In a free market, majority consensus would determine if a product would be sold. If the product is bad, word will get around and no one will buy it.
In that sense and no government or voting is necessary.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There may be some talking past each other here. Saying a product is bad, usually involves a problem in the quality axis.
It has been known for some time that there can be a majority consensus that a product is of poor quality but can still be sold to people who value the product even if the quality is inferior.
No matter how you slice it, subjective value is the pivot point of a free market. not majority consensus.
And since we are on the matters of subjective value, there appears to be much conflict between the 'engage' the system and the 'defect' out of the system movements.
Is there any reason why someone would not find value in both positions at the same time?
The engage position would chisel away at the top levers of authority, while the defect position would chisel away at the base.
I know there is real tension and conflict of the positions, but I really don't see a down side to both working independently at the same time.
How can the top levels of authority chisel away at themselves? If you attempt to heal a venomous bite with the same venom creating the problem, you end up poisoned all the more. Evil political mechanisms can never remedy evil political mechanisms. Only disobedience can do that. But. People are afraid to suffer. And that is why they suffer, I think, if I can be so presumptuous as to say so.
Excellent comment, and just to clarify the state is the top level of authority, lets call state 'social construct -A-'. An anarchist going in to dismantle the social construct, lets call him 'agent -B-'. We can call the executive order, or referendum or whatever legal document(s) that would be used to dismantle the state, 'social construct -C-'.
Now 'social construct -A-' is not the same as 'agent -B-' so asking the question :
How can the top levels of authority chisel away at themselves?
Is similar to saying social construct -A- and agent -B- is the same entity. That issue from what I can see is not logically correct.
There can be a case made that social construct -C- may not be able to destroy social construct -A-. I think what you are trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that there is near a zero probability of an event that social construct -C- will destroy social construct -A-.
I completely understand that position. I don't buy in to the idea the probability will be high, but also don't immediately assume it will be zero. On the grounds of probability is where you and I would likely start disagreement.
Historically, it has typically taken a social construct to destroy another social construct, so the tactic or strategy of using -C- to destroy -A- is sound. The biggest barrier I see is the degree of complexity of the constructs.
I completely agree that people are afraid to suffer, and agree to an extent that is why they suffer. The question I ask is if social construct -A- is creating more perceived discomfort than comfort? If significant discomfort then social construct -C- has support and agent -B- is just an agent.
Could be a semantics problem here but I couldn't agree more with:
"Is there any reason why someone would not find value in both positions at the same time?"
and everything you said after it.
Both positions have the same goal.. both positions are likely necessary to succeed.
I appreciate it, and you make some good points.
There are some differences. The engage camp expects to engage and go into the social construct of state and dismantle at the power hub.
The defect camp is more a war of attrition/subtraction from the outside.
But that is not correct. As you have stated, a majority would not vote first on whether or not to purchase something, or take some path of action. Individuals would voice market preference with their money, and if many individuals buy something, that product would be successful. This is categorically different from a pre-market vote, or referendum.
As concerns our argument about national parks, consensus could not determine this as per Voluntaryist property ethic, as any individual with the ability would have the opportunity to homestead or purchase land regardless of the will of the “majority.”
In a sense, we would vote first on whether or not to purchase something, it just wouldn't be by ballot but by opinion. There's a perspective I'm having trouble expressing but I'll get it eventually, may have to come back to this later.
Regarding the National Parks, here's my idea of common sense...
I don't see how the existence of areas set aside to be used by everyone now and for future posterity violates anything. Personally, I would hate to see every last bit of land in private hands. Where you going to go at that point if going anywhere crossed someone's property?
The answers to how we go from here to a Voluntaryist property ethic are not set in stone, not a chance. I know it, you know it, and @adamkokesh knows it as he has stated clearly that he's looking for advice on the fairest way for all concerned. What more could you ask of a person. rhetorical
The wallet: Would you pick it up and return it to its rightful owner if possible? I would hope so but you understand that at the moment you pick it up, you've just assumed an authority over it. By what right, did you do that? Maybe the person doesn't want it back, maybe they wanted the thief to have it because they must need it more.
