0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: JoeyD on May 08, 2014, 07:52:51 pmTalking about non violent solutions is also a bit of a luxury problem. I'm not at all certain that no conflict of interest will occur about some basic necessities of life, such as drinking water for example. I'm also not that confident that the peaceful solution will prevail when things go sour even a little bit. The sustainability of the rapid growth of human population is another thing I'm not very certain of, but that might partly be caused by me having grown up in rather densely populated country. I'm bearish about the organization, structure and philosophies of most current market-leader countries and I've been expecting an economic "crisis" on a far bigger scale than the one we're in at the moment, for quite a while now.From what I gather even though the current human species is a lot older than our recorded history, our modern civilization and success coincides with the recent period of unusual stable climate (from the last ice-age up till now). In that regard I don't have high hopes that our current specialized system of food production is very robust against even small climate changes which are bound to happen, pollution or not. I wonder what'll remain of human civilization and sensibilities once the going gets though. Of course I don't know if we'll life to see changes on that scale, but I'm hearing signals of a change from several different sources, from studies of repeating patterns in history (some matching it to some kind of 300 year or so climate cycle of our sun), right up to NASA predicting imminent climate changes based on their measurements. Curiously most seem to suggest things will start to get interesting sooner rather than later with estimates from the latter part of 2014 or 2015 extrapolated from patterns in human-history and NASA estimating a tipping point in climate change around the 2025 mark.So for me the efforts to create robust, self-regenerative, corruption resistant means of communication and collaboration are also partly motivated out of hope to create a framework to help overcome bad times. In that regard I hope the short term estimates of 2015 are wrong, because I think of open-source, bitcoin, bitshares-dacs and the like as only the first small steps and I don't think they've penetrated human consciousness and culture far enough to cope with the effects of a short term more significant global downtrend.I'm no pacifist. I fully expect others to resort to violence in certain circumstances, and I fully support good, peace loving people being prepared to use violence to defend themselves if necessary. I don't support lowering the standards to which we hold ourselves regarding the initiation of violence simply because we consider violence to be inevitable. I'm very optimistic about the possibility of new technologies and structures reducing the occurrence of violence, but I think it's important to remain ready, since it will always only take one senselessly destructive person to break the peace.
Talking about non violent solutions is also a bit of a luxury problem. I'm not at all certain that no conflict of interest will occur about some basic necessities of life, such as drinking water for example. I'm also not that confident that the peaceful solution will prevail when things go sour even a little bit. The sustainability of the rapid growth of human population is another thing I'm not very certain of, but that might partly be caused by me having grown up in rather densely populated country. I'm bearish about the organization, structure and philosophies of most current market-leader countries and I've been expecting an economic "crisis" on a far bigger scale than the one we're in at the moment, for quite a while now.From what I gather even though the current human species is a lot older than our recorded history, our modern civilization and success coincides with the recent period of unusual stable climate (from the last ice-age up till now). In that regard I don't have high hopes that our current specialized system of food production is very robust against even small climate changes which are bound to happen, pollution or not. I wonder what'll remain of human civilization and sensibilities once the going gets though. Of course I don't know if we'll life to see changes on that scale, but I'm hearing signals of a change from several different sources, from studies of repeating patterns in history (some matching it to some kind of 300 year or so climate cycle of our sun), right up to NASA predicting imminent climate changes based on their measurements. Curiously most seem to suggest things will start to get interesting sooner rather than later with estimates from the latter part of 2014 or 2015 extrapolated from patterns in human-history and NASA estimating a tipping point in climate change around the 2025 mark.So for me the efforts to create robust, self-regenerative, corruption resistant means of communication and collaboration are also partly motivated out of hope to create a framework to help overcome bad times. In that regard I hope the short term estimates of 2015 are wrong, because I think of open-source, bitcoin, bitshares-dacs and the like as only the first small steps and I don't think they've penetrated human consciousness and culture far enough to cope with the effects of a short term more significant global downtrend.
I appreciate your honesty and depth of consideration. I think we'd get much further on these widespread political debates if people acknowledged the role violence plays in human interactions. I think there's certainly a case to be made that certain levels of destruction of the environment in which others are attempting to live constitutes an attack and justifies defensive violence, but I've never seen a case in which it was anywhere close to sufficiently clear that I would personally feel morally justified in using force against it.I view legitimate government authority as the aggregation of voluntarily delegated moral authority, so I think that if a person could not morally justify using force themselves for something, they should not support their government using force for it.The most obvious alternatives are protest and boycott for general use. I agree about elephant tourism being a non-generalizable solution.
