You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Free Will
It was an honest commentary. I am not sure why such a combative tone was necessary. It’s strange to me that some of the most vocal proponents of “peace” and “love” are unable to have an honest dialogue, open to entertaining opposing viewpoints and weighing them without becoming emotional. That last picture pretty well sums up the creepiness inherent in the arguments and personas of these types of individuals, so thank you, at least, for doing that justice. I was just stating things as I see them. I don’t think junior high school inanity such as “captain obvious” is really befitting, but then again, what do I know.
Honest commentary?
When a person refuses to acknowledge that an answer has been given to their chosen question because it completely refutes their whole point, you know that truth is not their goal. I won't try to guess what is but it's not good.
How am I supposed to trust your commentary after you pulled that bit of nonsense?
Then you bash the meme? wow.. How revealing is that. Did you not understand it's about putting your ego aside and do what's right to protect our children? We're one enlightened generation away from making this a better world. And somehow that's creepy.
I'm sorry, I can't relate..
The answer that “majority consensus” is “allowing the market to act” is incorrect.
Thanks for reading my comment, though. I appreciate it.
can we just stop with the extra comments now... I can if you can
How is majority consensus not free market? It sounds like the very definition of free market.
from Investopedia:
What is a 'Free Market'
The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions. Based on its political and legal rules, a country’s free market economy may range between very large or entirely black market.
Read more: Free Market https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#ixzz5DCVYcGwp
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
The free, zero-state intervention, Laissez-Faire, Voluntaryist market isn’t determined via votes, but price pressure and other organic factors. Yes, we can stop now. To suggest that “majority consensus” can calculate price and measure supply and demand, let alone determining property ownership is just absurd.
The first paragraph of your link proves your argument invalid. Votes/majority consensus do not grant ownership:
That’s it. I truly do not understand what you are not seeing here.
In a free market, majority consensus would determine if a product would be sold. If the product is bad, word will get around and no one will buy it.
In that sense and no government or voting is necessary.
There may be some talking past each other here. Saying a product is bad, usually involves a problem in the quality axis.
It has been known for some time that there can be a majority consensus that a product is of poor quality but can still be sold to people who value the product even if the quality is inferior.
No matter how you slice it, subjective value is the pivot point of a free market. not majority consensus.
And since we are on the matters of subjective value, there appears to be much conflict between the 'engage' the system and the 'defect' out of the system movements.
Is there any reason why someone would not find value in both positions at the same time?
The engage position would chisel away at the top levers of authority, while the defect position would chisel away at the base.
I know there is real tension and conflict of the positions, but I really don't see a down side to both working independently at the same time.
How can the top levels of authority chisel away at themselves? If you attempt to heal a venomous bite with the same venom creating the problem, you end up poisoned all the more. Evil political mechanisms can never remedy evil political mechanisms. Only disobedience can do that. But. People are afraid to suffer. And that is why they suffer, I think, if I can be so presumptuous as to say so.
Excellent comment, and just to clarify the state is the top level of authority, lets call state 'social construct -A-'. An anarchist going in to dismantle the social construct, lets call him 'agent -B-'. We can call the executive order, or referendum or whatever legal document(s) that would be used to dismantle the state, 'social construct -C-'.
Now 'social construct -A-' is not the same as 'agent -B-' so asking the question :
How can the top levels of authority chisel away at themselves?
Is similar to saying social construct -A- and agent -B- is the same entity. That issue from what I can see is not logically correct.
There can be a case made that social construct -C- may not be able to destroy social construct -A-. I think what you are trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that there is near a zero probability of an event that social construct -C- will destroy social construct -A-.
I completely understand that position. I don't buy in to the idea the probability will be high, but also don't immediately assume it will be zero. On the grounds of probability is where you and I would likely start disagreement.
Historically, it has typically taken a social construct to destroy another social construct, so the tactic or strategy of using -C- to destroy -A- is sound. The biggest barrier I see is the degree of complexity of the constructs.
I completely agree that people are afraid to suffer, and agree to an extent that is why they suffer. The question I ask is if social construct -A- is creating more perceived discomfort than comfort? If significant discomfort then social construct -C- has support and agent -B- is just an agent.
Could be a semantics problem here but I couldn't agree more with:
"Is there any reason why someone would not find value in both positions at the same time?"
and everything you said after it.
Both positions have the same goal.. both positions are likely necessary to succeed.
I appreciate it, and you make some good points.
There are some differences. The engage camp expects to engage and go into the social construct of state and dismantle at the power hub.
The defect camp is more a war of attrition/subtraction from the outside.
But that is not correct. As you have stated, a majority would not vote first on whether or not to purchase something, or take some path of action. Individuals would voice market preference with their money, and if many individuals buy something, that product would be successful. This is categorically different from a pre-market vote, or referendum.
As concerns our argument about national parks, consensus could not determine this as per Voluntaryist property ethic, as any individual with the ability would have the opportunity to homestead or purchase land regardless of the will of the “majority.”
In a sense, we would vote first on whether or not to purchase something, it just wouldn't be by ballot but by opinion. There's a perspective I'm having trouble expressing but I'll get it eventually, may have to come back to this later.
Regarding the National Parks, here's my idea of common sense...
I don't see how the existence of areas set aside to be used by everyone now and for future posterity violates anything. Personally, I would hate to see every last bit of land in private hands. Where you going to go at that point if going anywhere crossed someone's property?
The answers to how we go from here to a Voluntaryist property ethic are not set in stone, not a chance. I know it, you know it, and @adamkokesh knows it as he has stated clearly that he's looking for advice on the fairest way for all concerned. What more could you ask of a person. rhetorical
The wallet: Would you pick it up and return it to its rightful owner if possible? I would hope so but you understand that at the moment you pick it up, you've just assumed an authority over it. By what right, did you do that? Maybe the person doesn't want it back, maybe they wanted the thief to have it because they must need it more.
By what right would Adam attempt to return stolen property? It's just the right thing to do. I wish you'd just help, this is about freedom and I want mine back and I don't want to be the jerk that didn't try to prevent our kids from living in a world with no privacy or freedom of any kind.
THAT is unconscionable to my being but if we don't try to find some common ground, we fail.
Nobody does. The idea that I do, if that is what you are implying my dissent symbolizes, is ridiculous.
And the wallet metaphor is not analagous. A single piece of property with a single owner is not the same as vast swathes of land and trillions of dollars of resources.
kafka, if the engage camp were to strip the term Voluntaryist out of their movement, and defaulted all public land to market land, or land subjected to a free market, would this resolve the primary issues of the conflict you see with that movement?
The engage camp could drop Volutaryist references out of the movement and just replace it with something else.
I’m not sure what the engage camp is, but if you mean advocates for centralized political redistribution then yeah, if the “plan” was a voluntary one, and not based on a mob rule, force-backed political majority consensus, I would see no problem with it.