[One Degree]

The rebuilding will take longer than after Rome. Our knowledge is in a computer that will cease to exist. We have become so dependent, we only want to know your source. Seldom, do you hear ‘clarify your reasoning’.
We are a people who ‘look up answers’. Do you realize the implications of this after a collapse?
The number of people who could even write a list of what they needed for surviving will be minimal. The number who can actually do it, will not be enough. They will only have the option of taking from others, not building. Add to that we are dependent upon specialization. We have very few ‘men of all trades’ who might actually know how to exist.
We look up answers instead of thinking. We hire others rather than learning. These are not traits that are helpful after a collapse.

[Decky]

If the middle class suit wearers all starved to death would that really be such a problem?

[Victoribus Spolia]

The rebuilding will take longer than after Rome. Our knowledge is in a computer that will cease to exist. We have become so dependent, we only want to know your source. Seldom, do you hear ‘clarify your reasoning’.
We are a people who ‘look up answers’. Do you realize the implications of this after a collapse?
The number of people who could even write a list of what they needed for surviving will be minimal. The number who can actually do it, will not be enough. They will only have the option of taking from others, not building. Add to that we are dependent upon specialization. We have very few ‘men of all trades’ who might actually know how to exist.
We look up answers instead of thinking. We hire others rather than learning. These are not traits that are helpful after a collapse.

I don't think that will affect the rate of stabilization, just the initial rate of death from ignorance and weakness.

Hence, the body count will be much higher after our collapse, I would not be shocked if we saw a 30% reduction in population in all areas affected by the collapse within the first 50 years after the fall.

This might actually aid in the speed of stabilization instead of the opposite, in all truth. For once the looters no longer have anything to loot and die from starvation, the looting will cease.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Right. As I mentioned before, feudal libertarians want to be able to exercise an irresponsible power of life and death over others so strongly that it outweighs their desire for material comforts. They welcome the feudal condition where everyone is poor, because poor people are easier to terrorize, dominate and control. A man who is able to provide for himself and his family will not sell his daughter for any price; but if he has been stripped of his liberty to provide for himself by landowners, and thus reduced to starvation, he will sell his daughter for a little food. The feudal libertarian does not want to be rich; he just wants other men to be reduced to selling him their daughters for a little food.

If dumb peasants want to sell their daughters for food, which is a ridiculous caricature that belongs more in a monty python skit than in an intellectual discussion, that is his problem.


However, such behavior as this tends to be the result of high time preferences which increase under the existence of a state, not in its absence.

I.e., they will (try to) monopolize access to as much of the means of survival as they can by depriving others of it, thus forcing them into poverty and starvation. Essentially, the feudal libertarian finds the greatest opportunity to satisfy his own desires in the unjust suffering of others. But of course, in the event, feudalism results in relentless unjust suffering for almost everyone.

How is it in my interests to have peasants on my land, who outnumber me and handle my food, that are really pissed off at me?

Obviously that is false. Geolibertarians simply hold that rightful property originates in an act of production, so that it does not deprive others of anything they would otherwise have. The feudal libertarian holds that rightful property originates in an act of appropriation: i.e., forcibly taking from others what they would otherwise have.

land is sooooo unfair.

The feudal libertarian sociopath often finds injustice amusing -- but only when it is inflicted on others, of course.

The feudal libertarian, being a philosophical sociopath, hates justice and despises as weaklings those who advocate it. Simple.

[Sivad]

No they wouldn't. That's just objectively false. The products of labor would not be produced if their producers could not own them

Slaves labor to produce products they don't own. That's what capitalism is, economically disenfranchised masses toiling for the benefit of the few. It's time we called bullshit on that. We need a system that recognizes the rights of all stakeholders. If the combined interests of stakeholders(workers, consumers, communities) are better served under a different system, then capitalism is illegitimate.

No, it's empirically true.

So how do you explain workers co-ops?

[Truth To Power]

If dumb peasants want to sell their daughters for food, which is a ridiculous caricature that belongs more in a monty python skit than in an intellectual discussion,

It is not a caricature. It has been a routine fact of life in every single society in the history of the world where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. It is common in contemporary societies like India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Honduras, etc. Never heard of droit du seigneur? I suspect you have, and are looking forward to it with relish.

that is his problem.

