A discourse on ParEcon

[MarcusAurelius]

it's easy to get rid of currency when you have no coherent government to force it's acceptance. the dollars in my pocket have zero intrinsic value. don't act like trading goods instead of paper bills is some amazing success story. fallout3 was stupid for letting you buy water for bottle caps.

It's true that they don't have "intrinsic" value, but it's the shared belief that currency can be exchanged for something with intrinsic value at a later date that gives it value. That belief CAN come from government force, but to claim it MUST (rather than say, organically produced common convention) needs a little more argumentation.

Can you tell me of any society that managed to use intrinsically valueless currency without a government enforcer? Even the US used to have a gold standard, which, while not necessarily valuable to a common man, still has the "it's shiny and rare" aspect.

[Santa]

It's a common critique of ParEcon that people are involved in too many meetings.

Which I think has a serious potential to evolve into the current ills of society, especially in a large connected manner.

From my personal experience, I have no fucking clue what the best way to value currency is. If I vote on an issue regarding it, I'm likely to need to refer to an expert. When you have a massive group of people that are not experts in an issue they're voting on, you generally have some figure heads pop up to debate the issue and people choose sides. The real issue is obfuscated, people are lied to and manipulated to vote in the way that might not best benefit them but does benefit the handful of people the figureheads are representing.

I have zero faith in mankind to be able to vote both intelligently and in a fashion that doesn't put themselves over their neighbor. Voting doesn't change the max level of corruption and moreover just allows for periodic refresh in case things get way too corrupt past a threshold... and only if the oppressed can form a majority.

[MarcusAurelius]

It's a common critique of ParEcon that people are involved in too many meetings.

Which I think has a serious potential to evolve into the current ills of society, especially in a large connected manner.

From my personal experience, I have no fucking clue what the best way to value currency is. If I vote on an issue regarding it, I'm likely to need to refer to an expert. When you have a massive group of people that are not experts in an issue they're voting on, you generally have some figure heads pop up to debate the issue and people choose sides. The real issue is obfuscated, people are lied to and manipulated to vote in the way that might not best benefit them but does benefit the handful of people the figureheads are representing.

I have zero faith in mankind to be able to vote both intelligently and in a fashion that doesn't put themselves over their neighbor. Voting doesn't change the max level of corruption and moreover just allows for periodic refresh in case things get way too corrupt past a threshold... and only if the oppressed can form a majority.

i already said

two party system

[Epaminondas]

it's easy to get rid of currency when you have no coherent government to force it's acceptance. the dollars in my pocket have zero intrinsic value. don't act like trading goods instead of paper bills is some amazing success story. fallout3 was stupid for letting you buy water for bottle caps.

It's true that they don't have "intrinsic" value, but it's the shared belief that currency can be exchanged for something with intrinsic value at a later date that gives it value. That belief CAN come from government force, but to claim it MUST (rather than say, organically produced common convention) needs a little more argumentation.

Can you tell me of any society that managed to use intrinsically valueless currency without a government enforcer? Even the US used to have a gold standard, which, while not necessarily valuable to a common man, still has the "it's shiny and rare" aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_real

[Reagraham Lincool]

two party system

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

Thanks, that's very helpful.

see, nothing about our government's history forced a two party system.

Not true at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

Also, representative democracy and direct democracy aren't really the same thing. Pointing out a history of shitty factions under a system where monyied interests have a severe impact and an interest in controlling the outcomes of elections (because they have even more of an impact than votes on individual issues) doesn't really make sense as an argument against direct democratic control (constrained to a justifiable scope).

[Reagraham Lincool]

I've got to go see the doctor. I'll be back later or tomorrow. This was actually pretty tolerable.

[MarcusAurelius]

Pointing out a history of shitty factions under a system where monyied interests have a severe impact and an interest in controlling the outcomes of elections (because they have even more of an impact than votes on individual issues) doesn't really make sense as an argument against direct democratic control (constrained to a justifiable scope).

What about parecon would prevent moneyed interests from having such massive impacts?

[Epaminondas]

the fact that currency is non-transferable in a parecon system. you get credits that only you can use at the parecon store.

