Christianity

[promethean75]

Why is there no capitals without italics option?

[Immanuel Can]

I have promised to watch them all.

A promise is nothing. Call me when you're done.

ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!

You're absolutely right! I have absolutely no feeling of "shame" about that. Nor should I. And we both know it.

You have the information. You've even promised to view it, as you note above.

And yet, the abiding fact is that you have not.

So if there's any "shame" to be had,...

[henry quirk]

harbal: "What if he refuses to take responsibility?"

Murderers, rapists, slavers, and thieves rarely take responsibility. I reckon, like me, you'd them them rightfully responsible (even though you say morality is a construct, you live and act as though it were fact).

So: what happens 'today' when someone is suspected of murder, rape, theft, or holdn' someone without consent or justification (slavery)? Even if they deny thrice and swear on their ma's undies 'I didn't do it!', what 'mechanisms' come into play?

"I think you are totally wrong, but I respect your natural right to be mistaken."

Likewise, I'm sure.

"neither personhood nor rights are recognised by nature or the universe."

Well, I don't recall sayin' either did or does.

"I agree that we feel we have a right to our life, property and freedom, and we usually behave as if we do"

No, we, each of us, 'always' do. No one ever has lived his life as though his life, liberty, and property were not his. As I say: it's damn peculiar in this world with all it's competing philosophies, ideologies, religions, social constructs, cultures, prejudices, etc., the one thing all men have in common is the coherent, never wavering, intuition of havin' the singular claim to our own lives, liberties, and properties.

[Harbal]

harbal: "What if he refuses to take responsibility?"

Murderers, rapists, slavers, and thieves rarely take responsibility. I reckon, like me, you'd them them rightfully responsible (even though you say morality is a construct, you live and act as though it were fact).

So: what happens 'today' when someone is suspected of murder, rape, theft, or holdn' someone without consent or justification (slavery)? Even if they deny thrice and swear on their ma's undies 'I didn't do it!', what 'mechanisms' come into play?

"I think you are totally wrong, but I respect your natural right to be mistaken."

Likewise, I'm sure.

"neither personhood nor rights are recognised by nature or the universe."

Well, I don't recall sayin' either did or does.

Thanks, henry, I knew you'd come round in the end.

[iambiguous]

Reasons to Abandon Christianity
Chaz Bufe

Christianity is extremely egocentric.

The deep egocentrism of Christianity is intimately tied to its reliance on fear. In addition to the fears of the devil and hell, Christianity plays on another of humankind's most basic fears: death, the dissolution of the individual ego. Perhaps Christianity's strongest appeal is its promise of eternal life. While there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, most people are so terrified of death that they cling to this treacly promise insisting, like frightened children, that it must be true. Nietzsche put the matter well: "salvation of the soul—in plain words, the world revolves around me." It's difficult to see anything spiritual in this desperate grasping at straws—this desperate grasping at the illusion of personal immortality.

Yes, the grim reality that death = oblivion would seem to be by far the reason most men and women invent Gods and religions. And that is because short of Gods and religions there is no evidence [that I am aware of] that death is not The End. And while some like Jim Morrison and countless suicides may see death as a "beautiful friend", most of us are instead rather terrified of it.

In fact, one suspects, even most Christians are.

Still, when I connote Christianity with egocentric "me, myself and I" selfishness, I go back to the Reformation and capitalism. That's when the focus began to shift from a spiritual "other worldly" salvation to a "this world" material agenda. Capitalism is all about acquiring the "good life" here and now. And since it revolves around competition that often pits us against each other to come out on top.

You can see this all play out in the reality TV program Big Brother. It's the only program of this sort that I have ever watched. It's just a fascinating glimpse into the reality of pop culture and capitalism. And every season there are almost always a few of the contestants who are Christians.

For those unfamiliar with it...

A bunch of men and women -- mostly young and attractive of course -- get together in a house and compete for the grand prize...750,000 dollars. Each week they vote someone out. At the same time however they often form these really close relationships, friendships. Some even become lovers. But: in order to win the money, they basically have to continually lie to and to deceive each other...stab each other in the back over and over again. Why? Because in the end it is always about the money!!

Indeed, that's why as well there are so many preachers -- con artists? -- around arguing that, in fact, the accumulation of wealth is an actual sign that God looks down upon you with favor.

As for this part...

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"

...well, tune into the ones still around --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... vangelists -- and get back to us.

[Gary Childress]

Gary: "Why do you think that change was made?"

Hell if I know.

"Was the early draft right and the final draft a mistake?"

The early draft was preferable to the later.

"Here's my take on the documents: Does all that make sense to you?"

It's fine, as far legalisms go.

