All and Nothing of it: I consider Anarchy a system that can not be described in one homogene theory, something that grows locally but also worldwide depending on the people who participate and I would like everyone to join the debate. Who am I to tell the way to everybody else? Yet, protection of the enviroment is an important issue to me and if I got to choose I'd go the green way myself.
I agree, it can encompass everything. I think that is why most of us continuously pursue a place where we feel we belong. It is also a process of continual growth if we let it.
it sounds odd to see the traditional dichotomy between anarchy and statalism changed in "centralization"/"decentralization". It looks like a not proper change of words. The couple "centralization"/"decentralization" indicate different kinds of artificial organization, not a choice between organized/not-organized society. I mean, I think some anarchists wouldn't like a decentralized structure of society.
anarchy is a vertical structure of society with a lack of unjustified hierarchy
It is often decentralized as that is the easiest way to keep the power in the hands of the workers
thats a transitional state not communism
(hint the transitional state was their idea of how to achieve communism with limited tech...... today we have the tech and the transitional state is not needed, according to marx and lenin your a dumbass )
the definition of communism is literally the lack of unjustified hierarchies lmao
People are less likely to give credence to those who use poor grammar. I'm not saying this applies to you, but it's a useful and usually reliable indicator of intelligence, or lack thereof.
And, when you're trying to win an argument in the eyes of others, perception of one's credibility/ intelligence (associated with comprehension of the topic) is paramount... that's all I'm saying.
Perhaps you don't care if other people think that you know what you're talking about and I'm cool with that.
In any case, "your an idiot" comments always cause me to chuckle.
I don't know any that would prefer centralized. I do believe over time more and more people will embrace decentralized everything. I could be wrong because humans have this natural tendency to look for leadership and centralized provides that.
I consider myself to be striving for: Voluntarism, sometimes referred to as voluntary action, is the principle that individuals are free to choose goals and how to achieve them within the bounds of certain societal and cultural constraints, as opposed to actions that are coerced or predetermined.
Well, it is a spectrum, a gradient, isn't it? I've always thought that beneath the surface most people are actually freedom-minded, both for themselves and others. But folks are easily manipulated as well.
Love the portrait of Thomas Jefferson and the quote too. Sentient beings will have different opinions at different times and circumstances.
There are too many terms, that would have to be precisely defined, for my taste. My trajectory has led me to be a hinduistic-libertarian. I believe that "spontaneous Right Action" can be cultivated by the practice of paying constant attention to both feeling and reason.
I like the first graphic, but do not agree with it.
It is missing something BIG. Maybe it will come to me later.
The future is not so futuristic. The future seems to actually be a giant step backwards. Towards animism. And the complete abolition of science.
(Science means to cut apart, as in the similar word scythe. Physics and metaphysics need to be put together as a whole to understand the universe)
What seems to be happening is old things that didn't work so well, with added communication and digital record keeping now become easy and efficient.
Like the barter problem often talked about in the "story of how money was invented". With the aid of computers, barter can extremely easy. Computers can work out the 1000s of trades, and just tell you where to send your stuff, and the stuff you wanted shows up on your door.
In, re: your last paragraph, the last thing sorta already exists on boardgamegeek.com. They're called Math Trades, where everyone puts up a game and a wishlist, and through some algorithm everyone gets a boardgame he wants in proportion to how much they helped someone else get a boardgame she wants.
I tend towards green, but I believe that fair taxation is necessary. Of course you will never get everyone to agree on what is fair, but I think the aim should be to support the vulnerable members of society and provide health, education etc to all. Rampant capitalism givens us our divided society where some have far more than they need whilst others struggle to feed their kids. Success should be rewarded, but nobody needs 20 cars and 5 houses. We should aim for sustainability too.
There is a HUGE problem with your statement and it comes form socialist indoctrination centers called schools.
You believe in trying to balance things by rebalancing outcome.
It doesn't work in sporting events. It doesn't work in economics.
If you start penalizing the fastest runners, then you end up with nothing. All the fastest runners quit, and the field is dominated by mediocre runners, and the entire sport goes to pot.
If you disallows people to make as much money as they can, then they won't.
And thus, it destroys the economy.
Doctors working half a year, because if they work longer, they will lose money? It happened.
The problem is actually with banking.
Everyone in america should have 20 cars and 5 houses. However, we gave 18 cars and 6 houses to the banks. This is not an exaggeration. It is probably an understatement.
