[Anarchist101]

I will use this as both a journal, and to see other points of view on the many thoughts I have on a given day.

I often sit and think about why things are the way they are today, and why I see the world in my own unique point of view. I often do this after a night out or in discussion with friends and family over a glass of bourbon and maybe a smoke.

So feel free to put your point of view on my daily thoughts, as this could give me more perspectives on how others think.

So for today I found myself quietly contemplating why a free market is the only market which works.

In the farthest reaches of human history, or in a collapse of governing structure, we came from/descending into absolute free markets. A familiar form is bartering.

In the absence of regulations and enforcement, the value of goods being traded is set by the individuals who poses the goods. This leads to supply and demand. Man throughout history has tried to get the most out the goods and services they are offering. This leads to two different types of individuals. Those who want more, but lack the initiative to get it. Then those who want more and take initiative to get it.

The latter branches off aswell. Those who are successful and those who are unsuccessful. This is the very primal basis of free market capitalism. It also leads to ups and downs as one individual gains a successful practice and pushes the values up and down of certain products. Without the interference of rules, these ups and downs are fairly frequent and harsh, but they tend to end quickly.

This separates good practice from bad as those who weather the effects are copied and the practice becomes pervasive in society. Thus leading to constant innovation.

Post neolithic era society gives us very few examples of real free markets, as the introduction of governing structures forced societies to do things in ways even when the ups and downs were to occur. The introduction of welfare and stimulus, especially for the sake of the Roman Empire, shows how ups and downs could be weathered with older practices and made farther apart.

Lack of incentive to innovate pushes society to be stagnant, and to be set in ways less superior ways. So when a more innovative society, even with similar rule of law comes around, economic collapse becomes inevitable. The introduction of la seizze fare capitalism, between 1800's and early 1900's saw some of the most radical changes in human history.

This was the beginning of the end of the majority past human struggles. Whether it be subsistence or disease or the production of energy. This is when the transition from multi skill workers to specialization took place for most of the western world which practiced this. Those that didn't soon found themselves defeated in war or pushed into collapse/revolution.

Post 1920's, (more specifically after the last true capitalist president, Calvin Coolidge, left office.) You begin to see the few La Seizze fare societies turn into socialistic ones. Societies begin to allow their governments to introduce government run welfare and regulation of the economy. The introduction social security and Medicare/Medicaid spells the end of the USA being a true capitalist society.

However, the introduction of socialistic ideas simply prolongs the ups and downs, and makes them more severe, as history shows. The great depression, or the recession during the oil crisis in the 1970's is prolonged due to regulation making it too difficult for competitors with or without innovation to come up. Perpetuating failing institutions through stimulus and indirect monopolies with government protection insures sub-par ideas carry on through the downturns.

Ups and downs are inevitable. As the for the USSR proves. You can speak to the babooshkas of Russia or eastern Europe, and they will tell you "there was always food, always a job, always a source of income." However, not only did that highly socialized society experience a downturn so severe it let to utter collapse, people failed to see their living standards or business practices improve over an 70year period unlike other, less socialized societies.

This can also be applied to individuals. When social security was first introduced, the government workers/volunteers went through the Appalachian mountain towns to inform the very very poor folks of the new benefits they were now eligible for. However, they soon became perplexed by the absolute rejection they encountered. In layman's terms, broke and starving people were turning down free money.

This only carried on for so long, as human will is simply incapable of turning down free help for so long. The results of this is what we can see today and for the last 50 years. A society where when one person is down on there luck, in need, jobless, or disabled, they do not think of creative ways to get by. Instead big brother is always there. This safety net ontop of a high specialized labor force has produced a population largely unwilling to try new things, whether it be a career change or having one's family being responsible for taking care of their loved ones.

The end result is a population less capable of self sustaining itself, less adaptable and less willingness to work, outside of their terms. Society is also so bound by rules (primarily from governing institutions), that dept is creating a constraining effect the ability to innovate on the micro level. Most innovations have been on a macro level, and macro innovations, in general, require large sums of investment beit time or resources.

My conclusion from this long thought

When the inevitable collapse comes, will people be able to adapt? Is the current population in most parts of planet capable of living in an unstructured, unrestricted societies?

I don't think so in my opinion.

[Anarchist101]

Well I got sick, so I have spent sometime thinking about some of my thoughts.

The thought that I pondered over my morning coffee had to do with

What Does it Mean to Be an American?

This came about from reading Trumps comments on the EU and Germany.

It's a question I contemplate often, and fine-tuned over the many conversations I had abroad with foreigners and the liberal British/Americans I often came in contact with.

My thought started out as firstly, what has made us No. 1 in terms of military and economy?

