Two Ways

[trivas7]

There are only two ways to get something you need from other people: steal it or trade for it. Which do you think capitalism represents? Which do you think socialism represents? Which represents a psychology of dominance? Which a psychology of reciprocal altruism?

[Havet]

i wouldn't considerer trade reciprocal altruism, more like intense greed, which is a good thing, contrary to what many people believe.

The PENCIL! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

Also, while i'm with milton, let's talk about greed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A)

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

Property is theft is what I guess most anarchists would say, but really, you can have your toothbrush. Seriously, keep it for as long as you like.

Capitalism is a system in which we set aside our underlying drive to co-operate in order to have some competition. I can see the appeal, I like to compete as well, but when it ends up hurting people I think it should be set aside.

Socialism represents dedication to the cause of humanity I suppose. While you can be generous as a (dirty;)) Capitalist, it's not exactly the same.

Also people can give you things, which seems to be the smallest of the three ways to get something. I don't consider it a trade or stealing.

[trivas7]

i wouldn't considerer trade reciprocal altruism, more like intense greed, which is a good thing, contrary to what many people believe.

So you're saying that trying to meet one's needs is intense greed? Why? I don't get it.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

So you're saying that trying to meet one's needs is intense greed? Why? I don't get it.

If I can take a stab at this I think it's because if you're trying to meet your own needs at the expense of others instead of co-operating fully with them, then yeah, kinda greedy in my books.

[MikeSC]

This is based on a completely false premise. You do know that people don't come out of the womb with deeds to property signed by a deity? That the only reason resources are in the hands of individuals and companies is because the state seized them forcefully and put them there?

...

Is it worth me even bothering? Because this is exactly the same as every discussion you ever start.

[trivas7]

This is based on a completely false premise.
Which false premise is that? You mean that there is a third way people interact for economic ends?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

Which false premise is that? You mean that there is a third way people people interact for economic ends? Which way is that?

Gifts could be a third way.

[trivas7]

If I can take a stab at this I think it's because if you're trying to meet your own needs at the expense of others instead of co-operating fully with them, then yeah, kinda greedy in my books.
I see; so you're saying that free trade isn't "fully co-operating with them" Is that it? That free trade is exploitative and a kind of fraud and that there is no good will in it if done for a selfish benefit? Eveything must be done "at the expense of others", is that it?

[MikeSC]

Which false premise is that? You mean that there is a third way people interact for economic ends?

All of it. You're obviously trying to insinuate that people own things in capitalism through trade and in socialism through theft. You're basing the whole thing on assumptions about private property that are wrong, for reasons that have been explained multiple times.

Socialism is neither theft, or trade. Socialism is about deciding democratically how natural resources are to be put to use, and getting an equal right to make use of the results through working to put that democratic choice into being.

[trivas7]

Gifts could be a third way.
How could gifts ensure that I get my needs met? What if no one wants to gift me what I want/need? Where would the gifts come from?

[trivas7]

Property is theft is what I guess most anarchists would say, but really, you can have your toothbrush. Seriously, keep it for as long as you like.

And black is white and evil good, seriously.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I see; so you're saying that free trade isn't "fully co-operating with them" Is that it? That free trade is exploitative and a kind of fraud and that there is no good will in it if done for a selfish benefit? Eveything must be done "at the expense of others", is that it?

Okay, I don't like the tone of your post, but I'll respond.

What free trade? You mean, after taxes, cost of transportation, assembly, resale... free? Beans from Mexico and Beans from Ontario are going to have different prices because of different wages for labour, transportation costs, packaging, heck even the amount of water in the cans can have an effect.

And I do not know what perfect world you live in where a self-proclaimed sect of protectors takes absolutely no cut from the revenue, but if you do, I'd like to sell you some land on an Island in lake Huron for cheap.

All trade is for a purpose, not all trade has to be selfish, however with a government involved trade will not be 'free'.




How could gifts ensure that I get my needs met? What if no one wants to gift me what I want/need? Where would the gifts come from?

Silly, gifts come from your comrades!:lol:

Also, some children are practically raised on gifts from their parents are they not? We don't have this sense of entitlement as a culture for nothing.

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

And black is white and evil good, seriously.

Nah, Black is anarchism and white... well, that's anarchism as well, they just don't fight people like Black-blocs do.

[trivas7]

Socialism is neither theft, or trade. Socialism is about deciding democratically how natural resources are to be put to use, and getting an equal right to make use of the results through working to put that democratic choice into being.
I see, so the third way to meet economic needs is by deciding democratically, and getting an equal right. Got it. :thumbup1:

[trivas7]

Also, some children are practically raised on gifts from their parents are they not? We don't have this sense of entitlement as a culture for nothing.
Well, at least you explain where leftists come from... :)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There are only two ways to get something you need from other people: steal it or trade for it.
Assuming that those other people have exclusive private property rights over the thing in question.

