libraterian here

[deadk]

*libertarian

hi, I joined some time ago- used to be a syndicate, then I discovered human nature. Now am a conpunk.

any questions, fire away. I'm polite, please treat me as such. Peace.

[apathy maybe]

Umm... this of course means you will be restricted.

However, I do have questions which I would appreciate others from not answering as I would like to know your view.

Firstly, what do you think human nature is? And how will it stop "communism" or syndicalism?

Secondly, what do you propose instead.

[An archist]

You're a conpunk?
What do you mean by that?

[deadk]

Umm... this of course means you will be restricted.

Are you serious? Can I at least post in the philosphy section? I don't intead to be an ass.


Firstly, what do you think human nature is? And how will it stop "communism" or syndicalism?

I belief human nature is ultimantly individualistic. We are selfish creatures and will do what best for us. I understand human empathy as an extension of our fear of violent death. Specially, we do not like to see that which is like us suffer because it reminds us of suffering. However, this empathy stems from self-interest and is therefore subserviant to it.

I don't belief communism has to be stopped, I mean don't get me wrong, I love the ends you guys aim toward- but men are not angles. Because of this, all atttempts to make them angles will fail. I belief the best we can do is understand human nature and manipulate it- Federalist 10 is the best essay on this. Here Madison accepts property as the root of all "faction" but then supposes that we create a government which is capable of fragmenting economic factions and piting them against each other- in this manner he claims that it would be very difficult for one economic faction to threaten the others.


You're a conpunk?
What do you mean by that?

www.conservativepunk.com

There are only around 4 people at the site that could keep up with you guys- so I won't even waste your time. Its just a nice social venue for me.

[Eleutherios]

I belief human nature is ultimantly individualistic. We are selfish creatures and will do what best for us. I understand human empathy as an extension of our fear of violent death. Specially, we do not like to see that which is like us suffer because it reminds us of suffering. However, this empathy stems from self-interest and is therefore subserviant to it.
Where did you get that idea? Empathy comes not from self-interest but from evolution. If we did not have empathy for our fellow man and help the tribe survive instead of just the individual, humans would have died out a long time ago. We're social creatures for a reason. In the wild, one of us wasn't a particularly powerful force, but by working together we were able to thrive and reproduce by using our intellect collectively to modify our environment to suit our needs.

It is certainly not the case that everybody is a greedy, manipulative hoarder of possessions, only looking out for themselves. Capitalists like to claim otherwise, in order to justify a system which weeds out the greediest, most manipulative, most self-centered individuals in society and rewards them with control of most property and industry by putting them in charge of anti-democratic top-down hierarchies called corporations.

I don't belief communism has to be stopped, I mean don't get me wrong, I love the ends you guys aim toward- but men are not angles.
Correct. Men are not angles. And they're not angels either.

Because of this, all atttempts to make them angles will fail.
Nobody is trying to turn everybody into an angel by abolishing capitalism, just like the point of abolishing slavery wasn't to turn everybody into perfectly moral beings. We are just trying to get rid of an unnecessary form of exploitation, so our society can be more democratic and egalitarian. We are not proposing that everybody needs to be perfect; all we are advocating is popular democratic control of workplaces and communities instead of rule by an elite few. There's a big difference.

[red team]

hi, I joined some time ago- used to be a syndicate, then I discovered human nature. Now am a conpunk.

Human nature, selfishness and people being "perfect angels" has less to do with an economic system than what people are willing to sacrifice for performing work while others can take advantage of your good will by cheating, that is "having a good time" while you're not because most people consider work to be pure drudgery.

It's a trade-off that very few people are willing to make especially if they can see other people and they can see themselve potentially not making that trade-off at the expense of somebody else.

The problem we have now is that work is a zero-sum game until just recently where automation technology provides the potential of making it a positive sum game. If you work on making automated machines to indefinitely perform work once you have finish making those machines would you agree to that trade-off if you're a dedicated worker and enjoy the nature of your work? Perhaps you would because you'll know that once you're done then you have achieved the goal of not needing to perform that work any longer. A positive sum.

Would you agree to that same trade-off if that job has to be manually performed in an endless, goalless progression from one day to the next? Most likely not, even if you're a dedicated worker. A zero sum.

[deadk]

sennomulo


If we did not have empathy for our fellow man and help the tribe survive instead of just the individual, humans would have died out a long time ago. We're social creatures for a reason.