Houses prices are a direct result of bank's lending rules. And with lower rules and fractional reserve lending, the house prices have gone from $5,000 to $500,000 while wages have remained almost the same.
The banks have taken more and more and more out of the economy.
And, if we really cared about the poor, we would have free housing, free food and free clothing for anyone that showed up. A bunch of micro-apartments. Cafeteria food. And a durable jump suit. For any that showed up and needed it. This could be done for a fraction of the price we current spend on welfare, and since it is show up to use, it eliminates 99% of the bureaucracy and rent seeking.
There's no perfect system and don't assume my upbringing ;) I don't claim to have the answers, but I can see we have problem. More equality would be a start. Top bosses have gone from have 20x the average wage to 200x. That's just greed.
I believe technology will fix many of these issues. There will always be greed, the best we can do is create a society where that type of thinking is no longer rewarded.
Right at the point where centrism, libertarianism and extropianism intersect. Over time, if and when human beings become less self-obsessed, I'll gradually start leaning more towards anarcho-transhumanism.
I didn't see the "Distributism" block the first time I looked at your graphic. I think right now that is the closest to where I would fit in, though I need to study it some more. I'm Roman Catholic, and distributism seems to be the economic model that most closely aligns with Catholic teaching on the ethics surrounding how economies are organized. I'm just not sure it's a perfect alignment. I'm glad you feel comfortable posting your honest thoughts here and that you don't have to worry about your posts getting banned or otherwise restricted. I find it's always more interesting to read people's authentic thoughts, rather than those thoughts they publish because that's what they think people want to read. I have my own "waking up" story, so it's always interesting to read other people's "waking up" stories. I've learned a lot from you :)
Government by direct consensus is what I believe in. This was not possible on scale until the invention of the Blockchain. Now we can have governments, corporations and money all on the Internet that self regulate. It only works when enough stakeholders are involved. We are on the brink of the Web 3.0, which eliminates the need for middle men like banks, insurance companies and even the Gov't itself.
No, I believe its a form of Anarcho-Capitalism blended with a degree of Socialism. I am a huge believer in the Ethereum project and well most crypto currencies in general.
I don't necessarily believe taxation is theft, every system we have now of currency has some sort of fee attached to transactions, the problem is that what we have now is misappropriation and misdirection of these fees that have favored big players. Where is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, RICO?
I think it's overly narrow to define transhumanism as exclusively referring to post-scarcity existence. Creating abundance is clearly a goal in the transformation of humanity, but transhumanists and transhumanism are also compatible with scarcity.
Capitalism is a decentralized system for non-destructively resolving the conflicts that result from scarcity when they occur. As abundance increases such systems will become less relevant and less frequently used, because the overhead costs of tracking ownership are wasted effort when the resource in question is so abundant that no conflict exists.
In an entirely post-scarcity environment, there would be no value in maintaining a capitalist system because there would be no conflict to resolve. However, in such an environment maintaining a capitalist system would also have no cost, since the resources required to maintain it would not be scarce.
The US doesn't have much to do with capitalism, but a significant portion of our disagreement may be over definitions. The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism defines human rights as split between individual rights and collective rights, while capitalism defines all human rights as applying to individuals. Collective rights demand centralized or hierarchical structures in order to resolve conflicts over their use. Empty houses and unused property are the result of socialist/centralized policies for defining ownership of property rather than decentralized/capitalist policies. Under capitalism, ownership is established by original appropriation or voluntary transfer, and maintained by a continued relationship to the property in question. Unused resources of which the previous owner fails to maintain ownership can be considered abandoned and are free to be originally appropriated by someone else.
Like I said, we have some conflicting definitions.
Getting what others produce is not a necessary part of capitalism. Many would associate that idea more with socialism. Again, the core difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism defines all ownership in terms of individuals rather than collectives. Within capitalism and socialism the specific principles vary between individuals, but that's the criteria for differentiating the two.
Yes, the US government is based on the idea that society has collective rights that cannot be used by all individuals in a decentralized way.
Government is created as a supposedly collective (but centralized) entity to represent the people and use their collective rights for them. Defining rights as collective such that they cannot be exercised individually inevitably results in centralized power.
I find this graph a little odd--these are just two arbitrary axes, and for that matter, categories. I would be happy with a more distributed society, but I also believe one stable and just world government would be a massive social good. Where do I end up?