Probably off topic, but you've got me curious about your "environmental solutions" philosophy also. Do you view pollution/environmental damage as violence against others that justifies defensive violence against them? Obviously the framing of that question says a lot about where I'm coming from.
Trog, I agree with you and liked the article.Many are instantly dismissive because something seems to be similar to communism or socialism.In a similar way, I am dismissive of these people, because I have my own stereotypes I put people's thoughts in. I can't even figure out if I am liberal or conservative. I like libertarians but I don't find their environmental solutions convincing in the least. I guess I'd call myself progressive. The problem with being a liberal is it is a bit of a catchall for anything that doesn't fall under the conservative umbrella. Simplifying things into labels is rarely good for truly understanding whats going. Using labels is good for conjuring up preconceived ideas and thereby manipulating people and/or avoiding truths.
gamey, I think these are the trends you're looking for: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/10/fred-wilson-on-bitcoin-unbundling-data-leakage-and-health-care/I think most of the BitShares projects and most of the BitShares community is based on the idea of making the world a better place (creating value) by freeing the market from the overhead, inefficiency, and barriers to entry that are inherent in traditional hierarchical structures. There's nothing anti-capitalist about collaborating, if you can find the right people with whom to collaborate such that it increases your productivity. In fact, if collaboration is the most efficient approach, those who refuse to collaborate will not be able to compete and succeed in a free market. The suggestion of a new system that is "not competition based" implies tyranny, because the two ways to get people to accept a new system are competing to convince them that it is best so they'll accept it voluntarily, or trying to force them to accept it. No one has to be forced to collaborate if collaboration is to everyone's benefit, and no one needs to be forced to look for alternatives to scarce resources.Where BitShares and blockchain technologies fit in is reducing economic friction such that anyone can be their own bank, and participate in global business of many other types, not just the well established and well connected. This reduction to the barriers to entry, and expansion of reach for potential business relationships and collaboration streamlines free market capitalism, reducing overhead costs and creating more value for everyone.
I stumble upon a good debunking of Rifkin's nonsense by Eric Raymond, prominent advocate of open-source, author of The Cathedral and The Bazaar:http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558[...]The book is a blitz of trend-speak. Thomas Kuhn! The Internet of Things! 3D printing! Open source! Big data! Prosumers! But underneath the glossy surface are gaping holes in the logic. And the errors follow a tiresomely familiar pattern. What Rifkin is actually retailing, whether he consciously understands it that way or not (and he may not), is warmed-over Marxism – hostility to private property, capital, and markets perpetually seeking a rationalization. The only innovation here is that for the labor theory of value he has substituted a post-labor theory of zero value that is even more obviously wrong than Marx’s.All the indicia of cod-Marxism are present. False identification of capitalism with vertical integration and industrial centralization: check. Attempts to gin up some sort of an opposition between voluntary but non-monetized collaboration and voluntary monetized trade: check. Valorizing nifty little local cooperatives as though they actually scaled up: check. Writing about human supercooperative behavior as though it falsifies classical and neoclassical economics: check. At times in this book it’s almost as though Rifkin is walking by a checklist of dimwitted cliches, ringing them like bells in a carillon.[...]
Quote from: tipon on April 28, 2014, 05:15:15 amI think theres a conflict between centralization and descentralization.I think descentralization is against capitalism.Capitalism tend to concentrate power and generate centralized structures of control and command with a top down approach.We have now the technology for descentralize , miniaturize and integrate to human scale all the components of society but this go against the interests of big capital .I dont think we are gonna shift from centralized to descentralized in a peaceful way.Big capital is trying to centralize everything. For example the internet , they are trying to finish with the "neutrality of internet". They want to recentralize all the architecture of internet.Descentralization is dangerous for capitalism....Decentralization I think is a threat to monopolistic capitalism, crony capitalism, fascism, and probably a great many other things, but I don't see how it's a threat to capitalism. Probably this is a question of what connotations "capitalism" has, depending on your political background. Decentralization and flattening hierarchical structures doesn't undermine property rights, productivity, or investment, but it lowers the barriers to entry, which I think is a direct decrease on economic friction. Basically I think it will increase the efficiency of the capitalist system, by making the market more free.
