Luigi Mangione

[Microbeman]

For trade to be valid, it should be voluntary and consensual amongst all involved parties without duress or threats against disinterested people.

I will trade you an orange and half a sandwich for your story

Best I can do.

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem reluctant to address the aspect of the absence of the poor coming from the equalization of value of product/service.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Correct me if I am wrong but you seem reluctant to address the aspect of the absence of the poor coming from the equalization of value of product/service.

Could you give me a simple example so I can respond? I'm not sure I comprehend your question.

Still drinking my coffee and some of the brain synapses in my old head aren't warmed up yet.

 

[Eltitoguay]

And I ask again: Can anyone imagine this bunch of illiterate people managing an airport or hospital system? A panda that almost destroyed a simple village with its "management"?

And they are not at all Anarchists: they are simply a bunch that follows the proclamation of some ultra-neoliberal capitalists, who heard about Darwinism, and apply it to society when they do not even understand how it works in real ecosystems:

Capitalist ultraneoliberalism + social pseudo-Darwinism.

Of course not!:
But because the true ideologists and future feudal lords of the "Grafton panda paradise" were not going to allow it: Everything private (airports, hospitals) will continue to belong to their owners (but now, without a law that controls/limits them, and and without any tax)

The only thing the palurdos like "the Grafton gang" have to do is consent and celebrate that the rich are almost given away with the ownership and exploitation of public services, in exchange for the enormous favor they will do to us all for managing them like another of their businesses.

And yes :
among these false libertarians, we must distinguish between 2 groups:
who well know that they are nothing more than ultra-neoliberal capitalists (the rich), and who believe they are "something-anarcho" or "anarcho-something" (the poor fools who follow them):

 

[Microbeman]

Could you give me a simple example so I can respond? I'm not sure I comprehend your question.

Still drinking my coffee and some of the brain synapses in my old head aren't warmed up yet.

As I have outlined in my recent previous posts. (start from bottom)

From me;
5. "Sure I get that but in what I outlined where value is placed sporadically on produce or services supplied and then according to need would we not be able to say that there would not be any poor people and would be no need to form charities to send kids to school"

From me;
4/ "So no poor people or poor people?"

From me;
3/ "Based upon that value, earlier we were discussing the poor people who would not be able to afford to send their children to a school requiring payment however if there is no such thing as money and value was only used at the time that the producer was producing and the need was needed then perhaps there would be no such thing as poor people."

From you;
2/ "Somebody who grows food could be more or less valuable than a surgeon, depending on two things. If there is no imminent need for surgery, the food grower might be seen as more valuable.

If there is a pressing need for surgery, the surgeon might be more valuable. Value is subjective to the individual making the judgement and it's often based on circumstances. likes and dislikes. wants and needs."

From me;
1/ What if there is no such thing as property and there is no such thing as money? What if the land owns us and if there is no such thing as money then why would someone who grows food be less valuable than a surgeon who performs surgery?

 

[Microbeman]

As I have outlined in my recent previous posts. (start from bottom)

From me;
5. "Sure I get that but in what I outlined where value is placed sporadically on produce or services supplied and then according to need would we not be able to say that there would not be any poor people and would be no need to form charities to send kids to school"

From me;
4/ "So no poor people or poor people?"

From me;
3/ "Based upon that value, earlier we were discussing the poor people who would not be able to afford to send their children to a school requiring payment however if there is no such thing as money and value was only used at the time that the producer was producing and the need was needed then perhaps there would be no such thing as poor people."

From you;
2/ "Somebody who grows food could be more or less valuable than a surgeon, depending on two things. If there is no imminent need for surgery, the food grower might be seen as more valuable.

If there is a pressing need for surgery, the surgeon might be more valuable. Value is subjective to the individual making the judgement and it's often based on circumstances. likes and dislikes. wants and needs."

From me;
1/ What if there is no such thing as property and there is no such thing as money? What if the land owns us and if there is no such thing as money then why would someone who grows food be less valuable than a surgeon who performs surgery?

Also; "A lot of what you say is true however with what I was saying there is a possibility that there would be no poor people either with money or without money there just would be an absence of poor people and therefore no charity necessary in that regard. There have been some indigenous communities that have functioned this way. I might tell you a good story for my lunch."

