Luigi Mangione

[Eltitoguay]

nope. Only that in what I outlined, there could be no poor. Perhaps too radical for you. Nothing to do with being indigenous. Nothing to do with money. Nothing to do with volunteering. Nothing to do with coercion. Nothing to do with accumulation of capital. Nothing to do with a perfect life. All based on value of production or even being. That value is determined/used by the community - consumer.

But think that almost all the examples of exchange that he has mentioned are very infrequent and almost fairy-tale exceptional exchanges, for which it would be absurd to try to establish economic rules.

They are anecdotes like the paradox of the bag of diamonds and the glass of water for the thirsty:
you well know that for each glass of water and diamond that are exchanged under those circumstances of "The Thousand and One Nights", millions of diamonds will be exchanged (and many more liters of water, of course), without those who exchange being lost in the Sahara with a bag of diamonds, nor being a (as clever as they are incredibly patient and optimistic) Saharahui cousin of mine, waiting with a dromedary skin boot, full of water...
(Note: By the way, my cousin would give you free water and invite you to his tent to eat Moorish skewers...)

As for Capitan's delusional model, I believe that most of the economy and the "market" will continue with the same "theory and practice of value" of current capitalism:
in my opinion, the producer follows the Marxist Theory of Value (expenses + desired benefits ) and if the situation allows it and interests it, the Theory of Power Value; and the consumer, the Subjective Marginalist Theory of Value...

But Im not a Economist.

Having said the above, @Microbeman I do not follow you in that "the subjective value dictated by need" would imply that there were no poor... (Although I suppose it would be better and more appropriate if you explained it in the "Commies" thread).

¡Salud!

 

[armedoldhippy]

Jimmy Carter didn't remove troops from all over the world did he?

where did i say he did? quit moving the goal posts, moron.

Also, you never answered WHO ceded the land?

the previous owners (if any) and the native Americans lost control of theirs to a technologically/numerically superior force in an invasion. i'm not going to try to defend that, but it IS an incontrovertible fact. you are never going to get an answer that makes you happy unless it agrees with your bullshit, so i'm going to quit wasting my time and put your useless ass on ignore. bye bye...

 

[Captain Red Eye]

where did i say he did? quit moving the goal posts, moron.

the previous owners (if any) and the native Americans lost control of theirs to a technologically/numerically superior force in an invasion. i'm not going to try to defend that, but it IS an incontrovertible fact. you are never going to get an answer that makes you happy unless it agrees with your bullshit, so i'm going to quit wasting my time and put your useless ass on ignore. bye bye...

Anything I've said you always ignored already. Most of your responses have been about me and not about any point I was making.

I respect your right to continue to live in your echo chamber.

 

[Microbeman]

Now I get what you were saying. It's an interesting concept, but I think it's lacking actual customer feedback and is a kind of central planning that will have unintended consequences.

You can vote and force people into an "all hamburgers made by people in wheel chairs are worth $85" situation, (or worth 10 pounds of potatoes if you eliminate $) but that won't mean the populace will automatically go along with that, nor should they.

Value is established by a meeting of the minds and actual trade, not by legislative fiat laws. Life isn't a board game and due to natural occurrences, prices and supply for oranges, corn and other things which are grown fluctuate etc.

I don't think actual value can be affixed to things by being "voted" in the traditional voting way.
A bunch of people declaring something is worth X is only a declaration absent proof. It lacks actual feedback from willing customers and is an incomplete speculative valuation. "Legislative fiat" can't vote a blue sky, green, no matter how hard people vote.

To use a math analogy, placing a value on something absent actual people clamoring for the thing, is only half the equation. There has to be an actual customer base that is willing to give you something for X in order to establish a real value range.

The proof of actual high value has to be many individuals actually value something and are willing to trade ("voting") for it etc. Scarcity and plentiful status comes into the picture too. When there's weed everywhere prices drop, when there wasn't weed everywhere prices were higher.


Seemingly paradoxically, "value" can be "voted" by free market actions actions though.

If enough people really do value something and show that they value it, by engaging in trade to try to acquire it, then the value of the thing is real. It can go up or down. Weed with sticks and seeds was valued highly at one time. Then weed without sticks and seeds came along and weed with sticks and seeds lost value to a new and improved product. Happens all the time with other commodities or inventions.