Seriously, Trivas, stop presenting us with false "dilemmas" that only exist in a world where everything is private property. We deny the legitimacy of private property. Which part of that do you not understand?

[trivas7]

Seriously, Trivas, stop presenting us with false "dilemmas" that only exist in a world where everything is private property. We deny the legitimacy of private property.
Then you, too, must know some third way people meet their economic needs you're keeping a secret.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Your original post did not talk about people meeting their economic needs in general, but about people getting something they need from other people. This assumes that those other people have something you need as their private property.

If, on the other hand, the things you need are not the private property of other people, then you need neither steal nor trade for them.

For example, in a communist society, the things you need are the collective property of the community, and they are democratically allocated to your use. Pretty much what MikeSC already said.

In a socialist society, the distribution method is a hybrid of communist allocation and capitalist trading: The things you need are the property of the community (as in communism) but you trade for them using some form of currency (as in capitalism).

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism is a system in which we set aside our underlying drive to co-operate in order to have some competition.

I guess you could say this, too:

Socialism is a system in which we set aside our underlying drive to compete in order to have some competition.

I just wonder if there are two kinds of people in this world--co-operators and competitors.

[MikeSC]

I guess you could say this, too:

Socialism is a system in which we set aside our underlying drive to compete in order to have some competition.

I just wonder if there are two kinds of people in this world--co-operators and competitors.

If people want to compete, have a game of footie or something. Society has no obligation to invest sole rights over natural resources in individuals because they want to make a game out of production.

[Bud Struggle]

If people want to compete, have a game of footie or something. Society has no obligation to invest sole rights over natural resources in individuals because they want to make a game out of production.

That does make sense--I just wonder if it could be done.

[trivas7]

Your original post did not talk about people meeting their economic needs in general, but about people getting something they need from other people. This assumes that those other people have something you need as their private property.

All I assume is that you live in society on Earth in the year 2009 CE.

Since there is no such thing as communist or socialist society, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Your original questions:


There are only two ways to get something you need from other people... Which do you think capitalism represents? Which do you think socialism represents?
[emphasis mine]

Since there is no such thing as a socialist society, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

:rolleyes:

[trivas7]

Your original questions:


[emphasis mine]

Since there is no such thing as a socialist society, you literally don't know what you're talking about.

:rolleyes:
OTC, I know that even in communist society economic needs will be met either by force or trade. We already know where your psychological sympathies lay.


Society has no obligation to invest sole rights over natural resources in individuals because they want to make a game out of production.
B/c it has no independent existence aside from the actions of its individual members, society has no obligations at all.

[Anarkiwi]

It steals,
cos even when it trades it is stealing!

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I guess you could say this, too:

Socialism is a system in which we set aside our underlying drive to compete in order to have some competition.

I just wonder if there are two kinds of people in this world--co-operators and competitors.

Just a tiny little nit pick, since it doesn't make any sense to me.

But, you're right, there are more than two types of people. There are also dead people.;)

[MikeSC]

B/c it has no independent existence aside from the actions of its individual members, society has no obligations at all.

So under your ideal system individuals would be free to do anything to other people/"their" property, as long as they're strong enough or have enough guns or have enough people that no other individuals can stop them?

Without society, we wouldn't be people. We'd be hairless apes that don't produce anything, and we'd have died out pretty quickly. Before you were trying to say that private property is justified because humanity wouldn't survive without that particular state institution- at least be consistent.

[trivas7]

So under your ideal system individuals would be free to do anything to other people/"their" property, as long as they're strong enough or have enough guns or have enough people that no other individuals can stop them?

Without society, we wouldn't be people. We'd be hairless apes that don't produce anything, and we'd have died out pretty quickly. Before you were trying to say that private property is justified because humanity wouldn't survive without that particular state institution- at least be consistent.
Free trade isn't violence. Society isn't an individual. How are these two fact inconsistent?

[MikeSC]

Free trade isn't violence. Society isn't an individual. How are these two fact inconsistent?

For the last time, private property is a result of state seizure, and is sustained by the state. If you think it's legitimate, then you have to think the state has been legitimately granted the rights to seize natural resources through some deity or other. Private property is based on the seizures of sovereigns who claimed a religious right to do so.

You said that the justification for the state imposing private property is that humanity can't survive without it (nonsense). You then said that society has obligation to do anything. You're giving it an obligation in the one, and denying any such obligation in the other. Can you not see how contradictory this is?

