Ever wish there was a bunch of douchebags actually worse than libertarians/ancaps? Oh boy have I got something for you :fap:
"Exactly what sort of monarchy they'd prefer varies. Some want something closer to theocracy, while Yarvin proposes turning nation states into corporations with the king as chief executive officer and the aristocracy as shareholders."
http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Hah, do we have a treat for you! We have our own little neoreactionary by the name of Brother Nihil, who has been hanging around the past few months, defending the Greek Golden Dawn neonazis and similar.
Aw snap, beat me to it. :horrormirth:
Oh wow, darn, I should have known I could never out-wierd PDCOM. :-(
Is he at all funny or only horrormirth "funny"?
He's pretty horrifyingly unfunny.
Quote from: Verbal Mike on November 24, 2013, 09:52:19 PM
Oh wow, darn, I should have known I could never out-wierd PDCOM. :-(
Is he at all funny or only horrormirth "funny"?
He's "funny" in that he continually shows up preaching his weird mix of woo and Nazism, and is continually butthurt when we all make fun of him.
I find him entertaining, in the same manner as I find our engineer entertaining. Though our engineer doesn't think that lockstep fascism is "true freedom".
Essentially, Brother Nihil is what happens to hipsters when they reach the Ann Coulter Limit.
:lulz:
I really hope all libertarians and "an"caps will turn to neoreactionism before too long. It'll be way funner that way.
A good number of them are already there. Hans Herman Hoppe, for example.
Bump. Charles Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/11/trotskyite-singularitarians-fo.html#rssowlmlink) has a bit up on his blog about the neoreactionaries article, which is of interest since he himself used to converse with Mencius Moldbug (one of the more prominent neoreactionaries) back in the day on Usenet, and they occasionally pop up in each other's comment sections.
QuoteIn the right corner of the ring, Neo-reactionaries like Mencius Moldbug (blog here) and Michael Anissimov are effectively libertarians who have thrown up their hands in disgust and concluded that the modern age -- by which they mean everything since the Enlightenment -- is corrupting, degrading, and on a highway to hell, and the appropriate political solution to the problem is to go back to aristocracy as an organizing principle, or even the divine right of kings. (Techcrunch describe them as Geeks for Monarchy. I think they're full of shit (possibly because I live in a monarchy), and so does Scott Alexander, who has written a magisterial Anti-Reactionary FAQ in which he pulls the legs off the fascist reactionary insect, the better to anatomize it.)
He examines this in the context of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the UK, which is interesting in its own right.
Mencius himself references the Techcrunch article in his latest blog entry (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/11/mr-jones-is-rather-concerned.html#rssowlmlink), which I haven't fully read, mostly because MM is a longwinded bore.
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 02:09:35 PM
Bump. Charles Stross (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/11/trotskyite-singularitarians-fo.html#rssowlmlink) has a bit up on his blog about the neoreactionaries article, which is of interest since he himself used to converse with Mencius Moldbug (one of the more prominent neoreactionaries) back in the day on Usenet, and they occasionally pop up in each other's comment sections.
QuoteIn the right corner of the ring, Neo-reactionaries like Mencius Moldbug (blog here) and Michael Anissimov are effectively libertarians who have thrown up their hands in disgust and concluded that the modern age -- by which they mean everything since the Enlightenment -- is corrupting, degrading, and on a highway to hell, and the appropriate political solution to the problem is to go back to aristocracy as an organizing principle, or even the divine right of kings. (Techcrunch describe them as Geeks for Monarchy. I think they're full of shit (possibly because I live in a monarchy), and so does Scott Alexander, who has written a magisterial Anti-Reactionary FAQ in which he pulls the legs off the fascist reactionary insect, the better to anatomize it.)
He examines this in the context of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the UK, which is interesting in its own right.
Mencius himself references the Techcrunch article in his latest blog entry (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/11/mr-jones-is-rather-concerned.html#rssowlmlink), which I haven't fully read, mostly because MM is a longwinded bore.
Neoreactionaries seem to make about as much sense as Christian Scientists.
Less, really.
I mean, is their point just to be totally crazy so that people can laugh at them? Because they're succeeding.
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.
I agree, with an added dose of "Fuck those people, I got mine."
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.
:lulz: In order to be truly free, we first must do away with freedom?
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 29, 2013, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.