On that subject, I'm not an anarchist. The concept of dividing all actions into "consensual" and "non-consensual" is impossible--can I refuse to consent to you using air that I myself could breath? Or voting, when doing so reducing my own rewards? I find any such division impossible.
That, and I believe the LORD establishes the authority of governments in the first place. A theological argument? So are all, in the end.
I use the libertarian label to describe my political views in a word, but I am against concentration of power: State sucks because of monopoly of force? So sucks any "free" market in the hands of a few...
small dots indicate some agreement ~20% big dots are more like 30-50 so two are above 50, I'm not really acquainted with the Eco/techno fascism, Global Unity, green, greens progessives, technocrats, Anarcho primitivism, green anarchism, anarcho transhumanism,
Just heard of Extropianism(outer planetary? sounds nice but like steemit I'd like to solve the problems here before we carry them over somewhere else and case them there too :D ) Luddism?
Even Agrarianism Centrism Distributism Localism Libertarianism are pretty much unknown to me in details, it just brushes and makes sense based on my ideas :) cheers
All and Nothing of it: I consider Anarchy a system that can not be described in one homogene theory, something that grows locally but also worldwide depending on the people who participate and I would like everyone to join the debate. Who am I to tell the way to everybody else? Yet, protection of the enviroment is an important issue to me and if I got to choose I'd go the green way myself.
I agree, it can encompass everything. I think that is why most of us continuously pursue a place where we feel we belong. It is also a process of continual growth if we let it.
i with you!
it sounds odd to see the traditional dichotomy between anarchy and statalism changed in "centralization"/"decentralization". It looks like a not proper change of words. The couple "centralization"/"decentralization" indicate different kinds of artificial organization, not a choice between organized/not-organized society. I mean, I think some anarchists wouldn't like a decentralized structure of society.
anarchy is a vertical structure of society with a lack of unjustified hierarchy
It is often decentralized as that is the easiest way to keep the power in the hands of the workers
so basically communism
communism, according to Marx and Lenin, is a very centralized organization. it can be democratic or not, but centralized anyway.
thats a transitional state not communism
(hint the transitional state was their idea of how to achieve communism with limited tech...... today we have the tech and the transitional state is not needed, according to marx and lenin your a dumbass )
the definition of communism is literally the lack of unjustified hierarchies lmao
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
you might want to read up on what communism is by actual communists before you say something next time
Is "irony" the right word to use, here.
I think you meant to say "you're"...?
Sorry, I can't help but point out the "your an idiot" comments - call it a weakness, if it helps you to cope.
this speaks for itself
"hahaha its the internet and nobody uses grammar..... but if I point out his I win the argument and my retarded political ideology works"
People are less likely to give credence to those who use poor grammar. I'm not saying this applies to you, but it's a useful and usually reliable indicator of intelligence, or lack thereof.
And, when you're trying to win an argument in the eyes of others, perception of one's credibility/ intelligence (associated with comprehension of the topic) is paramount... that's all I'm saying.
Perhaps you don't care if other people think that you know what you're talking about and I'm cool with that.
In any case, "your an idiot" comments always cause me to chuckle.
Sorry, sometimes I don't recognize trolls.
what do you mean by that......
are you telling me you let anti-communists define communism for you?
I don't know any that would prefer centralized. I do believe over time more and more people will embrace decentralized everything. I could be wrong because humans have this natural tendency to look for leadership and centralized provides that.
My perplexity is on the meaning of "decentralization". It looks ambiguous.
Anarcho Transhuminist
ancap is an oxymoron
I consider myself to be striving for: Voluntarism, sometimes referred to as voluntary action, is the principle that individuals are free to choose goals and how to achieve them within the bounds of certain societal and cultural constraints, as opposed to actions that are coerced or predetermined.
Well, it is a spectrum, a gradient, isn't it? I've always thought that beneath the surface most people are actually freedom-minded, both for themselves and others. But folks are easily manipulated as well.
Love the portrait of Thomas Jefferson and the quote too. Sentient beings will have different opinions at different times and circumstances.
There are too many terms, that would have to be precisely defined, for my taste. My trajectory has led me to be a hinduistic-libertarian. I believe that "spontaneous Right Action" can be cultivated by the practice of paying constant attention to both feeling and reason.
