LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Y'know, I'd be interested in seeing the kind of innovation that allowed pocket-sized supercomputers to exist stem from cooperation.
But that will probably never happen.

Living impoverished behind metal walls instead of behind wooden walls isn't much of an improvement.

That's because the impoverished living behind wooden walls are in countries with low economic freedom.

The Soviet Union was often at the forefront of scientific development.

[Northern Davincia]

Y'know, I'd be interested in seeing the kind of innovation that allowed pocket-sized supercomputers to exist stem from cooperation.
But that will probably never happen.

That's because the impoverished living behind wooden walls are in countries with low economic freedom.

The Soviet Union was often at the forefront of scientific development.

Gee, I wonder who they were competing against.

[Kaggeceria]

No it wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... bile_phone

My mistake; according to that very page, one of the predecessors to true mobile phones was a USSR invention. In 1961.

Literally where

[Torrocca]

My mistake; according to that very page, one of the predecessors to true mobile phones was a USSR invention. In 1961.

Literally where

If you use this fancy feature on your mouse known as the scroll-wheel and scroll up, it's toward the top.

Or, just, y'know, ctrl+f "USSR".

[Kowani]

My mistake; according to that very page, one of the predecessors to true mobile phones was a USSR invention. In 1961.

Literally where

For the sake of fairness.

Wikipedia wrote: In the USSR, Leonid Kupriyanovich, an engineer from Moscow, in 1957-1961 developed and presented a number of experimental pocket-sized communications radio. The weight of one model, presented in 1961, was only 70 g and could fit on a palm.[7][8] However, in the USSR the decision at first to develop the system of the automobile "Altai" phone was made.[9]

[The Liberated Territories]

how can you have laws without a state to enforce them?

are laws in a anarcshit society like some sort of social contract?

Shockingly enough, Anarchist societies don't have laws.

They have rules and guidelines that they democratically either agree on via consensus or, if consensus can't be reached, they use a majority vote.

Incorrect. AnCap has laws.

*runs away giggling*

[Torrocca]

Shockingly enough, Anarchist societies don't have laws.

They have rules and guidelines that they democratically either agree on via consensus or, if consensus can't be reached, they use a majority vote.

Incorrect. AnCap has laws.

*runs away giggling*

I mean that's kinda true though if you think about what """An"""Caps always have to say about "legality" :3

[The Liberated Territories]

Incorrect. AnCap has laws.

*runs away giggling*

I mean that's kinda true though if you think about what """An"""Caps always have to say about "legality" :3

Time to unleash the cops

[Torrocca]

I mean that's kinda true though if you think about what """An"""Caps always have to say about "legality" :3

Time to unleash the cops

>Not unleashing the McCops

STATIST!!! *McNukes for this grievous violation of the NAP*

[The Liberated Territories]

Time to unleash the cops

>Not unleashing the McCops

STATIST!!! *McNukes for this grievous violation of the NAP*

*actives anti-nuke force field around property*

*retaliates with orbital space laser*

[Liriena]

Yes, and employees do that bulk of that too. Or are you gonna tell me that Jeff Bezzos single-handedly does his own market research and branding?

Back when he started out? Yeah.
Today? No. He can sit back and enjoy the fruits of his labor.

You think the work he did in the beginning really entitles him to tens of billions? An amount of money that could afford thousands if not millions of people a perfectly comfortable life, and that he himself will never be able to fully spend on his own wellbeing or that of his loved ones? What even is the point of having that much wealth? Do you really think that billionaires worked hard enough to deserve billions?

[Kowani]

Back when he started out? Yeah.
Today? No. He can sit back and enjoy the fruits of his labor.

You think the work he did in the beginning really entitles him to tens of billions? An amount of money that could afford thousands if not millions of people a perfectly comfortable life, and that he himself will never be able to fully spend on his own wellbeing or that of his loved ones? What even is the point of having that much wealth? Do you really think that billionaires worked hard enough to deserve billions?

He made smart choices, and figured out the best way to maximize his gains. Should he have to pay more taxes? Yes, he has more wealth to soak. Should all of his money be taken away? Fuck no.

Also, you've heard of job creation, right?

[Abuddania]

Back when he started out? Yeah.
Today? No. He can sit back and enjoy the fruits of his labor.

You think the work he did in the beginning really entitles him to tens of billions? An amount of money that could afford thousands if not millions of people

If you divide billion dolars to millions it's not that much lol
Also, Venezuela was really the richest nation in the continent in the 70's and before

[The New California Republic]

You think the work he did in the beginning really entitles him to tens of billions? An amount of money that could afford thousands if not millions of people

If you divide billion dolars to millions it's not that much lol
Also, Venezuela was really the richest nation in the continent in the 70's and before

And the GDR was the most vibrant economy in the COMECON in the 1970s. Things change.

[Valrifell]

You think the work he did in the beginning really entitles him to tens of billions? An amount of money that could afford thousands if not millions of people a perfectly comfortable life, and that he himself will never be able to fully spend on his own wellbeing or that of his loved ones? What even is the point of having that much wealth? Do you really think that billionaires worked hard enough to deserve billions?

He made smart choices, and figured out the best way to maximize his gains. Should he have to pay more taxes? Yes, he has more wealth to soak. Should all of his money be taken away? Fuck no.

Also, you've heard of job creation, right?

Irrelevant, he's not using the wealth he's currently accumulating since it's, you know, accumulating. He's personally not doing anything to benefit the economy since he's just sitting around watching a number grow and heading a company essentially so large it's on auto-pilot.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

He made smart choices, and figured out the best way to maximize his gains. Should he have to pay more taxes? Yes, he has more wealth to soak. Should all of his money be taken away? Fuck no.

