Comments on Meme Processing: The Socratic Method

I'll only make a couple comments, because I just g...

2007-07-24T01:09:00.000-05:00

I'll only make a couple comments, because I just got back from Portland and have only slept 3 hours in the past 2 days (drove through the night).

Firstly, about Orwell. He was clearly a socialist. Don't think so? Read Homage to Catalonia and see how he speaks of capitalism . Orwell fought in the Spanish Revolution and nearly died from a bullet wound to the neck fighting for the hope of a socialist society.

Also, you speak of capitalism as if it were without coercion. How do you justify this? If the majority of people decide that the small minority's owership of the property is illegitimate, what happens to them? Oh right, the power of the state comes down on them to defend the minority's position of hierarchy. If capitalism is threatened it resorts to violence in the extreme (see fascism). Maybe you mean that if everyone agrees that capitalism is "just" and "moral" (how you would prove this is beyond me) then it is without violence? Because that's obvious. Just as if in a socialist society if everyone does exactly what they are supposed to do and agrees with the way the game is played then there will be no problems at all, by definition. Surely you see that your belief that capitalism is without violence rests on the presupposition that everyone in your example world believes that capitalism is just and is the way that society should be structured?

And Cheney a socialist? I know this is just the internet, but please.

The underlying difference here is that you don't s...

2007-07-21T18:30:00.000-05:00

The underlying difference here is that you don't see the abuse of power inherent to hierarchical command structures.

Socialism, especially anarcho-socialism, is an idea that seeks to remedy this. Here is a good example:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/klein_lewis

Please read the FAQ. It is not the best in terms of spelling or editing, but it gets the point across.

oh, well if it's from some random anarchist FAQ, p...

2007-07-20T20:20:00.000-05:00

oh, well if it's from some random anarchist FAQ, presumably on the internet, then hey, I concede!

No. Voting is just an attempt to usurp the rights of others. The only place where a vote is legitimate is where all parties have entered into a contract that states disputes shall be resolved through a vote (like with shareholders in a company or something), but that is because the company cannot decide that they are going to violate the rights of other people.

that is the only place where democracy is valid. No matter how much you assert otherwise.

If everyone has the right to create things, then why don't they have the right to sell these things? Why don't they have the right to make a company that makes these things? When does production become capitalism? I would argue that voluntary, un-coerced production is a part of capitalism.

I mean, you have not shown in any way how your socialism works without coercion.

"For anarchists, freedom means both "freedom from"...

2007-07-19T22:48:00.000-05:00

"For anarchists, freedom means both "freedom from" and "freedom to." "Freedom from" signifies not being subject to domination, exploitation, coercive authority, repression, or other forms of degradation and humiliation. "Freedom to" means being able to develop and express one's abilities, talents, and potentials to the fullest possible extent compatible with the maximum freedom of others. Both kinds of freedom imply the need for self-management, responsibility, and independence, which basically means that people have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. And since individuals do not exist in a social vacuum, it also means that freedom must take on a collective aspect, with the associations that individuals form with each other (e.g. communities, work groups, social groups) being run in a manner ***which allows the individual to participate in the decisions that the group makes***. Thus freedom for anarchists requires participatory ***democracy***, which means face-to-face discussion and voting on issues by the people affected by them."

This is from An Anarchist FAQ. Please note the necessary condition: democracy. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

it's funny how inconsistent and small minded you a...

2007-07-18T16:30:00.000-05:00

it's funny how inconsistent and small minded you are. "Ah, but you did. You said it was okay that slavery took place and that the native americans had their land stolen from them so someone could benefit. You blamed socialism, but socialism had not been invented yet."

"Please recognize that telling me what I mean by the words I use does not make your points valid, nor does it invalidate mine. We can change the meanings of the words we use to reflect this difference of definitions, but you would still have to address the words as what they mean (the definition), not by what they are (the particular spelling)."

Socialism may not have been "invented" yet, but there certainly was plenty of socialism before it was coined, it just wasn't called socialism.

How am I advocating violence when I say that slavery was an immoral, socialist construct of the state? I never said slavery was ok. Don't put words in my mouth, socialist.