:lulz: In order to be truly free, we first must do away with freedom?
Brother Nihil has said precisely that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 30, 2013, 07:00:27 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 29, 2013, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.
:lulz: In order to be truly free, we first must do away with freedom?
Brother Nihil has said precisely that.
Wow. Stupidity or mental illness? It can be so hard to figure out which.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 30, 2013, 07:06:30 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 30, 2013, 07:00:27 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 29, 2013, 07:08:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 29, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
I think they've realised their libertarian ideals are not popular in democracy and so, instead of figuring out ways to sell them to the public, or modify them, they've decided instead, libertarianism requires a dictator-CEO and a board of aristocratic directors, to do away with democracy entirely.
:lulz: In order to be truly free, we first must do away with freedom?
Brother Nihil has said precisely that.
Wow. Stupidity or mental illness? It can be so hard to figure out which.
Apparently, the illusion of a "contradiction" is caused by two things:
1. More and more people can do whatever they want, which LOOKS like freedom, but really isn't, because this includes
women, and that fucks with his freedom, as a guy, to actually have sex with something other than a sock, and
2. Some sort of mystical shit about a cathedral. Now, I've been to the Basillica in St Johns, which is a BIGASS cathedral, and while the people that run it are Catholic, they didn't seem to be enslaving people right in the open. I'm not sure why this works, but it does. Also, women should be forced to have sex with Brother Nihil when he wants them to do so.
Bonus reason #3: Brother Nihil desperately wants to get laid, but doesn't know exactly how to go about making it happen...And Libertarianism is old hat, and nobody listens to Pagans, so I guess he figured he'd just mash the whole thing together and see what happens.
Guess what?
He won't be passing his genes on to the next generation. So there's something to be said for all of this, after all.
I do actually agree with the neoreactionaries that democratic formalism should not be confused with freedom. Democratic structures don't guarantee freedom, and freedom can flourish under other political systems.
That said, democracy tends to be better for encouraging such freedoms, when focused on its ideal type, and retains the ability to dismiss unsatisfactory leaders with better mechanisms than other systems.
Also, the Anti-Neoreactionary FAQ mentioned by Stross is really good, and I do recommend it http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2013, 11:30:41 AM
Also, the Anti-Neoreactionary FAQ mentioned by Stross is really good, and I do recommend it http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
Interesting, thanks.
In particular, I liked this line:
QuoteIf Barack Obama said the entire country had to convert to Mormonism at gunpoint as part of a complicated plot for him to bone Natalie Portman, we'd just tell him no.
:lulz:
I think the sad truth is that the Neoraction is simply an honest logical conclusion of Libertarianism. If you think things work best when everything is private property, the state/polity itself should not rationally be excluded. Liberatrian precursors to the Neoreaction have outright said that incentive-wise, a feudal system should entail better management altogether. (Or at least Hoppe did, I think, don't remember whether he even counts as Libertarian/AnCap.)
Basically, from Libertarianism, if you don't end up regaining your senses and turning left, intellectual honesty will compell you to descend to "Anarcho"-Capitalism (repressed Neofeudalism) and from there to the Neoreaction. The Neoreactionaries are the only honest part of that spectrum. Everything else is just waiting to fall all the way down there.
Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 02, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
I think the sad truth is that the Neoraction is simply an honest logical conclusion of Libertarianism. If you think things work best when everything is private property, the state/polity itself should not rationally be excluded. Liberatrian precursors to the Neoreaction have outright said that incentive-wise, a feudal system should entail better management altogether. (Or at least Hoppe did, I think, don't remember whether he even counts as Libertarian/AnCap.)
Basically, from Libertarianism, if you don't end up regaining your senses and turning left, intellectual honesty will compell you to descend to "Anarcho"-Capitalism (repressed Neofeudalism) and from there to the Neoreaction. The Neoreactionaries are the only honest part of that spectrum. Everything else is just waiting to fall all the way down there.
Regarding Anarcho-capitalism: Why do you think rejecting hierarchy without rejecting money is repressed neofeudalism?
Sure, it will inevitably lead to feudalism but that doesn't make it inherently feudalistic.
It just makes it hopelessly idealistic. Utopian, even.
Or is that what you mean by calling it dishonest?
Because it doesn't take into account the unavoidable consequences?
Could we perhaps give eachother room to describe the violent parts of hierachy as bad without coming to any definitive conclusions regarding the ultimate solution?