And here I am saying the same thing you keep ignoring. When you come here saying the same things that have been dealt with repeatedly, I won't answer- if you honestly want an answer to whatever your follow up to this will be, re-read all the discussions we've had in all the different threads over the last week or so.

[trivas7]

For the last time, private property is a result of state seizure, and is sustained by the state. If you think it's legitimate, then you have to think the state has been legitimately granted the rights to seize natural resources through some deity or other. Private property is based on the seizures of sovereigns who claimed a religious right to do so.

You said that the justification for the state imposing private property is that humanity can't survive without it (nonsense). You then said that society has obligation to do anything. You're giving it an obligation in the one, and denying any such obligation in the other. Can you not see how contradictory this is?

No, I don't think the state legitimately grants property rights to anybody. You're putting thoughts into my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F1KAXObUIM&feature=related

[MikeSC]

No, I don't think the state legitimately grants property rights to anybody. You're putting thoughts into my head.


That's exactly what you were saying- you were saying that private property is justified because it's necessary. A state is necessary for private property to exist because the authority of individuals over natural materials that make defines private property can only be granted by a sovereign.

Again, you have been told this multiple times. I'm really not going to reply to a thing you say anymore, don't kid yourself that it will be because you're right, it will be because it's something that has been spelled out to you in the past and I don't want to waste my time.

[Havet]

So you're saying that trying to meet one's needs is intense greed? Why? I don't get it.

it's greed because they wouldn't meet the needs of others unless there was something for them as well. They will get personal benefit from engaging in that trade, therefore they are acting under their self-interest. Not that i have anything against it.

I also happen to think what most people call selflessness or altruism is actually a form of greed; spiritual greed, instead of material greed.

also, since it seems that everybody decided to ignore my fcking post, here it is:


i wouldn't considerer trade reciprocal altruism, more like intense greed, which is a good thing, contrary to what many people believe.

The PENCIL! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

Also, while i'm with milton, let's talk about greed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A)

Competition breeds co-operation.

[danyboy27]

my gf love two ways....

[trivas7]

A state is necessary for private property to exist because the authority of individuals over natural materials that make defines private property can only be granted by a sovereign.

Nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLVZpQjigbQ&feature=channel_page

[MikeSC]

Do you think the idea of primitive communism is new to us? Or that this kid is the first to mention it? This corresponds exactly with Marx and Engel's own writing. We know that the earliest societies held their resources in common, without a state or private property. Which is what you have been denying. It points to religion as the legitimator of the state, which is exactly what I said.

The undeniable facts that this silly boy has taken from some documentary are exactly what I've been saying. His childish embellishments over the top of the documentary ("river of liberty"... and so on) are contradicted by the facts. I don't know what logical fallacy that's called- but there's one where someone displays facts and then draws completely illogical conclusions... well he's guilty of that.

He points to early stateless egalitarian societies- societies well known to Marx and certainly nothing new like he seems to think- without the institution of private property, where resources are held collectively, with no private ownership of natural resources, and tries to equate it with free market capitalism. That is mind-bogglingly stupid.

He gives a silly definition of state ("a person or persons whom it is agreed can acquire property in a manner different from everyone else." That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard) that doesn't tie in with anything said in the documentary he cherry picks from- and tries to say that trade and aggression are the two ways other, non-state people can acquire property. Trading relies on people having legitimate property in the first place, so we can discount that as bullshit. If he considers aggression as the legitimate way to acquire property, what's his problem with the state?

It's childish tripe, it's definately not something to take seriously. There's a reason the professionals in those documentaries disagree with him, and it's not because of a statist-conspiracy like he seems to think. It's because he's an idiot.

[trivas7]

There's a reason the professionals in those documentaries disagree with him, and it's not because of a statist-conspiracy like he seems to think. It's because he's an idiot.
OTC, there is a statist conspiracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-wZ4cPKHrY

[Lynx]

Trade can be anything from an equitable exchange to exploitative. A rip-off and 'a steal' are one and the same.

[trivas7]

Trade can be anything from an equitable exchange to exploitative. A rip-off and 'a steal' are one and the same.
Trade can't be slavery, state intervention in markets or thief. Not all human interaction is legitimate.

[MikeSC]

Trade can't be slavery, state intervention in markets or thief. Not all human interaction is legitimate.

Have you read nothing?

Christ, you're a lost cause.

[trivas7]

To recap my position: There is no objective property. Property is a claim to an object to the extent that other people agree w/ you. Property is based on intersubjective agreement among individuals. A state is a person or group of people who violently enforce a claim to something that they do not own according to whatever standard intersubjective criteria obtains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eShZ76P3jWc&feature=PlayList&p=0812AA4B51C3F5B8&index=2