Personally, I prefer the Articles of Confederation.

And, if I truly had my way, this...

*A Charter

I-A man belongs to himself.

II-A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

III-A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

-

To defend, and offer redress of violations of, life, liberty, and property, the following safeguards are recommended...

I-a local constabulary

II-a local court of last resort

III-a border patrol

IIII-militia

Establishing any or all of these safeguards, or variations of these safeguards, is at the discretion of individual communities, however: as citizens are the final safeguard it is strongly recommended no other safeguard be established without the oversight of militia.

...would be the 'constitution' I choose.

*that's a remnant from my days as a minarchist, not so long ago

Well, we live in the US under the final drafts that were chosen, not under what we personally wish were chosen.

"Property", though it can be important in some circumstances is not the be all and end all in life. It's a means to whatever happiness it is able to bring. It is of 'instrumental' value, not intrinsic value.

Think about this, Henry: if a single individual or group of individuals were incredibly successful to the point where they bought most all the property in America, politicians and everyone else would be at their mercy. Is that the kind of "property rights" you would like to live under--limited only by whatever individuals can successfully aquire through market forces and using them to their advantage?

I think property could maybe be a secondary right or something, after some of the more critical ones are observed (such as those mentioned in the Declaration) but I wouldn't leave it too vague.

[henry quirk]

Gary: "As far as a right to "property"... that one is much more complex and I don't see how it can be codified appropriately, though, perhaps it can."

I don't the problem. Can you elaborate?

[iambiguous]

A promise is nothing. Call me when you're done.

ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!

You're absolutely right! I have absolutely no feeling of "shame" about that. Nor should I. And we both know it.

You have the information. You've even promised to view it, as you note above.

And yet, the abiding fact is that you have not.

So if there's any "shame" to be had,...

Note to others:

Entertainment aside, what are we to make of this?

Does he really believe any if this? Even he picked...

ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS!


...above.

How is my offer to watch each of the videos one by one providing we discuss them one by one not a reasonable proposition?

In the end, it results in what he keeps demanding of me: that I watch them all. I will watch them all. But watching them one by one and discussing them one by one seems to be the best way to go about it. Rather than attempting to sum up all of the videos in one post.

Also, why does he continue to avoid reacting to my assessment of the "meaning" video? Why won't he address the fact that even though he claims these videos will demonstrate the existence of the Christian God beyond a leap of faith the Christian Lady herself in this video flat-out admits her arguments to the atheist do not prove this?!!

Henry, let's start with you.

[henry quirk]

harbal: "Thanks, henry, I knew you'd come round in the end."

[henry quirk]

Gary: "Well, we live in the US under the final drafts that were chosen, not under what we personally wish were chosen."

Well, we live 'with', are burdened 'by' the final draft. Not quite the same livin' 'under'. So, anyway, why'd you ask which I thought was the better draft if you were just gonna dismiss my response?

""Property", though it can be important in some circumstances is not the be all and end all in life. It's a means to whatever happiness it is able to bring. It is of 'instrumental' value, not intrinsic value."

What's your first, best property, Gary?

"if a single individual or group of individuals were incredibly successful to the point where they bought most all the property in America, politicians and everyone else would be at their mercy."

This presupposes everyone would sell. They generally don't, which why 'eminent domain' came to be.

[Gary Childress]

Gary: "As far as a right to "property"... that one is much more complex and I don't see how it can be codified appropriately, though, perhaps it can."

I don't the problem. Can you elaborate?

Well, we essentially left behind feudalism so that we wouldn't be servants to masters. No one wants a master, at least not one they can't trust. What Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Smith and others were trying to work out when the industrial age started was how to make people freer and masters of themselves. Though the industrial age was able to create excess wealth to the point where some could accumulate incredibly more than others, that wealth can be accumulated by some to administer what amount to private fiefdoms--huge economic entities that serve the interests of a select few who own and run them.

Therefore, in order to have a right to property some sort of limits would need to be stipulated so that some don't take over the reigns of society by virtue of owning the most property.

[Gary Childress]

Gary: "Well, we live in the US under the final drafts that were chosen, not under what we personally wish were chosen."

Well, we live 'with', are burdened 'by' the final draft. Not quite the same livin' 'under'. So, anyway, why'd you ask which I thought was the better draft if you were just gonna dismiss my response?

""Property", though it can be important in some circumstances is not the be all and end all in life. It's a means to whatever happiness it is able to bring. It is of 'instrumental' value, not intrinsic value."

What's your first, best property, Gary?

"if a single individual or group of individuals were incredibly successful to the point where they bought most all the property in America, politicians and everyone else would be at their mercy."