Ultimate solutions tend to be sooo absolute. And that begs for violence bringing us back to what is commonly considered an undesirable outcome.
Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 02, 2013, 12:00:51 AM
I think the sad truth is that the Neoraction is simply an honest logical conclusion of Libertarianism. If you think things work best when everything is private property, the state/polity itself should not rationally be excluded. Liberatrian precursors to the Neoreaction have outright said that incentive-wise, a feudal system should entail better management altogether. (Or at least Hoppe did, I think, don't remember whether he even counts as Libertarian/AnCap.)
Basically, from Libertarianism, if you don't end up regaining your senses and turning left, intellectual honesty will compell you to descend to "Anarcho"-Capitalism (repressed Neofeudalism) and from there to the Neoreaction. The Neoreactionaries are the only honest part of that spectrum. Everything else is just waiting to fall all the way down there.
It (neoreaction) may appear to be this, but really examine some of it closer and you'll see why: neoreaction isn't a new ideology. It's literally just an excessively vague set of ideals that are worded in language that allows it to be shaped into the belief systems of damn near every radical-right
tm system.
I could easily say that neoreaction is a "logical conclusion" to ethnic nationalism: A volkisch leader as monarch, an upper eschalon on pure-bred volk as aristocracy, and acceptably-bred volk as commoners, who under the command of the royalty, protect the military and economic interests of the volk by giving their labour as workers, farmers and soldiers. "Enemy" is other ethnic groups, as they infringe on resources the volk could use.
Likewise, I could say that neoreaction is the "local conclusion" to religious extremism: A pope as monarch, bishops as the aristocracy, and lay religious peoples as the commoner, who protect the interests of the faith by work, war, etc. "Enemy" is other religious groups...again, they breathe air that could be used by the truely faithful.
Again, the laissez faire capitalist can be a neoreactionary as well: Monopoly CEO as king, shareholders as aristocrats, employees as...well, we have the trend set out thus far. Again, all working to the benefit of the monopolist corporation. "Enemy" is other companies, cuz they steal "our" customers and use "our" resources for production.
Boots on the ground, a "purist" in any of these ideologies would be quite unlike his fellows from the other groups, but when you put it under an umbrella like "neoreaction", you can garner a following of dumbass teens, racists, 19th century capitalists and
mormons hard-line religious people like moldbug has done with his nihil-tier followers. In essence, moldbug is a blogger...so he cast a wide net so that he could cater to the entire right at once -- not the religious right, the racist right or the moderates, but to the whole thing at once: great way to garner readership...or so it would seem.
Most of the more "righty" places I peep in on from time to time either:
A) don't even know about, care about or discuss neoreaction
B) Think it's fucking stupid, albeit for slightly different reasons that would give a leftist.
Example (from stormfront...yeah, that one):
Quote
...Their attitude towards the Jewish Question is also usually unforgivable, and they glamorize capitalism, usury, the idea of an aristocratic ruling class, and often Jewish supremacy. These are not the kind of people we want to associate ourselves with, although in times they may serve as the useful idiots, in that they pose no threat whatsoever because their ideas will never lead to a large movement, and that they do have somewhat of a key into the minds of the elite with which they can make them consider their racial views. Apart from that, no they aren't White Nationalists, and we'd do well to look elsewhere for guidance...
and honestly, that's about the best example of how people are reacting to it. Patriots? Can't find an opinion...too busy discussing drone strikes and what makes .223 better than 7.62x39 and vice versa. Asatruar? No opinion...different groups largely focused on local politics or politics specifically related to their faith. 4chan? Threads about the idea either auto-sage with about 3 replies, or else neo-nazis, christians and libertarians pick the OP apart on the grounds that they don't agree with it, and then the OP dies.
But yeah, it appears to be a "logical conclusion" to libertarianism because it's simply a blanket ideology that appears to have been made specifically to appeal to the right as a whole -- regardless of how disparate that target market is.
hmm, makes me think of how I read something the other day about how "traditional values" are becoming the new "in thing" for hipsterdom. Perhaps neoreaction is the declawed, "safe" version of the hard right. In the 20th century, rebellious teens wore che shirts -- in the 21st HITLER :lulz:
von, thanks for that analysis, very interesting. My gut feeling is still that Neoreaction is actually a conclusion of Libertarianism/"An"Cap, albeit generalized to appeal to other authoritarians as well, but I might need to reconsider that.
regret – the simple fact of the matter is that money as we know it is an instrument of pure hierarchy. Because money is a system of survival vouchers, the liberal ideal of "free choice" regarding contracts, labor, and trade, is simply a falsity. There is no freedom in a choice which places a gun against your head. Sure, if you have money in abundance you can make relatively free choices. If a few dollars can be the difference between survival and starvation, as they are for far, far too many human beings, money is coercion.