Free markets (free of duress) are the best way for value to be established.
That's not my biased slogan, it's a trade reality. You can't vote reality away, without suffering unintended consequences.
.

not voted - consumed - desired is the decider - this is what I meant by decided or established by the community. I may not want a hamburger made by someone in a wheelchair but may want her engineering or architecture designs.

 

[Eltitoguay]

But think that almost all the examples of exchange that he has mentioned are very infrequent and almost fairy-tale exceptional exchanges, for which it would be absurd to try to establish economic rules.

They are anecdotes like the paradox of the bag of diamonds and the glass of water for the thirsty:
you well know that for each glass of water and diamond that are exchanged under those circumstances of "The Thousand and One Nights", millions of diamonds will be exchanged (and many more liters of water, of course), without those who exchange being lost in the Sahara with a bag of diamonds, nor being a (as clever as they are incredibly patient and optimistic) Saharahui cousin of mine, waiting with a dromedary skin boot, full of water...
(Note: By the way, my cousin would give you free water and invite you to his tent to eat Moorish skewers...)

As for Capitan's delusional model, I believe that most of the economy and the "market" will continue with the same "theory and practice of value" of current capitalism:
in my opinion, the producer follows the Marxist Theory of Value (expenses + desired benefits ) and if the situation allows it and interests it, the Theory of Power Value; and the consumer, the Subjective Marginalist Theory of Value...

But Im not a Economist.

Having said the above, @Microbeman I do not follow you in that "the subjective value dictated by need" would imply that there were no poor... (Although I suppose it would be better and more appropriate if you explained it in the "Commies" thread).

¡Salud!

An example of the futility and absurdity of trying to derive economic rules from exceptional paradoxes, and cases that may never have happened or will ever happen (my Saharawi cousins, no matter how far back they go in history, do not remember ever encountering a tourist lost and thirsty, loaded with diamonds...; just kidding) :

We all know how our western capitalism and its rules work, right?:
Well, like a real explamle, in my country, supermarket chains sell milk (and there are millions of liters to millions of consumers; not an isolated case of a fabulous story) at a loss. below its cost, and losing money... Could you extrapolate from this example or deduce how capitalism and its theory of value work?...: Your resulting theory couldn't be more wrong.

...But you and I know that this is only a specific/circumstantial strategy, called a "hook product", which only serves to attract and retain customers in that supermarket, who in addition to milk will buy many other products there at the "normal" prices of the supermarket according to its "normal" value rule (plus the value of what was lost with the milk, if the achieved influx of clients does not leave the necessary/desired benefits).

 

[Microbeman]

Now I get what you were saying. It's an interesting concept, but I think it's lacking actual customer feedback and is a kind of central planning that will have unintended consequences.

You can vote and force people into an "all hamburgers made by people in wheel chairs are worth $85" situation, (or worth 10 pounds of potatoes if you eliminate $) but that won't mean the populace will automatically go along with that, nor should they.

Value is established by a meeting of the minds and actual trade, not by legislative fiat laws. Life isn't a board game and due to natural occurrences, prices and supply for oranges, corn and other things which are grown fluctuate etc.

I don't think actual value can be affixed to things by being "voted" in the traditional voting way.
A bunch of people declaring something is worth X is only a declaration absent proof. It lacks actual feedback from willing customers and is an incomplete speculative valuation. "Legislative fiat" can't vote a blue sky, green, no matter how hard people vote.

To use a math analogy, placing a value on something absent actual people clamoring for the thing, is only half the equation. There has to be an actual customer base that is willing to give you something for X in order to establish a real value range.

The proof of actual high value has to be many individuals actually value something and are willing to trade ("voting") for it etc. Scarcity and plentiful status comes into the picture too. When there's weed everywhere prices drop, when there wasn't weed everywhere prices were higher.


Seemingly paradoxically, "value" can be "voted" by free market actions actions though.

If enough people really do value something and show that they value it, by engaging in trade to try to acquire it, then the value of the thing is real. It can go up or down. Weed with sticks and seeds was valued highly at one time. Then weed without sticks and seeds came along and weed with sticks and seeds lost value to a new and improved product. Happens all the time with other commodities or inventions.

