Stop using marxist derived ideologies.

There is an overriding theme throughout them all which invalidates them. I'll give you the core concepts and if you are too stupid/lazy to reason what the overriding themes are, ask a question and I will do the thinking for you and write you a nice explanation.

1: Someone will always have more power over others and use it.

2: Without justice, there is no liberty.

3: Political, social, economic and military systems are essentially methods of directing the limited levels of motivation people have to serve a purpose.

4: Different systems influence to different degrees the amount of motivation directed towards their objective and the efficiency in which followers attempt to fulfil the objective.

5: Certain systems require impossible levels of motivation in order to exceed contemporary systems in efficiency.

6: A system is needed to enforce justice, preserve liberty and eliminate tyranny and thus create the environment needed for systems other than a type of tyranny.


Protip: Before replying, ensure that your reply is not already coverred by any combination of 6 of these points.

1 is not necessarily true. If there is only one person in the world, then it is impossible.

2 does not define justice. It's a confusable word.

3 is valid, but the use of political or military systems to motivate people assumes knowledge that the organization directing those operations is right, which is not necessarily true.

4 is valid

5 is valid

6 is valid, but it's a total nonsequitur that a geographic monopoly government is required for this.

If you're the one that posted in the other thread when I mentioned Agorism, Agorism is not marxism-derived.

>>2
1: The sentence implied there would be more than 1 person in the world and these people have contact with each other in one way or another.

2: Justice = Don't harm others.
Liberty = Within these constraints, do what you want.

3: This statement is a neutral fact. Whether it is right or wrong depends on the objective.

6: Yes it is, if you intend to draw your conclusions from empirical evidence instead of the few concepts hand picked by marx. National self-determination is an important element in developping the environment required for the liberty and the implementation of justice. You could rank the "geographic monopoly" alongside the fact that justice must be enforced by a system which universally represents the population it effects and that this must all be paid for. This system is called democracy.

Like socialism, you need to prove that agorism is a more efficient replacement for a capitalism regulated by a democracy before expecting anyone to take it seriously.

1. I interact with others all the time and I don't violently dominate them. Controlling others is not an inherent part of interpersonal relations, so #1 is at best true only by the law of averages. Not that agorism has a way of dealing with it.

2. Many people think of a system of courts when you say "justice." I agree with the statement as you put it.

3. It is a neutral fact. Whether it is right or wrong does not depend on the objective.

6. You affirmed that 6 was a nonsequitur and then proceeded as if it were not. I'll assume you think it's not. You didn't address the fact that there is a nonsequitur. So the rest of the response really doesn't warrant a rebuttal, but I will anyways. My reasoning does not come from concepts picked by marx. Nations are collectivistic. They do not make decisisons, people leading them do. Thus, they cannot be self-determining. National sovereignty is not an important or necessary element in developing the environment required for liberty and the implementation of justice. The violent imposition of a democracy violates your definition of justice, "Don't hurt others." Collectivising the victim and criminal into one does not eliminate the crime, it simply hides it. Democracy does not universally represent the population. Nonvoters are not represented.

Agorism is more efficient than capitalism regulated by democracy. This is easy to demonstrate because one can assume almost any economic regulation when assuing democracy, as people are stupid. A minimum wage regulation is an example of such. Vast amounts of empirical and deductive information is available which demonstrates the harm of minimum wage laws. Democracy, in this way reduces economic efficiency. All price distortions caused by economic regulations reduce economic efficiency. All examples of economic regulation share this trait of price distortion. Prices which are not free-floating are distorted. Only an unregulated economy can maximize efficiency.

This applies to the realm of protection and justice as well. Courts can be and are provided on a market basis. Criminal courts are not provided because the existing system prohibits them. Security agencies already exist because the existing one-size-fits-all security arrangement provided by the government is insufficient for some.

It is a waste of time and effort to have a security agency protect me when a $300 shotgun and a silhouette target taped up in the window will protect me better than a security agency at the same price. Waste is the definition of inefficiency. Only I can make the decision as to which offers sufficient protection and a sufficiently low price. Regular patrols are unnecessary and rarely stop crime (criminals wait until there are no police around most of the time). Charging me for protection which is clearly inferior and is far more expensive is inefficient.

Have I demonstrated that agorism is a more efficient replacement for democratic capitalism yet? If you need more, please do ask.

Not that agorism has *no* way of dealing with it.

Place needs edit buttons.

