More on the evils of capitalism.

[abandonconflict]

You're overstating, perhaps as an excuse to disengage.
I am not asking you to do or stfu.

i am asking "how, keeping the realities of Prisoner's Dilemma in the forefront of our attention?"
And I am of course not demanding that you present a complete and bulletproof blueprint ... just oh pretty please don't obstruct its formulation!
Talking about it is much less strenuous than doing it.
So let's both acknowledge that opportunists are a basic problem with all anarchist proposals, unless you're willing to see how to adapt an anarchist modus to the presence of the thieves and wannabe warlords. cn

"Keeping the realities of Prisoner's Dilemma" means that I accept it as natural law and therefore debate ought to be limited to it. So first, let's focus on that, since it is your silver bullet, against which anarchism (rather egalitarianism, a central concept of anarchism) is rendered fallacious.

Even if it is natural law, I need only prove that egalitarianism (or any system in which more equality exists) is preferable to either status quo (or any other model for that matter) to defend egalitarianism.

So let's examine this Prisoner's Dilemma first to see how well it fits the debate in the first place. It is a game theory expiriment which shows (conclusively) why two individuals would not cooperate, even if it is their best interests to do so.

"Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail."

OK. So we see here, a study group consisting of criminals only. These people have already a pattern of criminal behavior. They are given options by a party in whom the best interests are to keep both incarcerated, so the whole game is rigged against criminals.

I think a better example, would be the simple question:

Would a guy who is able to get everything he needs from legit, noncriminal behavior, to take care of his family, would he commit a crime or engage in any aberrant behavior, thus risking his ability to live well?

I posit that in an egalitarian society, devoid of wasteful military and prison and drug war spending that crime would be drastically reduced. In a society where criminal behavior is rewarded, criminal behavior is not an aberration.

 

[Doer]

Selfishness does not equal capitalism. Selfishness has been inherent in any ism throughout history. Somalian pirates operate in their own self interest.

It's a non answer.

Selfishness is to look after ones self in self rule. It is good. In Sun Tsu, only Self can be trusted....somewhat. In the bible we are counciled to know ones self.

We also know if you feed fish, no one cares to know the necessity of fishing. Selflessness is an individual practice. It is a high glory to Know just a smidgen of the experience that is there, beyond the thought cloud. The actual Self.

Since selflessness is a religious concept only, and actually impossible, selfishness is also a religious judgment only. If you can say when you are being selfish...fine. When you fail and look over at me...you can judge me as selfish against your failure to be selfless.

Both are impossible. It is only possible to be, here, NOW.

The opposite has been tried and tried and keeps failing. It is some version of a Nanny State.

 

[cannabineer]

"Keeping the realities of Prisoner's Dilemma" means that I accept it as natural law and therefore debate ought to be limited to it. So first, let's focus on that, since it is your silver bullet, against which anarchism (rather egalitarianism, a central concept of anarchism) is rendered fallacious.

Even if it is natural law, I need only prove that egalitarianism (or any system in which more equality exists) is preferable to either status quo (or any other model for that matter) to defend egalitarianism.

So let's examine this Prisoner's Dilemma first to see how well it fits the debate in the first place. It is a game theory expiriment which shows (conclusively) why two individuals would not cooperate, even if it is their best interests to do so.

"Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get three years in prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to two years in jail."

OK. So we see here, a study group consisting of criminals only. These people have already a pattern of criminal behavior. They are given options by a party in whom the best interests are to keep both incarcerated, so the whole game is rigged against criminals.

I think a better example, would be the simple question:

Would a guy who is able to get everything he needs from legit, noncriminal behavior, to take care of his family, would he commit a crime or engage in any aberrant behavior, thus risking his ability to live well?

I posit that in an egalitarian society, devoid of wasteful military and prison and drug war spending that crime would be drastically reduced. In a society where criminal behavior is rewarded, criminal behavior is not an aberration.

The setup you've posted is very limited. But if you explore Nash game theory a bit, the matrix that came out of it is remarkably robust and widely applicable. It doesn't seem to be as marginal as you're making it look.