Free markets (free of duress) are the best way for value to be established.
That's not my biased slogan, it's a trade reality. You can't vote reality away, without suffering unintended consequences.
.

now weed with seeds affixed to a stick [landrace] blows away the value of weed with the components bred out of it through 'improvement'

 

[Travis Kelcee]

The New York Post reported:

“Since he arrived at MDC, Mangione — who is being held in protective custody — has become a sensation among other inmates, the Daily Mail reported.”

Mangione is getting a hero’s reception in jail, and that attention has angered Combs.


“’Diddy has been throwing tantrums over the fact that Luigi is getting all of the attention in prison and is being revered as a hero after literally murdering someone on camera’, a source told the outlet.

‘Even in prison, Diddy’s ego is bigger than life,” they added’.”

 

[Captain Red Eye]

not voted - consumed - desired is the decider - this is what I meant by decided or established by the community. I may not want a hamburger made by someone in a wheelchair but may want her engineering or architecture designs.

That's true you may not want an $85 hamburger, but somebody else might if they thought by buying the hamburger they were getting some personal value out of the burger and the charity that goes with the purchase, since it's obvious they could probably get an equivalent hamburger much cheaper if they looked around.

Even if a village vote tried to fix value (price) to some items, a black market which is almost a kind of free market would emerge to correct the price-controlled market. Again, weed is an example.

Trading oranges for a bag of potato chips in jail is more evidence that markets which are "disallowed" are still going to emerge. In jail, you're not supposed to trade, but it's a common practice.

To have a supervisory board or a village vote try to affix a value to something can only be an expression of those individuals and not an expression of every individual affected.

Edit- Just read your post with my glasses on. You did say, desired is the decider. So, some of my response wasn't responsive to your point. Sorry. I hate wearing glasses to read.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

The New York Post reported:

“Since he arrived at MDC, Mangione — who is being held in protective custody — has become a sensation among other inmates, the Daily Mail reported.”

Mangione is getting a hero’s reception in jail, and that attention has angered Combs.


“’Diddy has been throwing tantrums over the fact that Luigi is getting all of the attention in prison and is being revered as a hero after literally murdering someone on camera’, a source told the outlet.

‘Even in prison, Diddy’s ego is bigger than life,” they added’.”

Diddy has no principles, is an asshole and an idiot. Those are the nicest things I could come up with.

I hesitate to support Luigi, (don't like his methods) but at least he was trying to draw attention to something he identified as wrong. He has a point, crony capitalists in partnership with government policy have fucked up nearly everything they touch.

Luigi should not have murdered that person though (if he did it), there were other ways he could have used to draw attention to the problem.

Killing a person should have some proportionality to it, Luigi himself was not in imminent danger of the person he killed actually attacking and killing him. He's a dangerous person, even if his belief about the crony policies were accurate.

 

[Microbeman]

But think that almost all the examples of exchange that he has mentioned are very infrequent and almost fairy-tale exceptional exchanges, for which it would be absurd to try to establish economic rules.

They are anecdotes like the paradox of the bag of diamonds and the glass of water for the thirsty:
you well know that for each glass of water and diamond that are exchanged under those circumstances of "The Thousand and One Nights", millions of diamonds will be exchanged (and many more liters of water, of course), without those who exchange being lost in the Sahara with a bag of diamonds, nor being a (as clever as they are incredibly patient and optimistic) Saharahui cousin of mine, waiting with a dromedary skin boot, full of water...
(Note: By the way, my cousin would give you free water and invite you to his tent to eat Moorish skewers...)

As for Capitan's delusional model, I believe that most of the economy and the "market" will continue with the same "theory and practice of value" of current capitalism:
in my opinion, the producer follows the Marxist Theory of Value (expenses + desired benefits ) and if the situation allows it and interests it, the Theory of Power Value; and the consumer, the Subjective Marginalist Theory of Value...

But Im not a Economist.

Having said the above, @Microbeman I do not follow you in that "the subjective value dictated by need" would imply that there were no poor... (Although I suppose it would be better and more appropriate if you explained it in the "Commies" thread).

¡Salud!