Marx was a fat hairy asshole who himself belonged to the bourgeoisie class.

>>6
So? His theories are not less vlid, but i sense that not many agorists have read all four volumes of das Kapital, as this would mean they actually did some research, instead of throwing stalin around like a wet blanket.

>>1
1. Of course, this is a stocastic fact and does not affect political philosophy in any way. It is like saying some will always have linger hair than others.
2. With exploitation, no justice, no liberty. Ending exploitation ranks higher because of that.
3. Religion and commercials work also. And they are all a form of coercion.
4.-6. What do you mean by system? Modes of production (mercantilism, bartering, capitalism, communism etc)? Political system (democracy, theocracy, parlamentarism, monarchy etc)? But, since you seem to be a libertarian, i guess you dont mean anything but "my system" vs "commie tyranny". In that case , read this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
(And if its tl;dr, the point is that he wants to support his own theories by pitting them against a big scary monster of his own device that is easy to destroy, but the scary monster is not connected to reality in any way and therefore is his theories only supported in his own little mind). 

>>4
Should that be bullet number seven?
7. Economic efficiency has intrinsic value. And economic efficiency should be measured in only quantity terms, not quality terms (otherwise it wouldnt work since most socialist countries has high quality for low cost goods, eg Cuba that has a higher health care quality (lifes saved/capita) than the US). And econoimic efficiency is more important than ending exploitation, justice and liberty.
And if you believe that it is more efficient for you yourself do every service provided by the state then you really are stupid. One example, what would happen i yould ever leave the house?

*longer hair

>>7

I don't believe that it is more efficient for me to do everything the government does, and I never said that. I'm not doing for myself what the government does, I'm doing for myself what the government *SAYS* it does, but doesn't do very well at all to the point it might as well not even try. And I don't trust a service as important as protection of my life to someone else.

>>4
When I said "yes it is", I clearly meant "yes it is valid". You are nitpicking.

My argument is non sequitur if you ignore the strategic value a large population embued with national self determination is in creating and maintaining a libertarian environment. Declaring that every person in this nation has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech and representation etc... is a very efficient method of ensuring liberty and has not been surpassed.

The cost of permitting the people to influence the government is lower than permitting injustice and tyranny. Point 6 stands, go right ahead and debate the use of minimum wage and other policies adopted by democratically elected governments, however you will have to abide by the 6 points I have outlined since they are correct and ideologies which ignore one of these points will ultimately result in failure.

Perhaps the police should adopt free market policies to improve the efficiency of it's administration, but it should never be able to decide the legal process, laws, judges and juries.

>>7
1: Yes.. And if it is so obvious why would I repeat it? Because sometimes marx derived ideologies leave it out when reasonning things through.
2: Exploitation is a crime, so using it to justify other crimes (the absence of justice and liberty) will result in tyranny, which is universal exploitation by definition.
3: Ok.
4.-6: I'm not pushing any particular idea, I'm outlining the facts must be taken into account in judging them which I believe marxist derived ideologies ignore.

May i ask the OP how many marx derived ideologies he has studied and how thoroughly? Is this a result of reading the complete works of Mao and Lenin or is it a reaction to his latest viewing of Red Dawn? And what about the writings of Marx himself?

>>10

>My argument is non sequitur if you ignore the strategic value a large population embued with national self determination is in creating and maintaining a libertarian environment.

You ignore the contradiction between NATIONAL self-determination and INDIVIDUAL self-determination. Libertarianism is about INDIVIDUAL self-determination.

>Declaring that every person in this nation has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to bear arms, the right to free speech and representation etc... is a very efficient method of ensuring liberty and has not been surpassed.

Delcaring that every person is a DIFFERENT nation and has rights to self-determination, as well as life, liberty, and property (not the pursuit of happiness, that's a corollary of liberty, RKBA is corollary of property, free speech is corollary of liberty, representation as a positive right is invalid) will do more for that. I declare each individual to be sovereign individuals capable of making their own decisions, not needing some governing body to make decisions for them.

>The cost of permitting the people to influence the government is lower than permitting injustice and tyranny.

The cost of permitting the people to influence the government *is* injustice and tyranny.

>Point 6 stands, go right ahead and debate the use of minimum wage and other policies adopted by democratically elected governments, however you will have to abide by the 6 points I have outlined since they are correct and ideologies which ignore one of these points will ultimately result in failure.