I like the first graphic, but do not agree with it.
It is missing something BIG. Maybe it will come to me later.
The future is not so futuristic. The future seems to actually be a giant step backwards. Towards animism. And the complete abolition of science.
(Science means to cut apart, as in the similar word scythe. Physics and metaphysics need to be put together as a whole to understand the universe)
What seems to be happening is old things that didn't work so well, with added communication and digital record keeping now become easy and efficient.
Like the barter problem often talked about in the "story of how money was invented". With the aid of computers, barter can extremely easy. Computers can work out the 1000s of trades, and just tell you where to send your stuff, and the stuff you wanted shows up on your door.
In, re: your last paragraph, the last thing sorta already exists on boardgamegeek.com. They're called Math Trades, where everyone puts up a game and a wishlist, and through some algorithm everyone gets a boardgame he wants in proportion to how much they helped someone else get a boardgame she wants.
Well, I'm all over the right half of that graphic. Depends on the topic.
I tend towards green, but I believe that fair taxation is necessary. Of course you will never get everyone to agree on what is fair, but I think the aim should be to support the vulnerable members of society and provide health, education etc to all. Rampant capitalism givens us our divided society where some have far more than they need whilst others struggle to feed their kids. Success should be rewarded, but nobody needs 20 cars and 5 houses. We should aim for sustainability too.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
you might want to read this. You can have no government and no capitalism....... its actually really common.
Will see if I find time. I can see it working for small communities, but can it scale up?
yeah the link gives real life examples of that
There is a HUGE problem with your statement and it comes form socialist indoctrination centers called schools.
You believe in trying to balance things by rebalancing outcome.
It doesn't work in sporting events. It doesn't work in economics.
If you start penalizing the fastest runners, then you end up with nothing. All the fastest runners quit, and the field is dominated by mediocre runners, and the entire sport goes to pot.
If you disallows people to make as much money as they can, then they won't.
And thus, it destroys the economy.
Doctors working half a year, because if they work longer, they will lose money? It happened.
The problem is actually with banking.
Everyone in america should have 20 cars and 5 houses. However, we gave 18 cars and 6 houses to the banks. This is not an exaggeration. It is probably an understatement.
Houses prices are a direct result of bank's lending rules. And with lower rules and fractional reserve lending, the house prices have gone from $5,000 to $500,000 while wages have remained almost the same.
The banks have taken more and more and more out of the economy.
And, if we really cared about the poor, we would have free housing, free food and free clothing for anyone that showed up. A bunch of micro-apartments. Cafeteria food. And a durable jump suit. For any that showed up and needed it. This could be done for a fraction of the price we current spend on welfare, and since it is show up to use, it eliminates 99% of the bureaucracy and rent seeking.
There's no perfect system and don't assume my upbringing ;) I don't claim to have the answers, but I can see we have problem. More equality would be a start. Top bosses have gone from have 20x the average wage to 200x. That's just greed.
I believe technology will fix many of these issues. There will always be greed, the best we can do is create a society where that type of thinking is no longer rewarded.
Right at the point where centrism, libertarianism and extropianism intersect. Over time, if and when human beings become less self-obsessed, I'll gradually start leaning more towards anarcho-transhumanism.
I didn't see the "Distributism" block the first time I looked at your graphic. I think right now that is the closest to where I would fit in, though I need to study it some more. I'm Roman Catholic, and distributism seems to be the economic model that most closely aligns with Catholic teaching on the ethics surrounding how economies are organized. I'm just not sure it's a perfect alignment. I'm glad you feel comfortable posting your honest thoughts here and that you don't have to worry about your posts getting banned or otherwise restricted. I find it's always more interesting to read people's authentic thoughts, rather than those thoughts they publish because that's what they think people want to read. I have my own "waking up" story, so it's always interesting to read other people's "waking up" stories. I've learned a lot from you :)
Government by direct consensus is what I believe in. This was not possible on scale until the invention of the Blockchain. Now we can have governments, corporations and money all on the Internet that self regulate. It only works when enough stakeholders are involved. We are on the brink of the Web 3.0, which eliminates the need for middle men like banks, insurance companies and even the Gov't itself.
so are you talking about left communism here?
