The Mutualist Philosophy

[Pliny]

Pliny, your post is wise.

You examine the practical consequences of various actions. IOW, you consider incentives, unintended consequences and their role in social organization.

Leftists typically see signals as a light to awareness. People on the right see signals as how people may drive a car.

Sigh....judging from Michael's last post, I guess you are right.

The harshness of life is tempered with our own brush to get some joy from it. Leftists want to collect up all the brushes.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh...What to do with the King's ransom?

Are you that ignorant of history?

Do you just think somebody thought up Marxism one day?  There were reasons it took hold when it did?

Unimportant signal turn right here?

We are having a debate here, so it doesn't work for me if you dance around like a jester, then turn serious.

When I speak in lefty progressivist concepts it sounds like I'm being sarcastic?

Were Jack Layton to say the same thing it would not be sarcasm, would it? How do you tell if he is not being sarcastic? 

 

Sarcasm in print is difficult to pull off, is the point.

I see. Curse those factories with expensive machines driving wages down and forcing workers to get a better deal.

I dunno....Sounds exploitive. Does the civil liberties union know of this?

So, is this freshly snide tone a sign that you have run out of arguments?

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny, your post is wise.

You examine the practical consequences of various actions. IOW, you consider incentives, unintended consequences and their role in social organization.

Leftists typically see signals as a light to awareness. People on the right see signals as how people may drive a car.

I'm sure Pliny appreciates your cheering from the sidelines over there, but if you have anything specific to add, please do jump in. And I literally mean specific. We're trying to discuss Libertarianism, so I could use some hard facts here, and not your priestly musings about what "leftists" are like.

[bloodyminded]

So, is this freshly snide tone a sign that you have run out of arguments?

Personally, I think so. The same thing has occurred in our discussion on "leftist media bias," in which my asking for evidence amounts to my dismissal of common sense "observation"; my dismissal of "the obvious," which renders my requests for evidence a kind of dishonest rhetorical trick. So sarcasm, apparently, remains the only recourse, when debating with someone as blind and ideologically rigid as myself.

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

I do think that there us more thinking behind Libertarianism than many other political ideologies, which is why I ask so many questions about it. At some point, it seems to me, the discussion always seem to reveal that this philosophy isn't designed for the real world.

[Oleg Bach]

Mutualism isn't going to happen. Like Libertarianism, it's a philosophically pure concept that doesn't work in reality.

We experimented - and now it's over. Time to move on. We have a nice mix of humanity...let nature take it's course. The reality is that we don't need forced friendships.. The government should get out of the friendship buisness and let us decide who we assimulate with or not! We should also be allowed to discriminate if we wish also - immigrants who bring their culture here discrimate against us - maybe it's time we let them know that some of their customs are not acceptable also.

[bloodyminded]

I do think that there us more thinking behind Libertarianism than many other political ideologies, which is why I ask so many questions about it. At some point, it seems to me, the discussion always seem to reveal that this philosophy isn't designed for the real world.

I'm inclined to agree. It shares many of the same problems as its close cousin, anarchy. Meanwhile, its better qualities are ideals which a lot of people share, and should be (and in some cases are) incorporated into really-existing political philosophies, from free market conservatism to socialism.

[Pliny]

Are you that ignorant of history?

Does it show?

Do you just think somebody thought up Marxism one day?  There were reasons it took hold when it did?

There have been those wishing to steal from others since the dawn of time. Marx justified murder and thievery and painted it as necessary to the attainment and sustainment of the total state. The political class has the legal right to kill and plunder for the collective good.

The difference in a democracy is that we, the people can vote ourselves privilege and entitlement and government needs to just decide somehow keep track of where the money is so it knows who to legally kill and plunder making it appear they are just doing what the people want - charging a handsome and well-deserved administration fee in the process.

Tell me that constant wars and economic depressions are necessary to maintain our human compassion for the disadvantaged? Since 1900 there has not been a decade without war and/or depression. Pointing to the fact wars existed priorly isn't really an argument as governments, if they are of any value, should be beinging us peace, harmony and economic well being. War and plunder seems your solution, Michael?

Do you see war and plunder at all in our recent history? And aren't they necessary things for your comfort? They are I suppose until at least there is no such thing as the "nation state" and all are united as one.

We are having a debate here, so it doesn't work for me if you dance around like a jester, then turn serious.

Sarcasm in print is difficult to pull off, is the point.