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Of course not!:
But because the true ideologists and future feudal lords of the "Grafton panda paradise" were not going to allow it: Everything private (airports, hospitals) will continue to belong to their owners (but now, without a law that controls/limits them, and and without any tax)

The only thing the palurdos like "the Grafton gang" have to do is consent and celebrate that the rich are almost given away with the ownership and exploitation of public services, in exchange for the enormous favor they will do to us all for managing them like another of their businesses.

And yes :
among these false libertarians, we must distinguish between 2 groups:
who well know that they are nothing more than ultra-neoliberal capitalists (the rich), and who believe they are "something-anarcho" or "anarcho-something" (the poor fools who follow them):
View attachment 19128050

Just wanted to point out, you're doing an amazing job of not answering if your Commie Utopia, is a voluntary idea or if it's a mandatory idea.

Scared to admit your operational means is no different than the crony capitalist? It looks like you both want to control other's lives with your master plan, even people who aren't trying to control yours.

I think that's the case.


Maybe I should show you all the bodies Commie regimes have piled up ?
Then you can show me more bear pictures and we can go back and forth?




Here, I'll start slow. Is that you pulling the trigger ?
Your turn now. Could I get a Grolar Bear picture this time? They're pretty cool!

Communist China eliminating peaceful dissenters.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

Also; "A lot of what you say is true however with what I was saying there is a possibility that there would be no poor people either with money or without money there just would be an absence of poor people and therefore no charity necessary in that regard. There have been some indigenous communities that have functioned this way. I might tell you a good story for my lunch."

I apologize, but I'm still not sure what you expect me to address, but I'll give it a try.

We're all indigenous in the greater world. We all share one thing, none of us have the right to use offensive force to get our way. That's sort of the root divide.

If you accept that as your underlying principle, your path is clear regarding which means are acceptable or not. Anything that doesn't violate other people and their justly acquired property, leaves a lot of territory to be explored to help humanity flourish.

If you don't accept that, and you think it's okay to use coercion to advance your ideas, you would necessarily have to see that if OTHER people believe that too, there will always be conflict. That's our present paradigm. It is self-defeating if the goal is liberty and peace.

How do those ideas translate into ensuring every person will have cradle to grave perfect life is beyond the scope of any idea. No idea can make everyone be good. There will be shitheads under a voluntary society as there are now under an involuntary society ruled by people that aren't accountable when they do bad things.

To end money, you have to start doiing something that facilitates that. Growing your own food and giving away or selling any surplus is up to you. One way, young people today could help poor or elderly is thru cooperation. Say a young couple wants to get into gardening, but live in an apartment. Why not find an elderly couple and help them and you out by resurrecting their old garden plot and sharing the produce with them. All done on a voluntary and mutual basis. It's a start.

 

[Eltitoguay]

And about the poor in the Paradise of "Libertarian" Capitalism:

Of course, there will be poor people:
their mass will expand until they are the majority of society; Now there is no longer social redistribution of any kind, nor is there any "social elevator" like Public Health and Education....

And their role will be very important in this paradise (as long as technology does not manage to make them not only superfluous, but even annoying): serving as labor in increasingly feudal/slavery conditions, and/or as a source of human organs for future transplants, and/or from sources of "human livestock for sexual use"...

 

[Eltitoguay]

And remember that when an ideology, be it this paeudoanarcho-capitalism, be it fascism, be it Stalinism, be it Maoism, can only defend itself by arguing that the others were as criminal or more so than it...little good can it offer .

 

[Eltitoguay]

...But let's forget just for a moment the disastrous and grotesque Social pseudoDarwinism + pseudo-anarcho-Ultracapitalist experiment of the small town of Grafton.

