Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Benji, I am actually curious: how do you feel about the whole Frosted Mini-Wheats thing where they put something on the box like "children who consume this product demonstrate increased attentiveness" and it turns out that the omitted words of the study were "compared to kids who didn't eat breakfast at all"? I mean, I'm assuming that we're in agreement that that's a bad thing, but is the burden on every consumer to research every claim that any company poses to them?
Or is it that "the people (who encountered the news story) and got upset enough about it should boycott and hopefully be enough to stir change and if they don't then its just too bad that not enough people care/are informed/etc"?

 

[KtSlime]

You're one of those people who want to go back to feudalism and have each corporation with their own little fiefdom aren't you?

The government only has monopoly on those things because the people will it, the corporations benefit greatly from that force too, so I don't get what your deal is. Seems like a good trade - the ability to have private property sell commodities and amass fortune for the small price of not killing people by withholding vital information on the production of the foodstuff.

 

[benjipwns]

I think even under the current regulatory regime, and one ten times as extensive that stations an FDA/FCC/FEC/EPA agent inside your house, the burden is still on the consumer to not automatically accept every claim ever posed to them.

If you protest Frosted Mini-Wheats in all the multitude of ways that are possible and they refuse to change, the power still lies entirely within your hands on whether you want Frosted Mini-Wheats more than your anger or not.

the corporations benefit greatly from that force too, so I don't get what your deal is.

Because I'm opposed to violence, monopolies and corporations using the prior two things in this list to their advantage against the less powerful?

 

[The Technomancer]

I think even under the current regulatory regime, and one ten times as extensive that stations an FDA/FCC/FEC/EPA agent inside your house, the burden is still on the consumer to not automatically accept every claim ever posed to them.

If you protest Frosted Mini-Wheats in all the multitude of ways that are possible and they refuse to change, the power still lies entirely within your hands on whether you want Frosted Mini-Wheats more than your anger or not.

But people don't critically evaluate every part of their life like that. I certainly don't. I guarantee you don't. We don't have the time. I have things to do other then spend hours a day researching literally everything to make sure I'm not being lied to, if the information is even public.

 

[benjipwns]

But people don't critically evaluate every part of their life like that. I certainly don't. I guarantee you don't. We don't have the time. I have things to do other then spend hours a day researching literally everything to make sure I'm not being lied to, if the information is even public.

Yes, and?

 

[KtSlime]

Because I'm opposed to violence, monopolies and corporations using the prior two things in this list to their advantage against the less powerful?

You are opposed to the threat of violence, but not against corporations (and the capitalists in charge) murdering people with peanuts. You are one odd duck.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm opposed to corporations murdering people through any means, peanuts, drones, cruise missiles, tanks, Arizona VA clinics, etc.

EDIT: I really shouldn't have said this, makes it seem like there's something to the blatantly absurd charge.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes, and?

So the burden is on people to inform themselves, but you agree that its impractical to actually meet that burden...so you acknowledge that the practical effect of even less accurate information is, in fact, a less informed and more easily deceived population?

And the upside to this is...freer commerce? What net benefit do we get from things with peanuts not having to be labelled as having peanuts again?

 

[benjipwns]

This continues to assume that the only possible course of action is to create an entity with full legitimacy to deploy violence against and violate the rights of whoever it wishes because the will of the people won't be strong enough to peacefully convince people to label enough things that may contain peanuts.

 

[Seeds]

This continues to assume that the only possible course of action is to create an entity with full legitimacy to deploy violence against and violate the rights of whoever it wishes because the will of the people won't be strong enough to peacefully convince people to label enough things that may contain peanuts.

Just like the folks in texas convinced the owners of its fertilizer plant to make sure that it wouldn't explode.

 

[benjipwns]

Just like the folks in texas convinced the owners of its fertilizer plant to make sure that it wouldn't explode.

So the state failed at its claims to be necessary huh. Should try reducing its power and allowing insurance liabilities and land to price accordingly.

 

[KtSlime]

This continues to assume that the only possible course of action is to create an entity with full legitimacy to deploy violence against and violate the rights of whoever it wishes because the will of the people won't be strong enough to peacefully convince people to label enough things that may contain peanuts.

We already have an entity with that ability and even it is not strong enough to make corporations label where they get their materials to produce their food, what makes you think we'd have a better shot on our own?

