Innula Zenovka Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Or, as happened in Russia, people eventually get fed up with the chaos and the oligarchs and vote in someone like Vladimir Putin (whose role in the St Petersburg oblast was to try to bring some kind of order to Russian companies' dealings with foreign businesses) to bring things under control. Are you forgetting their past? They were full out communist for decades. The reason they fell into anarchy was because their system collapsed. It didn't have any areas of the economy that had any freedom at all. It was all controlled, which is why it collapsed. You had a whole nation that were reliant on that system. Almost nobody had any saving, or way to take care of themselves without the help of the government. Then, you want to say, LOOK here, it didn't automatically become a capitalist paradise over night. Sorry, I don't see the logic there. Of course it was bad. The people were basically treated like children all their lives, and then lost their parents that took care of them. Right now, as we speak, this is happening in the US. More and more people are dependent on the state. There is no stopping it. Once the people feel like they are owed something for nothing, you can only ride the wave of ignorance to the collapse. Hopefully, when it does happen, people stand up for themselves and reject the state, at least when it comes to commerce. After the collapse of communism in Russia -- and I watched this happen, close up, for a few years, attempting to assist British clients who wanted to do business there -- there was no effective way for businesses or individuals to enforce contracts or protect property rights through either the civil or criminal law. If, for example, you wanted to bring in goods by road from the Finnish border, the only way of ensuring they weren't hijacked en route was to pay a private "security" company to provide an armed escort (and to negotiate with the other mafias to ensure both safe passage and safe protection of the goods when they reached the warehouse). The police and the courts were either unable or unwilling (and frequently both) to do anything to uphold the rule of law. The only people who did, if paid enough, keep their bargains and ensured others did, too, were organised crime organisations. I would describe a situation in which there is no effective way of enforcing criminal or civil law through the courts as "anarchy." What term would you use? Furthermore, under your preferred system, if someone hijacks my consignment of TV sets on the highway and roughs up the driver, to whom do I turn for assistance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Furthermore, under your preferred system, if someone hijacks my consignment of TV sets on the highway and roughs up the driver, to whom do I turn for assistance? Or a little closer to home, copies all your animations and puts them up for sale at half the price you are selling them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: irihapeti wrote: the biggest issue for Anarcho-Pacifists to address is what to do with those who do not ascribe to the collective moral authority Again, I'm not an anarchist in all areas, just in the economy. That said, I reject your analysis, because you still want to dictate morality, which is the whole problem. Outside of some basic rules or law, nothing else needs to be dictated. These rules or laws are things people have agreed upon for ages. You can't even make a logic argument against most of these without contradicting yourself. You can't even have a society if people didn't agree to these basic things. Almost all religions acknowlege them, and almost all known philosophers. i am not dictating anything. Is how it actual works in practice. For pacifism to work for all of a society then all the members must ascribe to non-violence. Is not a choice. Is an obligation what I am doing tho is working thru the anarcho arguments. What contradictions come out of this arent of my making. They are inherent to the anarcho argument + to continue on your broader point people have throughout all of human history accepted that it is in the best interests of the group as a whole, and as individuals, for the people in the group to cooperate with each other. So we dont disagree about this the question remains tho: What to do with those who choose not to cooperate? + the question that comes before this is: What are the obligations of the member? the modern-day anarcho response to this is: I have no obligations. I only have a contribution that I give and withdraw as I choose. I see no reason why I would not contribute when is obviously in my own best interest to do so. To not contribute when is not in my own best interest which works while people choose to contribute. When they choose not to then the group/community/nation fragments and is everyone for themselves sometimes people argue that it doesnt have to end in everyone for themselves. That we can cooperate as individuals. That is not necessary for us to behave in a group-like way is semantics this. Like the thinking goes that we are not a group. We are just a collection of like-minded individuals with a common purpose. Is semantic bc: collection of like-minded people + common purpose = group + the practical issue we face isnt with the concept of group, is with: how is the group organised? Which brings us back to: What are our obligations? when there is no group organisation then there are no group obligations. There is still a group of people tho occupying the space. The space is unorganised, the people in it are unorganised and the people have