This presupposes everyone would sell. They generally don't, which why 'eminent domain' came to be.

Ah Henry, I don't "own" myself no more than I don't "own" myself. I am a moral actor in society among others in society. How does one "own" themselves? To "own" is to have usage rights to something outside of ourselves. I don't "use" myself, I use tools or orher things, but using myself or others would be unethical toward the person I "use". Of course, I can do what I wish. Liberty covers that, but I cannot be free from the consequences of what I do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Too funny, I have to say. And horribly transparent. Why not just give up the ad homs, and deal with the subjects we were actually discussing? For even if you prove me to be Adolph Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ghengis Khan all rolled into one, that says NOTHING about whether or not a particular claim I made was true or false.

(I am going to switch to the third-person mode of address because of the impersonal distance it provides and which I feel is necessary.)

The key to understanding Immanuel Can as a religious fundamentalist, as a religious fanatic, and as I zealot, is discovered in the part I bolded.

He actually, truly and sincerely believes that all the elements that Will Bouwman outlined -- God creating two people, dropping them in a garden, a tree with the forbidden fruit, the snake, the exile, and all of our troubles arising from these disobedient actions, as well as Noah constructing a giant zoo and floating it over the flood, and all the mythological stories we are aware are stories that IC takes to be real, historical events! He suffers under the delusion that, someone, somehow, might be able to *prove* these things. And in order to enter into a conversation with IC you have to act as if to believe these things is not sheer nuttery.

This is what religious fundamentalism does to the mind. This is what zealotry does to one's perception. And this is what describes a person who is caught up in religious fanaticism. They "must" believe certain things and if one piece of it is seen as false there is a risk that the entire belief-system will collapse. So the core pillars must be upheld.

The terms I use -- fundamentalist, zealot and fanatic -- are fair and honest terms to label a man who is caught in their grip. In order to understand Immanuel Can one must understand this very basic thing about him.

Once the proper and fair terms are assigned, then one can talk about the *issue* which is religious fundamentalism, its existence, what it is, why it endures, and what function it serves.

[henry quirk]

Gary: "Therefore, in order to have a right to property some sort of limits would need to be stipulated so that some don't take over the reigns of society by virtue of owning the most property."

The only reason you have the uber-rich is becuz they bought legislation. Take away the State and there can be no uber-property owners.

Here's sumthin' I posted a while back...

By definition: Capitalism is only about 'capital', so it's natural for the Capitalist to see himself protected by the Big Stick, hence he works to see regs minimized on himself and maximized on his competition. The Capitalist always has an eye open for bringing every penny into 'his' coffers (not his competitor's and sure as shit not his customer's or employee's). Capitalism is an exercise that promotes intrusive, irresponsible, playin' the favorites, muckin' with the culture, rule by the powerful.

By definition: Free Enterprse is only about the trading individual as he transacts with other trading individuals. The Big Stick is excluded ('cept mebbee as final arbiter of dispute) so it's natural for the Free Enterpriser to be cautious and moderate (he has no safety net to catch him or teat to nourish in bad times). 'Too big to fail' is alien to the Free Enterpriser cuz the reality of failure looms (the wolf is always at the door). Free Enterprise promotes less intrusive, responsible, largely silent, neutral, proxy-hood.

*

In my case: while defintions and whatnot come from dictionaries and whatnot, my experience of the difference between Free Enterprise and Capitalism is first hand.

As I say: I self-employ, and I do so in a gray area sphere (information). I find it, convey it, wash my hands of it. What I do is largely unregulated ('cept by 'legit' private investigators who are always lookin' to call down the fire on someone they think is takin' their business). Mine is truly a 'free' enterprise. I have no formal regulators to oversee me, no safety net, no teat. If I don't work, or if I work but fail, there's no line for me to stand in to get a check. If I'm screwed over by a client, the current iteration of the courts is of little use to me.

Having worked 9 to 5, with all the benefits and all the strictures, serving multiple overseers, ain't no way in Heaven or Hell I'd ever give up the autonomy I have now for the 'security' I had then.

As I reckon things: Free Enterprise, with all it's dangers and neck-breakin', life-wreckin' possibilities, is superior to State Capitalism with it's abattoir-like confinements and 'regulations'. Only thing State Capitalism is better than is State Socialism (and not by much).

Free enterprise, for the record, is synonomous with 'free (open, unregulated) market' (something Capitalists discourage [which makes them different from commies how?]).

*

Bonus Material (included cuz I like it)

It was said [by someone, I don't recall who]...

"Yeah, this is why I've evolved into more of a pragmatist. To become such an individualist that you oppose government assisting in the liberation of others makes no sense to me. Government exists, if you want good governance you have to engage with it. Libertarianism has become a way to convince people not to engage with their government assuring government which does not represent their interests."