In order to be No.1 in just about anything, you have to be different. More so when you compare the competition between nation-states. I have read many articles, books and lectures on the topic, and most consensus devolves into very generic points. These include:

Wealth of natural resources, Population, Industrialization, time in History and occasionally luck.

I then began going through each one, but reaching similar conclusions.

There are multiple countries who have a wealth of natural resources, whether it be Russia, China, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, India etc. However, only one of these players were ever a "Super power" and they collapsed. China can be seen as a "super power" if you wish to go back to early history, however that country's resources and population were not enough to stand the test of time. Why? Well they are not a super power right now. As of this moment in history, China is not the first nation on earth, however if the world continues moving, this could change and my thought will have to change.

I have read that the U.S.'s massive population was a disparaging asset which pushed us to win WWII and gave us the ability to have maximum economic prosperity. However, again, when compared to other nations, we were on-par or even surpassed in the realm of population. So this to simply is not enough to put us in the No. 1 position in the world.

Industrialization follows the same path. Other nations were industrialized as well, and even industrialized before us. Whether you look at England, France or Germany. Our economy was arguably under-developed compared to the likes of Germany by the time of WW1 and WW2. This too, is not the difference that made the USA what it is today.

Any other point can follow the same route. Arguably other countries have had it, or did it before us. So that leads to the question, "What makes us different from the rest of the world?"

Well, I then began imagining what other people would say. They always fall through. It can be our food, well no food isn't really what makes us different. Yes, we do a lot fusion, but most "foods" have their origins from other cultures whether its cajun, pizza, or sandwiches.

No, what is it that really makes us different? It's not food, not clothing, not language. Then it always comes to me.

What makes a stereotypical American? Traits like Rugged individualism. Occasionally I can think of others, but this one always comes first. Naturally every economy now is a Socialistic economy. The basis for Socialism is the idea of Collectivism. Virtually every person from the 15 different countries I have been to, can't imagine a world, where the government is the primary mover and shaker.

In history, every form of government was, in a way, designed to be able to do anything, and the citizens were simply a mass to be moved in directions according to the governing body.

However, the United States was not made this way. The population was not only adventurist and self-serving at the start, they were empowered by the people who formulated the government. From this I come to the conclusion that what makes us different are:

Our Ideas

Yes, that makes sense. Whether you read about the men who created the nation, or you read post Revolutionary literature (I.E. Hawthorne), you can safely say that the basis for the which the American thinks is not Collectivist.

First of all, when I read foreign news, I hear a lot about Human Rights. But I rarely read about "Civil Rights". The founders did not believe in Human Rights, however they did believe in Civil Rights.

Many nations have been either founded, or have written in the ideas of Human Rights.

The U.S. to this day is the only nation in history founded on Civil Rights.

From there, my thoughts wandered to a colleague I had in University during the Classical Thinkers course. He stated that there was no inherent difference between the two. I disagree completely. Then I began to elaborate on their differences.

Human Rights are rights contrived by men in Geneva. Things like Healthcare, food, water, shelter, clothing are things that people think they have an obligation to these things.

Civil Rights on the other hand, are rights that people always have until death. They are well elaborated on by the U.S.'s founders, but you can sum it up by saying, "the right to say yes or no." It is the ability to make your own decisions.

This is a profound difference in the way Americans think, that many foreigners do not even contemplate when judging Americans.

A community of people built on civil rights will not seek to force others to do things their way, but rather try to convince, or influence others to do things their way. An example of this would be instead of passing laws to make people use solar power (thus forcing people to act a certain way with the threat of violence), a society centered around civil rights would see the population that believes in using solar power trying to convince the other side of the benefits of using solar power for personal gain.

Civil Rights leaves traits in a character who is brought up with those ideas in mind. Mainly, a very individualistic mentality, and the incentive to convince, rather than force others to do things one way or another. If you feel you will not be provided with certain material goods, you will act in a way that ensures you have those goods.

This can be the primary mover in why the USA has more "rags to riches" stories, one of the only accounts in history of sizeable population rejecting welfare out right, the incentive to try and be better than their peers.

Human rights, time and time again, have led to tyrannical and highly centralized regimes. If it is necessary for a person to have Healthcare, then it should be done the any means necessary. This can be said for every other "thing" which is considered a human right.

Thus, I concluded for the morning, Americans, albeit a dying breed, are different because of the belief in Civil Rights. This has made them highly individualistic, and given them a form of ruggedness in history.

And then my head wandered off on more Human vs. Civil rights stuff.

[brick tamland]

Decent mini-essays but not detailed enough or provocative enough for other members with knowledge of these topics (I exclude myself), to engage with your essays and debate with you. Hence, no replies thus far.

[Phoenix]

Continue to engage in your musings.

But please, try to get laid too. More so.

[Anarchist101]

(01-18-2017 12:17 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Continue to engage in your musings.

