Posts
Comments
There is no edge here, "I statements" are here not for as an indisputable statement, but to be direct and concise. I guess I'll adopt the debate style.
>Yeah, I'm aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
Not my point, I believe juries, not democracy is what provides the consent of the governed in the usa/British empires. I believe that I'm protecting and extending the true value in western civilization, by being anti-democracy; not the sort of thing anyone in the current paradigm is going to get at first brush.
>you mean something like 'pre-Marxian socialism'.
aye, but the they all were alive at the same time, it would be weird to call marx existence as a time period split
>I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism
I think that's a red scare sort of myth, the new socialists hate me, I hate them, and socialism connections would have been intentionally forgotten for decades at a time. Marx "won" the socialism debate during ww era and then anyone who liked money existing got kicked out.
>While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you're making it sound like you're exceptional in having economics inform your politics, ~~when that's obviously not the case.~~
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
>That you'd say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting
Good, I intended to. I always worry that i'm not clear. :3
>Voting and going to the farmer's market aren't mutually exclusive
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details. But reading the news from dozens of sources is rapidly mutually exclusive with being upto date on the whitepapers in the coin markets.
>What? The most sense I can make of this is that you're so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market,
Your getting closer to understanding.
This is agorism, the importaint bit to ancap.
For example this was written by spooner in 1858 in ""A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery, and To the Non-Slaveholders of the South"" "Until such new governments shall be instituted, to recognize the Slaves as free men... sell them firearms and teach them the use of them; to trade with them"
This is a spectrum of course, farmers markets are slightly different from arms dealing. But this is where I feel effective action exists.
I guess *kicks ground* I'll talk to a overeager moderator then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBMpZRUl8tw
I'm allot of things, but off topic is not one of them.
The first comment you so rudely deleted, was a joke referencing "the democracy is not consent of the governed" argument; if your missing the context, yes the joke would go straight over your head. You should go read "no treason" by spooner, then the entire backlog of ancap thought before deleting comments; or you know, you could *ask* for context.
(If its not clear, me telling you to read all of ancap thought, this is a joke at your expense because you just told me to read the backlog of less wrong, and I remember reading ai to zombies, its quite long (furthermore this is a meta joke as I'm explaining how humor works and dismantling an argument you made without referencing it directly (Triple parentheses is an alt-right "dog-whistle", this is relevant as I do this meta-modernist shit)))
For this topic, op was like "talk to and try to understand political extremists"; and I was like "I'm one of those, hi op" with a subtext of "tell me what you 'think' you know about my political view"; op heard it loud and clear and went on to explain what he thought ancap was, I responded with corrections; he's being a bit formal for my taste but this conversation will in theory go until one of us feel he understands enough.
Getting someone up to speed on the subtext and context that follows my political movement is allot of information and work I try to not to that unless someone signals to me they are interested or already in the know. The alternative would be to dump links everywhere I go; I giving you *one* reference and a self contained lesson in how the hidden world of political word play works from my prospective, I think this method is kinder and more effective then just throwing book recommendations at people.
-----
now I "could" have done the "quote, response" communication pattern, for each of my statements and the conversation could have been clearer to an outside view
>> Anarcho-capitalism could be framed as an extremized version of right-libertarianism, which originates in classical liberalism.
> I read and respect "old socailism" and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap
However, I use this style is for debates, I do not wish to trap op on a moving goal post or any such minor thing; I wanted to teach soft subtle things, not "win".
Allow me to break your mental model futher: I'm antidemocracy, yet believe in strong consent of the governed. I read and respect "old socailism" and believe it to be the true orgin of ancap( not classical liberalism nor Austrian economics, Spooner and that branch of americain socailism contains the important elements hundard years earlier), yet deeply respect finance. The rift between me and the other types of anarchists is very deep and go back to debates from old socailism.
I'm not "respectful" of modern liberals, or those other anarchists(they like calling me awfully mean names); and I don't try to change definitions of liberty or freedom. My politics, isn't in the word games or popularity contests; but rather economics, Bitcoin and the like are the pure ancap the Trump voters are not quite hereitics but they clearly are lacking something.
I'd rather have someone go to the farmers market (and pay in cash to help them dodge taxes) then vote a certain way. Hell I'd rather have 1 person work under the table then control 100 votes. Economics, not voilence or word games.
Where's ancap in this? Am I an "illiberal" with all these lovely things you implying about it, or am I somehow part of the American bubble?
.... Is it possible to have nonlinear accumulation be associative?
Cause I believe morality would need to be associative to be sane right?
reversible computer gates exist and are Turing complete, which in human words means it's possible to do computers where the elections are not sent to ground willynilly. When you "not" a live wire, that in a very real sense is sending elections to ground.
Now I think Turing completeness is a terrible standard, we really need a more complex hierarchy like complexity thoery has, as my understanding of the proof these things are Turing complete is that they are generating waste outputs, so if you are stopping using not gate to prevent sending elections to ground and you generate waste outputs that in thoery your sending to ground there is not nesserily an improvement here, but maybe something comes out of it anyway.
Futher more if we have fusion don't we have economical carbon sinks? And space sillyness?
Would you need to do anything super fancy to beat the market? You could in thoery just find 100 median voters who swap parties, tell them both Trump and the newcomer are pedophiles to simulate attack ads and ask who they would vote for after giving them an entire minute to think about it(to simulate the months of them hearing about it). Repeat for each canidate.
Alternatively you could check polling numbers for swing States to filter out the noise of who wins calinforna for free.