You should know me a little bit, after all we have been through?

So, is this freshly snide tone a sign that you have run out of arguments?

Not at all. It is just the first time you have noticed it, I guess.(He said snidely)

[Michael Hardner]

Aha - maybe we have arrived at a new point then. I'll reply soon to discuss the history.

[Oleg Bach]

Mutual co-operation means mutual survival. Not a bad idea - I believe it is called peace on earth.

[Pliny]

So sarcasm, apparently, remains the only recourse, when debating with someone as blind and ideologically rigid as myself.

Definitely not sarcasm here then. Since, there are so many different avenues of recourse.

[Michael Hardner]

Does it show?

After awhile, it does show.

There have been those wishing to steal from others since the dawn of time. Marx justified murder and thievery and painted it as necessary to the attainment and sustainment of the total state. The political class has the legal right to kill and plunder for the collective good.

Why did Marx's ideas arrive and take hold when they did ? If you want to submit Libertarianism as a solution to the problem of how to organize (or not organize) society, then wouldn't it be a good idea for you to understand history and the reasons certain systems arrived on the scene ? If you're willfully ignoring these things then nobody in their right mind will listen.

The economies of scale with large machines were good for society as a whole, no one can dispute that. Productivity increased, however there were disruptions and no easy way for those who had their livlihoods deemed unnecessary to jump back. This is where Marxism found fertile ground - the unrestrained capitalism of the 19th century didn't reform itself voluntarily. This seems to be a precept of your proposed system - that such events wouldn't repeat themselves.

The difference in a democracy is that we, the people can vote ourselves privilege and entitlement and government needs to just decide somehow keep track of where the money is so it knows who to legally kill and plunder making it appear they are just doing what the people want - charging a handsome and well-deserved administration fee in the process.

We can do this, but if you look at how governments in the west have managed finances over the past 30 years, they are much more attuned to the needs of business. i.e. corporate tax cuts, deregulation.

Tell me that constant wars and economic depressions are necessary to maintain our human compassion for the disadvantaged? Since 1900 there has not been a decade without war and/or depression. Pointing to the fact wars existed priorly isn't really an argument as governments, if they are of any value, should be beinging us peace, harmony and economic well being.

Why isn't that an argument ? Wars always have existed, it's true, but I would argue that democracy has made war a less attractive option for countries since 1900. Conscription is gone, democracy is more stable, and things are improving on this front, IMO.

War and plunder seems your solution, Michael?

Do you see war and plunder at all in our recent history? And aren't they necessary things for your comfort? They are I suppose until at least there is no such thing as the "nation state" and all are united as one.

The nation state is disappearing anyway, because the new multinational colonialists prefer it that way.

[Pliny]

Aha - maybe we have arrived at a new point then. I'll reply soon to discuss the history.

You replied to nothing that I said. Especially, that you, the individual is important. Instead the important point to you is the suspected (being it is so difficult to discern in print) use of sarcasm.

That is the most important point to discuss?

I do think that there us more thinking behind Libertarianism than many other political ideologies, which is why I ask so many questions about it. At some point, it seems to me, the discussion always seem to reveal that this philosophy isn't designed for the real world.

If you have indeed determined, or perhaps just "believe", discussion always seems to reveal that this philosophy isn't designed for the real world, then what is the point of further discussion but to prove your determination correct?

Edited June 13, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

You replied to nothing that I said. Especially, that you, the individual is important. Instead the important point to you is the suspected (being it is so difficult to discern in print) use of sarcasm.

That is the most important point to discuss?

See my post above.

Are individuals important ? Of course. That question is trivial.

My point about sarcasm is that I can't tell what you're really saying and what you're mocking. Are you really concerned about greed, for example ?

If you have indeed determined, or perhaps just "believe", discussion always seems to reveal that this philosophy isn't designed for the real world, then what is the point of further discussion but to prove your determination correct?

I'm still holding out hope that you will address my main points. This includes the point that unmitigated business interests have, in the past, resulted in misery and loss for individuals. Our system of government beat out the Soviet system because we modified capitalism. China only started to move ahead when they modified Communism, and the Soviet system just collapsed.

[Pliny]

See my post above.

Are individuals important ? Of course. That question is trivial.

My point about sarcasm is that I can't tell what you're really saying and what you're mocking. Are you really concerned about greed, for example ?

