Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paleo And Politics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
    But HIM seems to want more personal mobility.
    I think mobility is very important to a healthy society. I also think that society changes and the system needs to be able to bend with those changes without causing things to get worse. One of the big problems with the USA today is that as society changes, every new group sees government as a way to leverage everyone else to accomplish their own goals. "Diffuse harm vs. concentrated benefit" always comes into play, with every group realizing that if they can get just a nickle from every resident of the USA they'll be able to accomplish their pet project.... which is a problem but tolerable when the pet project is relatively non-controversial (e.g. sending a man to the moon), but can attack the core of society when the pet project is controversial (e.g. funding abortions). There needs to be a way to curtail that, and the voluntary government association idea seems to do the job. It's needed because there will be mobility whether you want it or not.

    Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
    Back to HIM's proposal. On considering your geographic state replacements, I don't see any significant difference between them and my private companies. The one difference is that those state (businesses) would have a board of governors elected by the customers of that business. Otherwise, both are simply offering one or more services.
    I see it two ways:

    First, what works as a "business" changes drastically if associations are voluntary.

    I can't think of any pure examples of a pure voluntary association "business" but there was something close from the 1990s through early 2000s in the combination of the European dole system (along with college students, enthusiasts working on their own time, and others) and the Open Source Software development model. The dole allowed some people to survive without working, and OSS model allowed some of those people to cooperatively assist in the development of a "product" in a sense that was analogous to the products of commercial enterprise, in a voluntary association way, where they would otherwise have been forced to concentrate on survival. Once it was apparent that the "product" had monetary value to the rest of the world, the dole participant's contribution as a percentage of the whole diminished (though their absolute contribution has likely continued to grow) but for a brief period they defined the model.

    What is interesting about that situation is that, in order to hold their purely voluntary (and not face to face) organizations together, they wound up following the same paths we see in representative and democratic government. Voting, dialectic, parties, schisms, et cetera. To me that indicates that something like a government model (vs. the for-pay business model where you follow the money) is more appropriate in a post-automation scenario. The motivators that drive today's businesses aren't as strong in the post-automation scenario, so the current model of what a "business" is doesn't seem likely to survive.

    Which gets us to the second point: I see it as a transitional path. Rather than ripping up these systems with all their history, systems that many people honestly love, it makes sense to allow them to adapt to the new realities they face.
    Last edited by Him; 01-25-2013, 05:13 PM.

    Comment


    • I'm not objecting at all to mobility, I've certainly engaged considerably in it. Owning multiple houses is a great convenience. But would there be a 'base' community, or more that one? I still think a better way to curtail "Diffuse harm vs. concentrated benefit" is to have no Gov't, when each person can make his/her own choice. Or if a group of people want a specific choice and do make that choice, what benefit do they gain by being a member of a Gov't group. (Perhaps it's the name - Gov't)

      I'm not familiar with the European dole system. Is it simply that everyone contributed and some benefited. IF so, that is the same as our 19th century charity organizations but without forcing requirements. Some of those organizations still exist. I did participate in the OSS project at one time There was no renumeration, was I a dole participant?

      Yes, much can be done through technology and not face-to-face. But do you really believe life can be sustained that way?

      You're reminding me of the mechanics of the Swiss Confederacy, which is very effective. Town meetings are held often, weekly if there is anything to discuss. In person now, but wouldn't have to be. The topics, however, are usually local and geographically confined.

      Perhaps what you want is distinguish between the current standard business model and that of a community volunteer group, community being widely understood. Community volunteer groups did occasionally become profit-making, and subsequently became more formally organized. This has happened several times in my community. But these would not be called Gov'ts.
      Last edited by Cryptocode; 01-25-2013, 06:05 PM.
      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
        Friedman proposed the Negative Income Tax:

        In economics, a negative income tax (abbreviated NIT) is a progressive income tax system where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government. Such a system has been discussed by economists but never fully implemented. It was developed by British politician Juliet Rhys-Williams in the 1940s[1] and later when United States economist Milton Friedman combined NIT with his flat tax proposals.[2]
        Yes, but a NIT is not based on labor, although it is based on income. It is more of a forced charitable contribution.
        "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

        Comment


        • On e onomics, have Any of you ever watch the Crash Course?
          The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity

          And Mary Logan's Whither Complexity?
          Dr. Mary Logan - Whither Complexity?
          Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
            I'm not objecting at all to mobility, I've certainly engaged considerably in it. Owning multiple houses is a great convenience. But would there be a 'base' community, or more that one?
            Or none. It should be up to the individual and all should be viable legal choices.