My translation...

Yeah, this is why I've evolved into a slave. To be a free man and oppose being turned into a resource for others makes me scared. Governors exist. And, since we all want to be on the governors' good side we should do as told. Libertarianism is 'bad' because it reminds people the governors are employees and governors don't like that. Libertarianism is 'wrong' because it highlghts the natural tension between those who govern and those governed, a tension governors very much want to eliminate so as to better 'govern' (rule).

...summed up as...

I've accepted my lot, which is to be bent over. Libertarians, with all their shennanigans, endanger my lube supply.

-----

a state capitalism (what 'murica has right now) encourages accumulation of wealth in increasingly fewer hands...it's a means by which wealthy folks can buy a measure of favor and insulation from the gov in the form of legislation...it's a less than stellar choice of an economy for free men

though imperfect, it's an open system: anyone can climb the ladder...anyone, at anytime...if bein' rich is your goal, there's no damn reason you can't be...it will not be easy...you'll forsake many comforts and pleasures...it is what it is

*

a state communism (what so many want 'murica to embrace, and which includes all the subsets [social democracy, socialism, etc.]) promises a chicken in every pot (one scrawny bird, one rusty pot), and a roof over every head (a tar paper roof over submissive [or bloody] heads)...you'll have equality (with the lowest among you), safety (eyes & ears, watchin', listenin'; jackboots to stomp wrong-doers (be careful that ain't you), and a central committee to benevolently oversee you (and keep you in line)

it's a closed system...advancement comes only as your value in keepin' the machine runnin' is proven...your wants, your needs, your goals, your dreams: sorry, brother, there is no your, there's only our, so drop the y, reject the I, and embrace the party (the one, the only)

*

your salvation, should you choose to pursue it, is not to be found in the state capitalism (by far, not the worst thing to saddle yourself with) or the state communism (a pretty damn awful thing by any measure)...no, only free enterprise can save you, and that means self-employin'...no man is meant to work in perpetuity for another...the apprentice becomes a master, the student becomes the teacher, the child becomes a parent

I'm sub-normal yet I successfully self-employ: me and mine have shelter (actual slate shingles), food (all kinds of good eatin'), safety (we're a gun-ownin' family), and various comforts & pleasures...most important: we're free

if I can do it: there's no reason any of you ought to be on the dole or workin' the 9 to 5

best thing of all: free enterprise works everywhere, all the time...even in the midst of a well-established state communism (what do you think gray & black markets are?)

so: stop bellyachin' and get to work.

-----

And this, from my 'article of the day' thread (severely in need of up-datin')...

Barter Trade, Not Capitalism

ARE ANARCHISTS PRO OR ANTI capitalism? Many anarchists dogmatically claim an anarchist cannot be pro capitalism simply because capitalism is oppressive--and anarchism is based on socialist ideals. The anarchist society necessarily needs to be “free from capitalist oppression.” Other anarchists claim an anarchist society, based solely on voluntary action of free people (individually or collectively) cannot be anything but capitalist. There seems to be an unbridgeable gap here.

As anarchists often and correctly note, barter trade is inoffensive and it is ethical. Someone believing in natural rights (or any other kind of rights too) would say barter trade does not violate rights and is thus ethical. Some simply state that since barter trade is in full voluntary and does not include any kind of coercive measures it is ethical and just. This is a fully anarchist point of view, all anarchists should be able to support this.

Now, why is barter trade not the same as a market? Imagine two people, let’s say a baker and a fisherman, get together every now and then to voluntarily exchange things. The baker obviously values fish higher than the bread he needs to give up to get it, and the fisherman obviously values the bread higher than the fish he “pays” for it. It is very simple, if either one of them would believe it was not just--and that they were not better (or as good) off as before--they would not voluntarily agree to the exchange. This is how many libertarian or anarcho-capitalist anarchists define the market--voluntary exchanges for one’s own benefit, which means every exchange is for all partaking actors’ benefit.

Imagine there are more people in this society, for instance a wagon maker. Now, this is going to get troublesome since one wagon takes a lot of time and skill to produce, and the wagon maker cannot produce more than a few wagons each year. And, since the baker and fisherman know they cannot make a wagon unless not baking or fishing for a long while, they will agree to exchange a large quantity of bread or fish for a wagon (if they need it). Of course, working for a couple of months making a wagon, and then getting perhaps one thousand loaves of bread or many hundreds of fish is not an attractive exchange. Bread gets bad after a while, and fish will rot. Also, the wagon maker needs something to eat while making the wagon he is about to sell.

