing as Socialism as a government. The first would be considered charity and the second oppression.

 

[abandonconflict]

Socialism as an ideology and lifestyle are not the same thing as Socialism as a government. The first would be considered charity and the second oppression.

I don't blame you for this mistake, it seems everyone makes. I think all people nowadays hear socialism and have a knee-jerk. The mistake you are making, like everyone else, is that you've ignored the distinction between state socialism (which I contend is really no different from state capitalism) and libertarian socialism. Instead of using the phrase "socialism as government" use the phrase "socialism as economy". I already know what to expect though, the inevitable retort will be that I am pushing Marxism (you'll notice that is the only time I mention the M word) and go on a diatribe about the ills of nationalizing resources. That would be state socialism. That is not what I am talking about. Power to the people. By that I don't mean power to the state or power to the corporations.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Actually the constitution doesn't favor free-market capitalism at all. In fact, socialism is quite compatible with the constitution.

as long as the concept of private property is conveniently ignored, as well as the concept of freedom,. liberty, and personal sovereignty.

so basically as long as you ignore 3/4 of the us constitution,, socialism is a perfect fit.

using the same failed arguments over and over doesnt make the arguments valid.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I don't blame you for this mistake, it seems everyone makes. I think all people nowadays hear socialism and have a knee-jerk. The mistake you are making, like everyone else, is that you've ignored the distinction between state socialism (which I contend is really no different from state capitalism) and libertarian socialism. Instead of using the phrase "socialism as government" use the phrase "socialism as economy". I already know what to expect though, the inevitable retort will be that I am pushing Marxism (you'll notice that is the only time I mention the M word) and go on a diatribe about the ills of nationalizing resources. That would be state socialism. That is not what I am talking about. Power to the people. By that I don't mean power to the state or power to the corporations.

yes, by cleverly (not) avoiding actually saying what you mean, you can mean anything to everyone. debate obama style.

not gonna pop up your wikipage again? with it''s mindless talk of "converting" private property to "collective property" by some unexplained means, and the enthroning of the "collective" in a manner that is, not only entirely different from leninist "soviets" or maoist "agricultural plan" collective farms, but EXACTLY the same? no discussions of the way it will all just work together seamlessly all mysteriously without any "government" or "state" or "authority" to keep the wheels turning and prevent the rise of local warlords,, or invasion and conquest by a nearby, and not so utopian actual nation state? nah, you dont even wanna talk about the details of your shitty "plan". the details dont matter, all that matters is how you FEEL when you read the broad strokes.

your libertarian socialism is nothing but a poorly crafted deception, and continuing to sell it means you are a deceiver.

 

[canndo]

You suggesting that Somalia is what Libertarian government looks like is the same as saying that the USSR is what Democratic government looks like. Libertarians are not against government. Most of us realize quite plainly that the government has a purpose and a place. Somalia's problems are something else. Somalia is a failed socialist country. You realize that, right?


Let us recap:

Somalia = Result of Socialism. IE: Failure.

Death = Result of too much government power.

Libertarianism = Closest thing to libertarianism was the founding of America. You know, the most successful country in the world that is now in decline due to leaving the founding principles.

In decline is it? or do you think it is in decline because it has elements of many other forms of government.

Can you show me a country that adheres strictly to the ideology of conservativism, where regulations and taxation are at a minimum and the individual is left to his on devices - that has been and is sucessful?

 

[abandonconflict]

as long as the concept of private property is conveniently ignored, as well as the concept of freedom,. liberty, and personal sovereignty.

so basically as long as you ignore 3/4 of the us constitution,, socialism is a perfect fit.

using the same failed arguments over and over doesnt make the arguments valid.

Nobody would be deprived of private property, quit foaming at the mouth idiot.

 

[abandonconflict]

yes, by cleverly (not) avoiding actually saying what you mean, you can mean anything to everyone. debate obama style.

not gonna pop up your wikipage again? with it''s mindless talk of "converting" private property to "collective property" by some unexplained means, and the enthroning of the "collective" in a manner that is, not only entirely different from leninist "soviets" or maoist "agricultural plan" collective farms, but EXACTLY the same? no discussions of the way it will all just work together seamlessly all mysteriously without any "government" or "state" or "authority" to keep the wheels turning and prevent the rise of local warlords,, or invasion and conquest by a nearby, and not so utopian actual nation state? nah, you dont even wanna talk about the details of your shitty "plan". the details dont matter, all that matters is how you FEEL when you read the broad strokes.

your libertarian socialism is nothing but a poorly crafted deception, and continuing to sell it means you are a deceiver.