As for your question about the guy with something to lose, the reasonable answer seems to be that most would not, but not everybody. (Where we differ is how large we think the margin of defectors is. You believe "small enough to not matter". i believe" big enough to break the back of the cooperators" Impasse.)
I counterposit that in an initially egalitarian society, there will be enough people for whom unfairly gaming the system provides a visceral thrill. These guys groove on winning by cheating. You call them capitalists. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Selfishness...is good.
Since selflessness is a religious concept only, and actually impossible

 

[abandonconflict]

The setup you've posted is very limited. But if you explore Nash game theory a bit, the matrix that came out of it is remarkably robust and widely applicable. It doesn't seem to be as marginal as you're making it look.

As for your question about the guy with something to lose, the reasonable answer seems to be that most would not, but no everybody.
I counterposit that in an initially egalitarian society, there will be enough people for whom unfairly gaming the system provides a visceral thrill. These guys groove on winning by cheating. You call them capitalists. cn

You specifically cited Prisoner's Dilemma. To your counter, I posit that if a society were to free itself from subjugation by aristocracy, it would be a result of a raising of the bar of the collective subconscious. It would be an enlightenment. It would be the result of an increase in average human intelligence. If we free ourselves, we will not allow someone else to rule us so easily.

 

[cannabineer]

You specifically cited Prisoner's Dilemma. To your counter, I posit that if a society were to free itself from subjugation by aristocracy, it would be a result of a raising of the bar of the collective subconscious. It would be an enlightenment. It would be the result of an increase in average human intelligence. If we free ourselves, we will not allow someone else to rule us so easily.

And that is what I do not share with you. I do not believe in a phase transition within human nature. We have had free societies multiple times in our pats, and they fell to intra-or extramural aggressors. I simply don't believe that the free condition is stable, the way we are now. There are too many defectors in our midst, and improving the environment won't fix that.
i think I have identified where we have an unbridgable difference in our conception of man's nature. By your leave, I'll disengage, and i hope you understand that it is with undiminished respect.
And the feeling that I would like to be wrong but daren't hope it.
cn

 

[abandonconflict]

And that is what I do not share with you. I do not believe in a phase transition within human nature. We have had free societies multiple times in our pats, and they fell to intra-or extramural aggressors. I simply don't believe that the free condition is stable, the way we are now. There are too many defectors in our midst, and improving the environment won't fix that.
i think I have identified where we have an unbridgable difference in our conception of man's nature. By your leave, I'll disengage, and i hope you understand that it is with undiminished respect.
And the feeling that I would like to be wrong but daren't hope it.
cn

I'm not pushing revolution. I want you to free yourself.

Stop believing in authority and start believing in people.

 

[ginwilly]

And the feeling that I would like to be wrong but daren't hope it.
cn

This is where I am too. Abandon's reality is very much more attractive than the one I live in. It would be lovely if he were right, but on the off chance that everyone else is instead, I'll keep a wary eye on my fellow man.

Besides AC. This shift in enlightenment you speak of may or may not happen, but i can say confidently that will not happen with the flip of a switch.

7 pages in now and you refuse to acknowledge even the existence of the possibility of bad actors in your utopia and how those bad apples will be dealt with without outside force.

I think I'll follow the bear's example and bow out. If you decide to discuss how this happens instead of it just will, I'll come back.

 

[abandonconflict]

Besides AC. This shift in enlightenment you speak of may or may not happen, but i can say confidently that will not happen with the flip of a switch.

It happens a little bit everyday. We're all part of it.

7 pages in now and you refuse to acknowledge even the existence of the possibility of bad actors in your utopia and how those bad apples will be dealt with without outside force.

No. I have not. In fact I have identified the cause of aberrant behavior. It is the system that rewards this behavior. Anything that eases the stress caused by extreme competition and rigid socioeconomic stratification will do a lot more to prevent this behavior than what you suggest, which is even more fucking capitalism.

 

[ginwilly]

It happens a little bit everyday. We're all part of it.



No. I have not. In fact I have identified the cause of aberrant behavior. It is the system that rewards this behavior. Anything that eases the stress caused by extreme competition and rigid socioeconomic stratification will do a lot more to prevent this behavior than what you suggest, which is even more fucking capitalism.

OK, without capitalism murder, theft, rape and generally poor behavior would never exist because it never existed before capitalism?

Your hatred of capitalism crosses the border of rationality.

How tribal natives handled this flaw in human behavior was to remove the perpetrator from the tribe. How will you handle these people while we wait for our evolutional transformation to be complete? You admit yourself this enlightenment will occur in steps, what preventative measures will you put in place, without outside force?