Regarding democracy, you're kind of retarded. There are ways other than voting to get your ideas out there. Like, by buying a certain product, you tell the market that you like that product and value that product more than the money you spent on it. Democracy cannot validate evil. You keep implying that for society to work, some people must have power over others, via democracy. Well is democracy necessary in the absence of a government, the way anarchism requires?

You are not an anarchist in any way. You are just another socialist, in love with socialist dogma.

You have not shown how socialism could work absent a central power figure, or absent taxation. Yet you refuse to learn about capitalism, merely asserting that capitalism is an outdated system of consensual agreements that allow for the best allocation of resources.

Check out Mises.org. These people can argue much better than I can, but honestly, you don't seem very open to logic or rationality. Dick Cheney may advocate capitalism, but he's a fucking thief socialist. He does not provide things the free market wants, he steals from the public to fund his own shit. That is socialism.

"Did you not understand when I said Democracy is e...

2007-07-18T15:51:00.000-05:00

"Did you not understand when I said Democracy is evil?"

Yes, I understand what you mean, that's why I used the term "tyranny of the majority" to describe your position. You *still* don't understand what I mean, though. What I really want is for you to say that a mono-archon system is superior to democracy. You can continue to claim that democracy is evil, and yes, by your standards it may very well be, but there are millions (if not billions) of people that would rather have some say in what goes on in their lives than none at all. However, this is just a democratic opinion, so it is evil.

"I don't understand what you are saying"

I wonder if you even understand what you yourself are saying.

"I have never advocated violence to achieve an end"

Ah, but you did. You said it was okay that slavery took place and that the native americans had their land stolen from them so someone could benefit. You blamed socialism, but socialism had not been invented yet.

"capitalism is the best way to satisfy the desires of the people"

Hahaha!

"And yeah, Dick Cheney is totally a socialist."

More than anything else, this ruined any claim you may have had to knowing what you are talking about. Dick Cheney is not a socialist, not by any definition, not yours, not mine. And no, I will not bother explaining this because it'll only make me laugh harder.

I can see this is drawing to a close, because we have exhausted ourselves without getting anywhere.
Despite it all, this has been an enlightening experience for me because it shows just how silly and inconsistent libertarian arguments can get. I'm gonna be quoting "And yeah, Dick Cheney is totally a socialist." for a long time. I hope you remain as ignorant now as you were before, not because I want you to be (I don't), but because you may yet entertain someone else who hasn't heard such absurdity.

If you want to know where I get my definitions so you can understand them, go here:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

You may have noticed I have been haughty when dealing with you. Good, I laid it on pretty thick. Don't think it's because I don't like you as a person (I hardly know you), just the maladaptive memes that you unquestioningly propagate. You seem like a smart person, and I applaud your DIY attitude - one I maintain as well. So, DIY and read about libertarian socialism at the link above. Try not to let dogma get in the way.

Did you not understand when I said Democracy is ev...

2007-07-18T14:38:00.000-05:00

Did you not understand when I said Democracy is evil? I'll repost something I think you should read. Read it until you understand it.

"well, that is a false spectrum. Democracy still uses the collective opinion to take rights away from the individual. I mean, if 51% of the population votes that the government should have the right to tax the people, is it legitimate that the government then claims the right to tax 100% of the population, even the people that voted against the taxation?

If X say "hey, don't rape me", then a bunch of people vote whether they have the right to rape X, isn't that completely illegitimate as no one has the right to violate anyone else's person or property without the owner's consent? Well, that's what taxation is. You don't have the right to rob me, even if you all agree you have the right to rob me.
"

and if your socialism doesn't require taxation, then how does it work? You have not enlightened me as to how your magical socialism works.

You may have been consistent, but apparently I don't understand what you are saying so I can't judge. But I have been consistent too, in that I have never advocated violence to achieve an end, and capitalism is the best way to satisfy the desires of the people.

In your socialism, how are cars made? How about roads? How about anything that requires the sale of things, and the investment of capital?

You claim to be based on logic and rationality. You should start using said logic in your arguments.