no obligations to each other obligation meaning exactly as intended. We are obliged. Is not a choice the modern-day anarcho, particularly anarcho-capitalists, just says it straight out: I will not be obliged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 irihapeti wrote: the modern-day anarcho, particularly anarcho-capitalists, just says it straight out: I will not be obliged Non Capitalist anarchists are normally collectivist, not individualist... when it comes to the individual and society they very much are obligated. Obligated by their mindset, their lack of greed and lack of personal property. During the Spanish civil war that approach to running things was remarkably successful. And it can be successful, but only where people are ready for it and have as a whole overcome their sense of personal greed. It is utopian in a sense, because clearly as a society we are a long way from traditional anarchy being achievable, but that does not diminish the attractiveness of the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: irihapeti wrote: the modern-day anarcho, particularly anarcho-capitalists, just says it straight out: I will not be obliged Non Capitalist anarchists are normally collectivist, not individualist... when it comes to the individual and society they very much are obligated. Obligated by their mindset, their lack of greed and lack of personal property. During the Spanish civil war that approach to running things was remarkably successful. And it can be successful, but only where people are ready for it and have as a whole overcome their sense of personal greed. It is utopian in a sense, because clearly as a society we are a long way from traditional anarchy being achievable, but that does not diminish the attractiveness of the idea. yes. I dont disagree with this as Medhue said there are fundamentals tenets of societal/group living which we do observe, regardless of the methods we use to organise ourselves. Tenets which if we ignore can and does imperil us. Up to the cost of our own lives even + so far we been discussing Anarchy in the context that Medhue has raised. The re-invention of Anarchy as a philosophy to accord with libertarian ideals what appeals to libertarians about Anarchism is the decentralisation of authority. Abandonment even. Something that both have in common as a tenet. The reduction of Authoritarianism. Something that Democracy as a philosophy also aspires to without necessarily seeing centralisation and authoritaranism as the same side of the same coin as you raising tho there are other anarchist components that run counter to some libertarian components. The main contention being: What does ownership mean when said by a trad libertarian, what does it mean when said by anarchists (of the many different flavours), what does it mean when said by a modern-day anarcho-capitalist the question then is: Can these different meanings be reconciled? At least insofar as modern-day anarcho-capitalist thinking goes the answer to that I think is No. Medhue already partial answer this. When he said that he doesnt ascribe to all anarchist philosophical components. Only those that fit with his libertarian philosophy as they relate to his pov of capitalism is nothing wrong with Medhue doing this. And nothing wrong with him doing his best to live his life according to his own pov. Is a fundamental tenet this of democratic society, which is what we do actual have at this time in our history today (at least in the western world). That we may do as we please, unhindered and unobstructed, provided that what we do choose does not imperil the group + is a harsh reality this. That we cannot imperil the group it dont matter how we might organise ourselves or what ism our group might ascribe to. Every time we imperil the group, then the group will move against us. Is the most basic tenet of life this. Self-preservation. The group will bond/band when it is imperiled. Whether that peril in origin be internal or external to the group basically we (humans) will hammer the chit out of them who would imperil us. No matter how enlightened, learned and reasoned we are on everything else. When the hammers come out and we are not in a group then our chances of surviving the encounter untouched are slim to none which raise the next question: What is meant by imperil the group? Is pretty subjective that. Is a multitude of answers. Often simultaneously both right and wrong. Depends on our status and place in the group, and whatever it is that the group ascribes to + ftr i personal prefer the representative democracy we have now. Is not perfect. It has lots of flaws. But it does permit and accomodate the widest range of individual thought and action without imperilling ourselves as a whole can it be less authoritarian? Yes. Is it possible to do this within the bounds? Yes how? by participating in the democratic processes available to us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 DejaHo wrote: irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. i been meaning to come back to this. So I do now i kinda get the thought you are raising. What is it that knowledge and reason are founded on? i would tho think about it a bit differently substitute criticism for skepticism like knowledge and reason is founded on criticism. That when we do not take a critical view when we hear from others, or examine something for ourself, then we can be susceptible to naivety when we accept whatever we see (or been told)without question or critical analysis eta: I think this can also be applied to cynicism. I change one word knowledge and reason is founded on criticism. That