 

[abandonconflict]

OK, without capitalism murder, theft, rape and generally poor behavior would never exist because it never existed before capitalism?

Your hatred of capitalism crosses the border of rationality.

How tribal natives handled this flaw in human behavior was to remove the perpetrator from the tribe. How will you handle these people while we wait for our evolutional transformation to be complete? You admit yourself this enlightenment will occur in steps, what preventative measures will you put in place, without outside force?

Are you not native to Earth? Why do you think that it is a good thing that earthlings compete with eachother when they could cooperate and actually solve some problems?

You have to decolonize your mind in order to understand liberty.

 

[ginwilly]

Are you not native to Earth? Why do you think that it is a good thing that earthlings compete with eachother when they could cooperate and actually solve some problems?

You have to decolonize your mind in order to understand liberty.

I don't say competition is good or bad, simply that it exists. What you keep saying is how you wish it were instead of how to deal with how it actually is.

I fear you are being purposefully deflective or lack the capacity to form a coherent thought of your own on the subject. Your answer that capitalism is the core of bad behavior leads me to think it's the latter. Apparently you have not seen Chomsky answer this either or you would be ready with a quote on the actual subject we broached.

You may as well use the God's will defense. You are asking me to believe something based on theory when all facts point to the opposite.

 

[abandonconflict]

OK, without capitalism murder, theft, rape and generally poor behavior would never exist because it never existed before capitalism?

Actually, what I said was more along the lines of competition rewarding aberrant behavior.

Capitalism is the competitive social model is it not?

How about mutual aid as a better strategy for survival as a species. I think it is a good idea.

 

[abandonconflict]

I don't say competition is good or bad, simply that it exists. What you keep saying is how you wish it were instead of how to deal with how it actually is.

How about you stop worshiping the invisible hand of Adam Smith.

 

[abandonconflict]

If I showed you a hundred corporate logos, I bet you could name the company for every single one.

If I showed you pictures of the leaves of a hundred different plants, could you name 25?


Someone asked how to implement my utopia. I think a step in the right direction would be to start acting like we're from this planet.

 

[learning05]

Apparently you have not seen Chomsky answer this either or you would be ready with a quote on the actual subject we broached.

Do you mind pointing me to where he addressed this? I would like to learn more...

 

[abandonconflict]

The setup you've posted is very limited. But if you explore Nash game theory a bit, the matrix that came out of it is remarkably robust and widely applicable. It doesn't seem to be as marginal as you're making it look.

As for your question about the guy with something to lose, the reasonable answer seems to be that most would not, but not everybody. (Where we differ is how large we think the margin of defectors is. You believe "small enough to not matter". i believe" big enough to break the back of the cooperators" Impasse.)
I counterposit that in an initially egalitarian society, there will be enough people for whom unfairly gaming the system provides a visceral thrill. These guys groove on winning by cheating. You call them capitalists. cn

It overwhelmingly suggests mutual aid as the most beneficial for all involved. Stop being afraid that someone is going to fuck you over.

 

[ginwilly]

Actually, what I said was more along the lines of competition rewarding aberrant behavior.

Capitalism is the competitive social model is it not?

How about mutual aid as a better strategy for survival as a species. I think it is a good idea.

Competition rewards behaviors we see as good too. Sports, education, technology are all areas where competition is not evil.

Your beer softball league is an example of a competitive social model too.

I agree with the last sentence, let's all tap our heels together 3 times and make it happen. (Notice I have given one more example on the how than you have now).

 

[abandonconflict]

Competition rewards behaviors we see as good too. Sports, education, technology are all areas where competition is not evil.

Your beer softball league is an example of a competitive social model too.

I agree with the last sentence, let's all tap our heels together 3 times and make it happen. (Notice I have given one more example on the how than you have now).

I don't drink alcohol, but if I did, I think I would prefer beer made by people who want me to enjoy it, not people who are worried about healthcare and rough traffic on the way home.

 

[ginwilly]

Do you mind pointing me to where he addressed this? I would like to learn more...

I'm sorry learning, Chomsky hasn't addressed either as far as I can find. It's the missing link in anarchist theory. The assumption is we won't have bad people anymore because we won't be creating any. What to do with those that already exist is the answer better avoided. The house of cards falls apart with any credible answer.