From: matus (matus@matus1976.com)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 00:14:59 MDT
Robbie said:
>
>The only thing of value is personal time. In such exchanges, all are
>zero-sum.
So if I trade one hour of my time, as my skill as a welder say, for one
hour of your time, as your skill as a carpenter, who loses and who wins?
If it is zero sum, there must be a winner and a loser. Are you a loser
merely because I would not do the welding for no trade whatsoever?
>
>> Does the Earth have a limited amount of Wealth?
>
>The earth itself has no wealth. Only the people on it have wealth and
>they have it by virtue of their effort.
Effort? As in what, physical labor? Calories expended? What about
people who sit in front of a computer all day processing information,
turning not so valuable information into more valuable information. Is
there a limit to the value that can be imparted unto information? As a
different example, every kilogram of gasoline contains within it 12,000
Watts for an hour. That's about 16 Horsepower, or say about 32 people
power per hour. Oxidizing one kilogram of petrol is the same as having
32 strong youthfull slaves at your beck and call for one full hour.
Whose effort are you using? You can do the work that previously took 32
people to do. In fact, modern farmers in post-industrialized nations do
the work of 100 workers at the turn of the century. That's *one*
farmer. His 'effort' is 100 times more productive than it would have
been a century before. Does this not demonstrate that 'effort' as
directed through technology has no limit to its value?
>
>> Last I checked, we
>> werent running out of Food or Energy, since we have more of both now
>> than ever in the entire history of humanity.
>
>And we destroy more of it now than any time in human history in order
>to keep our "supply and demand" theory going.
Not sure what exactly you mean by keeping our "supply and demand" theory
going, especially when you quoted
[http://www.maketradefair.org/stylesheet.asp?file=03042002121618&cat=2&s˜kÀ
ubcat=6&select=1] in your previous post which said "The international
community has failed to address the problem of low and unstable
commodity prices, which consign millions of people to poverty. Coffee
prices, for example, have fallen by 70 per cent since 1997" How do you
propose keeping Coffee prices at the original level *without* dumping
some significant amount of Coffee into the ocean? How is 'addressing
unstable commodity prices' any different than keeping up "supply and
demand" theories?
After all, if what you
>said above were true, I wouldn't be paying $8.95 for a BLT in Westwood
Why not? If you can make a BLT cheaper, start your own BLT joint.
>
>Not a communist - peaceful anarchist (like a libertarian who doesn't
>think that governments should prop-up corporations or monetary systems
>any more than they should subsidize pork-bellies).
Ok, your libertarian descriptions fit me as well, yet I certainly
wouldn't call myself a 'peacefull anarchist' (how do you propose it
remain 'peacefull' anarchy, btw?) I despise corporate subsidy and the
general interference of the market by rediculous government intrusion.
But I would like to hear more of what kind of system you would propose.
I often mull over questions of moral state's and perfect societies.
Does your peacefull Anarchist society have property rights? Who
enforces them? What if I, as an intelligent reasonable person plan
aheard for foul weather by storing extra food, yet my neighboors, who I
warned of foul weather, did not head my advice and are no starving. Do
they have a right to take my provisions? Who forces the Doctor to treat
my ailments to achieve 'adequate' health care? Especially If I can not
pay him, and no government exists to coerce him. Shall my best friend
just hold a gun to his head? (Oh, right, you said a 'peacefull
anrachist', I suppose Ill just ask him politely to perform required
operation) Truthfully, I don't understand how this system could
possibly exist, unless each and every person in it is immortal,
perpetually healthy, and always with shelter and food.
>
>Marx was an anarchist too, BTW. The difference is one of
>methodology/praxis. The anarchist desires to immediately dissolve the
>government. The Communist wishes to put up a temporary government in
>order to advance to a state of anarchy later by that means.
Is that so? I guess most communist governements just never got to sit
around long enough to turn into full anarachies.
How does peaceful anarachy alleviate global poverty? (food, shelter,
and adequate health care)
The way I
>see it, communism as a methodology has demonstrated itself to be
>inadequate for achieving the goal which is the simple removal
>of forced
>alienation of our labor.
'Inadequate'? That's an understatement if I have ever heard one,
considering it is responsible for 170 million deaths this century. What
is 'forced alienation of our labor' and what about volunteer labor. I
also note, we can not exist without labor, we must labor for our food.
How is that dichotomy settled? Food will not fall from the sky and into
your mouth, and with no government to provide it, where will it come
from?
>If you don't think the alienation of your labor is forced - stop paying
>taxes and wait.
And where is where my understanding has serious gaps. I don't
understand 'alienation' used in this context. Can you elaborate on
this? I have no doubt my labor is forced. If I chose to stop working,
I would lose my house. But if I just chose to sit around somewhere, I
would starve to death. Who is the unlucky fellow forced to feed me so I
will not be forced into labor?
I just cant envision a manifestation of this society you talk about. Do
you work? Do you grow food? Do you sit around all day and chew peyote
buttons? Do you exchange efforts for other peoples efforts? How do you
exchange it? Is the effort of a rock thrower equal in value to the
effort of a brain surgeon? How do you contend with the variations in
the value of peoples abilities and efforts? I have little need for rock
throwers, but need computer programmers.
>There is no good form of government. Government is essentially an
>alienation of rights from the individual.
>
Agreed, tentatively. But are some governments 'less bad' than others?
Say, for example, Pol Pot's Cambodia vs. Australia?
>> Maybe one of those ingorant peasant farmers will bring about the
>> singularity.
>
>Do I have to want the singularity in order to want to live much longer?
No, but I don't see how any of the ideas you propose would make it
objectively make it likely that you would live any longer. Though I
would certainly entertain any evidence.
>
>> As Gorby pointed out in the late 80's, Singapore generated
>more wealth
>> than the ENTIRE Soviet Union. But it must have been because
>> it was exploiting the working man, right?
>
>Without any doubt.
>
Did the people of singapore live better lives than the people of the
soviet union?
Regards,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 00:23:14 MDT