I don't disagree with point six. I just believe it's illogical to assume that it means we MUST have geographic monopolies on this system. Multiple competing organizations will do it faster, cheaper, and better, not to mention more reliably.

>Perhaps the police should adopt free market policies to improve the efficiency of it's administration, but it should never be able to decide the legal process, laws, judges and juries.

It doesn't matter either way as long as the courts (laws, judges, juries) have no jurisdiction where it was not given to them by the owner of the property. If you assume that there must be general territorial monopolies on protection services, then your condition makes sense, but there is no reason to assume that.

>>12
All of them. In my personal opinion Trotskyism is my favourite, but still in the same league as the rest of them.

>>13
You ignore point 1.

1: Someone will always have more power over others and use it.

It would be all wonderful and perfect if point 1 never occurred. But that's not the case. Since the stone age people have banded together in order to form armies, start wars and oppress others for personal gain. This isn't the movies where 1 man armies can defeat armies of thugs, in real life the 1 man armies are always driven out or killed. National self-determination is necessary to unify large groups of people and the army together so that the army uses some of it's power to enforce justice and create an environment of liberty. It doesn't solve all crime or ensure everyone total liberty everywhere all the time, but it's a damn site better than living a short brutal life at the mercy of criminal gangs and warlords.

>>13
"The cost of permitting the people to influence the government *is* injustice and tyranny."
Well, when you figure out a way to eliminate the government without contradicting the 6 points I have laid out you can bring it to my attention.

Spoiler: It's not anarchy, unless you can prove to me Somalia is a libertarian paradise.

I agree that it is illogical to assume that we must have a geographical monopoly for a government system. As trust between democratic states slowly increases perhaps someday the people will decide borders are more of a burden than a security requirement and decide to lessen the bottle necking bureaucracy between nations.

As for minor geographical monopolies. In effect every business is a type of monopoly since they monopolise a certain portion of the universe's resources and a certain portion of the surface of the planet earth and use that to their advantage to make a small profit. How far you want to go with this is up to you, but I say that democracy is not a monopoly since it consists of several political parties. There may not be as many political parties and nations as there are plumbing businesses, but they still compete with each other to a high degree to attract profitable industries etc.. to please voters.

I already rebutted point 1. If there's only 1 person in the world, the rule falls apart. If there are two people in the world, it's not necessarily true that one has power over the other. That would only be true of all interpersonal action was inherently an exertion by one person of power over another person. This is obviously not true.

Point 1 is only true as a general tendency for a certain event to happen given present situations. And agorism has a way of dealing with this problem.

So depending how you interpret the rule, it's either invalid or not in conflict with what I said.

>>16
Atually both interpretations are valid extrapolations.

1: Someone will always have more power over others and use it.
1a: Thus can form tyrannical armies and abuse other people's liberty.
1b: If no one has any physical contact with each other they cannot exercise power over each other.

Amirite?

>>17

That's irrelevant to what I said in >>16 because through >>17 you assumed that rule 1 is true, and I was challenging whether rule 1 was true. You cannot assume rule 1 = true to prove that rule 1 = true, that's circular logic.

>>18
I never stated 1 was proven by a circular argument.

>>19

You assumed that 1=true, and then tried to demonstrate that my objections fall within 1, which they don't. And you didn't deal with my objections to it. The closest you came is 1b, which somewhat was relevant to but didn't rebut one of my points.

1. If only one person exists, it is not ALWAYS true that one person will dominate another.
2. If more than one person exists, rule 1 is only possible if an inherent part of interpersonal relations is domination. This is not true.
3. If it is merely a general tendency, it's perfectly consistent with Agorism, which has a way of dealing with the problem.

>>17 only attempted to rebut one objection, two others were ignored.

>>20
I already knew this and I assumed that you knew that this was an approximation. The reason I am not responding much is because I fear you are nitpicking and trying to troll.

>>21
Maybe it is somewhat nitpicky to care when people are overgeneralizing and using the word always. But the second and third points are still unrebutted.

>>22
Your points or the OP points?

>>23

Mine.