By what right would Adam attempt to return stolen property? It's just the right thing to do. I wish you'd just help, this is about freedom and I want mine back and I don't want to be the jerk that didn't try to prevent our kids from living in a world with no privacy or freedom of any kind.
THAT is unconscionable to my being but if we don't try to find some common ground, we fail.
Nobody does. The idea that I do, if that is what you are implying my dissent symbolizes, is ridiculous.
And the wallet metaphor is not analagous. A single piece of property with a single owner is not the same as vast swathes of land and trillions of dollars of resources.
I wasn't thinking of you when I made that comment... just thinking of me not being a jerk, that's all.
I think the wallet principle still holds whether it's a single owner or a group. A rock IS a rock, property is property, theft is theft, justice is justice. Do you have an idea how to handle this issue fairer?
If a person suggests an immoral solution to a problem, it is not the honus of another party to come up with a “better plan.” Also, there are myriad approaches to liberty based on the actual principle of ISO. Yes, I have spoken of my ideas at length. Still, as I say, the idea that there can only be one plan doesn’t logically follow, and an immoral plan isn’t better than no plan, even if that were the case.
As for the metaphor, it’s not analogous. In Voluntaryism a direct, intersubjectibely ascertainable link to something is the basis for a property right, and not a decree from Washington, thousands of miles away. Individuals therefore are solving problems locally, and at this micro, individual level, things are not only now based on a moral system, but are light years ahead in regard to efficiency, and allow the free market to function.
A more accurate metaphor to describe Adam’s plan is a man coming across a whole field of stolen cars, and then not allowing the owners to work out whose car is whose in the various regions, but declaring centralized “custodial” control and giving them to whomever, willy nilly.
Of course, it goes without saying. That doesn't mean the question won't be asked though. Inquiring minds will want to know if a person has any ideas that would be helpful.
I agree and I don't know anyone who's saying there can be only one plan.
That's not even close to being accurate. When did Adam ever say he wouldn't allow owners to claim their property? Everything I've heard him say is completely opposite to that idea. That's the whole point of being custodian is to return stolen property.
He's trying to do the right thing and has asked for help to figure it all out. Why do you not in good will understand this and try to help so the word will reach more people?
You’re still missing the nature of the issue. If Adam dropped the Voluntaryist label (he stated in the debate the plan wasn’t compatible with Voluntaryism) then I think a more constructive dialogue could be had.
What it seems like you may be missing is that even if Kokesh’s intentions were 100% pure, one cannot centrally redistribute trillions of dollars of land and resources accuraturely the market. If I find a guy’s wallet, I can check out the ID, and return it. If I find a thousand wallets with no IDs, those in the respective areas where the various wallets were lost will have to sort it out, because they know their own wallets, and know each other.
Problems:
I have tried to help him. He would rather sling mud. Did the same thing to @larkenrose.
He’s just another politician.
Here's something that I haven't heard mentioned by anyone..
How do we protect the habitat of our animal friends under the Voluntaryist property ethic?
not that I'm religious but I wonder about this
kafka, if the engage camp were to strip the term Voluntaryist out of their movement, and defaulted all public land to market land, or land subjected to a free market, would this resolve the primary issues of the conflict you see with that movement?
The engage camp could drop Volutaryist references out of the movement and just replace it with something else.
I’m not sure what the engage camp is, but if you mean advocates for centralized political redistribution then yeah, if the “plan” was a voluntary one, and not based on a mob rule, force-backed political majority consensus, I would see no problem with it.
Well, I think the catch is in the issue of a voluntary one. The state itself is currently not a voluntary entity so anything that happens within that construct is not in the realm of voluntary action. A distribution would require going into the social construct and extracting/defining the assets to place in the open market. There are some other problems in social objectivity and epistemology on the statist side that will arise, but once it's in the open market it should be outside of mob rule.
Yes, this is my point exactly, and why Adam Kokesh’s prescribed “plan” is not voluntaryist in nature.
I agree, the term voluntaryist doesn't fit well. I don't see where he would be losing ground to just call it decentralization or something along those lines.