No, I believe its a form of Anarcho-Capitalism blended with a degree of Socialism. I am a huge believer in the Ethereum project and well most crypto currencies in general.
you can't define socialism can you?
what? I know what socialism is and I am not for it. No I don't believe anarchy works either. Free markets works.
here is a nice piece in the anarchist library titled "Anarchy Works" that cites a lot of examples:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
also free markets don't exist
socialism is the workers owning the means of production and getting what they are producing
that proves that they are not only incompatible but capitalism cannot be anarchisthttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
Hello. Im new here. Its a nice to read
Like your post, but I believe one of the great things about blockchain technologied is that it is global and not thinking in boxes at all.
Down and to the right.
I don't necessarily believe taxation is theft, every system we have now of currency has some sort of fee attached to transactions, the problem is that what we have now is misappropriation and misdirection of these fees that have favored big players. Where is the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, RICO?
Tweeted
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
Good..
How do you see transhumanism as in conflict with capitalism? What conflict avoidance/resolution system are you associating with transhumanism?
Capitalism can not function without scarcity so it is at complete conflict with transumanismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf
I think it's overly narrow to define transhumanism as exclusively referring to post-scarcity existence. Creating abundance is clearly a goal in the transformation of humanity, but transhumanists and transhumanism are also compatible with scarcity.
Capitalism is a decentralized system for non-destructively resolving the conflicts that result from scarcity when they occur. As abundance increases such systems will become less relevant and less frequently used, because the overhead costs of tracking ownership are wasted effort when the resource in question is so abundant that no conflict exists.
In an entirely post-scarcity environment, there would be no value in maintaining a capitalist system because there would be no conflict to resolve. However, in such an environment maintaining a capitalist system would also have no cost, since the resources required to maintain it would not be scarce.
going from capitalist to post scarcity would be very hard. Even today here in the US we have 10x as many empty houses as homeless people
The US doesn't have much to do with capitalism, but a significant portion of our disagreement may be over definitions. The fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism defines human rights as split between individual rights and collective rights, while capitalism defines all human rights as applying to individuals. Collective rights demand centralized or hierarchical structures in order to resolve conflicts over their use. Empty houses and unused property are the result of socialist/centralized policies for defining ownership of property rather than decentralized/capitalist policies. Under capitalism, ownership is established by original appropriation or voluntary transfer, and maintained by a continued relationship to the property in question. Unused resources of which the previous owner fails to maintain ownership can be considered abandoned and are free to be originally appropriated by someone else.
"capitalism defines all human rights as applying to individuals"
getting what somebody else produces is an individual right?
also did you just call our government socialist?
did you just call socialism centralized?
Like I said, we have some conflicting definitions.
Getting what others produce is not a necessary part of capitalism. Many would associate that idea more with socialism. Again, the core difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism defines all ownership in terms of individuals rather than collectives. Within capitalism and socialism the specific principles vary between individuals, but that's the criteria for differentiating the two.
Yes, the US government is based on the idea that society has collective rights that cannot be used by all individuals in a decentralized way.
Government is created as a supposedly collective (but centralized) entity to represent the people and use their collective rights for them. Defining rights as collective such that they cannot be exercised individually inevitably results in centralized power.
I find this graph a little odd--these are just two arbitrary axes, and for that matter, categories. I would be happy with a more distributed society, but I also believe one stable and just world government would be a massive social good. Where do I end up?
On that subject, I'm not an anarchist. The concept of dividing all actions into "consensual" and "non-consensual" is impossible--can I refuse to consent to you using air that I myself could breath? Or voting, when doing so reducing my own rewards? I find any such division impossible.
That, and I believe the LORD establishes the authority of governments in the first place. A theological argument? So are all, in the end.
Out of the box :)
I use the libertarian label to describe my political views in a word, but I am against concentration of power: State sucks because of monopoly of force? So sucks any "free" market in the hands of a few...
I think this is much more germain to our present age than the traditional Nolan Chart. Well done!
small dots indicate some agreement ~20% big dots are more like 30-50 so two are above 50, I'm not really acquainted with the Eco/techno fascism, Global Unity, green, greens progessives, technocrats, Anarcho primitivism, green anarchism, anarcho transhumanism,
Just heard of Extropianism(outer planetary? sounds nice but like steemit I'd like to solve the problems here before we carry them over somewhere else and case them there too :D ) Luddism?
Even Agrarianism Centrism Distributism Localism Libertarianism are pretty much unknown to me in details, it just brushes and makes sense based on my ideas :) cheers