I think theres a conflict between centralization and descentralization.I think descentralization is against capitalism.Capitalism tend to concentrate power and generate centralized structures of control and command with a top down approach.We have now the technology for descentralize , miniaturize and integrate to human scale all the components of society but this go against the interests of big capital .I dont think we are gonna shift from centralized to descentralized in a peaceful way.Big capital is trying to centralize everything. For example the internet , they are trying to finish with the "neutrality of internet". They want to recentralize all the architecture of internet.Descentralization is dangerous for capitalism....
Quote from: tipon on April 25, 2014, 02:00:54 pmCompulsive neccesity of growth ( result from competition) tends to centralization of power and control , gigantism and ecological unsustainability .Now humans have the possibility (as result of technological developments) of generating a post capitalist system based on collaboration and descentralization of power and control, that works at small scale and in a sustainable way ....Technological developments can lower barriers to entry and non-scaling overhead costs, which can make decentralized or small scale approaches more competitive, but I don't see what that has to do with a "post capitalist" system. People already collaborate when they think doing so is beneficial, and I expect that will continue.See Fred Wilson's megatrends here: http://www.datafox.co/blog/fred-wilsons-talk-at-leweb-the-3-big-megatrends/
Compulsive neccesity of growth ( result from competition) tends to centralization of power and control , gigantism and ecological unsustainability .Now humans have the possibility (as result of technological developments) of generating a post capitalist system based on collaboration and descentralization of power and control, that works at small scale and in a sustainable way ....
The ability to filter information to find IMPORTANT information or ACCURATE information is also scarce.
Quote from: BldSwtTrs on April 25, 2014, 02:35:12 amQuote from: clout on April 25, 2014, 01:36:17 amis it not possible for capitalism to evolve into socialism? if the greatest means of production were information and all information were made free and public, is this a socialist or capitalist society? the reason for property rights stems from the tragedy of the commons. but with information, a non-scarce resource, you have what is known as a comedy of the commons where by information becomes more valuable as more ppl use it.Information and knowledge will always be costly to acquire. Also the affirmation that an information is more valuable when more people know it is highly counterintuitive and debatable.Blockchain technologies allow a decentralize control of ownership, they are the empowerment of the individual ownership. I don't see how we can interpret that as the premise of socialism. Capitalism will end the day where human nature will change, a transhuman shift can end capitalism, nothing less. But even when transhuman technologies will be avalaible I don't think people will choose to abandon the primacy of their individuality.I don't see how information and knowledge is costly to acquire since there are tons of free resources online that allow you to acquire new information/knowledge. Coursera, Udacity, various forums, youtube etc.
Quote from: clout on April 25, 2014, 01:36:17 amis it not possible for capitalism to evolve into socialism? if the greatest means of production were information and all information were made free and public, is this a socialist or capitalist society? the reason for property rights stems from the tragedy of the commons. but with information, a non-scarce resource, you have what is known as a comedy of the commons where by information becomes more valuable as more ppl use it.Information and knowledge will always be costly to acquire. Also the affirmation that an information is more valuable when more people know it is highly counterintuitive and debatable.Blockchain technologies allow a decentralize control of ownership, they are the empowerment of the individual ownership. I don't see how we can interpret that as the premise of socialism. Capitalism will end the day where human nature will change, a transhuman shift can end capitalism, nothing less. But even when transhuman technologies will be avalaible I don't think people will choose to abandon the primacy of their individuality.
is it not possible for capitalism to evolve into socialism? if the greatest means of production were information and all information were made free and public, is this a socialist or capitalist society? the reason for property rights stems from the tragedy of the commons. but with information, a non-scarce resource, you have what is known as a comedy of the commons where by information becomes more valuable as more ppl use it.
Quote from: tipon on April 25, 2014, 05:02:44 amCapitalism is not only the private ownership of wealth. Capitalism is basically the compulsive necessity of growth that emerge as result of competition.Capitalism is based on competition. New postcapitalist economy should be based on collaboration.Quote from: BldSwtTrs on April 24, 2014, 03:22:40 pmI think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.Pervasive marxism :- "the failling rate of profit"- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!" And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different! " bla bla mutual coordination... bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.What is collaboration but voluntary trade and elimination of initiation of force or fraud. The society that emerges from that reality will be what is right and is free from all labels you may wish to put on it. "distribution of tasks" by whom... this is called CENTRAL planning.If you are going to debate over the definition of terms that is one thing... but realize that is all you are doing. I think that capitalism is based upon competition to collaborate the most effectively. The division of labor is the result of collaboration. Explain collaboration without central authority?