I'm still holding out hope that you will address my main points. This includes the point that unmitigated business interests have, in the past, resulted in misery and loss for individuals. Our system of government beat out the Soviet system because we modified capitalism. China only started to move ahead when they modified Communism, and the Soviet system just collapsed.

Really Michael, where do you expect further discussion to lead but to find truth in the determination that Libertarianism is not designed for the real world? Unmitigated business interests, have in the past lead to misery and loss for individuals - loss and misery obviously having nothing to do with the real world. The soviet system collapsed because we modified capitalism and had nothing whatsoever to do with misery and loss in the soviet system - modifying capitalism eliminated the loss and misery of capitalism so much that the soviet system collapsed. Are you sure China is not modifying capitalism, as opposed to, as you say, modifying communism? And isn't it possible they realized there is no other way to maintain the State than through capitalism? And why would they have to modify communism - could it be misery and loss have something to do with modifying it?

[Michael Hardner]

Really Michael, where do you expect further discussion to lead but to find truth in the determination that Libertarianism is not designed for the real world?

Are you asking if I'm arguing in good faith ? Absolutely, I am. If you concede that your ideas are pie-in-the-sky and ideal, and need to wait for humans to evolve a little bit, then I can understand that. I recall a Communist friend who told me as much about HIS idealist philosophy.

Unmitigated business interests, have in the past lead to misery and loss for individuals - loss and misery obviously having nothing to do with the real world.

No, it's very real.

The soviet system collapsed because we modified capitalism and had nothing whatsoever to do with misery and loss in the soviet system - modifying capitalism eliminated the loss and misery of capitalism so much that the soviet system collapsed.

Misrepresenting what I said. Loss and misery wasn't eliminated but reduced. The Soviet collapsed for its own reasons, but central planning and 'pure' communism wasn't workable. The Chinese saw that, and moved on.

Are you sure China is not modifying capitalism, as opposed to, as you say, modifying communism? And isn't it possible they realized there is no other way to maintain the State than through capitalism?

Isn't it possible that the capitalists saw that there was no other way to maintain their wealth than through modified capitalism ?

And why would they have to modify communism - could it be misery and loss have something to do with modifying it?

Yes, lots of misery and loss.

----

So, are you now conceding that pure laissez-faire is untenable, now that I have answered your questions ? Do you want give another explanation why the industrial revolution gave rise to Marxism ? People just "got greedy" and decided to steal the wealth one day, even though everything was fine ?

I'm giving you a lot of chances here to advance your argument, but I'm not seeing anything from you since your concession that you are ignorant about history. Do you have nothing to say about the industrial revolution or examples of individuals being hurt (in the short term at least) by economic advances ? If I was in possession of such an idealistic philosophy (as I was in the past) and saw evidence that it didn't hold its own against reality, I would change my views (as I did).

[Pliny]

I'm giving you a lot of chances here to advance your argument, but I'm not seeing anything from you since your concession that you are ignorant about history.

I see you use your inability to determine sarcasm to your advantage. Or are you just being sarcastic?

[Michael Hardner]

I see you use your inability to determine sarcasm to your advantage. Or are you just being sarcastic?

I'm soooooo not.

There. Can you tell if I was being sarcastic ?

[Pliny]

I'm soooooo not.

There. Can you tell if I was being sarcastic ?

Just when you asked the question.

Really Michael, if you believe there is no evidence in our discussions that I have some knowledge of history then there is not much use in discussing anything further with you.

I apologize for wasting your time.

[Michael Hardner]

Really Michael, if you believe there is no evidence in our discussions that I have some knowledge of history then there is not much use in discussing anything further with you.

Sorry - I guess this was more sarcasm from you that you expected me to pick up on. ( I didn't. )

How about responding to my questions then ?

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny,

So where are we with this ? I think I answered your question regarding whether wealth is required in order to have administration (I believe it is) and I brought forward examples of how technological advances in the industrial revolution caused individuals to fare worse, even though there was an overall economic benefit.

So far, I would characterize your philosophy as revolving around the basic value that taxation is theft, and would characterize mine as having a more pragmatic view of why taxation is necessary.

I am still open to hear more arguments for libertarianism, though, if you have anything new to add.

[Oleg Bach]

Definitely not sarcasm here then. Since, there are so many different avenues of recourse.

Never thought that there was a "philosophy" to mutualism...that would hint that we would have to give it some thought...I believe that the action of being a mutualist would be more instictive and natural than intellectual.

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny,

So where are we with this ?

Bump.