[Santa]

I've got to go see the doctor. I'll be back later or tomorrow. This was actually pretty tolerable.

I hope he accepts chicken fucking in lieu of cash.

[Santa]

the fact that currency is non-transferable in a parecon system. you get credits that only you can use at the parecon store.

ParEcon - Caveman Capitalism.

[MarcusAurelius]

I've got to go see the doctor. I'll be back later or tomorrow. This was actually pretty tolerable.

I hope he accepts chicken fucking in lieu of cash.

well if he doesn't, the other patients will just vote on it so he accepts chicken fucking

[Santa]

You know what sucks?

States that only have booze at government run stores.

[Santa]

MA, we'd have to be in the same ParEcon cell so our higher production capability could be offloaded for improved booze credits.

[Santa]

PARECON BUDDIES

[Santa]

11 boozers, 9 non boozers.

That way our booze budget from 20 gets split among 11.

[Jobu]

I've browsed through the posts and while I admit I don't fully understand the whole concept, I am cynical of any group-based leadership simply because human nature will reshape the group and those with strong leadership capabilities will over time make the majority of the decisions. This is why in the workforce there are project managers and general contractors in the workplace and committee chairs in politics.

It seems this approach to removing hierarchy is misguided in my opinion. Minority leadership isn't bad, bad leadership is bad. The goal is always have your leader accountable to the greater group and the group's responsibility is to collectively produce input for the leader and remove him/her if their collective goals are not met.

[Gretyl]

I agree that worker management should move away from power hierarchies

how is shifting power from an employer/boss to democratic decision a move away from an hierarchy? tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. or does every worker get veto rights?

I'm not sure democratic governance is superior to employer/boss, I just think there has to be a better way besides wasting so many people on constructing (what is legitimized as) corporate nervous systems

[Gretyl]

It's the ideology->platform transition that leads me to criticize ParEcon for being intellectual masturbation. I agree that worker management should move away from power hierarchies if we have proven alternative models. I don't see speculative models that are "shovel-ready", but I will admit I am not looking very hard to find them.

What proof would you accept? If I give you Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War or Ukraine under the Russian Civil War, do those not count as a proof-of-concept for at least the viability of such models?

What I've heard about Catalonia sounds good as far as that goes (only in passing, I can't say much beyond: a lasting experiment in anarchist autonomy). Contemporary thinking has evolved from there to... what? What lessons can be learned or reapplied from those cases? I agree with lots of the moral argumentation involved here, but that doesn't mean I'm all rarrin' to realign my politics.

Furthermore, your desire to avoid "speculative" models in the first place speaks volumes.

I am a finite being. Being epistemically distant from you is not a crime if I'm willing to learn. I'm curious about speculative models and haven't heard of (m)any. That is not the same as saying I seek to avoid speculative models.

Capitalism (at least of the type advocated by our favorite internet-libertarians) is just as "speculative." And it's no defense to use the form of state-capitalism that represents the status quo. The status quo is built on multiple untenable assumptions (the world being an infinite resource and infinite garbage can being two of the major ones).

Agreed.

[Gretyl]

It would if 11/20 of the voters banded together and created some arbitrary rule to fuck the other 9.

Pretty sure that's how people work.

This thread is not your guild chat.

[Gretyl]

[redacted for posting elsewhere]

[Gretyl]

You should probably just frontload the conversation with letting us know how little you care about our opinions and how we're all just fucking morons.

Or you could engage with sincerity to rein in some of the less civil offenders. Just saying.

[Gretyl]

What happens when the majority vote in capitalism because the fat neckbeard is too busy surfing porn and not doing his share of work?

what happens when any political system fails? you build a new one, hopefully superior

[Santa]

(with a healthy dash of super-cool-guy-cynicism thrown in)

reminds me of that guy who thought he was the most rational person on this board

THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR TAKING JABS PLEASE TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE

[Gretyl]

Unlike most of you, Gretyl's not an idiot.

I plan to refute this, but not here in the thread.

[Santa]

You should probably just frontload the conversation with letting us know how little you care about our opinions and how we're all just fucking morons.