Obviously, but your not taking it far enough. Why is the survival of the "tribe" good? Why does the individual help the tribe? It is good and the individual helps it because without the tribe the individual dies- thus this too can be traced to self-interest.


In the wild, one of us wasn't a particularly powerful force, but by working together we were able to thrive and reproduce by using our intellect collectively to modify our environment to suit our needs.

Once again agreed. But all this only stems from the individuals desire to attain something that another individual possesses.



Nobody is trying to turn everybody into an angel by abolishing capitalism, just like the point of abolishing slavery wasn't to turn everybody into perfectly moral beings. We are just trying to get rid of an unnecessary form of exploitation, so our society can be more democratic and egalitarian.

Listen man, I used to be right there with you- but this is what the issue boils down it: can the concept of "ownership" ever be purged from the human mind? As long the idea of ownership exists, we must use authoritative means to suppress ownership. And these authoritative means are not immune to the desire for property, thus they will become despotic.

red team


Human nature, selfishness and people being "perfect angels" has less to do with an economic system than what people are willing to sacrifice for performing work while others can take advantage of your good will by cheating, that is "having a good time" while you're not because most people consider work to be pure drudgery.

It's a trade-off that very few people are willing to make especially if they can see other people and they can see themselve potentially not making that trade-off at the expense of somebody else.

I'm confused, are you saying that we must use authoritative means to suppress the individual’s choice to trade?


The problem we have now is that work is a zero-sum game until just recently where automation technology provides the potential of making it a positive sum game. If you work on making automated machines to indefinitely perform work once you have finish making those machines would you agree to that trade-off if you're a dedicated worker and enjoy the nature of your work? Perhaps you would because you'll know that once you're done then you have achieved the goal of not needing to perform that work any longer. A positive sum.

This is flawed on a few levels. First, not all "work" can be accomplished by an "automated machine" and secondly machines are not perpetual. They constantly need replaced and repaired. If all jobs that could be automated were, this would not abolish capitalism- but rather alter the conditions of product. It would not abolish the conditions of production.

[red team]

This is flawed on a few levels. First, not all "work" can be accomplished by an "automated machine" and secondly machines are not perpetual. They constantly need replaced and repaired. If all jobs that could be automated were, this would not abolish capitalism- but rather alter the conditions of product. It would not abolish the conditions of production.

No, it would make Capitalism too unstable to be a sustainable system. Why do you think that even now thousands of tons of products are thrown away because they can't be sold not because there's no demand for it?

The question is which job can't be accomplished by an automated machine? What's is the nature of those jobs? Are they endless, goalless and carry on from one day to the next in an endless routine? If not then two solutions can be provided to solve this problem:

1. Dedicated people will inevitably find the work enjoyable for work sake and because most of the work needed for a modern industrial society function are of the latter variety. That is endless, routinized, inhumane work that provides the bulk of the material wealth needed by individuals there will be a surplus of extremely bored people looking for a challenge in their lives. With that many people ready for work any job that cannot be automated can be "completed" in shifts of a couple of hours for each individual worker. Rich idle people have hobbies because they are rich and idle.

2. Any work that cannot be automated currently has more to do with the irregular work-flow than the job being innately unautomateable. Simply streamline the work-flow by assembly-lining each step of the job until completion. Robots work really well in assembly lines. There are very few jobs that cannot be converted into quantified assembly line steps.

[Phugebrins]

"There are very few jobs that cannot be converted into quantified assembly line steps. "
Indeed. For example, set up 6 robots, each of which operate in a series. Have the 'bots programmed to run as follows:

1. Pick the next article that comes to hand
2. Apply a profound-sounding comment
3. Taking said article by wrong end of the stick, twist until it fits to the desired political orthodoxy
4. Compare product of 3 with previous models, such as #1917, #1936, etc., and reject where appropriate
5. Perform a cross check of 4, detach from context, and cast aspersions on perceived lack of success of 4's ideology
6. Question the class allegiances of 5

With all this done, we would save all the frustating manual labour currently expended on RevLeft, and we would all be much more free to build workers' revolution.

[ZeroPain]

Obviously, but your not taking it far enough. Why is the survival of the "tribe" good? Why does the individual help the tribe? It is good and the individual helps it because without the tribe the individual dies- thus this too can be traced to self-interest.

Man cannot live alone forever, in time his mind will fail into madness. Without friends, family and a sense of belonging what fun is life?