Oh and withholding information about a product that you know causes deaths is murder, plain and simple.

 

[benjipwns]

We already have an entity with that ability and even it is not strong enough to make corporations label where they get their materials to produce their food, what makes you think we'd have a better shot on our own?

Because the state's monopoly wouldn't be backing up its corporate partners, looting the non-elite and funneling the fruits of their labor into propping up all the leviathians.

Oh and withholding information about a product that you know causes deaths is murder, plain and simple.

So you want all the risks from H2O on bottled water right?

 

[Seeds]

So the state failed at its claims to be necessary huh. Should try reducing its power and allowing insurance liabilities to price accordingly.

Which they circumvent by declaring bankruptcy through a daughter company. Which I'm sure you knew.

 

[benjipwns]

Which they circumvent by declaring bankruptcy through a daughter company. Which I'm sure you knew.

Damn, why did the state let them do that?

 

[Seeds]

Damn, why did the state let them do that?

Lack of power. And your solution seems to be to give them less.

 

[benjipwns]

Ahhh, I see, so the problem is that the corporations control our corporation so we need to make our corporation more powerful so that the corporations that control it will something.

But as long as we suppress the will of the people that's the real important part, it won't work without that part.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ahhh, I see, so the problem is that the corporations control our corporation so we need to make our corporation more powerful so that the corporations that control it will something.

But as long as we suppress the will of the people that's the real important part, it won't work without that part.

How do you think the will of the people gets expressed? Psychic energy?

 

[benjipwns]

How do you think the will of the people gets expressed? Psychic energy?

By their voluntary actions and choices. Democracy.

 

[The Technomancer]

By their voluntary actions and choices. Democracy.

And you think that coercive forces just...don't exist? That in the absence of the government coercing us, no other degenerate coercive systems would spring up? Like they historically have always done?

 

[Seeds]

Ahhh, I see, so the problem is that the corporations control our corporation so we need to make our corporation more powerful so that the corporations that control it will something.

But as long as we suppress the will of the people that's the real important part, it won't work without that part.

There are differences between corporations whos main incentive is to make money without regard for and sometimes at the expence of the health of the people, and corporations whos incentive is the health of the people.

But once again, I'm sure you know this.

 

[bonercop]

Here's something I curious about: What happens with people like me in a hypothetical libertarian utopia? I would not respect property rights and I would non-violently try to get in the way of anything a business does which I do not approve of. If some asshole in a libertopia waved a deed in front of my face telling me he had purchased the street I was living in, I would tell him to fuck off. I would also try to disrupt the business and break the property of any company whom I perceived as being unethical(hypothetical example: a company keeps dumping crap in the river near me and no amount of sternly written letters can make them stop). How would people like me be kept in line?

The usual answer is something along the lines of "If you get shot for trespassing on someone's property it's your own fault". Basically, violence. The key difference in this paradigm from the "statist" one seems to be that violence is reserved for property owners to use on those without/less property.

I'm interested to hear if there's a different response from a right-wing libertarian view than the one where it's okay for property owners to kill under certain conditions.

 

[benjipwns]

And you think that coercive forces just...don't exist? That in the absence of the government coercing us, no other degenerate coercive systems would spring up? Like they historically have always done?

No, just don't believe that them coercing you means you've consented.

There are differences between corporations whos main incentive is to make money without regard for and sometimes at the expence of the health of the people, and corporations whos incentive is the health of the people.

But once again, I'm sure you know this.

All corporations incentives are to accrue whatever is in their interest. The corporate state's interest is power. Thus why it opposes competition, accountability, the will of the people, individual liberties, etc.

Here's something I curious about: What happens with people like me in a hypothetical libertarian utopia? I would not respect property rights and I would non-violently try to get in the way of anything a business does which I do not approve of. If some asshole in this libertopia waved a deed in front of my face telling me he had purchased the street I was living in, I would tell him to fuck off. I would also try to disrupt the business and break the property of any company whom I perceived as being unethical(hypothetical example: a company keeps dumping crap in the river near me and no amount of sternly written letters can make them stop). How would people like me be kept in line?

Why aren't you doing that now if you expect the result to be the same?

 

[The Technomancer]

No, just don't believe that them coercing you means you've consented.


