s Have you ever considered the inherent ridiculousness that is taxes? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Yeah but have you considered the higher standard of life that is 🇩🇰? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s That's less about taxes and more about socialism, isn't it? You can have socialism without taxes. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat You can, but Denmark is a social democracy, which requires taxes, and isn't socialist per se. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s Yeah, but you know what I mean. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat I actually might not lol. I'm 19 hours into a 23 hour shift. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s My point was that the history of taxes is one of domination, war and bullshit. And that, while in this world right now it's rather hard to do anything without money, taxes can only be "necessary" within such a system, not within themselves. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ???ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Money allows for quantifying resources though, which is important for logistics. Maybe money bug people don't see it as such, like vouchers? Also as long as we're in such a system having taxes for a welfare state is preferrable to a privatized ancap hellscape ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s Wat? Money does not quantify resources, it at best can quantify their market value, but since that fluctuates, it is like, the worst thing to actually quantify the actual resources? Also, I just said, within a system like the one we're suffering under now, we kinda need taxes, but we don't need taxes in absolute terms. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Why would value be static? The value of things is going to change. Yeah fair not in absplute terms. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s value ain't static, but you said "quantify resources", not "value resources". And even then money is a really bad indicator of "value" outside of market economies. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Well valueing resources is done by consumers via supply and demand. Quantifying it would be the job of the banker, economicist, statistician, analyst, etc. And idk even outside of market economies the value of goods change. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s Maybe come back to this when you have slept? Because right now you're defending absolutely arbitrary things as universal. Money is not universal. Valuing things in money is not universal. The whole perspective of applying "value" in a monetary sense is arbitrary. And "supply and demand" in this context is still just a thing of market economies, as selling stuff to each other based on money is not universal either. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Cool I'll be back tomorrow then ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat I don't think money is universal, and neither are our culturally specific needs, but needs they still are. I'm only suggesting money is a means of making abstract judgements about value for logistical reasons. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s How? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Well, how do we compare 100 cups to 100 pens? Having a baseline of measurement is helpful, otherwise we would still use bartering. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s Why would I compare them, though? Also, there is no "still bartering", barter is not older than credit. Barter is not a "primitive" method, it's a semi-hostile one, between people that do not belong to the same community. Within a community it's either shared based on need - and you would not have someone with a need to compare these objects - or you could get away with just some common denomination, which would *not* qualify as "money", just as a heuristic. Have you read Debt by David Graeber? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat No, I should. Even among the same people, comparing goods is still important for your own output along a production possibilities frontier though. *image of pp frontier* https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVD8VPh96w&t=315s ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s I know those videos well, but that's a different problem and money does not help you there. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat When there's thousands of different items on a pp frontier how would one unified metric not help? Also you like Primer? Great stuff right? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s I dont think a unified metric would help there, no. At least not in general. And why on earth would someone have thousands of items to compare? And even if, money is something different. You have seen through Adam Smith's impossible village, right? Because that all sounds like his type of post-hoc justification. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat Any community that has thousands of different items to compare would contend with this. How is money different? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s Which community has thousands of items to compare? Give me a real life example that's not already part of a constructed market economy. Money is meant for exchange and can be held by itself. A metric to compare things does not need to be possessed by anyone. And even the early credit systems used to count tithes don't work like money today. The whole issue here is that you're projecting money today back into the past, entirely ignoring it's history and how it become what it is today. Exactly like Adam Smith did with his absurde village idea, where people managed to build a complex village and *then* run into an exchange issue. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat 1. What do you mean by constructed market economy? 2. I agree. Imo people would probably be better off with vouchers or something like a state issued giftcard. 3. Most likely yes. I only really care about what's efficient though, not past societies. ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? s 1. I mean that markets don't come naturally, they need to be created, so a framework where they exist is a constructed one. 2. Why state? Where does the state suddenly come from? 3. Efficient for what, though? There is no universal efficiency, you have to choose your goals first, then you can look at efficiency. And your goals are not just given and they are not something you can just logically deduce. 3.1 And without looking at other and past societies, how the fuck would you even know if yours was worth shit? ꕥ⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃠⃘✡⃞⃟ ☪⃝⃟⃞爨⃝⃟⃠⃘ ⃝⃟⃘ ✵⃝⃟⃠ ⃝⃟⃠ 真⃝⃟⃠く⃝⃟⃠͍ ‎‏⃟⃝ ??? y Simon Cat 1. Sure. I understand that markets are only contingent and constructed. I'm assuming a world where they're the current state of affairs, similar to our world w. 2. Once again, I'm assuming a w¹ with similar economic history and institutions in place. 3. Agreed. I would say enhancing populations via felicific calculus would be my definition of efficient for w¹ and w's economy. 3.1. We can look at other societies though. What am I missing? s 1. Why keep that? Just because it already exists? 2. Just like 1., why keep that? 3. Does this system look to you like one that makes people happy at all? 3.1. A lot. Like, the whole history of how we got here and how that path explains all the issues we have today. y Simon Cat 1. Why keep that? Just because it already exists? More to build a working model off what already exists. 2. To build a working model off what already exists. 3. Does this system look to you like one that makes people happy at all? All systems in the world that do this? No, but the Nordic model is nice. 3.1. A lot. Like, the whole history of how we got here and how that path explains all the issues we have today. Sure, and from those I would select the systems that line up with Felicific calculus (FC) best. That seems me to mainly be policy from mid 90s Denmark. s 1.& 2. Working model for what? Unless you take it as god given, it has to justify its own existence. Otherwise you're just going to carry over all systemic errors - and the current systems are riddled with them. 3. Uff, "nordic model" is a rather loaded term in regards to sex work. And these nordic countries don't exist in isolation, and all that's good about them is all that veers *away* from the current system. 3.1. Again, all the good is all that is not like in the current system. You need to expand your idea of what makes people happy, and for that you have to dig a lot deeper into what it means to be human and how the system should serve that, rather than having us serve the system. And this is where we kinda come full circle, because unless you look into the history and the principles of the system, you can't determine whether or not it makes us happy and whether or not it even has the capacity to make us happy. y Simon Cat 1.& 2. >Working model for what? Unless you take it as god given, it has to justify its own existence. Otherwise you're just going to carry over all systemic errors - and the current systems are riddled with them. Fair point. I agree it has to be self justifying, but likewise so would a hard reset on the society we have. 3. >Uff, "nordic model" is a rather loaded term in regards to sex work. And these nordic countries don't exist in isolation, and all that's good about them is all that veers *away* from the current system. 3:Sex Work. I agree there's alot to be done there. As a former SW I'd prefer a model like Ertsies. 3:Isolation. I'm not sure what the point is. 3: veers from current system. In alot of ways, but we still can't say for sure what works until it's implemented. It's more like dipping our toe in the water instead of doing a cannonball. 3.1. >Again, all the good is all that is not like in the current system. You need to expand your idea of what makes people happy, and for that you have to dig a lot deeper into what it means to be human and how the system should serve that, rather than having us serve the system. And this is where we kinda come full circle, because unless you look into the history and the principles of the system, you can't determine whether or not it makes us happy and whether or not it even has the capacity to make us happy. 3.Expand. How should we further define what makes people happy? I think the world happines report(WHR) has a decent baseline. 3.What it means to be human. I'd go farther to say a person, since nohumans deserve some consideration in how society works. 3.What it means to be a person. I agree, it's hard to sum something that nuanced up, but once again the WHR provides a baseline. 3.History. I agree. It's hard to fit an analysis of all societies here, but in general I think Keynesian and Utilitarian ideas have been good in post industrial societies, and many tribal societies are healthier sociologically (for a baseline of gender parity and queer validation I'd suggest the Scythians). s 1/2. Sure, but we have ample arguments for that. The primary counter argument is that people cannot imagine it, which is a direct result of that system (a thing I call "imagination crisis). 