Once again agreed. But all this only stems from the individuals desire to attain something that another individual possesses.


Man is selfish for himself.

Love is selfish...

Man can love his fellow man.

[Eleutherios]

Obviously, but your not taking it far enough. Why is the survival of the "tribe" good? Why does the individual help the tribe? It is good and the individual helps it because without the tribe the individual dies- thus this too can be traced to self-interest.
Why does the tribe help the individual? Because without him the tribe dies (and the whole species along with it)-thus this too can be traced to tribe-interest. Tribes need individuals, and individuals need tribes, which is why tribes have evolved to further the interests of individudals and individuals have evolved to further the interests of their tribes. It is the only reason you and I are alive to discuss this in the first place.


Listen man, I used to be right there with you- but this is what the issue boils down it: can the concept of "ownership" ever be purged from the human mind? As long the idea of ownership exists, we must use authoritative means to suppress ownership. And these authoritative means are not immune to the desire for property, thus they will become despotic.
It's not ownership that communism is trying to get rid of. In any communist society, you would still own your toothbrush, your car, your house, your computer, etc. It is private ownership of the means of life and the means of production that we are against. The concept of "private ownership of the means of life and the means of production" is a culturally learned idea, and it can be purged by social revolution and replaced with the concept of "social ownership of the means of life and the means of production, via decentralized democratic associations".

And yes, we will suppress property, with violence if necessary, for much the same reasons we would suppress slave-owners. I fail to see why a community effort to abolish private property would necessarily become despotic and propertarian, if it consists of citizens who genuinely want to see the abolition of private ownership of the means of life and the means of production, and if its decisions are all made directly by the populace whom it serves.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by deadk
Are you serious? Can I at least post in the philosphy section? I don't intead to be an ass. I don't make the rules, nor do I enforce them. I would say that you might get away with out being restricted if you do not cause trouble. That is, don't try and turn any thread outside OI into a left vs right thread. Don't spout crap outside OI and so on. If you obey the rules in spirit, you might not have them enforced upon you.

I am also still interested in what you would propse instead. Are you happy with the system we have now? If you are a conservative that would imply that you are. If you're a liberaterian, surely you can see that without a state, violence over property is more likely?

[deadk]

Thank you all for the responses, due to time restraints I am only going to address the best responses or ones that interest me. I apologize if I ignore you.

apathy,



I am also still interested in what you would propse instead. Are you happy with the system we have now? If you are a conservative that would imply that you are. If you're a liberaterian, surely you can see that without a state, violence over property is more likely?

The current US system is not my ideal. Hamilton was the first neo-con in my mind, and it is no supprise that the government he created emphasized a nationalistic form of federalism that the old-school anti-federalists (brutus, federalist farmer, etc.) accused him of secretly creating.

Overall, we need to decentralize the government- state rights across the board. I would also like to shorten the length of time and the number of terms a senator can be in office. Speaking of the senate, I would like to see it placed back into the hands of the state house delegates. The abolition of state rights was cemented by having direct senatorial elections.

Specific issues? I would like to see marriage de-institutionalized. I would like to see all aspects of social engineering removed from the government (be it neo-cons giving 'incentives' to 'traditional' families or liberals taxing inheritance to create a more 'equitable' society). Social engineering, by the neo-cons and liberals, has done much damage and is, when all is said and done such engineering is simply a power grab under the guise of "helping" individuals.

sennomulo,


Why does the tribe help the individual?

Listen man, I’m not saying your logic is flawed- its clearly not. But the issue is un-arguable, it is too rooted in fundamentalism. Both the argues we present are self-sealing in nature. Men are private, thus I belief all their actions to be private- and since the action can't be separated from the individual this cannot be disproved. In much the same way you say Men are social- and all there actions can't be separated from their social context, thus your perspective cannot be disproved. Both make sense in a historical context, its just the perspective we take. And the end of the day, neither one of us has insight into another’s motivation- so we must assume the motivation, but that is just that- an assumption.

This is what I belief in, self-interest, to argue further is meaningless.



It's not ownership that communism is trying to get rid of. In any communist society, you would still own your toothbrush, your car, your house, your computer, etc. It is private ownership of the means of life and the means of production that we are against. The concept of "private ownership of the means of life and the means of production" is a culturally learned idea, and it can be purged by social revolution and replaced with the concept of "social ownership of the means of life and the means of production, via decentralized democratic associations".