Yes, a problem inflicted on him by greedy, evil parasites.

However, such behavior as this tends to be the result of high time preferences which increase under the existence of a state, not in its absence.

No, it is entirely the result of the fact that starving someone to death inflicts unbearable suffering on them. And the microscopic populations possible without states and governments self-evidently put the lie to your claim that such desperate behavior increases under states.

How is it in my interests to have peasants on my land, who outnumber me and handle my food, that are really pissed off at me?

Ask the myriad parasitic landowners of history.

land is sooooo unfair.

GARBAGE. Land does not deprive anyone of itself. It is only GREEDY, EVIL HUMAN PARASITES who deprive others of their liberty to use land.

Slaves labor to produce products they don't own.

Slavery is labor compelled by force, which is not legally possible in a geolibertarian society.

That's what capitalism is, economically disenfranchised masses toiling for the benefit of the few.

It is indeed. But how, specifically, do they become "economically disenfranchised," and more to the point, how could that be done to them in a geolibertarian society??

It's time we called bullshit on that.

Right. But socialists don't understand exactly what it is about it that is bull$#!+, because they can't tell the difference between offering people opportunities they would not otherwise have and depriving them of opportunities they would otherwise have. Socialists think those two actions are the same.

We need a system that recognizes the rights of all stakeholders.

"Stake"holders? You mean, people who claim a "right" to benefit from what others contribute without contributing commensurately themselves?

If the combined interests of stakeholders(workers, consumers, communities) are better served under a different system, then capitalism is illegitimate.

Capitalism is inherently illegitimate, illegitimate a priori, because it requires private landowning, which inherently violates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. It wouldn't even matter if it served the combined interests of "stake"holders, any more than it would matter if "stake"holders' interests were better served by taking one eye from sighted people to help the blind see, or requiring compulsory kidney donations from those with good tissue matches.

So how do you explain workers co-ops?

The successful ones hire good professional managers.

[Sivad]

The successful ones hire good professional managers.

But they are still worker owned and controlled. So why should society tolerate an ownership class when all it really needs is good professional managers? When people figure that out these exclusive tyrannies will be abolished.

[SolarCross]

But they are still worker owned and controlled. So why should society tolerate an ownership class when all it really needs is good professional managers?

Because they want to use their surplus capital for productive purposes and are not so miserly they won't reward people for taking the risk?

There isn't really an "ownership class" anyone can own productive property; there is no class excluded from it, it isn't like the hindu caste system.

[Sivad]

Because they want to use their surplus capital for productive purposes and are not so miserly they won't reward people for taking the risk?

Investing in infrastructure, science and technology, health, education, that's productive. Giving trillions of dollars to a few assholes to offshore is idiotic.

There isn't really an "ownership class" anyone can own productive property; there is no class excluded from it, it isn't like the hindu caste system.

There really is an ownership class. It might not be strictly hereditary but there is definitely a very small exclusive group of very wealthy people that own almost everything. Go ask google about the wealth gap and find out for yourself.

But for the sake of argument let's say there isn't an ownership class, you would still have to explain why the rest of us would want to allow a few people to own almost everything when we would be much better off if we didn't?

[SolarCross]

Investing in infrastructure, science and technology, health, education, that's productive. Giving trillions of dollars to a few assholes to offshore is idiotic.

The "trillions go off-shore" as damage limitation from taxes, it still gets either invested in something productive or gets spent which results in a different kind of investment. The problem here isn't really "assholes" not wanting to be robbed too hard by a bunch of thuggish taxmen but the people doing the robbing, at the very least it's impolite.

There really is an ownership class. It might not be strictly hereditary but there is definitely a very small exclusive group of very wealthy people that own almost everything. Go ask google about the wealth gap and find out for yourself.

But for the sake of argument let's say there isn't an ownership class, you would still have to explain why the rest of us would want to allow a few people to own almost everything when we would be much better off if we didn't?