My dear intelligent friend, I post these ideas mostly to promote thought/contemplation, however I have seen [been in] such communities; small mind you and composed of mostly indigenous people. There, value was found or obvious within each member. Someone unable or unwilling to carry out physical tasks may be in demand for coming up with solutions for problems or interpreting what nature is saying or for entertaining [the children], etc. In this way everyone had the same value, even up to the chief or doctor at the clinic.

In times gone, this would have held the economic system. Despite this, there would still be need for enforced strictures such as exist in many communities, like equal access to produce or services.

I realize that to apply this to our current societal structure would be almost impossible as would Red Eye's concepts. I can see his points and can almost see how an evolution to something similar could take place but not without those bothersome strictures creating/retaining a somewhat even playing field of access. [and] As I've mentioned, lobbying and bribery of government would need restrictive enforcement along with the usual murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.

Capitalist socialism?

 

[Microbeman]

That's true you may not want an $85 hamburger, but somebody else might if they thought by buying the hamburger they were getting some personal value out of the burger and the charity that goes with the purchase, since it's obvious they could probably get an equivalent hamburger much cheaper if they looked around.

Even if a village vote tried to fix value (price) to some items, a black market which is almost a kind of free market would emerge to correct the price-controlled market. Again, weed is an example.

Trading oranges for a bag of potato chips in jail is more evidence that markets which are "disallowed" are still going to emerge. In jail, you're not supposed to trade, but it's a common practice.

To have a supervisory board or a village vote try to affix a value to something can only be an expression of those individuals and not an expression of every individual affected.

I have not once mentioned nor implied voting or setting any value.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

As I've mentioned, lobbying and bribery of government would need restrictive enforcement along with the usual murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.

My concepts would work better in the absence of a central controlling government.

Also anytime you have a coercion based government, you've already got a government susceptible to bribery.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

I have not once mentioned nor implied voting or setting any value.

You are correct, I edited my post to reflect that.

 

[Microbeman]

You are correct, I edited my post to reflect that.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

As for Capitan's delusional model, I believe that most of the economy and the "market" will continue with the same "theory and practice of value" of current capitalism:

It's delusional to have free trade unimpeded by duress?

No, it really isn't.

I don't think you understand my "modeL' or you are intentionally laying the harms of crony capitalism at the feet of an actual Free market. I hate to repeat a tired accusation, but that is an example of "strawmanning".


You never answered the question
I don't think you'll answer directly, but could you explain what you think the difference is between the prevailing crony capitalism that exists now with what an actual free market is?

It's important to be honest when presenting our ideas and I wish you wouldn't assign crony capitalist damages to my ideas.

I assigned Communist damages to you, because despite my asking you several times you would not answer if you favored voluntary communism or regular old tough shit, you're going to be a Commie because if you don't agree with us, we'll shoot you kind of Communism.

There IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USING VOLUNTARY MEANS AND FORCIBLE MEANS.

Crony Capitalist and forcible Commies use the exact same operational means, don't they my intelligent opponent ?

Why are you afraid to admit that?

 

[Eltitoguay]

You never answered the question :
I don't think you'll answer directly, but could you explain what you think the difference is between the prevailing crony capitalism that exists now with what an actual free market is?

!!!????
That is again, totally false :

I told you my opinion, and I even gave you a link with a drawing and everything...
But either you don't read, or you don't understand what you read, or the lie (and the twisting of the truth, heh...) is so installed in the populist argument that the leaders of your "libertarian capitalism" have passed on to you, that it is It has left you as a chronic illness...
Because you have done it constantly.

And so that you stop beating me up (so insistently you assign me an ideology, as you ask me what my ideology is because you are not clear... This is how your cheap rhetoric works, exactly the same as those of the Musk and Milei, of those you deny, but who pull the strings of your ideology...):
My ideology has not killed that poor Chinese man in your photos, nor sent Solzhenitsyn to a Siberian concentration camp... Nor did it set fire to the Grafton church with one of your colleagues inside, nor was it the one who prevented your colleague from firefighter to be able to put out that fire (it was your ideology), nor the one who initiated the first homicides and sexual crimes in the history of the village (it was your ideology), nor the one who made those levels of crimes grow to levels that drew international attention (it was your ideology), nor the one that prevented your police colleague from not even being able to start his patrol car (it was your ideology)..., and no, it wasn't my ideology that made the bears start attacking your colleagues either (it was your ideology).