Or you could engage with sincerity to rein in some of the less civil offenders. Just saying.

OH MAN YOU ARE GONNA LIKE THE REST OF THIS THREAD. MIGHT WANT TO READ TO THE END BEFORE POSTING NEXT TIME

[Gretyl]

is lack of money a necessary component of these systems?

I'm assuming that by "lack of money" you mean "lack of currency" and not "poverty."

It's not necessary, but it's certainly a tendency among the more hardcore anarcho-communist proposals (i.e. gift-economies). IIRC, getting rid of currency was something they actually did in Catalonia.

gift economies intrigue me, but only if there's some way to route around scarcity wherever you want to apply those principles. potlatchers being the new hoarders & what-not

[Gretyl]

a natural result of democracy is the creation of voter blocs and all the negatives that come with them.

I think a few parliaments in Europe would dispute the natural-ness of that result.

[Gretyl]

i also don't like how such systems lack a mechanism for efficient allocation of scarce resources.

I am wary of capitalist economics for the lack of independence in its definitions of "efficient" and "scarce". I don't dispute economic theorems as real for the domain that they describe, but I want to learn alternative systems with a particular interest for how they share/distinguish these definitional foundations.

[Mr. Bloodthirsty]

a natural result of democracy is the creation of voter blocs and all the negatives that come with them.

I think a few parliaments in Europe would dispute the natural-ness of that result.

They may not be two party systems but for the most part European parliaments are still occupied by members of parties.

[MarcusAurelius]

11 boozers, 9 non boozers.

That way our booze budget from 20 gets split among 11.

hopefully we don't face any competition from other parecon cells when trying to acquire those 9 master brewers that are also nondrinkers. we might have to come up with a way to pay more for those highly valued individuals.

[Santa]

11 boozers, 9 non boozers.

That way our booze budget from 20 gets split among 11.

hopefully we don't face any competition from other parecon cells when trying to acquire those 9 master brewers that are also nondrinkers. we might have to come up with a way to pay more for those highly valued individuals.

Paying someone based on their skill and value, not on their need or participation level?

Hrmm.....

[MarcusAurelius]

a natural result of democracy is the creation of voter blocs and all the negatives that come with them.

I think a few parliaments in Europe would dispute the natural-ness of that result.

They may not be two party systems but for the most part European parliaments are still occupied by members of parties.

right, this. they still manage to band together and spend a fuckton of money with little to show for it.

[MarcusAurelius]

11 boozers, 9 non boozers.

That way our booze budget from 20 gets split among 11.

hopefully we don't face any competition from other parecon cells when trying to acquire those 9 master brewers that are also nondrinkers. we might have to come up with a way to pay more for those highly valued individuals.

Paying someone based on their skill and value, not on their need or participation level?

Hrmm.....

yeah i'm perplexed too. maybe we can give them more votes in exchange for their value?

[Santa]

In order for the drinkers and non drinkers to get equal representation, I feel we need a Senate where each side gets one voting electorate.

[MarcusAurelius]

yeah but it's not fair to align by views like that. to counter your senate i propose a group of representatives based on population size.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I've got to go see the doctor. I'll be back later or tomorrow. This was actually pretty tolerable.

And then, in my absence, it inevitably turned into shit. I should have known better.

[Pokaris]

I've got to go see the doctor. I'll be back later or tomorrow. This was actually pretty tolerable.

Good thing the hospital staff voted to swap the doctors and janitors yesterday, would have been a waste of time.

[MarcusAurelius]

I've got to go see the doctor. I'll be back later or tomorrow. This was actually pretty tolerable.

Good thing the hospital staff voted to swap the doctors and janitors yesterday, would have been a waste of time.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[Uncle Sherm]

What does the use of currency have to do with ParEcon? Currency is just a universal exchange medium.

[Reagraham Lincool]

What I've heard about Catalonia sounds good as far as that goes (only in passing, I can't say much beyond: a lasting experiment in anarchist autonomy). Contemporary thinking has evolved from there to... what? What lessons can be learned or reapplied from those cases? I agree with lots of the moral argumentation involved here, but that doesn't mean I'm all rarrin' to realign my politics.