when we do not take a critical view when we hear from others, or examine something for ourself, then we can be susceptible to cynicism when we accept whatever we see (or been told)without question or critical analysis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Those that think they are owed something for nothing were and are the investors behind the banking system and the banks and mortgage lenders too big to fail that had to be bailed out by the public purse and a decade of austerity internationally. The problem you are talking about fundamentally was an issue of economic under regulation. Anyone that knows their history knows that Ireland during the potato famine was exporting grain whilst a million Irish starved to death, because the market dictated there was better value exporting food whilst those producing it literally starved to death. Remove all economic controls and innovation except in methods of fraud is stifled because any innovation would immediately be copied and sold for less than the crerator. Market economics is certainly a useful tool, but only when it is regulated to ensure it operates for the public good. It's always a bit funny to hear people say they know history, cause the real question is not if you know history, but who taught you history, or where did you learn this history from. Now, I don't know alot about the irish famine, but I will tell you some basic facts, and then put my conclusions from those facts. Ireland was ruled by the English, who stole the land and gave it to English settlers who rented out that land to the irish people. There were refered to as Absentee Landlords. England strangled the irish people with ridiculous taxes, and regulations. Quoted from wikipedia, "In the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish Catholics had been prohibited by the penal laws from purchasing or leasing land, from voting, from holding political office, from living in or within 5 miles (8 km) of a corporate town, from obtaining education, from entering a profession, and from doing many other things necessary for a person to succeed and prosper in society." So, it was the government that was the source of the problems, not the market. Even when you talk about the famine itself, which was caused by a potato disease and and the potatoes had little diversity, it could easily be argued that this was a direct result of the state. England gave all the best farms to the english lords, and the only lands left to farm on were very poor to grow anything on. These were called cotter farmers. That particular potato did well dispite the terrible soil, which caused the lack of diversity. For every action a government takes, there are always unintended consequences. Some of those, results in millions dying, and there are countless examples. See what I mean tho. It all depends on your perspective. I'm sure a marxist could easily twist all that to sound like evil capitalists did all this, but it was government, not freedom that created it all. Really tho, you don't really need to know any of that history. All you need to know, is that the irish came to the US during and after that time, which had the least amount of government involved than most other nations, and much less than nations only a days swim away. No, instead they crossed a huge ocean to escape the oppression that was all throughout europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 irihapeti wrote: DejaHo wrote: irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. i been meaning to come back to this. So I do now i kinda get the thought you are raising. What is it that knowledge and reason are founded on? i would tho think about it a bit differently substitute criticism for skepticism like knowledge and reason is founded on criticism. That when we do not take a critical view when we hear from others, or examine something for ourself, then we can be susceptible to naivety when we accept whatever we see (or been told)without question or critical analysis I can take a critical view when I hear from others until the cows come home, and that's not going to protect me from naiveté. It's when I take a critical view of myself that I really have a chance to learn. And that's not easy. I am above average, after all. ;-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Madelaine McMasters wrote: irihapeti wrote: DejaHo wrote: irihapeti wrote: about naivety is a pivot naivety < skepticism > cynicism i would rather be on the naive side than the cynical side One can not be naive and skeptical. They are mutually exclusive. Skepticism is founded on knowledge and reasoning. Most cynics are skeptical of everything; why? Again, because they know! PS I am neither. i been meaning to come back to this. So I do now i kinda get the thought you are raising. What is it that knowledge and reason are founded on? i would tho think about it a bit differently substitute criticism for skepticism like knowledge and reason is founded on criticism. That when we do not take a critical view when we hear from others, or examine something for ourself, then we can be susceptible to naivety when we accept whatever we see (or been told)without question or critical analysis I can take a critical view when I hear from others until the cows come home, and that's not going to protect me from naiveté. It's when I take a critical view of myself that I really have a chance to learn. And that's not easy. I am above average, after all. ;-). yes thats even better i like (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Plus, the secret sauce in SL's success was this crazy, wild west type of free