What are the means of production?



And yes, we will suppress property, with violence if necessary, for much the same reasons we would suppress slave-owners.

Cannot individuals choose to work or not work? In the US this is the case. Now, in an international context- capitalism can be comparable to slavery in the 3rd world. But it is my belief that an international government is unrealistic and unattainable- thus if a 3rd world country wishes to utilize protectionist policies, I'm all for it. But a just world government is incompatible with my understanding of human nature.

[Eleutherios]

Dude, I'm an anarchist. I'm against world governments too.

[Tungsten]

sennomulo

Where did you get that idea? Empathy comes not from self-interest but from evolution. If we did not have empathy for our fellow man and help the tribe survive instead of just the individual, humans would have died out a long time ago.Newsflash: We've evolved beyond tribal living. Or at least I have.

We're social creatures for a reason.The reason no longer exists. Or, as you communist like to put it "the material conditions that made tribalism necessary no longer exist".

[colonelguppy]

i have a question. why do you liek shitty music?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

I belief human nature is ultimantly individualistic. We are selfish creatures and will do what best for us. I understand human empathy as an extension of our fear of violent death. Specially, we do not like to see that which is like us suffer because it reminds us of suffering. However, this empathy stems from self-interest and is therefore subserviant to it.

we are definately selfish, true... but at the same time, we are also altruistic (i know... human nature is an enigma)...

but did you ever consider that, in doing what is best for ourselves, there is still possibility to do what benefits all those around us as well?

for example...

in a communist or socialist system, the entire community (such as a neighbourhood) as a single unit collectively owns all the property. this means that every house is owned by the community at large. each individual member of that community has a house that perfectly fits that person's needs (such as, a large family would have a 4 bedroom house, a bachelor would have a single bedroom apartment, etc.). but, since the entire community owns these properties collectively, the resident's only responsibility toward that property would be upkeep, utilities, etc. without having to worry about making the house payment or rent, each individual is more free to spend their hard earned money as they see fit.

so, in doing what is best for the entire community, i have benefited just as much as every person around me. my selfish nature is nurtured just as much as my altruistic nature is.


I don't belief communism has to be stopped, I mean don't get me wrong, I love the ends you guys aim toward-

the ends we aim toward is emancipation of the working class from the enslaving machinery of capitalism. is it not human nature to yearn for freedom?


Federalist 10 is the best essay on this. Here Madison accepts property as the root of all "faction" but then supposes that we create a government which is capable of fragmenting economic factions and piting them against each other- in this manner he claims that it would be very difficult for one economic faction to threaten the others.

economic factions have always been pitted against each other - not by forces of government, but by simple de facto alienation. noble vs. bourgeois vs proletariat. karl marx pointed this out really well in the communist manifesto. the bourgeoise (the haves) want to strengthen their control over the proletariat (the have nots), while the proletariat want freedom and equality. there is absolutely no way both sides can have what they want. the communist propose we create a government that empowers the vast majority of the people (the have-nots) to take control of their lives (some communists (the backwards minded, or 'anarcho-communist' ones) propose that after this happens, that government will wither away, while others (the progressive minded ones who accept that no matter what, we are still instinctively human) believe that this government will progress into perfect democracy and exist only to ensure the safety of the people).


www.conservativepunk.com

what is a conservative punk? a punk who adheres to the traditional philosophy of punk?

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 04:55 am
i have a question. why do you liek shitty music?
i propose that, the reason he likes shitty music is the same reason you ask retarded questions - it feels right to him.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 06:57 pm



Where did you get that idea? Empathy comes not from self-interest but from evolution. If we did not have empathy for our fellow man and help the tribe survive instead of just the individual, humans would have died out a long time ago.


Newsflash: We've evolved beyond tribal living.

Not really.

A tribe, viewed historically or developmentally, consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states, though some modern theorists hold that contemporary tribes can only be understood in terms of their relationship to states.

www.wikipedia.org

The modern nation-state today is the gathering of people from many different groups (which is synonymous with the term nation) is the mixture of (surprise, surprise) a nation, or group of nations, and a sovereign state.


Or at least I have.

:lol:

I'm not going to say anything. ;)


We're social creatures for a reason.


The reason no longer exists. Or, as you communist[s] like to put it "the material conditions that made tribalism necessary no longer exist".

If the reason didn't exist, we would be hacking each others brains out for recources even more than we are now.