Grafton, New Hampshire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Free Town Project :​

In 2004, Grafton became the focus for Libertarians as part of the Free Town Project (a single-town version of the Free State Project). One of the goals was to advocate for legal changes.[13] Grafton's appeal as a favorable destination was due to its absence of zoning laws and a then-low property tax rate.[14][13] John Babiarz, a Grafton resident and prominent member of the Libertarian Party, encouraged libertarian people to move there.[15][16]

During this time, the town's population grew by about 200 people (about 20%); nearly all of the newcomers were men.[14] Project participants did not find themselves as welcome as they had hoped, but they voted in changes including a 30% reduction in the town's already small budget.[14] This resulted in eliminating funding to the county's senior-citizens council, town offices going unheated during the winter, poorly maintained roads filled with potholes, and the Grafton Police Department being reduced to one officer (the police chief), who said he was unable to answer calls for service as the town had no money to repair the one police vehicle left.[17] Other issues were inconsistent basic public services, such as trash collection.[15][14] The libertarian newcomers additionally increased the town's costs by filing lawsuits against it in attempts to set various legal precedents.[14]

Example of a bear-resistant trash container, with an American black bear climbing on top of it. Some libertarian newcomers to Grafton refused to buy bear-resistant containers.

The project has been associated with an increase in the number and aggressiveness of black bears in town, including entering homes, mauling people, and eating pets.[14] A single, definitive cause for the abnormal behavior of the bears has not been proven, but it may be due to libertarian residents who refuse to buy and use bear-resistant containers, who do not dispose of waste materials (such as feces) safely, or who deliberately put out food to attract the bears to their own yards, without caring how this affected other people.[14]

After a rash of lawsuits from Free Towners, an influx of sex offenders, an increase of crime, problems with bold local bears, and the first murders in the town's history, the Libertarian project ended in 2016.[13][14][18]

Let's move on to the global level:

This ideology could have had a chance to succeed a few years ago: the millionaire lords of neoliberal capitalism could have realized their dream of destroying the limits that the State still placed on their predation, and becoming the Feudal Lords of the World.

But now that China and its strategy of "degenerated workers' state capitalism" are going to make China (and with it, its millionaire capitalists) buy the world in cash and surpass the USA as the 1st world power... I see it very difficult that the Western pseudo-anarcho-capitalist billionaire capitalists can convince their Chinese "colleagues" that with their Western Chaos-Ultracapitalism (more precise than Anarcho-Capitalism), they will win more money than they are already earning under the Chinese Communist-Capitalist Party's umbrella...

Which means that: Country and/or society where anything similar to that pseudoanarcho-UltraCapitalism triumphs, country and society that will be cut up like meat and sold as a balance to China.

 

[Microbeman]

I apologize, but I'm still not sure what you expect me to address, but I'll give it a try.

We're all indigenous in the greater world. We all share one thing, none of us have the right to use offensive force to get our way. That's sort of the root divide.

If you accept that as your underlying principle, your path is clear regarding which means are acceptable or not. Anything that doesn't violate other people and their justly acquired property, leaves a lot of territory to be explored to help humanity flourish.

If you don't accept that, and you think it's okay to use coercion to advance your ideas, you would necessarily have to see that if OTHER people believe that too, there will always be conflict. That's our present paradigm. It is self-defeating if the goal is liberty and peace.

How do those ideas translate into ensuring every person will have cradle to grave perfect life is beyond the scope of any idea. No idea can make everyone be good. There will be shitheads under a voluntary society as there are now under an involuntary society ruled by people that aren't accountable when they do bad things.

To end money, you have to start doiing something that facilitates that. Growing your own food and giving away or selling any surplus is up to you. One way, young people today could help poor or elderly is thru cooperation. Say a young couple wants to get into gardening, but live in an apartment. Why not find an elderly couple and help them and you out by resurrecting their old garden plot and sharing the produce with them. All done on a voluntary and mutual basis. It's a start.

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.

 

[Eltitoguay]

And about the poor in the Paradise of "Libertarian" Capitalism:

Of course, there will be poor people:
their mass will expand until they are the majority of society; Now there is no longer social redistribution of any kind, nor is there any "social elevator" like Public Health and Education....

And their role will be very important in this paradise (as long as technology does not manage to make them not only superfluous, but even annoying): serving as labor in increasingly feudal/slavery conditions, and/or as a source of human organs for future transplants, and/or from sources of "human livestock for sexual use"...

For example, the entire working class and most of the urban salaried middle class (without many "physical and tangible" assets or resources, such as land and/or livestock, as could happen in rural areas) would go directly to the low class and to poverty, covering the entire journey of historical social advances but in reverse: from today to the exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, to feudalism,...

