dreamdancer 0 #51 October 6, 2009 your pick seems to be pure capitalism...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #52 October 6, 2009 True anarchy only exists in nature which persists in a vacuum of philosophy, rights, and governance. Survival is the only mandate. bacteria for example require no rule of law to coexist.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #53 October 6, 2009 >your pick seems to be pure capitalism... Nope. Capitalism is a good foundation, but unbridled capitalism (i.e. anarchistic capitalism) doesn't work all that well, as we've seen. Laws against uncompetitive practices, fraud, deceptive advertising etc are a good idea, as is governmental support of some infrastructure (i.e. highways, spectrum, air traffic control.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #54 October 6, 2009 Quote>your pick seems to be pure capitalism... Nope. Capitalism is a good foundation, anarchism also is a good foundation...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #55 October 6, 2009 >anarchism also is a good foundation . . . ?? Capitalism can function within anarchism; they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, "pure" capitalism is fairly anarchistic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #56 October 6, 2009 QuoteIndeed, "pure" capitalism is fairly anarchistic. how so? capitalism is about property rights and anarchism is about individual rights...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #57 October 6, 2009 Quote capitalism is about property rights and anarchism is about individual rights... Property is an individual right. (or are you saying that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own property--only their corporate masters can do that?) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #58 October 6, 2009 >capitalism is about property rights and anarchism is about individual rights... The right to own property is generally considered an individual right. "Pure" capitalism is basically "do whatever you want to make money, without regulation or restraint." No artificial limits, incentives, requirements etc. Which is the definition of anarchy when applied to economics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #59 October 7, 2009 Quote Quote capitalism is about property rights and anarchism is about individual rights... Property is an individual right. (or are you saying that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own property--only their corporate masters can do that?) i was being a bit more literal in that capitalism in its purest form is about the rights of property. in the olden days if you had property you could vote (the right to vote was inherent in the property not the individual) in the modern world if you own shares in corporations you are not liable for their debts - another property right. anarchism is about the rights of individuals - any individual, no matter who they are or where they are or what they may own.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #60 October 7, 2009 Quote>capitalism is about property rights and anarchism is about individual rights... The right to own property is generally considered an individual right. "Pure" capitalism is basically "do whatever you want to make money, without regulation or restraint." No artificial limits, incentives, requirements etc. Which is the definition of anarchy when applied to economics. your definitions are wonky to me. 'do whatever you want to make money' implies immediate theft and war. if economics is a science how can anarchy be 'applied to' it (for instance how can anarchy be applied to mathematics or physics).stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #61 October 7, 2009 > 'do whatever you want to make money' implies immediate theft and war. Theft - yes, if you can get away with it within the legal system. (Note we are talking about economic anarchy, not political and social anarchy.) However, you may also decide that fines and jail time are not worth the payout. War - yes, and several countries have tried just that. >if economics is a science how can anarchy be 'applied to' it It is a change in the underlying assumptions of an economy. For example, you can study how a socialist economic system works, then apply a more communist paradigm and see what changes. >(for instance how can anarchy be applied to mathematics or physics). The equivalent would be chaos theory, which is becoming a staple of both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #62 October 7, 2009 QuoteWar - yes, and several countries have tried just that. Like the USA. Which is a big reason not to trust our government to be the largest and most powerful actor in our society.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #63 October 7, 2009 Quote> 'do whatever you want to make money' implies immediate theft and war. Theft - yes, if you can get away with it within the legal system. (Note we are talking about economic anarchy, not political and social anarchy.) However, you may also decide that fines and jail time are not worth the payout. War - yes, and several countries have tried just that. >if economics is a science how can anarchy be 'applied to' it It is a change in the underlying assumptions of an economy. For example, you can study how a socialist economic system works, then apply a more communist paradigm and see what changes. >(for instance how can anarchy be applied to mathematics or physics). The equivalent would be chaos theory, which is becoming a staple of both. you can't just have 'economic' anarchy. your models just about fit together but are very wonky. and chaotic systems arise from simple mathematics - not the other way around.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #64 October 7, 2009 >you can't just have 'economic' anarchy. Sure you can. No financial regulations. You can still have a justice system for criminal matters (i.e. no armed robbery, no murder) but it can basically stay out of the financial system, and allow fraud, misrepresentation, anticompetitive practices, monopolization of industry, airwaves, airspace etc. >and chaotic systems arise from simple mathematics - not the other >way around. Right. Just as anarchic financial systems can be very complex, but arise from very simple rules (i.e. "whoever gets the most money wins" "do whatever you want to make money.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #65 October 7, 2009 Quote>you can't just have 'economic' anarchy. Sure you can. No financial regulations. You can still have a justice system for criminal matters (i.e. no armed robbery, no murder) but it can basically stay out of the financial system, and allow fraud, misrepresentation, anticompetitive practices, monopolization of industry, airwaves, airspace etc. >and chaotic systems arise from simple mathematics - not the other >way around. Right. Just as anarchic financial systems can be very complex, but arise from very simple rules (i.e. "whoever gets the most money wins" "do whatever you want to make money.") i count war as mass murder so to me your definitions make no sense. you cannot pick out 'economic' anarchy, 'social' anarchy and 'legal' anarchy. anarchy is anarchy. and i think you've just seen the word 'chaos' in mathematics and associated that with 'anarchy'.