And yeah, Dick Cheney is totally a socialist. He doesn't want competition, he just wants to rob the people and funnel the money directly to Halliburton. The money was stolen from the people through taxation. Bush and Cheney were elected through democracy.

But hey, how is Cheney not a socialist? Let's see that logic machine go to work.

Your posts are getting real bad. Do you notice how...

2007-07-18T10:19:00.000-05:00

Your posts are getting real bad. Do you notice how you are painting yourself into a corner? Especially when you conclude that dick cheney is a socialist.

That's funny, really.

Read this part again:

Please recognize that telling me what I mean by the words I use does not make your points valid, nor does it invalidate mine. We can change the meanings of the words we use to reflect this difference of definitions, but you would still have to address the words as what they mean (the definition), not by what they are (the particular spelling).

"Does your ideal situation involve taxation or violent coercion in any way, or do you advocate voluntary socialism, where people aren't forced to be socialists?"

The very point I was trying to make to you is that Orwell and Vonnegut are not supporters of the type of "socialism" you describe, because it would make their books horribly hypocritical. If it doesn't mean what you think it means, what does it mean?

You still have not done enough research to find out. When you do, come here with the definition, reread everything we went over, and then you will answer the question you finally bothered to ask. What I'm hoping you'll notice is that:

1) The definition you have been using makes you sound really silly.

2) I have been consistent this entire time, and if you were to peruse this blog and my stumbleupon links, you would see more confirmation of this.

3) You were horribly misinformed by people who are very happy you were.

"There are better situations."

Sounds like you are advocating something other than democracy. It's either citizen participation or none. We have moved away from the abuse of the latter and have been seeking the relative safety of the former for hundreds of years. If you have a better way to do things, I'd like to hear it. Any mention of a mono-archon, or a move towards that, which is what it seems like you are advocating, certainly nullifies your whole "libertarian" stance. And no, there is no other spectrum.

and seriously "I don't think you understood the na...

2007-07-18T02:21:00.000-05:00

and seriously

"I don't think you understood the nature of my question. Think about it a bit more and give me something other than the "tyranny of the majority". Here's a hypothetical that should help you out:

You and I are locked in a room with a radio that we cannot shut off. The radio has two stations. You like one, I like the other. We each dislike the other station. Since my choice affects you, and yours me, we have to decide what station we listen to, for how long, etc, so we'll have to develop some method of determining stations. The two sides of the spectrum are: democracy and mono-archy. In a democracy, you and I hammer out the radio schedule. In a mono-archy, one of us lords it over other and they have no choice but to take it. Which method is preferable to both of us? Which one gets the job done quickly, irrespective of the concern of the other? (Note that if you suggest some other option, like flipping a coin, we would still need to come together and AGREE that this was to decide the schedule.)"

in the situation of democracy, both people still lose 50% of the time. There are better situations. I don't think you understand this.

look at this situation. When you go shopping for yourself, do you pick only things you like, or do you pick 50% of the things you wanted and an equal amount of shit you didn't want?

That is democracy. You can't vote to have someone that wants everything you want, they are destined to impose a lot of shit you don't want on you.

Do you understand this, or will you just tell me that my definitions are wrong...

oh, and yeah, I had noticed that in Das Kapital, b...

2007-07-18T02:16:00.000-05:00

oh, and yeah, I had noticed that in Das Kapital, but I have read things that use logic to destroy the arguments of Marx in Das Kapital, and I'm able to also do this.

I know you just assume that everything Karl Marx writes is gospel, but no, this is not the case. He is wrong about nearly everything. His historical dialectic is the only thing that has any logical value, and it had already been articulated by Hegel. Marx was a fucking waste and a fucking hypocrite.

While he was fucking his maid, he wrote that evil capitalists use the workers as sex objects, and this is another form of the exploitation.

I mean, back then, a maid couldn't get work if they didn't have good recommendations, since back then, maids lived in the homes they cleaned, typically for several years. If a maid was looking for work and didn't have a good recommendation for their most recent job, people assumed that the maid had stolen shit or been terrible at their job.

So Marx was exploiting the shit out of his maid at the same time he was saying capitalists are evil because they all sexually exploit the worker.