I'm quite willing to see Right-Libertarians/"An"Caps as merely naive (hey, I was kinda somewhere on that spectrum for a while myself) but if someone holding a position like that were to consider the consequences logically and with intellectual honesty and integrity I am convinced they would have to either accept that they are actually authoritarian or abandon those ideologies.
In other words, it's not even about the ultimate solution nor about the inevitable consequence of their impossible ideology in practice. It's about the present reality of oppression and hierarchy and where one draws the line. If you get to enjoy the power of money, the power to dominate and control other people, and consider that morally neutral or even generous, while railing against governments' domination and control of people, that's dishonest or disingenuous or downright retarded.
(I should note that I currently label myself Marxist and Anarcho-Communist/Left-Libertarian so I'm far, far from neutral here. :P)
Money is just a method, it is not the primary fault in our society. People use it for bad shit, so what? The same can be said of concrete. Or garbage bags.
I think you misunderstand me.
Money as we know it, as a system, is violent.
This is because money is set up as a system of survival vouchers, meaning that whenever money is in play, people with less access to money are forced, literally forced at the threat of violence, to succumb to the whims of those with more access to money. In other words, when you use survival vouchers to manage an economy, you are setting up a system of class domination. And when those with more access exercise the choice of how to dispense the money they have, they are exercising dominance over others. No matter how generous they think they are being.
That is a really intereting way of looking at money I had not considered. Thanks.
What would you propose as an alternate use of money, or system that avoids coercion in that way?
Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 05, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
I think you misunderstand me.
Money as we know it, as a system, is violent.
This is because money is set up as a system of survival vouchers, meaning that whenever money is in play, people with less access to money are forced, literally forced at the threat of violence, to succumb to the whims of those with more access to money. In other words, when you use survival vouchers to manage an economy, you are setting up a system of class domination. And when those with more access exercise the choice of how to dispense the money they have, they are exercising dominance over others. No matter how generous they think they are being.
And your alternative would be...
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
At this point?
One big slot machine.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
The problem isn't the method of commerce, the problem is applying the concept of commerce to every aspect of life. Since we no longer live in an environment where it is possible for people without money to build a shelter and forage or subsistence farm for a living, we need something that replaces that. Money does a poor job of replacing it.
Quote from: Alty on December 06, 2013, 12:53:39 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
At this point?
One big slot machine.
Naw. The system works. It's not flawless by any stretch of the imagination, but it functions.
The problem isn't the currency, or the concept of currency. The problem is the repealing of regulations designed to keep the playing field at least KINDA level, that has been going on since 1981.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:57:05 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
The problem isn't the method of commerce, the problem is applying the concept of commerce to every aspect of life. Since we no longer live in an environment where it is possible for people without money to build a shelter and forage or subsistence farm for a living, we need something that replaces that. Money does a poor job of replacing it.
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
Basically, money is fine for commerce, but the concept originated at a time before EVERYTHING was commodified. It needs to be refined for our evolving society, which several countries have already figured out.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:57:05 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
The problem isn't the method of commerce, the problem is applying the concept of commerce to every aspect of life. Since we no longer live in an environment where it is possible for people without money to build a shelter and forage or subsistence farm for a living, we need something that replaces that. Money does a poor job of replacing it.
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
Yep. Totally fine to tax a fee that's sent to for-profit corporations so that your independence doesn't cost them money... but propose that a similar tax be levied on businesses to subsidize electricity use for the poor? SOCIALIST!!!
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 01:01:07 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:57:05 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
The problem isn't the method of commerce, the problem is applying the concept of commerce to every aspect of life. Since we no longer live in an environment where it is possible for people without money to build a shelter and forage or subsistence farm for a living, we need something that replaces that. Money does a poor job of replacing it.