            I still think a better way to curtail "Diffuse harm vs. concentrated benefit" is to have no Gov't, when each person can make his/her own choice. Or if a group of people want a specific choice and do make that choice, what benefit do they gain by being a member of a Gov't group. (Perhaps it's the name - Gov't)
            Power abhors a vacuum. I don't think you can have "nothing" because the first time there's an incident people will use it as a pretext to change the system to give themselves some of the unused power. Instead you need to shunt the power in safe directions...into work that everyone agrees needs doing, but that bolsters individual freedom. Then you can have your services (call them what you will) to do the everyday work.

            I'm not familiar with the European dole system. Is it simply that everyone contributed and some benefited. IF so, that is the same as our 19th century charity organizations but without forcing requirements. Some of those organizations still exist. I did participate in the OSS project at one time There was no renumeration, was I a dole participant?
            It's just a welfare system, but much "stronger" than the US form. I have a friend in Germany, healthy male of about my age, who has lived his entire life with an apartment and a little bit of spending money, without ever having a job. He is free to spend his entire day playing on the internet, which means that if the mood struck him he could afford to put in 8+ hours a day on an OSS project without interfering with his personal security or comfort. You, on the other hand, probably had to have a day job to support yourself. That's the difference that allowed some of those guys to put in significant efforts for basically zero monetary gain and bootstrap those technologies to the point where commercial enterprises started seeing value.

            Yes, much can be done through technology and not face-to-face. But do you really believe life can be sustained that way?
            Automated insemination? No, that's probably not what you meant.

            I think people should have both, but they should be able to choose one or the other if that's what they like.

            ...The topics, however, are usually local and geographically confined.
            The topics are based on the interests of the people meeting. Most people have an interest in local and geographically confined because that's where they are. They also have an interest in things they care about (civil rights groups, religions, hobby groups, whatever) and those are usually not geographically limited or local. I don't see any reason to treat those differently.

            Perhaps what you want is distinguish between the current standard business model and that of a community volunteer group, community being widely understood. Community volunteer groups did occasionally become profit-making, and subsequently became more formally organized. This has happened several times in my community. But these would not be called Gov'ts.
            In a post-automation (or perhaps post-scarcity) world, the motive force behind transitioning to profit-making is greatly diminished. If you don't need to work, are you going to go to work for a company that pays you but doesn't fulfill you? Already, with the resources consumers have in the USA, businesses are finding it necessary to do more than offer a good product for a fair price...they must have an aspirational or ideological tie to the consumer. Hence the eco-business, cause-businesses, lifestyle businesses, et cetera. Businesses do that stuff because consumers respond to it...and it's only going to get more important. There will come a time when consumers won't buy from a car manufacturer unless that manufacturer is aligned with their social views.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Him View Post
              There will come a time when consumers won't buy from a car manufacturer unless that manufacturer is aligned with their social views.
              I sure hope you are right. I already avoid WalMart because it kills local business, but I'm afraid its too late.

              When I look into the future, I see a world where the consolidation of resources is complete. I see a world where there is a multi-billionaire class, a control (or State/Politcian/Police class and a servant class. There will be THE Energy Company, THE Food Production Company, THE Mining Company, THE Bank, THE TotalMart, THE Textile Company, and the POLICE/TAX COLLECTER, etc. As far as the governments and political classes go, whether they are left leaning or right leaning, they are all working towards this consolidation. The only difference is the justifications they use to get there and the vision of who will hold the reigns. If a true world-wide consolidation occurred (and we are fucking close now), to someone in the servant class (us I'm afraid) is there really ANY difference whether the rulers call themselves communists, capitalists, or God?

              I recently read (I can't remember the source, so don't take my word for it), that there are approx 1800 billionaires who control 94% of the worlds resources, and the other 7 billion of us divide the remaining 6%.

              The only way to fight is to do your best to not participate. Localism and self-reliance is our only real defense.
              "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

              Comment


              • Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                I recently read (I can't remember the source, so don't take my word for it), that there are approx 1800 billionaires who control 94% of the worlds resources, and the other 7 billion of us divide the remaining 6%.