Also, you've heard of job creation, right?

Irrelevant, he's not using the wealth he's currently accumulating since it's, you know, accumulating. He's personally not doing anything to benefit the economy since he's just sitting around watching a number grow and heading a company essentially so large it's on auto-pilot.

He uses that money to invest in ventures and donate to charities. That's hardly just sitting around watching a number grow; that's an active effort.

[Valrifell]

Irrelevant, he's not using the wealth he's currently accumulating since it's, you know, accumulating. He's personally not doing anything to benefit the economy since he's just sitting around watching a number grow and heading a company essentially so large it's on auto-pilot.

He uses that money to invest in ventures and donate to charities. That's hardly just sitting around watching a number grow; that's an active effort.

He could easily be doing so much more with it, though. To the point that while his absolute numbers are impressive it's practically little more than a token effort for him.

[Fahran]

Again, I apologize for my late response.

Fair enough, and, in all honestly, an Anarchist society would likely require some coercion; most prominently, of course, in protecting its society from something subversive to the ideals like the reestablishment of unjust hierarchies of any kind.

My belief is that it would require at least as much coercion as any other society, and, perhaps, even more coercion to prevent the accumulation of capital and thus power into the hands of the few. We appear to agree to a significant extent that coercion is an intrinsic element of society and the public sphere. In that case, we should discuss what legitimizes particular forms and types of coercion.

If the society they're abandoning treats them like shit? Arguably, yes.

How badly do you have to be treated before abandoning society for a life of solitude becomes ethical? And what ethical philosophy are we employing here?

No. We're a communal species, that's just a given fact of life that we've come to the conclusion of through centuries science and history.

I agree.

In that regard, I can only say it depends on the circumstances. Some individuals, in times of crisis, may leave so that their community could survive; in that case, the individual would be worse off, but the society and species would be better off. In another case, where the society is harmful to the individual, it would be to their direct benefit to seek out a better life for themselves.

Would this person be able to experience the most worthwhile things in life though? I would argue the family, love, friendship, community, and religion are vital components of what give the individual meaning. Man is not an island.

There's no reason to want everyone to behave in this manner; that's absurd. However, there ought to not be a reason to deny an individual the right to choose whether they wish to remain with their society or not.

Then we can deduce that this behavior is unethical when referenced to Kant and Rawls's conceptions of the categorical imperative. Those are two of the most prominent liberal philosophers of ethics. We're left with utilitarianism, natural law, and a few other models to employ.

In the case of preventing someone from leaving, that would be a much more direct violation of the individual's freedom of movement and freedom of choice. In the latter, of preventing immigrants from joining the community, it could be argued to be a similar case as the former. This is another sort of case that'd require more context to determine whether the community's right of democratic decision making or the individual's right of choice are more important. A community with sparse resources would be right to want to avoid having another mouth to feed, but an individual wishing to join a community rich in them would be more right to join it than the community would be to deny them.

If an individual has a right to a community's resources, then is it no less legitimate to claim that the community has a right to the individual's resources - whether those be material or abstract? Every moral right must then create a respective moral obligation. And, beyond that, we've agreed that this relationship at its conception is predicated on coercion since one cannot consent to the circumstances of their birth.

In a sense, yes. I wouldn't readily call it an unjustifiable case of coercion, however; it still entirely falls under the given democratic principles of the community which, sadly, would sometimes have to resort to a simple majority vote if the sought-after option of a consensus couldn't happen.

What, in your view, makes coercion legitimate or illegitimate?

Interesting. Shame it was only done by majority vote, but that's still a better system, I'd wager.

We had time to arrive at a consensus. We simply had different interests and couldn't arrive at a compromise beyond allowing the runners-up in the vote to be studied in order of the votes they had received.

[Great Minarchistan]

Which reminds me, where the hell is my damned Soros check?

I'm still waiting for my Koch check.

You didn't get yours yet? He stashed $50 in my bank account a week ago.

[Great Minarchistan]

No it wasn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... bile_phone

My mistake; according to that very page, one of the predecessors to true mobile phones was a USSR invention. In 1961.

The predecessor of steel is iron and coal. If I have both, can I claim that I found steel? Protip: no

[Torrocca]

My mistake; according to that very page, one of the predecessors to true mobile phones was a USSR invention. In 1961.

The predecessor of steel is iron and coal. If I have both, can I claim that I found steel? Protip: no

It's more like the predecessor to stainless steel is regular steel.

[Great Minarchistan]

You think the work he did in the beginning really entitles him to tens of billions?

Yes. Ninety five percent of his fortune comes from Amazon shares, of which he holds a stake of approx. 16%. He was smart enough to put trust in his own company, and there he is.

[Great Minarchistan]

The predecessor of steel is iron and coal. If I have both, can I claim that I found steel? Protip: no

It's more like the predecessor to stainless steel is regular steel.

QED

[Fahran]

You didn't get yours yet? He stashed $50 in my bank account a week ago.

I thought paid shills made more than that. Now if only I could find someone to pay me for thinking that Bonnie Prince Charlie did nothing wrong.

[Great Minarchistan]

You didn't get yours yet? He stashed $50 in my bank account a week ago.

I thought paid shills made more than that. Now if only I could find someone to pay me for thinking that Bonnie Prince Charlie did nothing wrong.

He's a greedy magnate but this is the worth of my low-effort labor anyways, I'm happy with it