Damn, you’re so right. I’m a fucking moron and you’re a genius. Save me please.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that. What I meant was that if one thinks hard enough, or if one spends some time reading the classical literature on the subject, then one can clearly see how communism destroys wealth and value!
And yeah, Holochain can’t change the laws of physics! (Or rather, in this case, the law of human action)
A belief backed by nothing, I guess?
To me, ‘belief’ means ‘something I find beautiful’. It could be a story, an idea, a theory, a person, a book etc. Something that, by looking at it or spending time with it, it meets my needs for beauty and meaning.
I think with this closed question you want to share your perspective? No?
I too am an idealist at times; but when it comes to act, here in the real world, one ought to be a realist!
Even I find the notion of communism beautiful as hell (meaning very beautiful), but that’s not what counts in the real world if the system is totally impossible! At best it can be a fantasy, but nothing beyond that…
But they rarely talk about anything concrete, like how if might unfold, what it would be like to be in an enclosable system, what it means to implementation, etc…
Or as Wittgenstein would say,
"What can be said at all can be said clearly!"
My guess is that what @artbrock means by unenclosablility is that no centralized authority, disaster or outage can prevent users from interacting with their Holochain apps; it’s like the offline-first paradigm; sure, some DHT syncing might suffer, but basically, since there is no point of central control, there can be no central point of service-denial. Trying to do so is like trying to catch smoke in your fist.
Ok. There’s a lot to cover here and honestly catching up on all these posts brings up a lot of stuff for me. You said that “dissent (civil or otherwise) is highly welcome” so, well, I hope you were being genuine about that.
Sorry to have to be so blunt but I’ve digested your document and honestly this reads like a cancer script.
“Property appropriation protocol” is a really terrible way of viewing the world. Outdated logics of neoliberalism underscored with objectifying male ownership logic. Nice.
That may seem unfairly judgemental, but, noting terrible language-
man is a territorial beast; how would he live
man desires clean air to breathe
Mark that territory as his own
Announce his subjective personal tolerance
one steals a property and declares it his own
a salary proportional to the contribution he makes
each of whom has his own vision for the company’s future
I was talking about the common man
man is inherently evil
positive externalities in our case; for instance, the benefits that a man enjoys from the passing-by of a beautiful woman…; haha! My favourite example!
I could go on, but I tired of copy-pasting from your manifesto. The gendered language throughout this and related threads are windows into a worldview that is as narrow and self-interested as it is problematic. Honestly it creates a pretty stark context for everything you’re proposing.
You don’t even realise the negative externalities present in the objectification of women. Maybe it is not so harmless, the discomfort / fear / self-protection that women have to feel from being ogled by men like you. And to add more layers to the context, all this from someone with the handle “The A Man”.
As for your favourite example, I don’t find that necessary either, it’s that kind of stuff that also deters people from joining in.
as others have said. Your chauvinism does not belong here.
Interestingly, I note that more or less the only time you use the word “her” in this whole paper is in reference to animals-
Of an animal, being territorial means defending his/her territory
or in tired hetero-normative assertions made about “a mother out in the wild”.
Something to reflect on. Or not
humans have infinite wants
resources within which to fulfil those wants
what you’re talking about is micro-privatization
AI, sensors, robots, p2p social apps for everything (including employment and human-labor)
completely revolutionize the production sector
it doesn’t make any economical sense
Basically, these are all just business models
Free-markets […] thereby making use of insurmountable knowledge […] hence “maximizing utility for everyone”
if you truely were, and were rational enough to see how, you’d realize that only a free-market capitalistic system does the greatest good to the common man.
To echo Tibi, the filter through which you’re continually perceiving this space appears to be one of individualism, privatisation and commodification. You don’t get it. You don’t even get that wants and needs can be met without consuming resources. Threads quickly lead to cross-talk because you’re not really listening to anybody except yourself.
Is there some other configuration I’m unaware of? Surprise me, then.
Can you wrap it up in one brief paragraph, please?
It’s called a commons. Your refusal to understand the distinction is born of this filter I’m referring to. If you won’t take the time to sit with Ostrom and understand concepts like “stewardship” and “responsibility” and “relational richness” and “abundance through responsible sharing” as separate from “privatisation” - if you continue to force-fit this Capitalist lens to everything and erase the differences - then you’re not going to pass ‘Go’.
Asking others to do the work for you when you seem reluctant to absorb the information provided to you is pure entitlement. You keep tagging others, saying you’re “waiting for their reply”, well I’m afraid nobody owes you any replies or owes you their time to try to educate you on things you don’t wish to be educated on.
I don’t see any reason for a full-blown “commons-based-peer-production” even here
what I regard as silly
That’s fine. What I regard as silly is entitled and pointless bickering like that you’ve expressed in your lead-in thread- to what end? Debunk something that you’re just beginning to understand? All you’ve done is make it clear your unwillingness to integrate new information.