All corporations incentives are to accrue whatever is in their interest. The corporate state's interest is power. Thus why it opposes competition, accountability, the will of the people, individual liberties, etc.

Power to what end? Power for power's sake? Megalomaniacs, while they exist, aren't historically common. There's usually a greater aim. I'm not denying the state pursues power. I'm asking why.

 

[bonercop]

Why aren't you doing that now if you expect the result to be the same?

The whole "threat of violence" thing libertarians keep mentioning. Whatever political ideals I may have, the society I live in does respect private property and so I am forced to acknowledge property rights.

If I wasn't forced to acknowledge them, I wouldn't obey or pay any mind to them. If someone would try to claim a piece of land is theirs, I'd reject their claim and give zero fucks about trespassing on it or whatever.

 

[Seeds]

All corporations incentives are to accrue whatever is in their interest. The corporate state's interest is power. Thus why it opposes competition, accountability, the will of the people, individual liberties, etc.

How come this isn't reflected when looking at the nordic countries? Free universities, free healthcare, better working rights, mandatory vacations, more than two parties to vote for (i.e higher accountability) etc.

 

[benjipwns]

Power to what end? Power for power's sake? Megalomaniacs, while they exist, aren't historically common. There's usually a greater aim

Power for authority's sake probably manifesting as the ability to create and shape the elite. One of the more fascinating things to me in history was the importance given to the royal courts and standing within them. Why? Why would people submit to the humiliation? Why would the women all cut their hair because the queen had to cut hers because she accidentally dyed it? It wasn't all fear. The punishment was mostly being uninvited. The court was larger than the royalty. Just as the masses have always been larger than the elite. I linked to or mentioned de La Boetie earlier and it asks all these questions along the lines of why are we coerced but convince ourselves that we have consented and give up our advantage when we always have the ability to withdraw our consent: http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

It's really more of a "you go first" problem. And then the violence of the state is seen, ensuring everyone continues to "consent" to its rule.

The whole "threat of violence" thing libertarians keep mentioning. Whatever political ideals I may have, the society I live in does respect private property and so I am forced to acknowledge property rights.

If I wasn't forced to acknowledge them, I wouldn't obey or pay any mind to them.

Why are you forced to now and wouldn't under a libertarian regime?

Currently: Don't respect, get arrested or shot.
Libertarian: Don't respect, get arrested or shot.

Simplifying obviously.

How come this isn't reflected when looking at the nordic countries? Free universities, free healthcare, better working rights, mandatory vacations, more than two parties to vote for (i.e higher accountability) etc.

And 70% of your labor claimed by the ruling corporation. There's a good number of monopolies too. Alcohol comes to mind.

EDIT: I'll stop bothering you guys and trespassing in the thread through if more people are getting upset about the useless chatter.

 

[KtSlime]

I thought your libertarian utopia needed to exist because there would then be no violence. If there is violence in both why should I as a proletariat choose your model? I'll choose the corporation with a monopoly on force that I have a bit of control in over the thousand plus corporations each with their own force that I have no control over. If you had any common sense you would too.

 

[benjipwns]

I thought your libertarian utopia needed to exist because there would then be no violence. If there is violence in both why should I as a proletariat choose your model? I'll choose the corporation with a monopoly on force that I have a bit of control in over the thousand plus corporations each with their own force that I have no control over. If you had any common sense you would too.

You have no control in a monopoly state if you aren't an elite. It's just a ritual to the gods.

And I don't advocate for or proclaim or describe or suggest any kind of model, utopia, libertarian or otherwise. I'm not a central planner nor seek to rule.

 

[Seeds]

And 70% of your labor claimed by the ruling corporation. There's a good number of monopolies too. Alcohol comes to mind.

I thought this was about the will of the people? Why are you trying to change the subject from the will of the people to what it costs the state to provide what the people want?

 

[bonercop]

Why are you forced to now and wouldn't under a libertarian regime?

Currently: Don't respect, get arrested or shot.
Libertarian: Don't respect, get arrested or shot.

Simplifying obviously.

I figured that a political philosophy which has criticism of states as coercive violence as a core tenant shouldn't require coercive violence to exist.

If someone can shoot me for not respecting property rights, then the whole idea that anaracho-capitalism isn't coercive is horseshit. Much like how you must accept the role of the state in modern society, in an anarcho-capitalist society you must accept the sacredness of property rights. And property owners can kill you if you don't.