market, where every person could engage with it. There were many factors around that, and cost could be said the be the most important. It was essentially free for anyone to make a profit in SL. Anyone could grab a free animation editor, or use gimp for textures or whatever. Now, LL is doing things totally different. Now, you'll need Maya, and someday, if they decide to bother themselves with supporting Blender, we'll have a free option. How many animators do you think there will be in this new world, until blender is supported. How many clothing designers will there be? How many crazy characters will there be, or NPCs? And why, because LL made the cost to create out of the reach of almost everyone, just like so many other failed platforms did. To me, LL didn't learn a dang thing from their own history. They are raising the cost for the main people that fill they economy, and somehow think they will have the growth they need to survive. The economy, merchants, and freedom to create was what saved SL, and made it something. Now, they are canabalizing the very thing that made them special, instead of being creative and giving us more value. Ebbe was talking about Maya in the alpha stages... this year a year before release. He made clear Blender specifically and other tools would be supported by the time it gets to a wider release... ie the beta stages. One of Second life's problems for attracting commercial interest as I understand it is that it doesn't properly support, Maya. There are times when people using Maya have to use Blender as an interface to get their creations in to SL. Once they get the new platform right for Maya then Blender, and the other packages should fall in to place easily since they developed to be compatible with Maya as it is the industry standard. Actually, he didn't mention Blender even once, until they took questions from the audience. Even then, he kept saying "other 3rd party software" instead of Blender. I think in the whole thing, he only said the word Blender 1 time. SL supports Maya as well as it supports any other program out there, even Photoshop. Heck, LL gives us FBX files. The difference tho, between Maya and Blender in SL, is who is willing to help you. Maybe I'm very wrong, and there are hundreds of Maya users in SL. If that is true, then most must be very competitive people who are unwilling to share info with others. You can't find anybody making anything for SL users that use Maya, nor anyone to answer even the simplist question about SL and Maya, outside of Cathy Foil. If you ask a Blender question tho, you'll have numerous people responding, not to mentions the thousands of tutorials online. Again, this is why it would be smart to make sure Blender is working early on. If you have 10 Maya users good enough to know what they are doing, it doesn't matter, cause they likely won't help anyone, besides LL. On the flipside, most Blender users are more than willing to share what they know. Industry standard is kind of a vague term, at this point. In Indy game development, and small movie studios, especially in india, Blender is the standard. If you just look at how many people use Blender vs Maya, Blender wins again, hence the standard. Yeah, the big studios use it. The reason is because they have so much invested in it. There whole workflow goes thru it. All the software they created is linked to it. That is why they keep using it. New movie studios around the world tho, are using Blender. With it being opensource, they can much more easily create their own versions of Blender for the tasks they need, and many of those studios freely give that code back to the Blender community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Innula Zenovka wrote: I would describe a situation in which there is no effective way of enforcing criminal or civil law through the courts as "anarchy." What term would you use? Furthermore, under your preferred system, if someone hijacks my consignment of TV sets on the highway and roughs up the driver, to whom do I turn for assistance? Have we not discussed this before? I think the real question is, would you rather be robbed by the mafia, or the state? Actually, that isn't even a good question, because when you are dealing with a state, they can also let the mafia steal from you to, like they did in the US. Do you really think you get protection from the government, when all the mafia has to do is bride your rep? Plus, the mafia doesn't have the ability to inflate your money supply. I'd take the mafia over the state any time. Heck, I might even be able to reason with them. Today, the average US citizen pays close to 40% of their paycheck to the federal government. Then, they will pay another 10% of that income in other taxes, if not more. Then, if you add in the extra cost consumers pay for corporate taxes, and the Federal Reserves 3% guaranteed inflation, which is usually much more, Americans are giving a good 70% to 80% of their paychecks to the government. I'd much rather pay off the mafia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 irihapeti wrote: the modern-day anarcho, particularly anarcho-capitalists, just says it straight out: I will not be obliged No, the anarcho-capitalist does not say that, as he knows better. If he/she does say that, then they lack the understanding to know why they are wrong. You are trying to put Ancaps in the same box as communists. As Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Mises, and many others have pointed out, when a business man seeks his own benefit, he inadvertantly helps everyone. He can not benefit without others benefiting also, from