It doesn't use the word convert and tradable stock would work just fine to share means of production with the workers who make it possible so long as they get a fair share instead of the boss's bratty kid inheriting it. If you would do less foaming at the mouth you would understand it. Clearly you don't want to understand it because it has a few words that, due to your programming, send you into a diatribe of nonsense, attributing views to me that I have never owned. I have vehemently denounced statism and you continually attribute it to me and it is getting disrespectful and rude. Why are you such a shill that it bothers you so much that the presence of the word socialism causes you to go into such a mouth foaming state? It literally requires a very high amount of willful ignorance to be such an ass hole.I'm now butt hurt, you win, fuck you.

I won't talk about it anymore, you have successfully concealed a good idea by ranting that it is something that it isn't.

 

[Carthoris]

I don't blame you for this mistake, it seems everyone makes. I think all people nowadays hear socialism and have a knee-jerk. The mistake you are making, like everyone else, is that you've ignored the distinction between state socialism (which I contend is really no different from state capitalism) and libertarian socialism. Instead of using the phrase "socialism as government" use the phrase "socialism as economy". I already know what to expect though, the inevitable retort will be that I am pushing Marxism (you'll notice that is the only time I mention the M word) and go on a diatribe about the ills of nationalizing resources. That would be state socialism. That is not what I am talking about. Power to the people. By that I don't mean power to the state or power to the corporations.

Socialism has two ways to go about it. 1) Free will. This would be considered charitable socialism in my opinion and cannot be mandated by the government, because then it is oppression. 2) Government mandated socialism. Anything forced by the government is not done by free will. Whether you force 1 person or 49.9% of them to do something the ultimate result is the same. State socialism.

I made no mistake. I simply layed out the only 2 types of socialism there are - state sponsored and non state sponsored. Anarchy cannot exist except in an ant colony type world where everyone is programmed to do their job and that is all. The only way to get the perfect cohesion necessary to implement socialism and succeed would be to quite simply remove the human impulses that make them want to amass lots of money, wealth, and power. I doubt those impulses could be removed voluntarily so you still would have a state sponsored and forced socialism. As humans we are incapable of this at present time. If we had the power of creation and there was no limit to the power we had then socialism would be possibly simply based upon everyone getting to have everything they wanted. If no one wanted for anything then the people in the world would really only do what they loved to do. However, the issue with this can be described by a quote from 'Enemy at the Gates'

"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

You can blame, or not blame, me for incorrectly perceived mistakes. My statement was 100% accurate. Socialism is either government enforced(statist socialism) or it isn't(freewill/lifestyle without coercion.) If you take away the means of production from those who have them then you are hurting people - you have made a decision to control the populace in some way - and you become the very statist socialist regime you know you don't want to be. "But it is different when I am in charge, I will do what is right and make everyone equal and prosperous." I doubt many dictators went into it thinking "I just wanna fuck some shit up and destroy people."

 

[Carthoris]

In decline is it? or do you think it is in decline because it has elements of many other forms of government.

Can you show me a country that adheres strictly to the ideology of conservativism, where regulations and taxation are at a minimum and the individual is left to his on devices - that has been and is sucessful?

I am not a conservative, and I do not agree with the conservative actions socially or financially. What you described isn't what they do - just what they say.

 

[cannabineer]

Socialism has two ways to go about it. 1) Free will. This would be considered charitable socialism in my opinion and cannot be mandated by the government, because then it is oppression. 2) Government mandated socialism. Anything forced by the government is not done by free will. Whether you force 1 person or 49.9% of them to do something the ultimate result is the same. State socialism.

I made no mistake. I simply layed out the only 2 types of socialism there are - state sponsored and non state sponsored. Anarchy cannot exist except in an ant colony type world where everyone is programmed to do their job and that is all.

Ants are not anarchic ... in fact their society meets the definition of totalitarian. Individual ants have been seen to try to march to their own beat, and then get edited out of the colony by a queen or an enforcer. So, if one is of a bent to coin a word, ants have an "obligarchy".

The only way to get the perfect cohesion necessary to implement socialism and succeed would be to quite simply remove the human impulses that make them want to amass lots of money, wealth, and power. I doubt those impulses could be removed voluntarily so you still would have a state sponsored and forced socialism. As humans we are incapable of this at present time. If we had the power of creation and there was no limit to the power we had then socialism would be possibly simply based upon everyone getting to have everything they wanted. If no one wanted for anything then the people in the world would really only do what they loved to do. However, the issue with this can be described by a quote from 'Enemy at the Gates'

"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."