It is the same the other way around too: bread and fish will go bad as the baker or fisherman is trying to save enough bread or fish to buy a wagon. So the wagon-maker would have a wagon which he wishes to exchange for fish or bread, and the baker and fisherman would have their bread and fish while being interested in trading it for a wagon. But the exchange would never happen, since bread and fish easily goes bad when saved. So what would happen in this little society?

It is obvious the three people would come to an agreement since it is in their mutual interest to make this exchange. Maybe they agree on paying the wagon maker a couple of loaves of bread or some fish every day for a couple of months, and will in return get the wagon when it is finished. This means they have avoided the problem with bread or fish getting bad, and they all benefit from this scheme since nobody needs to keep a lot of bread/fish while awaiting the right quantity. There is nothing wrong with this, right? They are still into barter trade, but have agreed on paying for the thing of greater value in smaller portions. With this solution, they have through voluntary action invented the contract, since they have an agreement for exchange even thought the exchange is not immediate. The agreement therefore causes an ongoing interdependence throughout the time of the contract, but it is still barter and it is still 100 % voluntary.

Also, they have invented a financial instrument since there is value in the contract. The value arises simply because the baker and fisherman offer their products before they get anything in return (which is the basis for this contract), and will as time goes by have a bigger claim to the property (wagon) of the wagon maker. And, of course, the wagon maker will be in debt as the baker and fisherman pays him bread and fish while he has not yet given them anything. The difference is the current value of the contract, since--in this case--the baker and fisherman relies on the contract to get value in the future.

It is still barter, so there is no conflict and it is not offensive; it is still as ethical as we agree barter is. We are still relying totally on voluntary exchange for the mutual benefit of whomever is involved (in this case: the baker, the fisherman, and the wagon maker).

Now, maybe there is a storm and the fisherman’s boat is thrown ashore and sinks to the bottom of the sea. The fisherman cannot get any more fish (or he cannot get the quantity he expected) and would need to get a new boat. According to the contract he will have to continue paying a number of fish every day to the wagon maker even though the wagon maker in real terms is in debt to the fisherman. What can he do?

He can of course go to the wagon maker and ask him to release him from his obligation stated in the contract through cancelling it. Maybe the wagon maker will agree to this, but it would mean he has to pay the fisherman back the number of fish he has already paid. But the wagon maker has probably already started working on the fisherman’s wagon, which means he has really “paid” a part of the value of the contract even though it is not yet realized for the fisherman. Maybe he cannot afford to let the fisherman get his fish back because he ate them all and cannot trade for new ones. Now we have a problem.

Either the wagon maker could give the fisherman whatever he has achieved in making the wagon, perhaps a wheel and a blueprint (which are not really of value to the fisherman, who cannot continue the work), or he can simply demand the fisherman continues giving him fish as was already agreed. Or, he could offer to make yet another agreement saying perhaps that the contract is off and that the fisherman will have a few fish back, but that he will keep 10 fish because he now cannot get food the following days. Since he expected to get fish every day while working on the wagon he now demands some of his costs are covered by the fisherman--this is not hard to imagine.

As we can see, the contract is here a financial instrument since there is value in the expected completion of whatever is stated in the contract. The agreement in itself means a promise to make a future payment, thus the contract is simply an agreement to make such an exchange as we have covered above--but it is not immediate.

The contract is to some extent also to be considered as speculation, since the fisherman promises to give the wagon maker a number of fish every day--but while signing the contract he does not have the fish. He simply expects to have the fish when he is supposed to deliver it to the wagon maker. He believes he will be able to catch fish every day to give to the wagon maker, so he takes this chance. But there is, as we can see, a certain amount of risk involved.

The wagon maker and the fisherman most likely think this is quite troublesome, exchanging fish for wagons. The difference in value is too great, thereby causing a lot of problems. Of course, the value they identify in fish and wagons is totally subject to their wants and desires. There is no real (or rather: objective) value in the wagon nor in the fish. To the wagon maker the wagon is worth approximately the time and effort it takes him to produce the wagon, to the fisherman the wagon is worth as much as it lightens his burden or what he expects to gain in whatever he would like to use it for. The same is true with the fish: the fisherman values the fish to the time and effort he puts in catching the fish, while the wagon maker values the fish according to his needs or desires.

The values of the things is thus not objective, it is subjective and individual. What happens when these two people get together to exchange a wagon for a number of fish is the establishment of market value of both the fish and the wagon. The market value in this case is simply whatever is agreed between seller and buyer, e.g. a wagon is worth 1,000 fish and a fish is worth 1/1,000 wagon. There is nothing strange about this, it is simply a voluntary agreement to exchange products and the values of the products are established by the parties involved in the exchange.