his workers to his clients. A free market ensures that everyone is kept honest and prices reflect their true value, or close to it. In a free market exchange, all parties involved benefit from the exchange. Logically, they would not exchange good unless all parties saw value in the exchange. Nobody loses. Cases of fraud or theft is illegal and handled by common law courts. In an Ancaps world, you do not have a choice whether to help others or not. If you don't, then you won't be eating that nice cherry pie, cause you have no cherries, and don't know how to make that pie, nor the money to buy it. A free market environment is the only market that doesn't promote exploitation, as people will simply buy from another seller. Heck, I'm a buddhist, and capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible, as it is the only system that does not use violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Furthermore, under your preferred system, if someone hijacks my consignment of TV sets on the highway and roughs up the driver, to whom do I turn for assistance? Or a little closer to home, copies all your animations and puts them up for sale at half the price you are selling them? Hmmmm...... I didn't see the US government in SL, capturing all those copybotters and copybot viewers. Do you really think the government can protect me at all? I kind of think that is laughable. Plus, I don't believe in IP rights. They aren't real property. Real property, is rivalrus, meaning that no 2 people can use it at the same time. This is why property rights are important, because we can't function and be affective if people can steal our property. That said, data is not rivalrus, meaning it is not property, and it can't be owned. Despite this, what people call copyrights are a valid concept, because I can choose whether to make something or not, and who I sell that creation to, and under what conditions. If they break the contract, I can choose never to do business with them again. If everyone chooses to break the contract, I can choose to do my business in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 irihapeti wrote: the question remains tho: What to do with those who choose not to cooperate? Don't get me wrong here. I like the conversation, but I think you are making a fatale flaw here. In an Ancap world, there is no need to force anyone to do anything. If they choose not to participate, good for them, as they must be a hard worker with lots of supplies that they have acquired. A commune could easily exist in an Ancap world. Anyone could do whatever they want, as long as they don't break those basic rules that EVERYONE agrees on. If they break those tho, they goto jail, or payback the person they harmed. Ancaps allow for everyone to live as they please. It is the socialist, communists, marxists, or fascists that won't allow for everyone else. Ancaps don't need to use force for people to cooperate. Only all the others need to force people. An Ancap is not allowed in those other markets. The others don't give people the respect to make their own choices. Only Ancaps do. Heck, I'd even be for allowing all these social programs, as long as they are voluntary. Idiots can spend as much as they want on research into desert turtles, as long as I'm not force to pay for it. Think of it like Kickstarter for social programs. I say go for it, just don't force me to pay for your retarded program that will only line the pockets of politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Those that think they are owed something for nothing were and are the investors behind the banking system and the banks and mortgage lenders too big to fail that had to be bailed out by the public purse and a decade of austerity internationally. The problem you are talking about fundamentally was an issue of economic under regulation. Anyone that knows their history knows that Ireland during the potato famine was exporting grain whilst a million Irish starved to death, because the market dictated there was better value exporting food whilst those producing it literally starved to death. Remove all economic controls and innovation except in methods of fraud is stifled because any innovation would immediately be copied and sold for less than the crerator. Market economics is certainly a useful tool, but only when it is regulated to ensure it operates for the public good. It's always a bit funny to hear people say they know history, cause the real question is not if you know history, but who taught you history, or where did you learn this history from. Now, I don't know alot about the irish famine, but I will tell you some basic facts, and then put my conclusions from those facts. Ireland was ruled by the English, who stole the land and gave it to English settlers who rented out that land to the irish people. There were refered to as Absentee Landlords. England strangled the irish people with ridiculous taxes, and regulations. Quoted from wikipedia, "In the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish Catholics had been prohibited by the penal laws from purchasing or leasing land, from voting, from holding political office, from living in or within 5 miles (8 km) of a corporate town, from obtaining education, from entering a profession, and from doing many other things necessary for a person to succeed and prosper in society." So, it was the government that was the source of the problems, not the market. Even when you talk about the famine itself, which was caused by a potato disease and and the potatoes had little diversity, it could easily be argued that this was a direct result of the