That's a different issue though, now you are talking about pareto distribution. It's like complaining that musicians are allowed to make money by pointing to the top 1% of musicians who bag all of the record sales but that doesn't mean that the bottom 99% of musicians who barely scrape by don't want to make money from making music too. So too you are complaining that people can invest for return in private enterprise by pointing out that some 1% of the general population have like vast sums with which to invest as if the rest of us that do that with more modest means want that to be made illegal for ourselves too. No we don't; there is jealousy and then there is cutting off your own head to spite your face.

[Victoribus Spolia]

droit du seigneur?

Really? Prima Noctis?

Quit watching Braveheart and pick up a history book, this practice has been debunked as a historical fiction and was not really practiced in the medieval feudal era.

Once again, such caricatures belong in skits, not intellectual discussion. Perhaps the subforum labeled Satire will be a better fit?

Yes, a problem inflicted on him by greedy, evil parasites.

No, it is entirely the result of the fact that starving someone to death inflicts unbearable suffering on them. And the microscopic populations possible without states and governments self-evidently put the lie to your claim that such desperate behavior increases under states.

Yeah, with the division of labor under private property absolutism, except this time without papal restrictions on investment, rents, interest-rates, land-holdings, and large portions of whole-sale products, starvation will only ever be the fault of the unproductive and unintelligent. Praexologically, private property absolutism guarantees wealth generation.

the myriad of parasitic landowners of history.

My Heroes.

GARBAGE. Land does not deprive anyone of itself. It is only GREEDY, EVIL HUMAN PARASITES who deprive others of their liberty to use land.

You cannot deprive someone of something that does not belong to them.

Please explain to me, in the event of government collapse, why I am morally obligated to give my land to fleeing urbanites who are flooding into rural areas without expecting something in return from them?

[Truth To Power]

But they are still worker owned and controlled.

But not worker managed, and the number of successful ones is vanishingly small.

So why should society tolerate an ownership class when all it really needs is good professional managers?

Three reasons:
1. It doesn't just need managers, it needs producers; and the most accurate and effective incentive to production is ownership of what you produce.
2. Professional managers are limited in their risk tolerance, creativity, motivation, and ability to bring ideas to fruition; consider what happened to Apple when they kicked out the owner Steve Jobs and brought in the professional manager John Sculley.
3. People have a RIGHT to own what they produce, and societies that do not respect and secure that right end up failing, and being outcompeted by societies that do.

When people figure that out these exclusive tyrannies will be abolished.

Nonsense. How, exactly, is it "tyranny," exclusive or otherwise, when a capital owner offers people opportunities they would not otherwise have had?

The problem here is that you refuse to know the difference between owning what you produce and owning other people's rights. You just lump it all together as "ownership," as if it's all the same. It's not. Are you even willing to consider the possibility that some ownership is good and other ownership is bad? If so, how would you tell the difference? If not, what makes you think you will ever be able to understand anything about economics?

Investing in infrastructure, science and technology, health, education, that's productive. Giving trillions of dollars to a few assholes to offshore is idiotic.

Blatant strawman and false dichotomy fallacies. Is producing, and letting people own what they produce, productive?

There really is an ownership class. It might not be strictly hereditary but there is definitely a very small exclusive group of very wealthy people that own almost everything.

But now you are talking about a PRIVILEGED class, not an OWNERSHIP class. Like all socialists, you just refuse to know the difference between owning what you produce and owning PRIVILEGES that legally entitle you to TAKE, WITHOUT producing. Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that those are two quite different things? Do you notice that SolarCross, the apologist for capitalism, ALSO refuses to know the difference?

[Truth To Power]

delete

[Truth To Power]

...this practice has been debunked as a historical fiction and was not really practiced in the medieval feudal era.

Wrong:
Middle ages
The medieval marriage fine or merchet has been interpreted as a payment for the droit de seigneur to be waived.
The supposed right was abolished by Ferdinand II of Aragon in Article 9 the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486.
In 1527, Scottish historian Hector Boece wrote that the right had existed in Scotland until abolished by Malcolm III. William Blackstone mentioned the custom in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769),echoing Boece's claim.
The right was mentioned in 1556 in the Recueil d'arrêts notables des cours souveraines de France of French lawyer and author Jean Papon (1505–1590). Voltaire mentioned the practice in his Dictionnaire philosophique, published in 1764.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_ ... references

Yeah, with the division of labor under private property absolutism, except this time without papal restrictions on investment, rents, interest-rates, land-holdings, and large portions of whole-sale products, starvation will only ever be the fault of the unproductive and unintelligent.

