Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What paradigm shift is necessary for AC? (Honest question)

[/ QUOTE ]

The willingness to punish aggressors proportionately to their aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something along the lines of: If someone steals a french fry from your plate you don't just shoot them in the face?

I could see how that could be a problem. (No sarcasm)

[/ QUOTE ]

I see how that could be a problem too. That's basically the old Jewish law right there, where countless misdemeanors (like talking back to your parents) were punishable by death. We've all also heard horror stories of middle eastern cultures where a pauper tries to steal a loaf of bread for his family, gets caught, and has his hand chopped off as a punishment. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

The problem is that no reasonable person would consider these penalties "fitting" to the crime. If an eye is to be paid for an eye, getting your hand chopped off is pretty ridiculous for petty theft. Even an early civilization with primitive technology, I'm pretty sure more than adequate restitution could be paid to the aggressed by a day's labor service from the aggressor; or, in today's society, a fine large enough to turn people off from petty theft (which shouldn't be too much).

The idea is to have a tit for a tat. Shooting someone for stealing a french fry would be like tens of thousands of tit s for a tat, and I think such an individual would have to be punished severely for such aggression. I think most people would accept a simple apology for such small theft.

Most human beings will defect from time to time and cause aggression. I'm pretty sure even civilized people in a libertarian society would do this. If we kill people over minor offenses, there's not going to be anyone left.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's my whole point. This is a game theory situation, it's in each individuals interest to cheat the system, but if they all do it then they're screwed. That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally agree with this. It's a simple free rider problem that requires a massive shift in human nature to work on a large scale.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, everyone has two options: cheat the system or not. Take you vs. everyone else in a payoff matrix. If you don't cheat, nor does everyone else, we're all benefited. If I cheat and you don't (or vice-versa), we're all slightly worse off, but still okay. If we both cheat, we all die. If you assume a few people will cheat (as is likely the case, since people will have incentive to do so), it is absolutely vital that you, yourself, do not cheat, or you'll doom everyone. However, if everyone thinks this way (as they logically should), they will all not cheat, and we will all have the greatest benefit.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

Libertarian socialists differ from ACists in one big way, they believe property=theft, as Proudhon claimed. They see any type of ownership as exclusion, and thus immoral. They also see natural rights as a human construct.

I would think that in a stateless society there would be a mix of both private property and unowned property. What type of mix and to what degree would depend on how the society in question valued both viewpoints.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

I don't think that's really a paradigm shift. I think virtually all people can accept that punishment should be proportional to the crime.

Dano: Is this the necessary paradigm shift to which you referred earlier?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dano: Is this the necessary paradigm shift to which you referred earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]

The necessary paradigm shift is just the non-coerced abadoning of private property. The post above is game theory.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

Is libertarian socialism that stranded on a desert island situation? Where everyone works together until they get the hell out of there.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, everyone has two options: cheat the system or not. Take you vs. everyone else in a payoff matrix. If you don't cheat, nor does everyone else, we're all benefited. If I cheat and you don't (or vice-versa), we're all slightly worse off, but still okay. If we both cheat, we all die. If you assume a few people will cheat (as is likely the case, since people will have incentive to do so), it is absolutely vital that you, yourself, do not cheat, or you'll doom everyone. However, if everyone thinks this way (as they logically should), they will all not cheat, and we will all have the greatest benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is rather "all-or-nothing". I think what would really happen is I would work a bit less hard, the pot would go down, other people would be realize they were working hard and not getting as much, so they stop working as hard. This process continues until they're doing just enough to scrape by.

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dano: Is this the necessary paradigm shift to which you referred earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]

The necessary paradigm shift is just the non-coerced abadoning of private property. The post above is game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, but what paradigm shift is necessary for AC?

Re: Libertarian Socialism - I don\'t understand...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why I think it's unstable and you would wind up in the situation where everyone does the minimum possible to ensure their bare survival and no more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, everyone has two options: cheat the system or not. Take you vs. everyone else in a payoff matrix. If you don't cheat, nor does everyone else, we're all benefited. If I cheat and you don't (or vice-versa), we're all slightly worse off, but still okay. If we both cheat, we all die. If you assume a few people will cheat (as is likely the case, since people will have incentive to do so), it is absolutely vital that you, yourself, do not cheat, or you'll doom everyone. However, if everyone thinks this way (as they logically should), they will all not cheat, and we will all have the greatest benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I worse off if I cheat? Say 1000 people make widgets, which are consumed. Everyone makes 10 widgets a day. If I cheat, and sit on my hands, 9990 widgets get made. I get 9.99 widgets at the end of the day from the pot. I just gave up .001% of my consumption and never had to actually work. I think I'm better off in most cases.