Also, socialism/marxism, when mixed with violent force, killed more than 100 million people. Hardly the wave of the future.

"How did the lords of feudal society maintain thei...

2007-07-18T02:07:00.000-05:00

"How did the lords of feudal society maintain their financial edge on the peasants? How did the slave-owners of pre-capitalist America become enormously wealthy without doing the back-breaking labour that intensive crops demand?"

in these pre-capitalistic situations, people made wealth by robbing, coercing, and using general socialism against the worker.

"(You'll find here the reason for the "anarcho" in anarcho-socialism, which to me is a bit redundant.)"

Umm, how so? Socialism tends to be involuntary. If you made it voluntary, no one with wealth would participate in it, as socialism is just a method for the unproductive to steal from the productive.
In an anarchy, people will still try to make the best life possible, so they have two options. Produce things people are willing to buy voluntarily (capitalism) or put a gun to the head of people that produce things and tell them to "subsidize" your living expenses (socialism).

One of these is ethical. The other is socialism.

""Hell, the burden of proof doesn't even lie on me here, it lies with you."

Halliburton"

Yeah, that supports my point. The American Socialism of government control of production results in corporations getting contracts even though the public does not want what they are selling.

Hey, I think we might have a fundamental disconnect that can be solved in a simple question:

Does your ideal situation involve taxation or violent coercion in any way, or do you advocate voluntary socialism, where people aren't forced to be socialists?

If your system involves taxation or coercion, then it is immoral and cannot be described as anarchic at all.

If your system is voluntary, then great. I can ignore it as I want nothing to do with your evil socialism (redundant, I know), and no one will put a gun to my head if I don't support your socialism.

this is the only important question. If you are pro violent coercion, then your system is totally unacceptable, and if your system is voluntary, then it is completely ethical and I don't have to worry about socialists stopping the progress that capitalism has shown to cause.

"First off, I read Das Kapital and the Communist M...

2007-07-17T14:17:00.000-05:00

"First off, I read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto."

Good, that means I can use his terms and you'll know exactly what is meant by them.

"Capitalism isn't the extraction of value from the working class by underpaying them; that wouldn't make sense."

How did the lords of feudal society maintain their financial edge on the peasants? How did the slave-owners of pre-capitalist America become enormously wealthy without doing the back-breaking labour that intensive crops demand?

"without coercion from a central planner"

Where does Marx refer to a central planner, especially in Das Kapital? How and why did Marx come to such a conclusion? (He didn't.) Must planning be centralized, more specifically by an over-arching state entity?

(You'll find here the reason for the "anarcho" in anarcho-socialism, which to me is a bit redundant.)

As far as central planning in capitalism, what is the Federal Reserve and how does it work? Why did bankers and industrialists create a centralized system of control? What does this mean for the free market and how it operates? Also, how decisions are made in an economy and by whom is not actually explained by invoking the free market (see below). This is important to understanding political economy. Did you miss that part in Das Kapital?

"Hell, the burden of proof doesn't even lie on me here, it lies with you."

Halliburton

"If the free market were allowed to work, there would be no monopolies."

Maybe the free market is more an ideal than reality, and as an abstraction has very little predictive power because it does not consider material conditions. Note that this does not mean I advocate what you call socialism, just that your use of the term "free market" does not invalidate what I mean when I use the term socialism. (The free market and my definition of socialism are not incompatible, and I even believe that the relevant, meaningful aspects of the concept of the free market could ONLY come about through the definition of socialism I am using.)

"yeah, it is true in the socialist sense that government hands out a monopoly to one company and uses force and violence to prevent others from entering the market"

And certainly, it's the great mass of socialists that is preventing the "free" market from working, certainly not the great power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few politicians and business leaders. They wouldn't stand to gain by forming cartels and monopolies to drive out potential competitors so they can secure enormous profits.

"...computer operating systems, and decided to charge far more than market value for this software, well other companies will see that there is huge profits to be made in the computer OS business and will reinvest their money in the computer OS business, thus driving price down and offering more choice"

And then linux and free software came along and proved that competition can be vastly inferior to cooperation.