Hourglass Economics, are that pay-what-you-want business model and tokenized real-world assets (such as art, musical pieces, and even scientific theories) can internalize those positive-externalities that exist in some industries
The commons-approach is gonna be less efficient than a, let’s say, pay-what-you-want or tokenized NFT approach
And to the privatization critiques, trust me or not
Cool man, you do you. I’ll choose not, and will be far away regarding your project and its cultural underpinnings as a catastrophic failure state in which people are reduced to commodities and the world is designed in service to the chauvinistic desires of cis men.
I’ll be keeping a copy of these threads and your manifesto for my own research. It is a fascinating example of how the predatory and entitled logics of Colonialism and Patriarchy manifest at personal, interpersonal and systemic layers of being and in ownership over women’s bodies, shared spaces and the natural environment.
That’s enough time spent on this now. Bye.
Yeah, I do admit that my language is pretty blunt and is bound to dissuade even people on the same side; my bad, I admit… Looks like I’d have to work up to be a “people-pleaser” like you guys, haha!
Hahahaha! I see where you’re getting at. So you mean I’m a misogynist! Seriously, I never expected this from someone like you @pospi.
Wherever I use “men”, I mean men and women, simple! That would have been obvious to you were to not blinded by the desire to put me down, haha!
As for the “pretty woman passing by” example, well I though that sounded funny; is sounding-funny a sin here on this forum? Anyway, that example was borrowed from here:
Well, unlike most other Austrians, I see man as basically a slightly more evolved animal, nothing more; so there in that statement, I was establishing the assumption (gained through introspection) that man is territorial. Simple!
You wouldn’t get it; basically, I was talking about the “evolution” of “morality”, something that even I myself find silly to talk about. Moreover, as far as I know, nobody here (or anywhere) cares about morality either, so you can skip that portion. Or as Hayek would say, morality (or our intuitive judgment of right and wrong) was evolved very slowly, and that too a long time ago, only to make life easier for ourselves. Noone would say “eating food is immoral”, because natural-selection would make sure such individuals do not contribute anything to the future generations’ genes. [Though the evolved emotional “morality” of looking after one’s fellow men in the local small-community setting from where the modern man (who lives in a much larger society) evolved is still there, and would be there for many thousands of years, and would be the sole propeller for people to go “socialist” (or go crazy; they’re basically the same things, no? Haha)!
The argument before that one was about Hoppean argumentative ethics, and how it’s not an eligible extension to praxeology. Mises’s utilitarianism and Hoppean objectivism (with regard to the right and wrong, or rather, the arguable right and wrong) are different things… Though I guess in my zeal to keep the document short and concise, I did wrap it all up in one horribly small paragraph… My bad.
Yup, there’s no denying that.
Nobody explains it to me; how else am I supposed to get what your would-be vision would be like?
How am I supposed to somehow understand how you people (the CBPP guys) are advocating to manifest her ideas? [Not to mention the utter flaw that her ideas have; “what works in practice CANNOT necessarily work is theory”; Austrians can but laugh at the whole “commons-based” “market-free” production! Seriously, it’s you people who need to do some research.
Haha! Well, I wasn’t waiting for anybody to present their opinions; I had basically given up on arguing with whom I originally thought were well-knowledged intellectuals (Tibi and ZeeMarx)… If you CBPP guys do not mind wasting your efforts and energies and time on DOOMED solutions, then go ahead! I don’t give a damn, seriously! I’d carry on business as usual - trying my hands at implementing the tech side of the anarchist-libertarian dreams…
Oh, hoppephobia I guess…
I guess you are under the influence of Hoppe’s might-I-say a bit off-track remarks… But the idea that under a market society people are reduced to commodities is indicative of your lack-of-understanding regarding economic concerns.
Hahahaha! I smell a demagogue there! You should seriously run for the president; you’d be unbeatable!
[In case you have a hard time understanding humor, as you have already shown, what I mean is that you’re merely misrepresenting my thoughts to fit your justifications for going market-less for letting the code rule over men! Haha! See, I just misrepresented CBPP, didn’t I? Haha! As a non-native speaker, I prefer to use blunt and easy to interpret language; those who wish to misunderstand will do just that - misunderstand.]
Is that a death threat? GO AHEAD, GET ME BANNED!
Just how low could one sink…
Well, pointless bickering was what your whole reply was; as though you were just keen to defend your position “for the sake of women”, haha! It added nothing to my knowledge whatsoever; neither was it on point. Rather, you could have used the time to reply a succinct precise and on-point response to my criticism…
To rephrase the criticism that still remains unattended:
“How the hell does your visionary, revolutionary (might I say, undeveloped) Commons-Based-Peer-Production approach (via. REA accounting) to “commonize” forests make sure that the resources (trees, land, lakes, etc) get used to their optimum best (something that a market-based solution with private-property does best)?”
And no, no one is waiting for your answer, so if you have none, don’t worry!
[Also, emotional reasoning won’t help either; meaning “that’s not what we aim; we aim for the ecosystem to thrive”, or “privatization sounds RUDE”, etc won’t be any help… Only logically reasoned arguments would be considered…]
Basically, there’s a patch of unowned forest-land behind my backyard (let’s assume for a second).