                The only way to fight is to do your best to not participate. Localism and self-reliance is our only real defense.
                You realize how funny that juxtaposition is, right?

                First, 3,888,889:1 odds mean it would suck to be one of those 1800 if the majority got pissy.

                Second, and far more importantly: The only way we have resource limits is if we stay local. The solar system alone has amazingly vast resources, and our one little galaxy seems to have about 100 earth-like planets for every single human currently living, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. The resources at our disposal are ridiculously, almost inconceivably, vast. Our only real defense is to stop thinking of this one planet as though it's the entire universe.

                Comment


                • You realize that historically 3.8 million to one is a very favorable ratio for a ruler. In fact Stalin probably was responsible for that many deaths (anywhere from 20 million to 60 million)> Hitler probably killed 11 million. The power doesn't come from a person to person ratio, it comes from the control of resources (which is almost absolute now).

                  As far as your space argument goes, how the hell are you (yes you personally) going to access it? You are thinking from a middle class point of view with a world view that believes that THEY give a shit about an individual.

                  You are no different than a goat herder in Afghanistan who is trying to get a piece of the riches found in the West. Try too hard, and a drone strike will vaporize your ass.
                  "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                    You realize that historically 3.8 million to one is a very favorable ratio for a ruler.
                    Your analysis isn't really correct. Stalin had 165,000,000 people who largely agreed with his practices circa 1934. The ratio was skewed heavily in Stalin's favor, not against. Even if you credit 60 million (a figure which depends on a population estimate of 180+ million in the early 1930s), that's still basically 2.5:1 for, not 3.8 million to 1 against.

                    The power doesn't come from a person to person ratio, it comes from the control of resources (which is almost absolute now).
                    All power is human. It's ideas and agreement. If people stop agreeing en mas, if you go from 99.999% basically satisfied with the status quo (which is what we have today) to 50% satisfied, control of resources can shift in the blink of an eye.

                    As far as your space argument goes, how the hell are you (yes you personally) going to access it? You are thinking from a middle class point of view with a world view that believes that THEY give a shit about an individual.
                    There are a couple of start ups now that have formed for asteroid mining. If I personally want to access those resources, I invest in those companies and/or start my own. It's not easy but no new thing ever is.

                    I don't think you have a strong grasp of how I'm thinking (in other words, you are wrong).

                    You are no different than a goat herder in Afghanistan who is trying to get a piece of the riches found in the West. Try too hard, and a drone strike will vaporize your ass.
                    I, on the other hand, now have a very good idea of how you are "thinking."

                    The barriers are in your mind. That doesn't mean they aren't real for you, but the fact that you have barriers doesn't mean that everyone does.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                      On e onomics, have Any of you ever watch the Crash Course?
                      The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity

                      And Mary Logan's Whither Complexity?
                      Dr. Mary Logan - Whither Complexity?
                      Ionly listened to the first 6 chapters of the first film, it was way too slow. But the second was very interesting. I'd never thought about net energy before, or combined it with the other factors: population, food, complexity, etc. Thank you.

                      It does reinforce my future view, and I'm glad that my family is pretty well prepared. I believe our money is going to colapse within this decade.
                      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

                      Comment


                      • Your analysis is completely incorrect. Am I to beelieve that over a third of the population of the Soviet Union were homicidal circa 1934? Perhaps a better explination would be that those people were afraid of the syatem of control in play at the time. Much like the system being built in the US right now I might add. Or are you suggesting that the hypothetical goat herder's neighbours are somehow complicit in his death by not shooting down drones.

                        My thinking is not only much more correct, but also much more practical, while you go chasing asteroids, I will tend my garden and hunt wild game. All the while refusing the game being played out by the owners of the spaceships
                        "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Him View Post
                          Automated insemination? No, that's probably not what you meant.

                          I think people should have both, but they should be able to choose one or the other if that's what they like.
                          ROFL! Now quite. To have a choice, move or stay, I agree. But to be constantly on the move, no. I've done enough of that.

                          The latest data I've seen shows that married or rooming together, with or without children is now less that 1/2 our housing. More housing is occupied by Singles.

                          Our communities were held together by families. If there are minimal families perhaps there will be no geographic communities.