"Competition prevents monopolies from existing"

Monopolies prevent competition from existing. Just ask Bill Gates and Sam Walton.

"When government prohibits competition (socialism), then one company will get a blank check to stop improving and start overcharging, as consumers can't pick any other option."

Right, so when American pharmaceutical companies had the gummint ban cheap Canadian medication for "security" reasons, they were being socialists. When Cheney met with certain energy firms to discuss energy policy behind closed doors, he was being a socialist. When the responsibility of the reconstruction of Iraq was determined with no-bid contracts, it was the work of socialists and not the people that run their respective construction companies and benefit from such deals.

"well, that is a false spectrum"

I don't think you understood the nature of my question. Think about it a bit more and give me something other than the "tyranny of the majority". Here's a hypothetical that should help you out:

You and I are locked in a room with a radio that we cannot shut off. The radio has two stations. You like one, I like the other. We each dislike the other station. Since my choice affects you, and yours me, we have to decide what station we listen to, for how long, etc, so we'll have to develop some method of determining stations. The two sides of the spectrum are: democracy and mono-archy. In a democracy, you and I hammer out the radio schedule. In a mono-archy, one of us lords it over other and they have no choice but to take it. Which method is preferable to both of us? Which one gets the job done quickly, irrespective of the concern of the other? (Note that if you suggest some other option, like flipping a coin, we would still need to come together and AGREE that this was to decide the schedule.)

This question is at the heart of socialism as I have defined it. The authority you disdain in the state has a lovely analogue in the economy. I hope that my previous examples have illustrated how economic authority can and often does spill over into the political sphere. If you had read Das Kapital, you would have noticed this.

Please recognize that telling me what I mean by the words I use does not make your points valid, nor does it invalidate mine. We can change the meanings of the words we use to reflect this difference of definitions, but you would still have to address the words as what they mean (the definition), not by what they are (the particular spelling).

First off, I read Das Kapital and the Communist Ma...

2007-07-16T18:08:00.000-05:00

First off, I read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. Marx may have given his definition of both socialism and capitalism, but his definition for capitalism is wrong.
Capitalism isn't the extraction of value from the working class by underpaying them; that wouldn't make sense. Capitalism in the free market is a system by which people are free to invest their legitimately owned money or labour as they choose, without coercion from a central planner.

Second:
"Big government is a result of big business, and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other."

that is absolutely untrue. How do you explain the black or gray markets? It involves no government enforcement of contracts, it only involves private contracts and reputations. If you have a reputation for being a cheat, people don't deal with you. If you have a reputation for honoring your promises, people continue dealing with you, or even deal with you more. No government needed.

Hell, the burden of proof doesn't even lie on me here, it lies with you. You made the claim that government and big business need each other. I mean, yeah, it is true in the socialist sense that government hands out a monopoly to one company and uses force and violence to prevent others from entering the market (like in energy production, road making, and most other industries), but that is anti capitalistic. If the free market were allowed to work, there would be no monopolies.

Think about it. If one company started making, for instance, computer operating systems, and decided to charge far more than market value for this software, well other companies will see that there is huge profits to be made in the computer OS business and will reinvest their money in the computer OS business, thus driving price down and offering more choice. Competition prevents monopolies from existing. When government prohibits competition (socialism), then one company will get a blank check to stop improving and start overcharging, as consumers can't pick any other option.

So what other way should we arrive at the choices we make as a group? "If democracy is one side of the spectrum, and monarchy (mono-archon) the other, where does the ideal lie?"

well, that is a false spectrum. Democracy still uses the collective opinion to take rights away from the individual. I mean, if 51% of the population votes that the government should have the right to tax the people, is it legitimate that the government then claims the right to tax 100% of the population, even the people that voted against the taxation?

If X say "hey, don't rape me", then a bunch of people vote whether they have the right to rape X, isn't that completely illegitimate as no one has the right to violate anyone else's person or property without the owner's consent? Well, that's what taxation is. You don't have the right to rob me, even if you all agree you have the right to rob me.

i'll respond to the rest, but I'm going to go eat