>>24
k
o__o

It’s so much easier to  find the perfect <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/">wedding dresses</a><a href="http://weddings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Bridal_Party_Dresses" title="Bridal Party Dresses"></a> dress  today than it was 20 or 40 years ago. <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/">wedding dress</a> are the days of puffy shoulder pads  and<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/">discount wedding dresses</a>, today’s bridesmaids’ dresses are sleek and streamlined, many  of <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/beach-wedding-dresses.html">beach wedding dresses</a> can be worn again. <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/simple-wedding-dress.html">Simple wedding dress</a> have also evolved, saying goodbye to gaudy  shades in favor of a huge color spectrum ranging from elegant<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/modest-wedding-dress.html"> Modest wedding dress</a> to  sophisticated fun pinks and fresh<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/elegant-wedding-dress.html">Elegant wedding dress</a>.Generally the<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/elegant-wedding-dress.html">Elegant wedding dress</a>chooses  the type of dress her bridesmaids will wear.<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/elegant-wedding-dress.html">Elegant wedding dress</a> is often a bone of contention  for the bridesmaids as many times the <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/chinese-wedding-dress.html">Chinese wedding dress </a> chooses a style or color that isn’t  flattering for all of the women in the <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/western-wedding-dress.html">Western wedding dress</a> party. While it’s true, you  can’t please everyone, the <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/formal-wedding-dress.html">Formal wedding dress</a> can spare a lot of bad feelings by allowing  the women in the<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/designer-wedding-dress/informal-wedding-dress.html">Informal wedding dress</a> party to have some input into the selection process. Perhaps  all of the women involved can have<a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style.html">Wedding dress style</a> of shopping together to find  a style and <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/short-wedding-dress.html">Short wedding dress</a> flattering to every shape and skin tone. Try to find styles  without too many <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/tea-length-wedding-dress.html">Tea length wedding dress</a> or embellishments as these types of dresses can’t be  cut down or worn again for other <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/tea-length-wedding-dress.html">Tea length wedding dress </a> occasions.If you want to find a <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/strapless-wedding-dress.html">Strapless wedding dress</a> flattering to  everyone, avoid the <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/straps-wedding-dress.html">Straps wedding dress</a>: Puffy shoulder pads: Big <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/short-sleeves-wedding-dress.html">Short wedding dress sleeves</a> flatter very  few women. Petite women seem lost in the <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/mermaid-wedding-dress.html">Mermaid wedding dress </a> and larger framed women  look like <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/column-wedding-dress.html">Column wedding dress </a>. If you’d like all your <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-style/plus-size-wedding-dresses.html">Plus Size wedding dresses </a> to look lovely, avoid  the use of heavily padded <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-colors.html">Wedding dress colors</a>. Large “butt” bows: You have to have a  small <a href="http://www.eastbridal.com/wedding-dress-colors/white-wedding-dress.html">White wedding dress</a> to rock the butt bow. Since <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/">Prom Dresses</a> is an area most women don’t  wish to call <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/">Cheap Prom Dress</a> to, try not to choose <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/">Prom Dresses 2010</a> with large butt bows. Pale  Colors: Pale <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/">Prom Dress</a> and <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/prom-dresses-2010_c360">Prom Dresses 2010</a> might look good on the <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/cheap-prom-dresses_c358">Cheap Prom Dresses</a>, but <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/plus-size-prom-dresses_c351">Plus Size Prom Dresses</a> don’t  work for all skin types. Women with very light <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/short-prom-dresses_c352">Short Prom Dresses</a> will look washed out,  especially in <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/short-prom-dresses_c352">Short Prom Dresses</a>.What will you do with  your <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/vintage-prom-dresses_c353">Vintage Prom Dresses</a> after the wedding? If it’s a formal <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/sexy-prom-dresses_c354">Sexy Prom Dresses</a> and you would like  to keep in its pristine <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/simple-prom-dresses_c356">Simple Prom Dresses</a> to wear to another formal <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/designer-prom-dresses_c357">Designer Prom Dresses</a> in the future,  consider bringing it to a <a href="http://www.eastdress.com/quinceanera-dresses_c359">Quinceanera Dresses</a> preservation specialist.

I don't know the reason, but it seems that interest on investment before is better than now, although many workers actually work hard with low salary now than before, it ensures your opinion is right. Why?

>>27
We're in quite a lull in technological growth, which has been the source of most economic growth for the past 200 years. Computing and software has come full circle, everything that's been done has been done 10 times over and then some, at the same time cellular biochemistry and genetic modification are decades away from coming together while molecular assembly is still in the experimental stage, both analogous to the situation with computing in the 40s.

Sure, that's true.
But it's technology matter, not on economy. Why do many companies can make little interest for investment despite of they, like Silicon Valley, have enough technology?