Capitalism is not only the private ownership of wealth. Capitalism is basically the compulsive necessity of growth that emerge as result of competition.Capitalism is based on competition. New postcapitalist economy should be based on collaboration.Quote from: BldSwtTrs on April 24, 2014, 03:22:40 pmI think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.Pervasive marxism :- "the failling rate of profit"- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!" And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different! " bla bla mutual coordination... bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.
I think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.Pervasive marxism :- "the failling rate of profit"- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!" And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different! " bla bla mutual coordination... bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.
Quote from: clout on April 25, 2014, 03:39:49 amthe cost of acquiring information can be paid for with a derivative asset that is correlated to its utility in society. in this way we no longer need patents. innovators do not have to pay the fees associated with patents and the economy does not need to suffer an artificial monopoly, all while still providing incentive to research and innovate....how is information not more valuable as more people use it? that seems to go against the entire premise of the open source movement. I do not get the first part at all. How would a derivative asset correlate to the utility of society ? How would it be determined ?Information has many different categories. The 4 off hand that have may different answers to your questions.1) General advances. Medical, engineering etc.More valuable to society when more use it, but not necesarily more value to those acquiring it. Their skills are diluted, more competition etc.2) Entertainment. You'd need to define value to the consumer or value to the producer in a way similar to the above.3) Exploitive knowledge that is not widely know. The value plummets as more use it. Similar to category 1.4) Open source ? I may derive value in using it, but that doesn't mean that I receive more value as more people use it.Really this is a semantic issue and you need to be more precise in defining value and to whom.
the cost of acquiring information can be paid for with a derivative asset that is correlated to its utility in society. in this way we no longer need patents. innovators do not have to pay the fees associated with patents and the economy does not need to suffer an artificial monopoly, all while still providing incentive to research and innovate....how is information not more valuable as more people use it? that seems to go against the entire premise of the open source movement.
what is the marginal cost of spreading information? what is the marginal benefit? the cost of acquiring information can be paid for with a derivative asset that is correlated to its utility in society. in this way we no longer need patents. innovators do not have to pay the fees associated with patents and the economy does not need to suffer an artificial monopoly, all while still providing incentive to research and innovate.how is information not more valuable as more people use it? that seems to go against the entire premise of the open source movement. im not saying capitalism will end, what i am saying is that when the main mode of production is information based and information is free, does that make us a socialist society as well?
Quote from: jae208 on April 24, 2014, 01:23:38 pmI decided to post this here as I think this may be of interest to some of you. It certainly was interesting to me. This resonates with what we are doing with Bitshares. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xOK2aJ-0JsThe quote below was taken from an article I'll link to below. Each one of us is actively promoting the transition to a post-capitalist social order. DACs do have near zero marginal costs and the cost of starting a new digital bank will be as simple as forking. "Past historical phase transitions, say the transition from the Roman Empire slave-based system to feudal serfdom, or the transition of feudalism to capitalism, where not exactly smooth affairs, so it may be un-realistic to expect a smooth and unproblematic phase transition towards a post-capitalist social order." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michel-bauwens/beyond-jeremy-rifkin-how-_b_5185948.htmlThat is what we are doing. And they know about Bitshares.
I decided to post this here as I think this may be of interest to some of you. It certainly was interesting to me. This resonates with what we are doing with Bitshares. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xOK2aJ-0JsThe quote below was taken from an article I'll link to below. Each one of us is actively promoting the transition to a post-capitalist social order. DACs do have near zero marginal costs and the cost of starting a new digital bank will be as simple as forking. "Past historical phase transitions, say the transition from the Roman Empire slave-based system to feudal serfdom, or the transition of feudalism to capitalism, where not exactly smooth affairs, so it may be un-realistic to expect a smooth and unproblematic phase transition towards a post-capitalist social order." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michel-bauwens/beyond-jeremy-rifkin-how-_b_5185948.html