state. England gave all the best farms to the english lords, and the only lands left to farm on were very poor to grow anything on. These were called cotter farmers. That particular potato did well dispite the terrible soil, which caused the lack of diversity. For every action a government takes, there are always unintended consequences. Some of those, results in millions dying, and there are countless examples. See what I mean tho. It all depends on your perspective. I'm sure a marxist could easily twist all that to sound like evil capitalists did all this, but it was government, not freedom that created it all. Really tho, you don't really need to know any of that history. All you need to know, is that the irish came to the US during and after that time, which had the least amount of government involved than most other nations, and much less than nations only a days swim away. No, instead they crossed a huge ocean to escape the oppression that was all throughout europe. Most of that is distraction by talking about issues that don't contradict anything I said. Yes, Government can be oppressive. And yes, a cause was indeed oppressive Government. But my point was that one cause was unlike the famine in 1780 the absence of an export ban. Had there been an export ban the rate of emigration would not have been so high and a million people would not have died. The free market doesn't act on moral principles, it is amoral. It is only by regulation that it can be controlled for the public good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Actually, he didn't mention Blender even once, until they took questions from the audience. Even then, he kept saying "other 3rd party software" instead of Blender. I think in the whole thing, he only said the word Blender 1 time. SL supports Maya as well as it supports any other program out there, even Photoshop. Heck, LL gives us FBX files. The difference tho, between Maya and Blender in SL, is who is willing to help you. Maybe I'm very wrong, and there are hundreds of Maya users in SL. If that is true, then most must be very competitive people who are unwilling to share info with others. You can't find anybody making anything for SL users that use Maya, nor anyone to answer even the simplist question about SL and Maya, outside of Cathy Foil. If you ask a Blender question tho, you'll have numerous people responding, not to mentions the thousands of tutorials online. Again, this is why it would be smart to make sure Blender is working early on. If you have 10 Maya users good enough to know what they are doing, it doesn't matter, cause they likely won't help anyone, besides LL. On the flipside, most Blender users are more than willing to share what they know. Industry standard is kind of a vague term, at this point. In Indy game development, and small movie studios, especially in india, Blender is the standard. If you just look at how many people use Blender vs Maya, Blender wins again, hence the standard. Yeah, the big studios use it. The reason is because they have so much invested in it. There whole workflow goes thru it. All the software they created is linked to it. That is why they keep using it. New movie studios around the world tho, are using Blender. With it being opensource, they can much more easily create their own versions of Blender for the tasks they need, and many of those studios freely give that code back to the Blender community. Whether he mentioned it a hundred times or once, he still said Blender would be supported. The under representation of Maya users in SL is an issue worth addressing at an early stage, especially since Autodesk own the FBX format and they want to attract commercial interest in the product, something that never really happened in SL, one reason being the support for Maya being incomplete and the need for Maya files to be exported in to Blender first. When they have ensured FBX is properly integrated in to the core engine, then they should have also ensured compatability with Blender and a bug free robust product that will stand the test of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Furthermore, under your preferred system, if someone hijacks my consignment of TV sets on the highway and roughs up the driver, to whom do I turn for assistance? Or a little closer to home, copies all your animations and puts them up for sale at half the price you are selling them? Hmmmm...... I didn't see the US government in SL, capturing all those copybotters and copybot viewers. Do you really think the government can protect me at all? I kind of think that is laughable. Plus, I don't believe in IP rights. They aren't real property. Real property, is rivalrus, meaning that no 2 people can use it at the same time. This is why property rights are important, because we can't function and be affective if people can steal our property. That said, data is not rivalrus, meaning it is not property, and it can't be owned. Despite this, what people call copyrights are a valid concept, because I can choose whether to make something or not, and who I sell that creation to, and under what conditions. If they break the contract, I can choose never to do business with them again. If everyone chooses to break the contract, I can choose to do my business in a different way. DMCA has plenty of flaws but there are many examples of it working. I doubt many of the other people producing content will be so willing to give up such a tool. Also Contracts are what they are because they are legal entities, something as an anarcho-capitalist you should be arguing against because they are excessive hand of government in your