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
Yep. Totally fine to tax a fee that's sent to for-profit corporations so that your independence doesn't cost them money... but propose that a similar tax be levied on businesses to subsidize electricity use for the poor? SOCIALIST!!!
I've gone to being more or less socialist over the last 10 years, strictly on account of the excesses displayed by capitalists.
Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 05, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
I think you misunderstand me.
Money as we know it, as a system, is violent.
This is because money is set up as a system of survival vouchers, meaning that whenever money is in play, people with less access to money are forced, literally forced at the threat of violence, to succumb to the whims of those with more access to money. In other words, when you use survival vouchers to manage an economy, you are setting up a system of class domination. And when those with more access exercise the choice of how to dispense the money they have, they are exercising dominance over others. No matter how generous they think they are being.
Well said, that.
There are three ways i see to improve this.
1. Use city planning and cultural changes to make survival independent or less dependent of money. I'm not saying everyone should become a farmer on top of their normal workload but i am sure several things can be done to improve the current situation. Small scale vertical farming in cities comes to mind. (ZOMG SOCIAL ENGINEERING! HITLER DID THAT!)
2. Political changes that give the poor sufficient protection. (ZOMG SOCIALISM! STALIN DID THAT!)
3. Invent a new way for people to take care of themselves without using money. (ZOMG SCIFI! STAR TREK DID THAT!)
As you can see, neither is really acceptable to the dominant predator on this planet
1.
1
Corporations, who did you think i was talking about?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
I first heard that a couple of days ago. It's incredibly hard to wrap my mind around it. When you generate excess energy, you can dump it back into the grid... and you have to pay for them to receive free energy?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 06, 2013, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
I first heard that a couple of days ago. It's incredibly hard to wrap my mind around it. When you generate excess energy, you can dump it back into the grid... and you have to pay for them to receive free energy?
I'm guessing the sums you are able to "earn" though this are practically nothing. Which makes me question what the incentive is to have a two way supply. If you're able to generate an excess, surely it's just better to cut out the power company entirely?
There's probably a charge for that too.
I believe the problem in general are ineffecient batteries, so excess power generated can't be easily stored. Any you want to still be connected to the grid, for things like rainy days and cataclysmic events.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 01:03:37 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 01:01:07 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:57:05 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:52:32 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 AM
He makes a point. The problem is, the currency of commerce has come to take the place of subsistence, to such a degree that those who have more of the currency of commerce actually have the power to withhold access to subsistence from those who do not have enough of it.
This is a big, big problem.
Yeah, not disputing that. I'm just trying to think of any method of commerce that wouldn't be worse.
The problem isn't the method of commerce, the problem is applying the concept of commerce to every aspect of life. Since we no longer live in an environment where it is possible for people without money to build a shelter and forage or subsistence farm for a living, we need something that replaces that. Money does a poor job of replacing it.
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
Yep. Totally fine to tax a fee that's sent to for-profit corporations so that your independence doesn't cost them money... but propose that a similar tax be levied on businesses to subsidize electricity use for the poor? SOCIALIST!!!
I've gone to being more or less socialist over the last 10 years, strictly on account of the excesses displayed by capitalists.
Yeah, me too.
Quote from: Junkenstein on December 06, 2013, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 06, 2013, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
I first heard that a couple of days ago. It's incredibly hard to wrap my mind around it. When you generate excess energy, you can dump it back into the grid... and you have to pay for them to receive free energy?
I'm guessing the sums you are able to "earn" though this are practically nothing. Which makes me question what the incentive is to have a two way supply. If you're able to generate an excess, surely it's just better to cut out the power company entirely?
There's probably a charge for that too.
The charge is levied whether or not you put power back into the grid.
I think that illustrates one of those few, very large, differences between the UK and America. Over here, there was a subsidy for solar panels, and it supplements your power supply for free once installed. UK people instead complain that our energy companies keep rising prices above the rate of inflation (which is bad, but nowhere near as bad as actually taxing people for using alternate sources).
Though you do have a LOT more sunshine than us.
Oddly enough, some states in the US have subsidies for solar and other "green" technologies used commercially, too. The whole idea of "you're doing it yourself, so pay the corporation for the privilege" just seems fucked.
Ha, right? This seems related to the whole "Water rights" snafu in western states, at least in the abstract of "fuck you for collecting your own resources".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 06, 2013, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 06, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Hell, here in Arizona, they bill you a fee - forwarded to the utility companies, for each solar panel...so the utility companies don't lose money.