3. The point is that they need the whole ugly rest of the system to work, even if that ugliness happens outside of those countries. So you cannot look at them and go "we should all do it like that", because that's not possible. And again, imagination crisis, all those system have been implemented and they worked until someone with an army showed up and destroyed it and the memory of it. And when you consider the sheer unimaginable harm this system does every hour of the day, are you really protecting anyone by taking it slow? Isn't that just giving the system more time to kill people for profit? The WHR is a joke. As I said, you need to learn about actual human nature. Currently everything revolves around material production, but human happiness can only come from human/social production, the way in which we shape each other, and the system is fundamentally and conceptually opposed to that. Fuck productivism. You really should read Debt. You're so deep in those framework and that's the imagination crisis I mentioned earlier, that you cannot imagine the world outside of it. y Simon Cat 1/2. >Sure, but we have ample arguments for that. The primary counter argument is that people cannot imagine it, which is a direct result of that system (a thing I call "imagination crisis). Imagination crisis is real yeah. I think all ideas should be considered so long as they don't threaten things I intrinsically value. 3. >The point is that they need the whole ugly rest of the system to work, even if that ugliness happens outside of those countries. So you cannot look at them and go "we should all do it like that", because that's not possible. I think the nordic model could work in other places without upsetting the nordic model themselves. They mostly rely on exports. >And again, imagination crisis, all those system have been implemented and they worked until someone with an army showed up and destroyed it and the memory of it. If it didn't survive a war it didn't work. It could still work in the future since the world changes though. >And when you consider the sheer unimaginable harm this system does every hour of the day, are you really protecting anyone by taking it slow? Isn't that just giving the system more time to kill people for profit? When people go fast there's also a chance of a failed revolution that returns to the status quo, but with a war and an economic wasteland. >The WHR is a joke. Why is the WHR a joke? >As I said, you need to learn about actual human nature. Currently everything revolves around material production, but human happiness can only come from human/social production, the way in which we shape each other, and the system is fundamentally and conceptually opposed to that. Fuck productivism. I think it's a blend of material and social production. What's productivism? >You really should read Debt. You're so deep in those frameworks and that's the imagination crisis I mentioned earlier, that you cannot imagine the world outside of it. I'll read it. I was an ancom, geomutialist, and DemCon at various points so I don't think it's an imagination crisis though. s "Imagination crisis is real yeah. I think all ideas should be considered so long as they don't threaten things I intrinsically value." So if you haven been fooled into valuing something bad or invalid, you will not consider ideas that question it? That's the definition of ignorance and irrational defensiveness. Considering all the other "rationalist" positions you hold, where is the principle of considering all ideas, even if you disagree with them? Because this is exactly the dynamic that is used to protect all that kyriarchical bullshit: The status quo gets tied to people's idea of who they are, making them defend even things that harm them just to protect the idea they have of who they are. "I think the nordic model could work in other places without upsetting the nordic model themselves. They mostly rely on exports." Aha, so everyone should rely on exports? How does that work? Who is importing? (and keep in mind that you have to subtract imports from your exports, meaning that if everyone exports like that, they also have to import, making it a zero sum game) "If it didn't survive a war it didn't work. It could still work in the future since the world changes though." Oh come on... you cannot be serious. That's not a rational argument, that's just defiant edginess. If something works and you introduce external violence that destroys and suppresses the system, that's not the fault of the system and it definitely is not prove of the system not working. That's some "might makes right" shit and the basis for colonialism and imperialism. To bring this home: You are abled enough to walk, right? So you can walk. If I now go and break your legs, does that prove that you've not really been able to walk in the first place, because your legs were not able to withstand my violence? Because this is exactly the justification capitalism and imperialism/colonialism use to suppress and defame any alternative to its system of dominance and oppression. "Oh, you have built a society that fulfills people's needs and doesn't harm the planet? Haha, what bullshit, look, it cannot even withstand my bombs and bullets! Told ya it won't work." The "nordic model" would not withstand war either. Heck, not even war withstands war. And there's a fundamental fallacy in all that, which equates dominance with "being better" and