unregulated free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: I would describe a situation in which there is no effective way of enforcing criminal or civil law through the courts as "anarchy." What term would you use? Furthermore, under your preferred system, if someone hijacks my consignment of TV sets on the highway and roughs up the driver, to whom do I turn for assistance? Have we not discussed this before? I think the real question is, would you rather be robbed by the mafia, or the state? Actually, that isn't even a good question, because when you are dealing with a state, they can also let the mafia steal from you to, like they did in the US. Do you really think you get protection from the government, when all the mafia has to do is bride your rep? Plus, the mafia doesn't have the ability to inflate your money supply. I'd take the mafia over the state any time. Heck, I might even be able to reason with them. Today, the average US citizen pays close to 40% of their paycheck to the federal government. Then, they will pay another 10% of that income in other taxes, if not more. Then, if you add in the extra cost consumers pay for corporate taxes, and the Federal Reserves 3% guaranteed inflation, which is usually much more, Americans are giving a good 70% to 80% of their paychecks to the government. I'd much rather pay off the mafia. All very easy to say but you have not experienced what happens when the Mafia runs things and not a democratically accountable government. There may well be problems with the current US system you have experience of, but that is not an issue that would be improved by removing what influence you have over their policies and practices. Additionally I refer you back to the points you made about the Government of Ireland at the time of the Potato famine. The Government then was more like a Mafia organisation than one that was democratically accountable. The points you made there are arguments against the position you are taking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 APATHETIC Anarchy rules! ***Don't **** with me and I won't **** with you*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: irihapeti wrote: the modern-day anarcho, particularly anarcho-capitalists, just says it straight out: I will not be obliged No, the anarcho-capitalist does not say that, as he knows better. If he/she does say that, then they lack the understanding to know why they are wrong. You are trying to put Ancaps in the same box as communists. As Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Mises, and many others have pointed out, when a business man seeks his own benefit, he inadvertantly helps everyone. He can not benefit without others benefiting also, from his workers to his clients. A free market ensures that everyone is kept honest and prices reflect their true value, or close to it. In a free market exchange, all parties involved benefit from the exchange. Logically, they would not exchange good unless all parties saw value in the exchange. Nobody loses. Cases of fraud or theft is illegal and handled by common law courts. In an Ancaps world, you do not have a choice whether to help others or not. If you don't, then you won't be eating that nice cherry pie, cause you have no cherries, and don't know how to make that pie, nor the money to buy it. A free market environment is the only market that doesn't promote exploitation, as people will simply buy from another seller. Heck, I'm a buddhist, and capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible, as it is the only system that does not use violence. about being boxed in with communists when is argued that we should all act and think alike then the box fits. The ownership of stuff under the different isms may be different but the thought that for us to reach nirvana then we should all think and act the same puts this thought in the same box + about the sources of your beliefs Friedman et al ascribe to the hypothesis that the market is a system of rational expectations. That a rational market is efficient and in so being it will arrive at an equilibrium point. Being such then logic is the best tool to use in not only understanding it but also in working within it the view that the market is rational comes out of the philosophical belief that human beings should not only be rational thinkers but also rational actors - acting in our own best interests. Is true that we do have the capacity to be rational and logical in both our thinking and actions. Sometimes we are. And sometimes we are not. We sometimes think and act irrationally and illogically. We also sometimes act contrary to our own best interests. Like we sometimes put others before ourself, the outcome of which is not to our own benefit but to theirs and sometimes also detrimental to our own the market like any other human institution reflects this state. It contains both rational and irrational elements and behaves accordingly more importantly, as this is what your own views are predicated on, is the belief (assumption) that the rational expectations of the individual when met by the market for the individual (the behaviour of the expectation when realised) carries over to the group (other people) and has a similar effect on the aggregate (group) behaviour the rational market hypothesis is predicated on: 1) there is a equilibrium point which the market reaches. Equilibrium, the balance point between supply and demand 2) that when the rational expectations of the individual are met by the market positively (or negatively) then is a similar effect on the aggregate neither of these predicates are actually