You can blame, or not blame, me for incorrectly perceived mistakes. My statement was 100% accurate. Socialism is either government enforced(statist socialism) or it isn't(freewill/lifestyle without coercion.) If you take away the means of production from those who have them then you are hurting people - you have made a decision to control the populace in some way - and you become the very statist socialist regime you know you don't want to be. "But it is different when I am in charge, I will do what is right and make everyone equal and prosperous." I doubt many dictators went into it thinking "I just wanna fuck some shit up and destroy people."

 

[Carthoris]

Nobody would be deprived of private property, quit foaming at the mouth idiot.

If I take my money that I have saved working at my job and buy equipment to make hammers in my garage and do good at it, and take pride in my work. I pimp my hammers out to all the construction people and do it at a good price. I make money and buy a small warehouse and put my equipment in it. I continue to make hammers and build up a business out of my love for hammers. Would this be allowed in your ideology? What would happen if I started doing this even though the means of production was controlled by the government? Would I be locked in jail? My equipment confiscated? Where does 'private property' and 'means of production' end? Once again, if we had the ability to produce such an excess of things that every person could have whatever they dreamt of... MAYBE. There would still be massive inequality though in other areas of human life. If we somehow figured the first part out, would we stop? Or would we continue to push until finally everyone was completely equal? (No genders, no needs, no dreams, no abilities outside of those necessary for the position) Where does this quest end?

That is a serious question. In your opinion, where does this quest end?

 

[Carthoris]

It doesn't use the word convert and tradable stock would work just fine to share means of production with the workers who make it possible so long as they get a fair share instead of the boss's bratty kid inheriting it. If you would do less foaming at the mouth you would understand it. Clearly you don't want to understand it because it has a few words that, due to your programming, send you into a diatribe of nonsense, attributing views to me that I have never owned. I have vehemently denounced statism and you continually attribute it to me and it is getting disrespectful and rude. Why are you such a shill that it bothers you so much that the presence of the word socialism causes you to go into such a mouth foaming state? It literally requires a very high amount of willful ignorance to be such an ass hole.I'm now butt hurt, you win, fuck you.

I won't talk about it anymore, you have successfully concealed a good idea by ranting that it is something that it isn't.

I am half drunk, but I am still not angry and I don't think I have been insulting anyone. I realize in the end it is a difference of values and beliefs that make us strive for different realities. Socialism isn't a horrible thing if it is voluntary. You can't force people to be socialist though or it is just statism.

In the end, if the human race continues for another five or ten thousand years then the end result is the same. I think how we get to the goal is as important as the goal itself. I figure we will be the borg some day if we don't die off. All part of the collective.(Im not a trecky, I dunno if something horrible was behind all that - lol) It can happen through force or through love of each other. Through force, I would consider it evil and brainwashing. Through love, the crowning achievement of the human race. I can understand why others would believe otherwise, but I doubt I will ever change my views on that.

Wouldn't increasing our ability to manufacture and increasing technology give rise to utopia either way? Either we are going into another dark ages, or we are going to move to the next level. We aren't very good at being static.

 

[Carthoris]

Ants are not anarchic ... in fact their society meets the definition of totalitarian. Individual ants have been seen to try to march to their own beat, and then get edited out of the colony by a queen or an enforcer. So, if one is of a bent to coin a word, ants have an "obligarchy".

If socialism worked as well as a ant colony we would all be socialists by now. Everyone works towards the common goal. The queen isn't really a queen, is she? She doesn't do anything but lay eggs - her job. The ants are free to leave, the colony doesn't force them to stay. They could simply walk away. They are there because it is their place and they know it. There is no where to walk to in our society to get away from the dictates of society.

 

[Dr Kynes]

It doesn't use the word convert and tradable stock would work just fine to share means of production with the workers who make it possible so long as they get a fair share instead of the boss's bratty kid inheriting it. If you would do less foaming at the mouth you would understand it. Clearly you don't want to understand it because it has a few words that, due to your programming, send you into a diatribe of nonsense, attributing views to me that I have never owned. I have vehemently denounced statism and you continually attribute it to me and it is getting disrespectful and rude. Why are you such a shill that it bothers you so much that the presence of the word socialism causes you to go into such a mouth foaming state? It literally requires a very high amount of willful ignorance to be such an ass hole.I'm now butt hurt, you win, fuck you.

I won't talk about it anymore, you have successfully concealed a good idea by ranting that it is something that it isn't.

i asked you to tell me exactly how the proletarians will "collectivize" the "means of production" without taking it from the owners by force and you started whining about dope seeds being the "means of production"

your "libertarian socialism" talk is just a bad joke. its the same old "Stalinist Authoritarian Socialism" in a new frock.