Well the biggest lesson to learn from either of those is: don't let the Soviets roll over you with tanks. That it was the Soviets that crushed these (anarcho-)communist outposts shouldn't be surprising, but given the kind of propaganda we've been living with since WWII, it probably is (at least for some people reading this thread).

Regardless, how much self-defense is actually an issue really depends on the mode of adoption. People at the top of hierarchies typically don't like the message that hierarchies are bad so when (as happened in both of the examples I mentioned) like minded people used a moment of political turmoil as an opportunity to carve out a little island of freedom for themselves, it's not particularly surprising that there was armed conflict over the matter. Ultimately (given the nature of the political ideology), it may be impossible to attract the kind of power that self-defense under those conditions requires. That suggests something like a second-power strategy where new institutions are built up inside the shell of the existing framework until, hopefully through their efficacy and their superior ethical stance, they make the old institutions irrelevant and absurd. Now, that's a very very long term strategy which, as a prerequisite, requires at least spreading the understanding of the ethical model being used but that's basically where we are right now.

Furthermore, your desire to avoid "speculative" models in the first place speaks volumes.

I am a finite being. Being epistemically distant from you is not a crime if I'm willing to learn. I'm curious about speculative models and haven't heard of (m)any. That is not the same as saying I seek to avoid speculative models.

I'm not saying you avoid them intellectually. I'm saying you clearly seem to have a preference for not implementing them (hence "I agree that worker management should move away from power hierarchies if we have proven alternative models."). That preference assumes that the alternatives are "proven" but I don't think that (for any meaningful time-scales) that's actually the case, for the reasons you "Agreed." to.

[Reagraham Lincool]

I'm not trolling, you always accuse people of doing it because it's easier than debating. I'm interested in real life applications of this model. You accused FPM of trolling last time he brought up some bike company that tried to implement some parecon into their production system.

I accuse people of trolling because there's so many goddamn trolls here (and I'm sorry, but you have definitely been one of them). What you are doing is so riddled with faulty logic that honestly, I feel like I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you're not pointing these things out as part of a serious argument. If you want me to take you at face value, fine. Here we go:

If it's been tried then there's data to support your position. Did it work? What aspects worked? What failed?

1. Individual instances of balanced job complexes operating in a state-capitalist system is not a "real life application of this model." It's not even close.
2. All kinds of businesses fail all the time under the status quo. In fact, the vast majority of businesses, no matter management system they use, will fail. When you say "Did it work? What aspects worked? What failed?" the answer could very very well be "everything worked as well as could be expected under the circumstances." Now, as far as I understand your ideology, that is not an acceptable answer for ANY business under the status quo, but I happen to think that's nearly always the real answer (again, for almost ANY example of a business going under).

I agree with Gretyl that it would be much more useful to parse what is known rather than debate a completely speculative model

And that would be fine, if what was known wasn't being totally misapplied in a way that, frankly, strikes me as either dishonest or honestly illogical.

[Reagraham Lincool]

is lack of money a necessary component of these systems?

I'm assuming that by "lack of money" you mean "lack of currency" and not "poverty."

It's not necessary, but it's certainly a tendency among the more hardcore anarcho-communist proposals (i.e. gift-economies). IIRC, getting rid of currency was something they actually did in Catalonia.

gift economies intrigue me, but only if there's some way to route around scarcity wherever you want to apply those principles. potlatchers being the new hoarders & what-not

I'm not following exactly. Can you clarify?

[MarcusAurelius]

I'm not trolling, you always accuse people of doing it because it's easier than debating. I'm interested in real life applications of this model. You accused FPM of trolling last time he brought up some bike company that tried to implement some parecon into their production system.

I accuse people of trolling because there's so many goddamn trolls here (and I'm sorry, but you have definitely been one of them). What you are doing is so riddled with faulty logic that honestly, I feel like I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you're not pointing these things out as part of a serious argument. If you want me to take you at face value, fine. Here we go:

If it's been tried then there's data to support your position. Did it work? What aspects worked? What failed?