true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2%80%93Debreu_theorem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 irihapeti wrote: Friedman et al ascribe to the hypothesis that the market is a system of rational expectations. FRIEDMAN? Even the Fed has stopped believing in his simplistic Monetarist ***bleep***. ***Central Banks are now managing the money supply like I manage my kids' pocket money*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 irihapeti wrote: the rational market hypothesis is predicated on: 1) there is a equilibrium point which the market reaches. Equilibrium, the balance point between supply and demand 2) that when the rational expectations of the individual are met by the market positively (or negatively) then is a similar effect on the aggregate neither of these predicates are actually true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein%E2%80%93Mantel%E2%80%93Debreu_theorem Where did I say people were rational, or that they need to be for the market to work properly? Plus, there is no scientific way to measure rational. You have no way of knowing what is important to each individual. Every single person will have different values. You can never say for sure if someone is being rational or not, because you aren't them. When a mother buys their kid a lolly pop, is she being rational? Is she considering her own self interest. She very well could be. The same would be if she bought some random hobo on the street a sandwich. Maybe that charity just makes her feel good, which is in her own self interest. At the end of the day, I can only assume that people are acting as they wish in the market and the information I get from the market will help me decide how I progress to the next day or month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Most of that is distraction by talking about issues that don't contradict anything I said. Yes, Government can be oppressive. And yes, a cause was indeed oppressive Government. But my point was that one cause was unlike the famine in 1780 the absence of an export ban. Had there been an export ban the rate of emigration would not have been so high and a million people would not have died. The free market doesn't act on moral principles, it is amoral. It is only by regulation that it can be controlled for the public good. You are conflating 2 things, as if your definition is not clear. When the government acts, then you aren't dealing with free markets. And, free markets are moral, because PEOPLE make decisions in a free market, not corporations or government. Corporations are sanctioned by governments. As long as corporations and governments are in bed together, then there is no free market. All the things you want to blame on the free market, have nothing at all to do with free markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Most of that is distraction by talking about issues that don't contradict anything I said. Yes, Government can be oppressive. And yes, a cause was indeed oppressive Government. But my point was that one cause was unlike the famine in 1780 the absence of an export ban. Had there been an export ban the rate of emigration would not have been so high and a million people would not have died. The free market doesn't act on moral principles, it is amoral. It is only by regulation that it can be controlled for the public good. You are conflating 2 things, as if your definition is not clear. When the government acts, then you aren't dealing with free markets. And, free markets are moral, because PEOPLE make decisions in a free market, not corporations or government. Corporations are sanctioned by governments. As long as corporations and governments are in bed together, then there is no free market. All the things you want to blame on the free market, have nothing at all to do with free markets. When the government acts in a state with elections, it is acting as a group of people delegated with that power by the PEOPLE, who are participants in the market and decided to put those people in power. Just because you don't like the decisions other people make doesn't mean the decisions themselves weren't made freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: DMCA has plenty of flaws but there are many examples of it working. I doubt many of the other people producing content will be so willing to give up such a tool. Also Contracts are what they are because they are legal entities, something as an anarcho-capitalist you should be arguing against because they are excessive hand of government in your unregulated free market. It's seriously funny to watch people trying to rationalize their own flawed concepts with what is actually said, spinning things to fit their limited understanding. I already explained why nobody needs to have government to upheld contracts, but you want to tell me it doesn't fit with Ancaps? What are you basing this on? Your extensive knowledge of Ancap theory? Obviously not. Contract work because it is simply an agreement, and if it is not met, then each party knows they can back out. If some company regularly breaks contracts, they will get a bad reputation, and fewer and fewer people will continue to do business with them. It helps very little to get the government involved, because the cost of doing so, most of the time, exceeds the value they bring. Of course, not all free market people will agree. Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman are more from the Chicago school of economics, and I fall closer to Mises and Rothbard in the Austrian school of economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now