cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Not a robust one however. Once the cultural traditions are removed, we revert to who we've been for the previous twelve millennia: tribes balancing war with confederation. quod credo. cn
eCONOMIC THEORY
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
It is the only shaper. Competition defines us. Only cooperation can increase the value of effort however. In world of strivers for power, a competitive structure is conducive toward maintaining a traditional hegemony. However, welcome to the global age, no more room to grow, a new model is needed.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
My lament is that "needed" doesn't affect or improve the chances of "obtained". A putative society based on cooperation must be able to withstand international politics, which is warfare, whether overt or diplomatic or economic.
"Speak to me not of necessity but of capability." -J. Stalin to M. Gandhi
cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Everybody wants peace, but each man is afraid the next will break it.
Every man says, "I'm only one man, what can one man do?".
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Imo you nailed it. The Prisoner's Dilemma sounds very contrived but is the cornerstone of game theories for a darned good reason. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Listen here you Tory wanna be, Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist. The free market isn't free, it is was created by, for the benefit of, and is completely owned, controlled, enforced and supplied by capitalist feudal lords. They even own the customers. Now unless you have some serious fucking capital, you aren't any different from me, except that at least my mind is free.
I agree it is some time away before we acquire that technology. I must point out that 100 yeas ago using horse mounted soldiers was still common, we just started building airplanes and really hadn't used them for anything useful yet, we have only had electricity for a couple hundred years, computers for a short time. Look at how fast simulations and displays are coming along. LCDs are only about 30 years old and just passed up CRT in the last 5 or 6 years. Even the telescope is only 500 years old. America is only a couple hundred years old, can you imagine showing them one of our computers in action? That was only 200 or so years ago.
There is something called Moore's Law that says that processors will double in power every 18-24 months.
The same theory roughly exists in technology in general. Given how fast we are increasing it doesn't seem out of the question that we would have matrix style technology in our lifetimes or at least before 2100.
The right is equally disgusting to me. I decided that Obama winning again was preferable to me voting for Romney. Have you ever seen me argue for more government or even maintaining the level we have? Have you ever seen me say maybe we need more military or need to keep the one we got? Have you ever seen me want to outlaw anything based on my moral belief? My personal beliefs don't affect my decision making. Anarchists can be completely left and completely right in personal views but still accept that the state should not be dictating how people live. While I don't move to the level of anarchist, I am pretty close. The law/government should exist just to keep each other from hurting one another. Not supporting, not directing, not forcing.
You say you are against the state but go on to say that the people must band together to forcefully remove property from its owners. This is just killing the current state to make another - not getting rid of the state.
I don't remember ever calling you a communist. I am not Kynes. We had a very long and civil conversation about your beliefs and you don't have answers to many of the questions that were asked. I agree with you that socialism is a good thing if it doesn't involve force. Socialism as a personal choice is fine and dandy by me. However, I can't see any way that socialism wouldn't involve force except one where everyone spontaneously decides to be socialism on their own. While that would be great, it is all but impossible and the only option left to get close is to root for anarchy and then usurp the means of production. The banding together of people to do this would essentially be the creation of a government.
Obama's policies aren't fixing the economy or society. Things are merely equalizing again and they would of regardless who the president was. We see it every decade. Ebb and flow. It is like throwing flour on a fire that is dying down from lack of fuel and saying the flour put out the fire. It doesn't work that way.
Did I ever call you a Marxist?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah you basically did by insisting more than once that I argued pro state socialism. It's cool though, I'm glad to see we actually have some common ground. I always try not to ascribe views to someone that they don't ascribe to themselves.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No. It does not. Moore's law is specific to integrated circuits. Show me an equivalent in another core technology, like transportation or agriculture. I know of none. It is also why I feel that the great age of technical innovation has contracted down to what we're doing now with computers.I agree it is some time away before we acquire that technology. I must point out that 100 yeas ago using horse mounted soldiers was still common, we just started building airplanes and really hadn't used them for anything useful yet, we have only had electricity for a couple hundred years, computers for a short time. Look at how fast simulations and displays are coming along. LCDs are only about 30 years old and just passed up CRT in the last 5 or 6 years. Even the telescope is only 500 years old. America is only a couple hundred years old, can you imagine showing them one of our computers in action? That was only 200 or so years ago.
There is something called Moore's Law that says that processors will double in power every 18-24 months.
The same theory roughly exists in technology in general. Given how fast we are increasing it doesn't seem out of the question that we would have matrix style technology in our lifetimes or at least before 2100.
But you're skipping over my main point. To achieve true VR we need to attach the machine to self, and we don't even have a way of detecting that with our best instruments. It's not an engineering problem but a basic one of the two natures: human and material, and the absence of a converter or buffer. cn
nontheist
Well-Known Member
This is your fundamental flaw on the view of humanity, not everyone wants peace and we will always find a reason to not like someone else. Documented history has never shown this, so please explain where you get this concept?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
lol. I'm asking/asserting nearly the same thing. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Do you want peace?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If the answer is yes, as I suspect it is for all people, then the only thing that could motivate you to break peace is fear.
Conversely, how can peace be achieved through war? When has this ever worked? Genocide?
Conversely, how can peace be achieved through war? When has this ever worked? Genocide?
nontheist
Well-Known Member
I know but he is bouncing around like a wounded rabbit. This "It is the only shaper. Competition defines us. Only cooperation can increase the value of effort however. In world of strivers for power, a competitive structure is conducive toward maintaining a traditional hegemony. However, welcome to the global age, no more room to grow, a new model is needed. " is not a good answer I want to know why he thinks this and how it can be implemented. I usually avoid conversations with him because his ideas are so extreme I don't know how he came to grasp them or believe they would ever work. He reminds me of most atheist and socialists, they think intolerance is the answer to intolerance while branding themselves hypocrites and too blind to see the irony.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
No I think peace is unattainable for long amounts of time, sorry it just won't happen.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I seriously think you need to reread your Macchiavelli. Fear is the lesser motive for war. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You don't want it, or it is impossible?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Machiavelli never accomplished anything meaningful.
nontheist
Well-Known Member
Impossible, you might as well ask the lion to not eat the gazelle. Just because we're the smartest animal doesn't cancel the fact out.