But so that you can rest assured and you can call me a murderer at ease: It is true that many people have been killed in the name of my ideology: the vast majority (as far as I know), fascist and Nazi soldiers, soldiers of the Kingdom of Morocco and from Mauritania, and some members of the Islamic State and al-Quaeda in North Western Africa and the Middle East...

And one last thing; My ideology is one that knows that:

1) Eliminating the State, surpassing it and transcending it, to advance socially is not the same as destroying it without further ado, to devolve socially. (And even more so if the power and assets of that State are left on a platter to the powerful billionaires).

2) "Social Darwinism" is a pseudotheory that (in addition to being completely dismantled as false by true Darwinism applied to our species) only serves to justify the current powers, and the oppression of those who can oppress those who cannot avoid it, engendering and justifying violence and crime, both individual and social.

On the other hand, I do not attribute to you as an individual the nonsense, injustice, oppression, violence and crime that your ideology implies (as you do constantly try, even without knowing my ideology).
I just think you're a well-intentioned "puppet."

 

[Captain Red Eye]

@Eltitoguay , if your ideas of Communism are based in ONLY including individual people that have consented to it, I apologize if you said that and I missed it in your bear picture posting barrage.

Kindly point out exactly where you said that please? Be specific too, if you don't mind.

If that is the case, you might be a VOLUNTARYIST.

I am a Voluntaryist and a Panarchist, which means I have even more super-powers than a regular old Anarcho Capitalist. I want you to have your Communist utopia, absent the force part.

My ideology, Voluntaryism is not political, it's philosophical and is based in moral concepts. not utilitarian concepts. We disavow the use of offensive force against otherwise peaceful people, because it's wrong and contradictory to equal rights of self determination, for everyone.

You see, at the root of human interactions, politics being part of that, there are only two ways to proceed, with the consent of those involved or without it.

 

[armedoldhippy]

can almost see how

"almost". too much chaff to sift through for too little grain... JMHO

 

[Eltitoguay]

@Eltitoguay , if your ideas of Communism are based in ONLY including individual people that have consented to it, I apologize if you said that and I missed it in your bear picture posting barrage.
Kindly point out exactly where you said that please? Be specific too, if you don't mind.

Damn, Captain... Or you take us all for being as stupid as those who convert to/with your argument... Or the methamphetamine that those in Grafton manufactured so much, has left consequences...
Son of mine...; But if your question in question that you said I had not answered, and I had answered (with link and explanatory drawing) was...:

Captain Red Eye said:
"You never answered the question :
I don't think you'll answer directly, but could you explain what you think the difference is between the prevailing crony capitalism that exists now with what an actual free market is?"

...Focus, son...

And you can be as Pan-something as you want, but if you visit any headquarters of true anarchism in my country, try to keep your mouth shut...(They are not going to separate as much, as this criminal communist who writes to you does, your "good underlying intentions" from the individual and social consequences that your speech/ideology implies)

 

[Captain Red Eye]

And one last thing; My ideology is one that knows that:

1) Eliminating the State, surpassing it and transcending it, to advance socially is not the same as destroying it without further ado, to devolve socially. (And even more so if the power and assets of that State are left on a platter to the powerful billionaires).

2) "Social Darwinism" is a pseudotheory that (in addition to being completely dismantled as false by true Darwinism applied to our species) only serves to justify the current powers, and the oppression of those who can oppress those who cannot avoid it, engendering and justifying violence and crime, both individual and social.

On the other hand, I do not attribute to you as an individual the nonsense, injustice, oppression, violence and crime that your ideology implies (as you do constantly try, even without knowing my ideology).
I just think you're a well-intentioned "pup

I understand that disentangling from what is, can have unintended consequences to those dependent on what is and should be considered. My very elderly mother is on social security. I understand that crony capitalists need reining in.

Do you understand crony capitalists are not the same as free market advocates?

I understand most billionaires got to be billionaires by unjust means.

Do you understand that adopting crony capitalist unjust means and hoping to ignore it will NOT put you on some kind of higher moral ground?


Anyhow, you never answered my question or pointed me to where you did if I may
have missed it.

All I'm asking for now is a one word answer to a one word answer question.
No charts, no bears, no silly meth innuendo bull shit.

Does your ideology rely on people joining with you on a voluntary basis or not ?