That's coercive. I don't want to accept property rights.

EDIT: I'll stop bothering you guys and trespassing in the thread through if more people are getting upset about the useless chatter.

I like reading the discussions, at least.

 

[benjipwns]

I thought this was about the will of the people? Why are you trying to change the subject from the will of the people to what it costs the state to provide what the people want?

I'm not changing the subject in any way.

If the people want something, the state is unnecessary. If the state wants something, the will of the people can be ignored. That's not to say these can't overlap, or that the state can't intentionally interfere to "provide" the people with what they would have provided themselves after taking a cut.

And you're suggesting that it's legitimate for people to consent to slavery?

I don't want to accept property rights.

Then you have to deny self-ownership.

 

[Seeds]

I'm not changing the subject in any way.

If the people want something, the state is unnecessary. If the state wants something, the will of the people can be ignored. That's not to say these can't overlap, or that the state can't intentionally interfere to "provide" the people with what they would have provided themselves after taking a cut.

Could you provide just one example of a country in which the quality of life compares to that of the nordic countries without a state in place?

And you're suggesting that it's common for people to consent to slavery?

I'm curious to see how you came to this conclusion.

 

[benjipwns]

Could you provide just one example of a country in which the quality of life compares to that of the nordic countries without a state in place?

Even if there was a stateless society on the moon that had antimatter reactors and replicators it would be irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm curious to see how you came to this conclusion.

If I forced you to labor for me 5 days a week and if you refused I could throw you in prison or kill you, what words or phrases might you use to characterize this arrangement?

 

[bonercop]

Then you have to deny self-ownership.

lol

This is even more of a stretch than the usual conflation of private property with personal possessions when discussions get to this point. I don't have the same philosophical framework as you do. In my view there is absolutely nothing contradictory between respecting human self-determination while turning up my nose at property rights . People aren't property.

 

[benjipwns]

What about the product of their labor?

 

[bonercop]

What about the product of their labor?

Not quite sure what you're getting at.

 

[Seeds]

Even if there was a stateless society on the moon that had antimatter reactors and replicators it would be irrelevant to the discussion.

So your claim is based on no real life examples. What exactly do you base it on then?

If I forced you to labor for me 5 days a week and if you refused I could throw you in prison or kill you, what words or phrases might you use to characterize this arrangement?

So you came to that conclusion by being disingenuous.

 

[benjipwns]

Not quite sure what you're getting at.

My property derives from my labor, I own my labor because I own myself, therefore I own my property.

To make a claim of ownership over my property is to make a claim on my labor and myself, and thus to deny me self-ownership.

So your claim is based on no real life examples. What exactly do you base it on then?

What's my claim that you're demanding "real life examples" for?

So you came to that conclusion by being disingenuous.

Nope, not at all.

 

[Seeds]

What's my claim that you're demanding "real life examples" for?

That a state is unnecessary when trying to accomplish a similar quality of life as we see in nordic countries.

Nope, not at all.

So you see nothing wrong with implying that I'm ''suggesting that it's legitimate for people to consent to slavery'' because I claim that people pay taxes for the things they want?

 

[KtSlime]

Now I'm really curious how you came to these ideas, could you point me in the direction of the economic/political theorist-authors you read? I've read Marx, Smith, Defoe, etc and what I'm seeing you write is really out there.

 

[bonercop]

My property derives from my labor, I own my labor because I own myself, therefore I own my property.

Sure, if you accept that philosophical framework(which I don't -- you own your property because you have enough organized violence on your side, whether it's derived from your labor or not). One could make a similarly profound-sounding argument for the legitimacy of the state's power.

My point is that you don't get to have alternative ideas from this in an anaracho-capitalist society. It's really no different from the concept of a democratic state as far as coerciveness goes.

 

[benjipwns]

That a state is unnecessary when trying to accomplish a similar quality of life as we see in nordic countries.

So you see nothing wrong with implying that I'm ''suggesting that it's legitimate for people to consent to slavery'' because I claim that people pay taxes for the things they want?

This is my mistake, got wires crossed in editing older posts to add in new replies.

And I wasn't trying to imply that, I was asking if you agreed with the concept because I view the situation akin to the hypothetical I provided.