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #66 October 7, 2009 Quote i count war as mass murder... Almost all wars, and certainly all wars today, involve state actors. (to reduce the incidence of war, shouldn't we try to reduce the incidence, or power, of states?)-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,089 #67 October 7, 2009 > you cannot pick out 'economic' anarchy, 'social' anarchy and 'legal' >anarchy. Sure you can, and many philosophers have done just that. Less regulation in the economic realm = more anarchy. You can tightly regulate social values (think Taliban) while allowing a lot of economic freedom (think UAE) and vice versa. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #68 October 7, 2009 Quote Almost all wars, and certainly all wars today, involve state actors. (to reduce the incidence of war, shouldn't we try to reduce the incidence, or power, of states?) Since there seems to be an increasing tendency for some of the major parties in today's wars to not be state actors (e.g. al Qaeda), I fail to see how your proposed solution would offer any real benefit.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #69 October 7, 2009 Quote Quote i count war as mass murder... Almost all wars, and certainly all wars today, involve state actors. (to reduce the incidence of war, shouldn't we try to reduce the incidence, or power, of states?) i would like to see all illegitimate forms of power reduced/disbanded. but remember that well before the state came along landowners were taxing their tenants to the hilt (often to pay for wars with other landowners).stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #70 October 7, 2009 You really don't think that US state action played any role in the creation and rise of Al-Qaeda? I think the whole idea of state "foreign policy" has been a disaster since 1945, with a massively negative net effect on the overall welfare of the world, and a large contribution to violence suffered by individuals.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #71 October 7, 2009 Quote remember that well before the state came along landowners were taxing their tenants to the hilt (often to pay for wars with other landowners). And today we call those landowners "the state." (perhaps the names have changed, but the underlying injustice remains?) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #72 October 7, 2009 QuoteYou really don't think that US state action played any role in the creation and rise of Al-Qaeda? US state action played a major role in the creation and rise of al Qaeda. That doesn't change the fact that they are a non-state actor, as are many insurgent groups waging war in various places in the world. Of course, we'll never know how many non-state actors aren't waging war, due to policies and actions of state actors. QuoteI think the whole idea of state "foreign policy" has been a disaster since 1945, with a massively negative net effect on the overall welfare of the world, and a large contribution to violence suffered by individuals. We're almost in agreement here. I think US foreign policy has been a disaster since 1945, with a massively negative net effect on the overall welfare of the world and a large contribution to violence suffered by individuals around the world.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #73 October 7, 2009 Quote > you cannot pick out 'economic' anarchy, 'social' anarchy and 'legal' >anarchy. Sure you can, and many philosophers have done just that. Less regulation in the economic realm = more anarchy. You can tightly regulate social values (think Taliban) while allowing a lot of economic freedom (think UAE) and vice versa. what philosophers? i don't think the taliban are interested in anarchy. it's nice to see you equate anarchy with freedom stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #74 October 7, 2009 QuoteI think US foreign policy has been a disaster since 1945, with a massively negative net effect on the overall welfare of the world and a large contribution to violence suffered by individuals around the world. I agree. But I'd also make the same statement about Soviet foreign policy. And I'd argue that between them, US and Soviet foreign policy more or less defined foreign policy in the world in the last half century. I'm hard put to think of any state actor that I'd say has exercised a positive influence with it's foreign policy in the last half century. Those with less influence might have been less bad, but who's been good? Seriously, if you have some places to look for a positive influence, I'd love to hear your suggestions so I can go research them.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #75 October 7, 2009 an example of pure economics... QuoteMonkeys invest less energy in a task if they see other monkeys receiving better rewards for the same effort, researchers report. They say that their experiment provides new evidence that non-human primates can feel envy. The findings could also help explain why humans have such a keen sense of fairness, according to experts. Previous studies have found that monkeys put less effort into a task when they see cage-mates receiving tastier treats for completing the same task. But scientists have not felt confident in saying why the poorly rewarded animals slack off. Some people have suggested the primates that refuse to repeat the task are simply greedy and therefore only willing to work for a bigger reward. Alternately, it has been proposed that the monkeys stop performing the task because they have received large rewards in the past and feel frustrated by the measly amounts offered in later trials. To understand the monkeys' reluctance to participate in the task, Frans de Waal at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, US, and colleagues decided to try several variations on this experiment. They trained 13 capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) to retrieve a small rock and place it in the experimenter's hands. In exchange for completing this task, the animals received a reward. Pairs of monkeys were seated beside one another in a test booth, separated by a mesh partition. In one trial, the monkeys received the same sized cucumber reward for their efforts and 90% completed the task within 5 seconds. But then the researchers gave one of the monkeys a grape instead of a cucumber. To a human this may seem like a minor detail, but monkeys go bananas over grapes, which they far prefer to cucumbers. When the monkeys given cucumber saw their partners receive this grape reward, they invested less effort in future repetitions of the task, and completed it within 5 seconds only 80% of the time. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12913-envious-monkeys-can-spot-a-fair-deal.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