I first heard that a couple of days ago. It's incredibly hard to wrap my mind around it. When you generate excess energy, you can dump it back into the grid... and you have to pay for them to receive free energy?
Well you know, by not using their services you're basically stealing from them. Why do you hate capitalism?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 07, 2013, 05:32:20 PM
Oddly enough, some states in the US have subsidies for solar and other "green" technologies used commercially, too. The whole idea of "you're doing it yourself, so pay the corporation for the privilege" just seems fucked.
*ahem*
Big thieves hang little thieves.
The people who make the decisions pay no penalty for being wrong.
Kill one man, go to prison. Kill a thousand men, ride to the opera in a limosine.
That is all. You may now return to The Land of the Free™.
Sorry to disappear like that, I got busy and then I went and forgot there are Internets outside Facebook all over again. :oops:
Quote from: :regret: on December 06, 2013, 12:22:17 PM
Quote from: Verbal Mike on December 05, 2013, 07:57:45 PM
I think you misunderstand me.
Money as we know it, as a system, is violent.
This is because money is set up as a system of survival vouchers, meaning that whenever money is in play, people with less access to money are forced, literally forced at the threat of violence, to succumb to the whims of those with more access to money. In other words, when you use survival vouchers to manage an economy, you are setting up a system of class domination. And when those with more access exercise the choice of how to dispense the money they have, they are exercising dominance over others. No matter how generous they think they are being.
Well said, that.
There are three ways i see to improve this.
1. Use city planning and cultural changes to make survival independent or less dependent of money. I'm not saying everyone should become a farmer on top of their normal workload but i am sure several things can be done to improve the current situation. Small scale vertical farming in cities comes to mind. (ZOMG SOCIAL ENGINEERING! HITLER DID THAT!)
2. Political changes that give the poor sufficient protection. (ZOMG SOCIALISM! STALIN DID THAT!)
3. Invent a new way for people to take care of themselves without using money. (ZOMG SCIFI! STAR TREK DID THAT!)
As you can see, neither is really acceptable to the dominant predator on this planet1.
1Corporations, who did you think i was talking about?
This is the general direction, for currently living generations, I guess. Money could easily be de-coupled from basic survival, by means of communities or states providing bare necessities (food, water, shelter, basic clothing) for free, one way or another. Y'all in the US of A are, of course, totally fucked because this kind of socialism (which for once this actually is) won't fly there. The rest of humanity has a chance.
Ultimately, in the long run, it's important to just keep in mind that money and commerce are not facts of nature, they are human technologies and structures, have only been around for a few thousand years tops, and might at some point cease to exist. A world without money is possible, it would "merely" require radical reorganization of most currently existing social structures. A first step will certainly be decoupling money and survival. Then we can gradually socialize more and more commodities and free them from the zero-sum game of commerce. I could fantasize some details but that would just be mental wankery so, you know, whatevs. The general direction is what counts, when we're this far away.
I ran across the following tidbit on slashdot a while back, saved a copy because it makes me giggle....
If I weren't sooo lazy, I'd work a bit harder and BOOM! I'd be RICH! Why, if I weren't so lazy, I could get another job on top of my other two, and work some more! After all, I'm only working 80 hours a week and who needs sleep and recreation!
And we all know that the billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Buffet and all them got where they are by working hard and being honest and forthright people! Anyone can do it!
We all know that all it takes here in the states is to work hard and wealth is guaranteed! Well, if it weren't for the government regulations.
I had a chemical disposal business and the fucking EEE, PEEE, AYE stopped me from disposing in the local trout stream! How the hell is one going to make a living with these communist basterds?! And this bullshit nonsense about children getting cancer and whatnot - why there's St. Judes to help them! Business and profits first and health and well being is just a socialist value! Anyway, cancer was created by socialists to punish the hard working creators and rewards the takers!
And this bullshit of "you didn't build that!" why, the private sector could do just fine building roads and highways and edukating us!
If you're poor, it's all because of your character! Yes sir! If you worked hard have decent values, you wouldn't be poor!
Poor people have poor character and they are stupid! It's all their fault! If they would just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did, all would be well!
I tell you, the values in this society have deteriorated. Way back when, those people would be left to starve - as they should - and it allowed for us makers to achieve and better society.