                          I still think you need a different name for what you are describing than a 'non-geographic state', that's not a good description. How about a Community of Interest.

                          I also think our views depend to some degree on our age, physical health, and family status. In my ideal country there were no States or Fed. And I have no objection to Communities of either kind. I think they're natural.

                          Back to your points 3,4,5. What happens to people in our country who are not citizens? Who have not paid the price?

                          And you speak of 'trust fund babes', where did that trust fund come from?
                          Last edited by Cryptocode; 01-26-2013, 03:08 PM.
                          "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                            Your analysis is completely incorrect.
                            We shall see.

                            Am I to beelieve that over a third of the population of the Soviet Union were homicidal circa 1934?
                            Why not? Homicide just means killing humans, and most people are willing to do that at one time or another. Maybe "defense of family", maybe something less savory, but almost everyone is "homicidal" in the right circumstances.

                            Perhaps a better explination would be that those people were afraid of the syatem of control in play at the time. Much like the system being built in the US right now I might add. Or are you suggesting that the hypothetical goat herder's neighbours are somehow complicit in his death by not shooting down drones.
                            In 1937 the Soviet Union performed a population census. You may not remember this, but an interesting quirk about the soviets is that theywere officially atheist. Stalin himself told the census organizers to include a question about religion. What he wanted to hear was that everyone was atheist. What he got was that 57% of respondents answered that they were religious. This was a direct defiance of Stalin and the Soviet state. It so pissed off Stalin/the Soviets that they....wait for it....never asked about religion again.

                            Yeah, those people were skeered alright!


                            My thinking is not only much more correct, but also much more practical, while you go chasing asteroids, I will tend my garden and hunt wild game. All the while refusing the game being played out by the owners of the spaceships
                            Your thinking isn't correct, it's defeatist and short term. Nothing says you can't have a garden, hunt wild game, AND chase asteroids.
                            Last edited by Him; 01-26-2013, 12:06 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                              ....But to be constantly on the move, no. I've done enough of that.
                              Years ago I lived on a sailboat. I discovered along the way just how the current US system is rigged against people who have no fixed address. That is a social injustice that most people are completely insensitive to, and one that the current way all governments are geographically bound exacerbates. I think it's important to let those people who want to sail up and down the coast on a sailboat, or rove the country in an RV, or just wander the earth with no fixed address, do so without being second class citizens, completely disenfranchised, or otherwise penalized. The unfairness to those people is an architectural problem directly related to the idea that governments are geographically local.

                              Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                              The latest data I've seen shows that married or rooming together, with or without children is now less that 1/2 our housing. More housing is occupied by Singles.
                              I'm sure that will cycle back and forth.

                              Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                              Our communities were held together by families. If there are minimal families perhaps there will be no graphic communities.
                              Some are. Others are held together by common interest. Others are held together by common threats.

                              Back to your points 3,4,5. What happens to people in our country who are not citizens? Who have not paid the price?
                              Someone caught in-country whose head tax was never paid is given a chance to pay the head tax (if they could prove when they entered the country it could even be prorated, otherwise it would be assumed that they were born here and the tax was never paid). If they refuse they are deported and billed for the prorated tax (for the period they were in country) plus the cost of deportation. There wouldn't be criminal charges or anything.

                              As long as your head tax is paid it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not.

                              And you speak of 'trust fund babes', where did that trust fund come from?
                              It's the head tax. It could also be viewed as buying a "share" which pays dividends to the shareholder, but is limited to one share per head. The dividends could either be money or a portion of the output from the automated factories and farms.
                              Last edited by Him; 01-26-2013, 08:04 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                                Ionly listened to the first 6 chapters of the first film, it was way too slow. But the second was very interesting. I'd never thought about net energy before, or combined it with the other factors: population, food, complexity, etc. Thank you.

                                It does reinforce my future view, and I'm glad that my family is pretty well prepared. I believe our money is going to colapse within this decade.
                                I'm a follower of Austrian econ. But even that needs the primary means of production. Since I'm sure you know the economics stuff, I would suggest you go back to Crash Course and watch the chapters 17a, 17b, and 17c, 18, and 19

                                Everything in nature is an energy system...including economies.

                                I'm in the oil business and those chapters are keen to my interests. If you can't grow your primary energy (and commodity supply) you cannot grow your economy. Washington doesn't seem to have figured that yet.
                                Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X