1. Individual instances of balanced job complexes operating in a state-capitalist system is not a "real life application of this model." It's not even close.
2. All kinds of businesses fail all the time under the status quo. In fact, the vast majority of businesses, no matter management system they use, will fail. When you say "Did it work? What aspects worked? What failed?" the answer could very very well be "everything worked as well as could be expected under the circumstances." Now, as far as I understand your ideology, that is not an acceptable answer for ANY business under the status quo, but I happen to think that's nearly always the real answer (again, for almost ANY example of a business going under).

I agree with Gretyl that it would be much more useful to parse what is known rather than debate a completely speculative model

And that would be fine, if what was known wasn't being totally misapplied in a way that, frankly, strikes me as either dishonest or honestly illogical.

wow, outstanding dodge! you start off by using tons of words to only vaguely imply that no, this has never been shown to work anywhere but that any example of it's failure will be met with the argument that the circumstances weren't appropriate, and then you culminate with an accusation of "dishonesty," your buzzword for 2009-2011.

[Reagraham Lincool]

the fact that currency is non-transferable in a parecon system. you get credits that only you can use at the parecon store.

Yeah, this is definitely one of the areas where I think the model goes off the rails. If it were implemented, I'm pretty sure this is first thing people would change. I don't see how you can have any mechanism to ensure this is the case that isn't (directly or indirectly) authoritarian. And frankly, it's one of the things that made me start looking at more basic anarchist models (gift-economies in particular).

This discussion is a little weird for me too, because I don't really believe in prescribed systems. There's no economy in the history of mankind where someone sat down ahead of time and said "This is it! This is what the economy will be." and then that's what happened. That's not really how this stuff works out. There's a set of values, then a social framework that enforces those values, and then the economy grows around that core. You can say "well that's risky because we don't know how things are going to work out" but that's no different than now (except that the status quo REALLY looks like it isn't going to work out well). We're still muddling our way through how much or little the state ought to be intervening to support this or that sector of the market. None of that shit comes from some divine mandate or a crystal ball that tells us the future. It's all just experimenting.

[Gretyl]

That's not really how this stuff works out. There's a set of values, then a social framework that enforces those values, and then the economy grows around that core. You can say "well that's risky because we don't know how things are going to work out" but that's no different than now (except that the status quo REALLY looks like it isn't going to work out well).

This mental model explains why you argue about this stuff the way you do, but I'm not sure it's comparable across economic systems. Capital-E Economists would say they were describing capitalist behavior as-observed before building higher level theories around it. I don't think they started with "fuck the poor, I own this land!"

[Gretyl]

gift economies intrigue me, but only if there's some way to route around scarcity wherever you want to apply those principles.

I'm not following exactly. Can you clarify?

Some resources (time, people, the matter inside our planet) are finite and therefore "scarce" to some degree no matter how you build your economy on top of them. The higher & more pressing the scarcity, the more dominant or at least convincing a system like our modern understanding of capitalism becomes. Insofar as it remains relevant to this thread's topic, how do gift economies handle those first two examples of natural scarcity?

[Reagraham Lincool]

That's not really how this stuff works out. There's a set of values, then a social framework that enforces those values, and then the economy grows around that core. You can say "well that's risky because we don't know how things are going to work out" but that's no different than now (except that the status quo REALLY looks like it isn't going to work out well).

This mental model explains why you argue about this stuff the way you do, but I'm not sure it's comparable across economic systems. Capital-E Economists would say they were describing capitalist behavior as-observed before building higher level theories around it. I don't think they started with "fuck the poor, I own this land!"

But that's just my point! Immediately after doing that, they go on to dismiss hypothetical systems that haven't had decades/centuries (depending on the observer we're talking about) of tweaking out of hand. Whether it's "weak incentives" or whatever hand-waving they choose to apply, they go from the dubious claim that they're reasonably accurately modeling a system already in place to the far more dubious claim that they know or even have a good idea that other models simply MUST be unworkable.

[Reagraham Lincool]

gift economies intrigue me, but only if there's some way to route around scarcity wherever you want to apply those principles.

I'm not following exactly. Can you clarify?