That is a claim contrary to the evidence. History is replete with starvation in the midst of plenty in societies where private property was absolute, because private property in other people's rights to liberty lets the owners starve anyone who disobeys.

Praexologically, private property absolutism guarantees wealth generation.

I see. That must be why in feudal societies, everyone is poor....

My Heroes.

Obviously.

You cannot deprive someone of something that does not belong to them.

That is the Basic Lie of feudal libertarianism.

The earth's atmosphere does not belong to anyone, just as land did not. But if it were made into someone's private property, as land has been, and its owners charged everyone else rent for air to breathe, as landowners charge others rent for use of land to earn a living, then we would all indeed, self-evidently and indisputably, be deprived of something that did not belong to us, just as we have been by landowners. Feudal libertarianism therefore stands refuted.

Please explain to me, in the event of government collapse, why I am morally obligated to give my land

"Your" land? What would make it "your" land but your intention forcibly to deprive everyone else of their liberty to use it?

to fleeing urbanites who are flooding into rural areas without expecting something in return from them?

You have no right to demand that they pay YOU for what NATURE provided to all, any more than a soi-disant owner of the earth's atmosphere would.

[Sivad]

But not worker managed, and the number of successful ones is vanishingly small.

Three reasons:
1. It doesn't just need managers, it needs producers; and the most accurate and effective incentive to production is ownership of what you produce.
2. Professional managers are limited in their risk tolerance, creativity, motivation, and ability to bring ideas to fruition; consider what happened to Apple when they kicked out the owner Steve Jobs and brought in the professional manager John Sculley.
3. People have a RIGHT to own what they produce, and societies that do not respect and secure that right end up failing, and being outcompeted by societies that do.

You seem to agree that in principal capitalism would be illegitimate if workers were capable of self management. That's really all I need.

People have a RIGHT to own what they produce, and societies that do not respect and secure that right end up failing, and being outcompeted by societies that do.

I couldn't agree more. I would also add that people have a RIGHT to produce for themselves and that capitalism is a fundamental infringement of that RIGHT.

Nonsense. How, exactly, is it "tyranny," exclusive or otherwise, when a capital owner offers people opportunities they would not otherwise have had?

It's really a tyranny of exclusion. Capitalists don't offer people opportunities they would not otherwise have had, capitalists deprive people of the opportunity to produce for themselves and own the products of their labor.

[SolarCross]

I couldn't agree more. I would also add that people have a RIGHT to produce for themselves and that capitalism is a fundamental infringement of that RIGHT.

How the fuck?

[Sivad]

How the fuck?

You don't see how the vast majority of people are working for a tiny minority? You've somehow managed to remain completely oblivious to that glaring fact?

[Sivad]

[One Degree]

No matter what the system is, I need to produce in it. I am not one of them, but many people are content with this reality. They will be your wage slave for 8 hours if you leave them alone the other 16 and weekends. Because the truth is their reality is not determined so much by the ideology. They don’t even think about it.
I actually have envied them this ability. We create our own unhappiness by being dissatisfied when they simply accept any system as long as it is not overly abusive.

[SolarCross]

You don't see how the vast majority of people are working for a tiny minority? You've somehow managed to remain completely oblivious to that glaring fact?

No, people work for others to work for themselves. The bloke who sweeps the floor at Wall-Mart isn't really working for Wall-Mart he is working for himself because he wants his paycheck not to sweep floors, the floor sweeping is what his customer wants and his customer is Wall-Mart. It is just trade. Everyone is working for themselves. As I said before, and you ignored, what is really bothering you is pareto-distribution not trade.

Not everything is a pareto distribution game but it does come up quite a lot and for sure you can cry endlessly about it if you happen to be one of the losers, but on the other hand there are many games to play and the most important game, the game of survival and reproduction, which luckily isn't a pareto distribution game (well except for sperm, pareto distribution is pretty brutal for them, lol).