Since the wagon maker also makes a deal with the baker, there is also a market value of bread (relative to wagons) established. Perhaps the wagon is sold for 1,500 loaves of bread (the value of one wagon) meaning the bread is valued to 1/1,500 wagon. So we have established the market value of wagons, fish and bread. This does not mean the value is always the same, the market value is set only for the instance in which the single agreement is made. In this instance fish seems to have the value of 1.5 loaves of bread, but we do not know this until the baker and fisherman agree to exchange their products. (Simple Austrian economics, very rational and very intelligible.) The so-called “market value” the State uses for taxation and the multitude of government programs with subsidies or whatever is simply a scam.

Competition
The same is true if there are multiple actors in the marketplace (the market is simply the abstraction of all voluntary exchanges). If there are 1,000 bakers, 1,000 fisherman, and 1,000 wagon makers the market value is set in exactly the same way--in each individual transaction or exchange. But what is now added is the choice of whom to make the exchange with. If there are two fishermen in our example the value of fish would probably be lower since there are more fish available in exchange for roughly the same number of loaves of bread or wagons. Competition is introduced, which in this example increases the volume of fish available in exchange for bread or wagons.

This does not mean the fishermen will do anything to get as many fish as possible in order to buy all wagons and bread on the market. No, every exchange is still the result of voluntary action from both the “seller” and the “buyer,” thus the baker will exchange his bread for fish with the fisherman of his choice. Of course, the number of fish he can get is an important factor, but so is how the baker feels about the fisherman and his products, trust, friendship, politeness etc. Maybe the baker prefers fish caught using float and not nets, or he wishes the fish to be killed painlessly and treated in a good way, or he feels sorry for a poorer fisherman, or whatever. All these factors are of course important, since the choice to trade bread is only the baker’s.

As a matter of fact, since the baker has the option of with whom to exchange, the fishermen will have to outbid each other--the one offering the best deal for the baker (on the baker’s terms) will probably get the bread thus selling his fish. And of course, price is an important factor, but it is not at all the only one. The baker chooses which factors he wishes to consider, and chooses freely with whom to trade. So competition between the fishermen is for the trust of the baker, on the baker’s terms. In competition, the customer is king and the sellers will have to accept his terms.

This is of course not true in today’s society, where the state has a large number of rules on how to make exchanges, how to produce things, how to tell people about them (advertising), how to offer them, and a lot of other things. Such rules of course upsets the “market,” since it is no longer up to the fishermen to agree to the baker’s terms, and the baker’s terms are no longer important for the exchange--only the laws are. This is what happens when coercive measures are introduced to an otherwise voluntary exchange. The laws are of greater importance since they are backed by the guns of government, the baker’s preferences are no longer a priority. All the baker can do is not to trade his bread while the government can fine, outlaw or in other ways punish the fisherman. (Actually, many governments demands the baker to take part in the exchange even if he does not like the terms.)

Money
Imagine another thing in our original example with one baker, one fisherman and one wagon maker: one day the fisherman finds a couple of very beautiful pearls in some of the clams he caught while fishing. He thinks they are very beautiful and puts them in his pockets, anxious to show them to people. Everybody agrees that these pearls are really something special, and people imagine a number of different uses for such beauties. Thus, there is a demand for the pearls. It is not created in terms of producing a demand not before existing in the minds of people, but the new information (that such pearls exist) brings new thoughts to people and lets them reconsider their priority hierarchies. Hence, some people value the pearls very highly and some don’t. It is a newly identified demand, but it is based solely on voluntary preferences. The value of pearls is exactly as with bread, fish, and wagons--it is subjective. (What is objective is that there is an identified value in the pearls--all people seem to agree on this even though they do not agree on what the value is.)

The fisherman notices there are a lot of people wanting such pearls, and thus that there is a market value. He does not know what the market value is (since it has to be established in each individual exchange) but he is sure there is a value. Thus, he tries offering the baker pearls instead of fish in exchange for bread. The baker accepts according to what we established above--he places a higher value in these pearls than in the bread exchanged for them, and the fisherman vice versa. So an exchange takes place and a market value is established for that single exchange.

Since the fisherman exchanged only half of his pearls for bread, now both the baker and the fisherman have pearls. The fisherman makes the same offer to the wagon maker, offering pearls instead of fish as payment for the wagon. The wagon maker accepts since he thinks these pearls are very rare and beautiful. His wife would love them, and since he has heard the fisherman has already gotten bread for the pearls they surely have a market value.