that's just not the case. That's just literally the bullshit narrative that dominance systems use to justify themselves. In fact, if you look at it, any meaningful dominance has always lead to the collapse of the whole. Once cryobacteria held dominance over the whole planet and almost smothered it altogether. (They're probably making a comeback due to global warming, btw) And it takes some mental gymnastics to look at the time it "worked" before collapsing to say that it "worked for some time", when the systems it replaced/displaced would not have been susceptible to the same type of collapse. "When people go fast there's also a chance of a failed revolution that returns to the status quo, but with a war and an economic wasteland." That's not a rational argument either. You cannot quite foresee whether a change will bring immediate relief, and it's all but impossible to bring change that has absolutely no adverse effects when faced with an immediately destructive system. But the harm done by letting the system go on, that's an absolute given. And you cannot reform your way out of such a system. That's the same fallacy as "changing the system from the inside". I feel like you've read a little too much apologia. "I think it's a blend of material and social production. What's productivism?" You cannot blend these two. Either you focus on material production and bend people around it, or you focus on people and bend material production around it. As soon as you put any kind of material production above social production, you harm people and you deny their humanity. That's like saying you can find a compromise between nazis and their victims where there's just a *little* genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivism "I'll read it. I was an ancom, geomutialist, and DemCon at various points so I don't think it's an imagination crisis though. Hide or report this" If you stopped being ancom, then it definitely is the imagination crisis ;) All paths away from that are built on a false sense of rationality. y Simon Cat >So if you haven been fooled into valuing something bad or invalid, you will not consider ideas that question it? That's the definition of ignorance and irrational defensiveness. Considering all the other "rationalist" positions you hold, where is the principle of considering all ideas, even if you disagree with them? Because this is exactly the dynamic that is used to protect all that kyriarchical bullshit: The status quo gets tied to people's idea of who they are, making them defend even things that harm them just to protect the idea they have of who they are. I'd consider some things, but ultimately what I intrinsically value can't be swayed by logic; that's the is/ought distinction. I'm not going to consider Nazism, for example, because I think all life has intrinsic value. "Aha, so everyone should rely on exports? How does that work? Who is importing? (and keep in mind that you have to subtract imports from your exports, meaning that if everyone exports like that, they also have to import, making it a zero sum game)" I only meant they aren't relying on exploiting other nations to make their model work. I think it would still work for non export based economies, since Flexicurity was designed to ease global trade and maintain quality of life. "Oh come on... you cannot be serious. That's not a rational argument, that's just defiant edginess. If something works and you introduce external violence that destroys and suppresses the system, that's not the fault of the system and it definitely is not prove of the system not working. That's some "might makes right" shit and the basis for colonialism and imperialism." How would I logically defend a system that can't defend itself? "To bring this home: You are abled enough to walk, right? So you can walk. If I now go and break your legs, does that prove that you've not really been able to walk in the first place, because your legs were not able to withstand my violence?" Yes. That's why law enforcement, medical institutions, and correctional institutions are necessary. (not that any US iterations of those are good). "The 'nordic model' would not withstand war either. Heck, not even war withstands war." Depends on the severity of the war, but it's lasted pretty long as it is comparitively. Like I said systems that didn't make it might very well do fine now and they were just unlucky. "And there's a fundamental fallacy in all that, which equates dominance with "being better" and that's just not the case. That's just literally the bullshit narrative that dominance systems use to justify themselves. In fact, if you look at it, any meaningful dominance has always lead to the collapse of the whole. Once cryobacteria held dominance over the whole planet and almost smothered it altogether. (They're probably making a comeback due to global warming, btw) And it takes some mental gymnastics to look at the time it "worked" before collapsing to say that it "worked for some time", when the systems it replaced/displaced would not have been susceptible to the same type of collapse." I'm not advocating for dominating systems though, or systems that bend over backwards at the expense of FC. What fallacy would that be? "When people go fast there's also a chance of a failed revolution that returns to the status quo, but with a war and an economic wasteland." That's not a rational argument either. You cannot quite foresee whether a change will bring immediate relief, and it's all but impossible to bring change that has absolutely no adverse effects when