Now I'm really curious how you came to these ideas, could you point me in the direction of the economic/political theorist-authors you read? I've read Marx, Smith, Defoe, etc and what I'm seeing you write is really out there.

I actually posted a few pages back when annoying other people in the thread. Let me dig it up.

Voltairine de Cleyre
Mikhail Bakunin (Statism and Anarchy(ism...depends on publisher))
Peter Krotopkin (Mutual Aid; The Conquest of Bread)
Benjamin Tucker (had a journal Liberty for most of his writing)
Auberon Herbert
Isabel Paterson
Murray Rothbard (the anarcho-capitalist devil who never got up before noon)
Michael Huemer (The Problem of Political Authority, best political book released in decades if not more)
Samuel Edward Konkin, Sheldon Richmand, Roderick T. Long, Kevin Carson who are easiest found through http://c4ss.org/ and http://praxeology.net/all-left.htm
Albert Jay Nock
I guess you're required by anarchist law to include David Friedman
Frederic Bastiat (not an anarchist, but just because he's the god king of all politics)

Bolded my homies. Huemer is my advised starting place if you actually want to read one of the books, though it's not the free one, so I actually recommend free ones because fuck spending money on dumb books. (Not that there aren't ways to read it for free.)

And here was a larger elaboration on my contention with legitimacy that may or may not help fill your curiosity: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=111369097&postcount=9954

Sure, if you accept that philosophical framework(which I don't -- you own your property because you have enough organized violence on your side, whether it's derived from your labor or not).

Well yes, that's the crux of it. I find voluntary interaction as the determination of legitimacy to be morally superior to might makes right.

I'm under no illusions which is more popular now, in the past and for the immediate future at minimum. Nor am I one to contend the rise of the state may not be inevitable or even desirable.

I still find it prudent to intellectually deny its legitimacy while acknowledging its assembled power and suggesting evolutionary reforms.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'm under no illusions which is more popular now, in the past and for the immediate future at minimum. Nor am I one to contend the rise of the state may not be inevitable or even desirable.

I still find it prudent to intellectually deny its legitimacy while acknowledging its assembled power and suggesting evolutionary reforms.

How can it be not morally right and also desirable? As in "a thing that most people desire"? Do you believe in a universal morality? Because I believe most of us are arguing based on a utilitarian morality.

 

[benjipwns]

Killing your mother for the insurance and inheritance money can be both immoral and desirable.

 

[Seeds]

This is my mistake, got wires crossed in editing older posts to add in new replies.

And I wasn't trying to imply that, I was asking if you agreed with the concept because I view the situation akin to the hypothetical I provided.

You're doing a huge disservice to those who have gone through slavery if you think the concept of paying taxes to get something like healthcare and education is akin to being forced to work under the threat of imprisonment or death.

And I'm still genuinly curious of examples of real life stateless societies.

 

[The Technomancer]

Killing your mother for the insurance and inheritance money can be both immoral and desirable.

Desirable for an individual. I just find the way you worded that to be odd. You don't necessarily contend that the rise of a state may be desirable to whom? The people living in it?

 

[benjipwns]

You're doing a huge disservice to those who have gone through slavery if you think the concept of paying taxes to get something like healthcare and education is akin to being forced to work under the threat of imprisonment or death.

Something can be terrible and something else can be even more terrible. And they can both work under the same premises and logic. I somehow lost fractional in there from the parable though.

And I'm still genuinly curious of real life stateless societies.

Iceland dicked around with it back in the day. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

It's not perfect but lots of people love to talk about it endlessly, like Kropotkin.

Desirable for an individual. I just find the way you worded that to be odd. You don't necessarily contend that the rise of a state may be desirable to whom? The people living in it?

Whoever.

I don't believe in universal morality, just subjective morality. If you don't agree with my moral framework you'll obviously come to a different conclusion, I don't consider you to be personally immoral though.

 

[The Technomancer]

Something can be terrible and something else can be even more terrible. And they can both work under the same premises and logic. I somehow lost fractional in there from the parable though.


Iceland dicked around with it back in the day.


Whoever.

I don't believe in universal morality, just subjective morality. If you don't agree with my moral framework you'll obviously come to a different conclusion, I don't consider you to be personally immoral though.

You believe in subjective morality, but what is it based on? We're basing ours on the statistical quality of life people experience under various systems.

 

[benjipwns]

Coercive violence is illegitimate.