The pearls have hence become a general medium of exchange, since people agree to trade using pearls as bearers of value instead of the direct exchange of products. Any medium of exchange such as this is money, so in our small society everybody is suddenly using money! Why? Because everybody wants to own the pearls (they all place a certain value in owning the pearls), and they choose to use the pearls rather than fish, bread, and wagons when exchanging value for products.

Thus, the next time the wagon maker visits the baker to make an exchange for bread he does not have to go through the trouble of trying to sell the baker a wagon and settling a contract with part-payments. Instead, he brings the pearls he was paid by the fisherman, and pays the number of pearls the baker and wagon maker agree the bread is worth.

The reason they all start using the pearls instead of direct barter is that they all consider them valuable and it is much easier for all of them to trade products for pearls instead of products for products. They are easier to store and handle, and they are scarce--one cannot find large numbers of pearls everywhere. Finding pearls takes time and energy, and thus there is a cost for getting more pearls (money) into the marketplace.

Investment
Now the fisherman can simply sell fish to the others and perhaps save the few pearls he does not need to use directly to get bread and whatever he needs. So he starts leading a little cheaper life in order to save; saving being the main prerequisite for investments. What is now spontaneously invented is a money-based economy with profits--the fisherman is saving a little money from each exchange.

The profits are not coercive or violate the rights of anyone. Any exchanges are still the result of voluntary action between the buyer and seller (they are both better off!), thus a new market price is established every time people agree to make an exchange. And it is still the same as barter, even though it is indirect because everybody taking part in exchanges believes it is easier and better to use pearls.

If the fisherman can save a lot of money it means simply that his costs are far less than what people are prepared to pay for his fish (meaning they place a higher value in the fish than in the pearls they give up for it). And because of this others can easily start fishing in order to get a piece of these profits. There is a rational incentive in catching fish if the fisherman is already making profits--of course other people want to be better off just as the fisherman. So profits cause competition, which in turn cuts profits. The result of this spontaneous balance-making is simply cheaper (and better) products for the consumers.

Anyway, when the fisherman has saved enough money (pearls) he goes to another town to buy a new boat or a net in order to catch more fish so that he can save more money and perhaps buy a house or a more comfortable bed for his wife. This way he can, through saving and investing his profits, increase the supply of fish in the market and thereby supplying more food to hungry people. Since there is more fish available (in the market) people are willing to pay less. If the fisherman tries to charge the same price for the fish he will only find that people will not be able to buy all the fish and it will rot while awaiting buyers. Also, the greater profits per sold fish will create an incentive for people to compete with him. So his profits will not be stable no matter what he does (unless he goes to the government asking for “favors”).

Thus, the market price for fish goes down. The fisherman can probably still save a little money from his business, since people are better off paying less for the fish and there is a small barrier for competitors to enter the market. Buying a boat (or net) is costly, and this produces a possibility for modest profits. Of course, the fisherman can set whatever price he wishes, but setting a too high price will only mean less people will be able to buy the fish.

Also, it creates a greater incentive for other people to get a boat/net and compete. As we have seen above anyone would be able to make an equal deal with a boat maker as the baker and fisherman did before with the wagon maker--i.e. making a contract for exchange of products in order to buy a boat. If there is a big profit in catching and selling fish there is enough for a competitor to cover the costs of such an agreement with the boat maker. So the price of fish will go down either through the fisherman recognizing this fact or through the “threat” of a new actor (competitor) in the market. The threat is of course only directed to the “unnatural” profits of the fisherman, all others are better off with such competition.

Capitalism
Another great thing with this is that there may be people in such a society who have been successful fishermen for many years through which they could have saved some money (pearls). Either they can use the money for covering daily expenses (food, clothes etc) or they can boost the balance-making in the market, thus cutting profits, lowering consumer prices and stream-lining production, through investing. This is what is called capitalism.

Imagine the fisherman gets old and has quite a few pearls in his possession. A new fisherman takes his place, so there are still three actors in the market: a baker, a fisherman, and a wagon maker. The fisherman is very intelligent and finds ways of being very successful in catching fish. He lowers the price of each fish a little bit, but is still able to make a lot of money from his business. He somehow knows there is no one able to buy the boat needed to compete with him, except for the old fisherman (who has no interest in going back to catching fish).

But since the fisherman is making profits there is an incentive for others to catch fish and get part of the profit. The baker’s son sees the opportunity but has no pearls to invest in the boat necessary for such an enterprise. But he knows the old fisherman has quite a few pearls, and one day goes to him offering him a very good deal. He says he wants to buy a boat to earn pearls from catching fish, but does not have enough pearls to make the purchase. So he offers the old fisherman the deal of buying (and owning) the boat, and the baker’s son will pay him a number of pearls every month. This way he will in time pay for the boat, and gives the old fisherman an extra pearl with every payment for the trouble and use of his property.