faced with an immediately destructive system. But the harm done by letting the system go on, that's an absolute given. And you cannot reform your way out of such a system. That's the same fallacy as "changing the system from the inside". I feel like you've read a little too much apologia. What fallacy? Why can't you reform your way out of a system? Why is letting the system go on an absolute given? Denmark is clearly in a better state than Russia, I think the trend of social democracies being better than "communist" and post "communist" ones shows fast revolutions have reasonable criticisms. "You cannot blend these two. Either you focus on material production and bend people around it, or you focus on people and bend material production around it. As soon as you put any kind of material production above social production, you harm people and you deny their humanity. That's like saying you can find a compromise between nazis and their victims where there's just a *little* genocide." What if I need a large number of face masks? "If you stopped being ancom, then it definitely is the imagination crisis ;) All paths away from that are built on a false sense of rationality." That seems very absolutionist. How can one say that one system is definitely better than all others? s "I only meant they aren't relying on exploiting other nations to make their model work. I think it would still work for non export based economies, since Flexicurity was designed to ease global trade and maintain quality of life." Except they are. As I said, it just doesn't happen overtly. You think they have their riches from ethical sources, that they did and do not benefit strongly from colonialism and their whiteness? The fact alone that they're privileged when it comes to credit makes all the difference. You cannot be a part of this global system and somehow not have blood on your hands. There's no arguing this, unless you're into lesser-evilism. "Yes. That's why law enforcement, medical institutions, and correctional institutions are necessary. (not that any US iterations of those are good)." Big OOF. Law enforcement is *not necessary*. "Correctional facilities" are "not necessary". Both are inhumane institutions and violent and coercive tools of the hegemony. Just putting that in the same area code as "medical institutions" is at best naive, at worst propping up hegemonic narratives. "I'd consider some things, but ultimately what I intrinsically value can't be swayed by logic; that's the is/ought distinction. I'm not going to consider Nazism, for example, because I think all life has intrinsic value." "How would I logically defend a system that can't defend itself?" You might look into how you contradict yourself there, because defenselessness as a sign of inferiority and "deserving" what happens is fundamentally fascist. You're fighting a strong cognitive dissonance there and I'm frankly getting really tired of you just parroting hegemonic narratives like that. "I'm not advocating for dominating systems though, or systems that bend over backwards at the expense of FC. What fallacy would that be?" Except you do in the quote right above. You said if something cannot defend against dominance (-> war), then it has no merit. "Depends on the severity of the war, but it's lasted pretty long as it is comparitively. Like I said systems that didn't make it might very well do fine now and they were just unlucky." Sorry, I might have missed that in my history studies, but when exactly was Denmark invaded by the US to have "democracy" installed there again? And that's some subtle backtracking there, but somehow it only applies here in this niche, while you officially maintain that system that cannot withstand external violence just aren't good enough? You're piling up contradictions here. "What fallacy? Why can't you reform your way out of a system? Why is letting the system go on an absolute given?" You cannot reform your way out of a dominance system because anything that threatens its dominance will not be allowed to pass. These systems are built on violence, suffering and exploitation. Removing any of these would make the system collapse. You cannot switch them out, either. Like, this is literally how fascists coincidentally appear whenever the system is about to collapse or have its support replaced with something that would change the system. Also reformism necessitates a privileged position for you to even survive the fucking attempt. "What if I need a large number of face masks?" Then you employ all the people that have nothing to do, but ideally you get a stash for that beforehand, even though it doesn't make a profit, just in case. Also weird question, because the current system is very publicly failing to supply the required number of facemasks. Ironically that failure is directly related to the "efficiency" of the system, which made this outcome inevitable. "That seems very absolutionist. How can one say that one system is definitely better than all others?" Note the smiley in what I said. But yeah, I consider a system that does not involve domination and arbitrary hierarchies and uses communal solutions and organisational structures as the best system. I'm backed up by human nature and history in that point. But even if it wasn't the best principle (it's not a system itself), it's still a thousand times better than everything you defended here. This is getting long and tiresome. I've given you enough points to think about and research. I can see this becoming cyclic in a bit and would prefer to avoid falling into the