Some resources (time, people, the matter inside our planet) are finite and therefore "scarce" to some degree no matter how you build your economy on top of them. The higher & more pressing the scarcity, the more dominant or at least convincing a system like our modern understanding of capitalism becomes.

How so?

Insofar as it remains relevant to this thread's topic, how do gift economies handle those first two examples of natural scarcity?

Which topic?

Sorry I guess I'm still not understanding. Scarcity is handled by participants in the economy routing goods and services to the participants they think are the most in need (presumably with some weighting for things like merit).

[Uncle Sherm]

That's not really how this stuff works out. There's a set of values, then a social framework that enforces those values, and then the economy grows around that core. You can say "well that's risky because we don't know how things are going to work out" but that's no different than now (except that the status quo REALLY looks like it isn't going to work out well).

You've got it backwards. The economy, since the days of hunting and gathering for subsistance, are the values. The social framework (government) was built to protect those values. Sometimes it gets out of hand and imposes those values (feudalism and socialism), but those systems inevitably collapse because they are contrary to the original values that were established by basic human nature.

[GPCR]

Your understanding of what accounts for "human nature" is about as nuanced and reflective of reality as everything else you hold an opinion about.

[Santa]

You've got it backwards. The economy, since the days of hunting and gathering for subsistance, are the values. The social framework (government) was built to protect those values. Sometimes it gets out of hand and imposes those values (feudalism and socialism), but those systems inevitably collapse because they are contrary to the original values that were established by basic human nature.

Wrong. Basic human nature is primitive and our societies evolve faster than our instincts. You can't use that fact as a mechanism to justify any social system, only people's tendencies when not controlled by one.

[Gretyl]

The higher & more pressing the scarcity, the more dominant or at least convincing a system like our modern understanding of capitalism becomes.

How so?

Well, 'cuz capitalism has this funny yardstick called "efficiency"... (I think it's funny not in condescension to you, but due to my suspicions about its overlap with the whole capitalist intellectual foundation)

how do gift economies handle those first two examples of natural scarcity?

Sorry I guess I'm still not understanding. Scarcity is handled by participants in the economy routing goods and services to the participants they think are the most in need (presumably with some weighting for things like merit).[/quote]
It was my assumption that the rational introduction gift economies precluded (or required special accounting for) scarcity. Are you aware of any g-e (heh, GE) systems that provide non-pricing signals for need?

[Reagraham Lincool]

The higher & more pressing the scarcity, the more dominant or at least convincing a system like our modern understanding of capitalism becomes.

How so?

Well, 'cuz capitalism has this funny yardstick called "efficiency"... (I think it's funny not in condescension to you, but due to my suspicions about its overlap with the whole capitalist intellectual foundation)

Well that's the claim. I can make claims too. Contrary ones, even!

how do gift economies handle those first two examples of natural scarcity?

Sorry I guess I'm still not understanding. Scarcity is handled by participants in the economy routing goods and services to the participants they think are the most in need (presumably with some weighting for things like merit).

It was my assumption that the rational introduction gift economies precluded (or required special accounting for) scarcity. Are you aware of any g-e (heh, GE) systems that provide non-pricing signals for need?

Beyond the usual social ones? My guess is such systems would work roughly within the bounds of whatever network was established by the participants' monkey-sphere. There would probably also have to be some institutional modifications across various boundaries (geographic, social, etc) to try to address people that might otherwise be left out of such a system but presumably that would be a far far easier task than it is under the current economic setup (given the more even distribution, generally). My view is that the core values of solidarity and mutual aid such a society would inculcate would make these sorts of arrangements occur almost automatically.

[Uncle Sherm]

You've got it backwards. The economy, since the days of hunting and gathering for subsistance, are the values. The social framework (government) was built to protect those values. Sometimes it gets out of hand and imposes those values (feudalism and socialism), but those systems inevitably collapse because they are contrary to the original values that were established by basic human nature.

Wrong. Basic human nature is primitive and our societies evolve faster than our instincts. You can't use that fact as a mechanism to justify any social system, only people's tendencies when not controlled by one.

I'm talking about economics here. Economics didn't spring up around social structures put in place by society. Social structures were put in place by society to protect the economic system that already existed.