The old fisherman thinks about it, and finds the idea very attractive. So he agrees to pay for the boat and teaches the baker’s son a few secrets on how to catch very big fish. The baker’s son enters the markets and sells his fish, of course to a slightly lower price than the other fisherman. So the fisherman will have to lower his price not to lose the customers. Thus, the price of fish goes down.

The baker’s son sells the fish to a price covering the costs of the boat, the small profit for the old fisherman, and his personal expenses. Probably the other fisherman sells his fish for about the same price, since he wants to get as much as possible for his fish, but cannot charge a higher price than the competitor (the baker’s son). So, spontaneously and voluntary there is capitalism created in the market.

Also, the old fisherman could agree to a slightly different deal. He could agree to buy the boat for the baker’s son in order to start the enterprise, but with the condition that he gets part of the profits. Perhaps they agree that the old fisherman buys the boat and the baker’s son does all the work, but they split any profits fifty-fifty. If so, they have started a corporation and own 50 % each of the stock. The corporation may hire people to professionally do necessary work, but the owners still require their money back--and maybe a little profit on top. Corporations, the stock-market etc are all inventions of voluntary exchanges and agreements between individuals. But all these things are today thoroughly corrupted by the state and its laws.

Since all these things are directly derived from the simple barter situation and no force is added it cannot be any less ethical or moral than the original situation. If you find this development ethically offensive you are not considering the actions or behavior of the people involved--you only take the results into account. If you want to guarantee a certain result or rules of conduct in a society you will have to rely on the use of force. Relying on force simply cannot be anarchist.

What has really changed between the simple barter trade and this “advanced capitalist” society is that people get cheaper fish while the baker’s son earns a living and the old fisherman gets a profit (this profit is nothing but a small payment to make it worth his while to risk his justly achieved property). Also, the boat maker has sold two more boats. I am not able to find anything offensive in this. There is no force added, and people are better off. The reason this is possible is that prices and values are subjective, therefore each transaction means economic growth--all parties involved are [subjectively] better off.

State Capitalism
What truly is offensive is the so-called market of today, where all these voluntary actions leading to competition, productivity and capitalism have been set aside by the state through coercion, force, and fraud. There is no such thing as a market like the one described above existing today--the voluntary agreements of exchange between free people have been abolished by the use of guns of government. The closest there is is what is usually called the “black” market, but the prices in the black market are much higher than they should be because of the constant threat of state repression. And most of the so-called market instruments causing balance and consumer-power through the voluntary actions of individuals are set aside by the same threat of repression.

Of course, the above example is a simplified abstraction of the marketplace. It is much more advanced than this since there are many, many more actors involved. But the basis is exactly the same. The creation of money, competition etc actually happened in about the same way as in the example. With a little coercion added by the state, of course, which corrupted the results.

So as you probably see, the market is simply people coming together voluntarily to make exchanges, and what that eventually leads to. So what is the difference between this voluntary market with capitalism and anarchism? The answer is so obvious most anarchists do not find it: there is no difference. And there is no essential difference between the simple barter trade and global corporations.

Speculation
It is true that today’s “market” is somewhat oppressive and repressive, but it is not because of the market instruments competition, money or capitalism--it is because they have been corrupted by the state. For example, in such a free market as described here there could be no such thing as the speculation in currencies happening every day these days--making money doing really nothing. The currencies of today have no real value (such as pearls or gold, which are voluntarily accepted by everyone--and need to be voluntarily accepted as means of payment in each single exchange), but are simply pieces of paper and ink backed by the guns of government. What makes people think such “money” has a value is simply because the state forces people to use it. And because there is no identifiable value, people can through simple transactions make more “money” from speculating if the value placed in the “dollar” is really corresponding to the current exchange rate for the “euro.”

With a market not intervened by the state there would be no such fiat currencies. Instead people would trade in pearls, gold or whatever (and receipts of ownership of such; or barter). With such currencies there is no way of making a profit in speculation, since the currencies are simply products as anything else.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And you know it. You're not that naive. So come on, AJ...maybe you should pull yourself together and get back on subject. The truth is, nobody's buying the dance routine. Not even you.And you know it. You're not that naive. So come on, AJ...maybe you should pull yourself together and get back on subject. The truth is, nobody's buying the dance routine. Not even you.

What I *know* is what I say, and what I say contradicts your assertion here. As if I do not believe what I am actually saying, and what I have been saying for months and months.

The *subject* is exactly what I choose to talk about.

The truth is, nobody's buying the dance routine.

You might not agree with what I propose, and you may not be able to agree, but I assure you that most if not all reading here quite well understand what I am saying.