eurocentric debate trap. So I'm done here. I'm open to talking to this again when you've overcome your defensiveness. y Simon Cat "Except they are. As I said, it just doesn't happen overtly. You think they have their riches from ethical sources, that they did and do not benefit strongly from colonialism and their whiteness? The fact alone that they're privileged when it comes to credit makes all the difference. You cannot be a part of this global system and somehow not have blood on your hands. There's no arguing this, unless you're into lesser-evilism. " They do benefit from priviledge, but their neocolonialism is negligeable, since their chief source of GDP is exports from their own country. "Big OOF. Law enforcement is *not necessary*. "Correctional facilities" are "not necessary". Both are inhumane institutions and violent and coercive tools of the hegemony. Just putting that in the same area code as "medical institutions" is at best naive, at worst propping up hegemonic narratives." Well it stops you from breaking my legs. Also assume the Norwegian prison system and swiss law enforcement for w¹, v different from US equivalents in w. "You might look into how you contradict yourself there, because defenselessness as a sign of inferiority and "deserving" what happens is fundamentally fascist. You're fighting a strong cognitive dissonance there and I'm frankly getting really tired of you just parroting hegemonic narratives like that." I don't think anyone deserves to be invaded, just that it happened. Just like we have a secretary of treasury, we have a secretary of defense for a reason. I want a system that isn't Nazism, and can defeat Nazis. "Except you do in the quote right above. You said if something cannot defend against dominance (-> war), then it has no merit." I said a system that can't defend itself in war and ceases to exist will no longer exist, but could exist at another time. I also said the Scythians have merits, despite no longer existing. "Sorry, I might have missed that in my history studies, but when exactly was Denmark invaded by the US to have "democracy" installed there again? And that's some subtle backtracking there, but somehow it only applies here in this niche, while you officially maintain that system that cannot withstand external violence just aren't good enough? You're piling up contradictions here." They were invaded by the Nazis as they were becoming a social democracy. I awknowledge soft nation building is a gross practice that the US engages in that fucks up places all over the world and doesn't work, but that also doesn't work with FC. I'm sure priviledge shielded the Nordic countries and has helped them in trade as well, same with liberal democracies and fascist states, but we have liberal democracies and fascist states that have also fallen apart without priviledge, ao idk. "You cannot reform your way out of a dominance system because anything that threatens its dominance will not be allowed to pass." Social democracies did successfully reform though. They run almost as perfectly as something can be expected to irl as well. "These systems are built on violence, suffering and exploitation." Yes. "Removing any of these would make the system collapse." Denmark seems fine without them. "You cannot switch them out, either. Like, this is literally how fascists coincidentally appear whenever the system is about to collapse or have its support replaced with something that would change the system." Like Chilé. I agree. "Also reformism necessitates a privileged position for you to even survive the fucking attempt. " I agree completely. That's probably why SocDem don't exist in core countries. "Then you employ all the people that have nothing to do, but ideally you get a stash for that beforehand, even though it doesn't make a profit, just in case." Agreed. Isn't that material needs → social needs though? "Also weird question, because the current system is very publicly failing to supply the required number of facemasks. Ironically that failure is directly related to the "efficiency" of the system, which made this outcome inevitable." Agreed, I'd suggest Japan's mask handling for w¹. Clearly a market economy isn't useful for public health. "Note the smiley in what I said." Lmao fair. My bad. "But yeah, I consider a system that does not involve domination and arbitrary hierarchies and uses communal solutions and organisational structures as the best system. I'm backed up by human nature and history in that point. But even if it wasn't the best principle (it's not a system itself), it's still a thousand times better than everything you defended here." How many such societies still exist though? Some tribal societies, including the EZLN, some cities in europe, Rojava, the free territory of Ukraine, and the CNT/FAI. None of those reached the levels of FC the nordic countries did. They def could, and I think experimental autonomous regions should exist in SD definitely. I would still live in an ancom society within a SD. "This is getting long and tiresome. I've given you enough points to think about and research. I can see this becoming cyclic in a bit and would prefer to avoid falling into the eurocentric debate trap. So I'm done here. I'm open to talking to this again when you've overcome your defensiveness." Alrighty. I don't feel terribly defensive but then again neither would someone who's firmly set in their ways. Perhaps I'll return with self-gathered data when my social investigations blog is started. Hopefully we come as close to full understanding as human beings can. Ⓐ♥️🌹