An example...Ug the Caveman had a surplus of Brontosaurus steaks, and needed a woman to keep him company in the winter. His neighbor ladies had vaginas and needed food. They worked out a deal where they would lease their vaginas for food, shelter, and protection. A social structure was created. Once his harem started producing offspring, it was learned that he'd need more food to keep them alive. Ug offered a share in his vagina monopoly to hunters that would help him get food, and they formed a tribe. Another social structure was created. After overhunting Brontosauruses, food became scarce and they needed another place to go find food. Who gets to decide where to go? After some deliberation that likely included a demonstration of clubbing skills and some reasonable debate over who was most important in the tribe, yet another social structure was created, called government. So there you go. Social structures sprung from economics, not the other way around.

[Pesto]

Dude, you'd be better off sticking to using Little House on the Prairie for your economic arguments.

[MarcusAurelius]

Dude, you'd be better off sticking to using Little House on the Prairie for your economic arguments.

only liberal flamers would object to sherm's characterization of civilization.

[Uncle Sherm]

It was obviously oversimplified, but I didn't really want to start an anthropological discourse here. Fundementally, though, we had economic systems before we had social structures. Even dogs have an economic system (fighting over scarce food is an economic system). Our social structures were born of the supply/demand dichotomy, not the other way around.

[MarcusAurelius]

well i know that, you know that, and even gpcr knows that.

[Uncle Sherm]

Why didn't RL get the memo?

[MarcusAurelius]

well there's something to be said for aspiring to be a better society than our caveman genetics, environment, and raw force of billions of years of evolution would dictate.

the plight of modern males in a civilized first world society that actively opposes nearly all base instincts is a fascinating discussion. more interesting than talking about dave's pot-addled fantasies, anyway.

[Uncle Sherm]

We are a better society, largely because of the social structures we have built. In terms of economics, however, our needs are unchanged and the structures in place to meet and protect those needs should remain unchanged as well.

They were created by society free will, and they should remain in existence by society's free will. When some ass clown comes along and declares his way to be superior to the time tested ways of everyone else's, he and his followers should be expected to start his own society and prove it. Every attempt has failed.

[MarcusAurelius]

They were created by society free will,

nah, that's silly and inconsistent with your previous statement. those civil laws were created by the powerful guy with the pussy farm, not society at large.

When some ass clown comes along and declares his way to be superior to the time tested ways of everyone else's, he and his followers should be expected to start his own society and prove it. Every attempt has failed.

unfortunately all those assclowns tend to be complete pussies incapable of leading under any kind of duress thanks to their wholesale rejection of the reality of humanity.

[Santa]

We are a better society, largely because of the social structures we have built. In terms of economics, however, our needs are unchanged and the structures in place to meet and protect those needs should remain unchanged as well.

They were created by society free will, and they should remain in existence by society's free will. When some ass clown comes along and declares his way to be superior to the time tested ways of everyone else's, he and his followers should be expected to start his own society and prove it. Every attempt has failed.

You just debunked religion. Good job.

Still doesn't apply to incremental improvements to society.

[Gretyl]

It was my assumption that the rational introduction [of] gift economies precluded (or required special accounting for) scarcity. Are you aware of any g-e (heh, GE) systems that provide non-pricing signals for need?

Beyond the usual social ones? My guess is such systems would work roughly within the bounds of whatever network was established by the participants' monkey-sphere.

Fair enough, but the Hobbesian gamer in me wants a system that at least attempts to balance/isolate selfish or competitive behavior of its agents.

[Reagraham Lincool]

It was my assumption that the rational introduction [of] gift economies precluded (or required special accounting for) scarcity. Are you aware of any g-e (heh, GE) systems that provide non-pricing signals for need?

Beyond the usual social ones? My guess is such systems would work roughly within the bounds of whatever network was established by the participants' monkey-sphere.

Fair enough, but the Hobbesian gamer in me wants a system that at least attempts to balance/isolate selfish or competitive behavior of its agents.

I don't understand this complaint. Exclusion of selfish agents from the economy is what this is best at doing.