My obvious approach was:
The user (a participant) of the protocol should be able to:
o Appropriate a property justly.
o Mark that territory as his own.
o Announce his subjective personal tolerance (caps) for externalities (of all possible kinds).
o Enforce them through some means.
Appropriation through a decentralized Auctioneer (h)app that can do the brand-new revolutionary Simultaneous Auctions (without which everything would fall apart; read the technical section for more details).
The territory gets marked as an un-cheatable Entry in a Holochain (h)app: the Dearth Happ. Basically, its a Vril token that if you own means you OWN the said private-property.
The third part is simple as hell; basically, the user must have the ability to publish a bunch of entries regarding what they deem “tolerable” regarding the externalities that concerns them.
Enforcement is a whole different thing; the Dearth app must not dictate anything regarding the same. Though I do discuss how a decentralized private-law-enforcement scheme might achieve the best results. Plus enforcers would want to enforce that which is enforceable; when the whole world KNOWS that a patch of land ‘A’ does not belong to you, you’d have a very hard time enforcing that. Thanks to the Dearth (h)app, the whole world KNOWS that your claim is false and you’d encounter a lot of opposition were to go about declaring it as your property.
[If we could internalize most (if not all) negative externalities, there would be no climate-change, no pollution, no river-poisoning, no aquifer-poisoning, etc. As for animals and nature, well, the harsh truth is that man is a superior beast compared to them (or as some would call, man is a super-predator). And evolutionarily superior species drive the inferior ones out. Or as Francis Galton would say: “There exists a sentiment, for the most part quite unreasonable, against the gradual extinction of an inferior race (substitute species here).” Now of course I do not accept Galton’s views AT ALL (obviously), but the takeaway is that this is not a platform to fight for animal rights, or ecosystem balance, etc. Only education can teach people what they should WANT, all a market could do is GET THEM THAT WHICH THEY WANT.]
Whereas the CBPP’s convoluted approach is to collectivize the forest, set a bunch of rules, set a bunch of limits (all democratically, I’m guessing), and reward the pawns for their good deeds and penalize bad deeds that the conglomerate (or the code) deems as BAD! Correct me if I’m wrong; how am I supposed to know what your code is supposed to look like?
I guess that was rude… Anyway, I’ll elaborate, just in case.
It simply is not true that the WANTS of the society (formed on the order of division of labor) are different than the WANTS of the individuals comprising it. The Austrians debunked the counter-argument a century ago. A society is nothing without individuals; it emerges from the actions of the acting men. The arrangement benefits the men undertaking it, period! If it weren’t so, there would be no cooperation, no society, no market… Under the division of labor (thanks to the fact that men “specialize”), the productivity is much more than without so. Thanks to Ricardo’s law, we all benefit from trade; the inferiors and superiors alike. That said, it simply is not true that when left to itself, the market arrangement would somehow eat us all down (i.e., cause extensive damage to nature that our very survival would be rendered impossible). Men WANT to survive, I know it for a fact (haha!). Given that, I don’t see how we may be reduced to commodities under a market arrangement. Sure, labor is a factor of production, much like every other; there’s no getting around that fact. Market failures arise from unaccounted externalities; it has nothing to do with the market itself. The fact that there are externalities doesn’t mean there’s somewhere a better replacement to be found for the market.
As for the CBPP approach, even if you assume that people WANT, let’s say, the ph level of their lake to remain between 6 and 7, and that they WANT it above everything else, and that ALL the individuals commonizing the lake WANT the same, and that there are sufficient individuals among them to be rendered as Agents whose sole job is to check the ph contamination that the exploiters are making, one has to ask why on Earth would they be unable to get the same outcome (of a balanced-ph lake) under privatization and proper externalities-internalization? Moreover, and as Tibi has emphasized before, the key is to be able to provide the right incentives, meaning the commons-REA system would have to somehow “pay” the Agents for the contribution they make, meaning that the exploiters must not be allowed to “own” the produce they harvest, or that the Agents (the keepers) would have to be allocated some “harvest time” for some portion of the lake (for whatever it is that they are content to do, be it the bloody fishing, be it dumping their household waste into the lake (haha), be it parking their yachts there, or whatever). The system (however decentralized) would have to be intrusive; for every action that one might take in such a system (such as fishing, or dumping acid, etc) over such a lake, there will have to be a ph transaction made, meaning the system must know all action that CAN be taken with regard to a lake; the system would have to be constantly updated to meet the new WANTS of the stakeholders (let’s say they realize that the fish in demand only grows in lower ph levels); individuals would be reduced to mere pawns within the system; there would prevail tyranny (tyranny without a tyrant - kafkaesque); and most importantly, thanks to the great deal of friction that is its characteristic, it would be under-productive compared to the neighboring lake whereby the rational individuals made the choice to privatize it in parts, where they own the patch to themselves, where they are naturally incentivized to keep their patch in good shape, where bad ph water from adjacent patches is an externality well accounted for, where they own the produce of their patch, where the produce can be freely traded, where there’s a market where innovation thrives, and most importantly where the ph level tends to be precisely that which the comprising property-owners want.