 

[GOT_BUD?]

 

[armedoldhippy]

To acquire something justly requires using just means or the acquisition is not valid. Taking something that is already owned, is not a just means to use. It's theft.

most federal land was ceded because it was abandoned or never settled to begin with. out west, in particular.

If you don't believe that tell me where you live, I'll form a government and come take your house.

already got a govt here. but feel free to try... your story (like every other wild tale you spin) reeks of bullshit. this one is no different, and in fact, is even more ludicrous. (didn't think that was possible. i underestimated your ability to reach up your ass) are ANY of your brain cells in contact with the others?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

And remember that when an ideology, be it this paeudoanarcho-capitalism, be it fascism, be it Stalinism, be it Maoism, can only defend itself by arguing that the others were as criminal or more so than it...little good can it offer .

Just remember if your ideology isn't based on voluntary acceptance, it's based in involuntary acceptance.

Things which are based in involuntary acceptance? Theft, murder, rape, extortion, Communism.

Be careful which means you align yourself with.

Voluntaryists don't care if you want to be a Commie, we do care if you initiate force to make everybody a Commie. Your ideas are backed by threats of violence against otherwise disinterested peaceful people, which is why they are WRONG.

A thousand bear pictures won't change the fact you rely on violence to get your way. You should think about that.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

most federal land was ceded because it was abandoned or never settled to begin with. out west, in particular.

already got a govt here. but feel free to try... your story (like every other wild tale you spin) reeks of bullshit. this one is no different, and in fact, is even more ludicrous. (didn't think that was possible. i underestimated your ability to reach up your ass) are ANY of your brain cells in contact with the others?

"Federal land was ceded".

That's an incredibly naive perspective. Most so called federal land was taken under threat of force. Who ceded it? Was there duress? Were any "savages" removed?

If it was vacant and that was the excuse for the USA to claim it, and it now remains vacant, why can't any group of industrious homeless people build homes there and then they can claim it? Are there two sets of rules in the "land of the free" Gasp. Lol.

ALL the land in the United States (and a good bit of the world) is pretty much "federal land", because the feds claim control over all of it. Cough cough Panama canal cough cough.

Bullshit word manipulations by government bureaucrats don't change what actually happened.

Hawaii? 'Annexed. Why don't they just say, TAKEN, instead of annexed?

Why do they use different words to describe what they do? Is it to soften the meaning in the minds of the dupes ? Are there other words they use to do the same thing? Sorry to tax your mind, but I think there are.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

View attachment 19128319

Needs more free ponies!!!

 

[Captain Red Eye]

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.

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.
.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Most so called federal land was taken under threat of force.

wrong. huge parcels were ceded because it was unprofitable for farming etc. taxes (i KNOW you love them secretly) on huge parcels were crippling, with no income from the land. some federal land was taken by use of eminent domain, such as most (not all) of the GSM nat'l park. nobody likes it, but that is the law. don't like these rules? i hate that reality sucks, but you be you...

Cough cough Panama canal cough cough.

i doubt that you're aware, but Jimmy Carter returned control of it to Panama in spite of The Chumps clueless cowboy threats.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

wrong. huge parcels were ceded because it was unprofitable for farming etc. taxes (i KNOW you love them secretly) on huge parcels were crippling, with no income from the land. some federal land was taken by use of eminent domain, such as most (not all) of the GSM nat'l park. nobody likes it, but that is the law. don't like these rules? i hate that reality sucks, but you be you...

i doubt that you're aware, but Jimmy Carter returned control of it to Panama in spite of The Chumps clueless cowboy threats.

Jimmy Carter didn't remove troops from all over the world did he? He didn't want HIS bosses to kill him, like what happened to JFK.

No President yet, has promised to bring the troops home and stop the USA empire.
Last guy I ever voted for as President, would have done that, but the captive media made sure he didn't get in.

Also, thank you for making my point for me on how the fuckers use word manipulation all the time.

They have you believing, "eminent domain" means something other than stealing land.

Also, you never answered WHO ceded the land? Did they cede it to themselves or did they TAKE it?