But please, try to get laid too. More so.

That made me laugh. Yes, I am. Doing an approach anxiety program from another site. I do approach women, but what should being approaching 15 girls, turns into only 6 or 7. So AA has to be dealt with more. Also using every chance to go talk to women, joining groups of like minded guys and simply talking to girls in public. And finally, I also been focusing on my weight.

Had a few people review my POF account, and pretty much affirmed my need to get more fit. Hit a plateau in December where after 4 months of exercise and diet, I lost 22lbs and got down to 214 but haven't budged in 5 weeks.. Up or Down. I have recently started waking up super early (about 4:10AM) to go for jogs/walks ontop of my weight lifting, in order to break the plateau and try to get down to 190. After the first week, I feel like it's working, I'll know for sure when I get to the gym tomorrow.

Point is, I am actively putting myself out there, and making positive changes. This thread is just when I have my random musings, I share.

For the other guy, yes, my thoughts are void of references. However, I am an extremely busy person. I have a history degree and a decent past of being abroad. I am not very specific in musings, but if there is something you would like reference to, feel free to ask and I will get it to you. My history background was mostly 1920's-1939 Germany and pre-revolutionary America. Oh, and as my name states, I am a pure Anarchist when it comes to how I think society should be run. So those 3 things should give you insight as to how my thoughts come about.

[Anarchist101]

Oddly enough, revisiting this thread I made, had me thinking about something I seem to constantly bring up in thoughts and discussions. I started remembering this while mindlessly cleaning hundreds of pieces of pc equipment from layoffs this week. It is a mindless duty at my job, but allows the brain to wonder.

Anytime I rattle this thought around my brain it always starts with the conclusion, and then gets explained, stretched, elaborated and applied to new situations that have occurred in the past, or may occur in the future. It is a theory I thought of from scratch to help me understand the difference between right and wrong. When I thought of it, I dubbed it:

The Island Theory

The Island theory is simple to understand. First you need to take something that people agree is wrong, and then apply it with the Island theory. For example.

If you put 100 people on a deserted island with no contact to the world, or maybe no world whatsoever, and 99 people agree that stealing is a good thing, but 1 person believes stealing is bad. Who is right?

There is no game to the answer. There is no religious god intervening, no moral high ground to stand on. The humans are stripped to nothing. Only, 99 vs. 1. Who is right? You may feel the 99 are wrong, however no matter how strong the resolve is in the 1, the 99 will build a society where stealing is a good thing, and the 1 probably won't live long enough to matter in the long run. Why do say this about the 1? Because of saying historians have dubbed "cliche" but still applies to much of human History and even The Theory of Evolution. That is:

"Might Makes Right"

That is the simple answer to every question of what's right and what's wrong when applied to the Island theory. It is the answer that most people could benefit from understanding why people think the way they think. It is the answer that would help many have open minds.

When I use the island theory with friends, colleagues or family I get one of two answers. Most of the time I get an "Oh...? Maybe so... but I still don't think it has to be that way..." Something along those lines. A few times I get "absolutely the 1 person right. No if, and's or but's about it". People who answer the latter, well I won't go into that. Let's just say my opinion of them is low, and I start to turn the conversation into giant jokes.

The Island theory helped me explain why so many people in the past, believed in things we consider terrible today. A mild example is why some people think it is a good thing to do drugs. Are people wrong for wanting to do drugs? Well, if applied in the Island theory, then no.

From their my mind goes off on tangents applying the island theory to more extreme examples such as fossil fuels, justice, the holocaust, drinking, working... Anything that jumps and then my mind goes on to the complex thought that island theory allows for.

For example, their are psychopaths in the world who believe murder is completely ok, and a lot of them. Something like that, is where the Island theory becomes both a dangerous, or "Plato's cave shadow" enlightening.

Yes there are enough psycopaths to put 99 on an island, and after they murder the 1 you have a society that believes murder is completely ok. (dangerous part)

However, why do I (or anyoneelse for that matter) believe it's wrong? Well A society where murder is ok (aka the 99 left on the island), will see many either slowly or quickly die off because of them killing themselves (murder is ok to them so why not?). Then you don't have a population capable of sustaining itself, therefore the society dies off. (enlightening part)

The Island theory, in this example and countless others, shows me why this idea is wrong on a very fundamental level, rather than how we learn it is wrong in other ways. Instead of knowing something is bad because someone told me (taught), or I wouldn't want others to do it to me (the golden rule) or because a diety said not to (religion), I just logically proved to myself that a society where something like that is an acceptable practice can't survive. Therefore I can believe it is wrong.

I have to always to correct myself at this point of my thought because the island theory shows every time why other people's ideas can be right, however it helps me explain why I feel certain things to be right or wrong.

The last example showed me why religion is a good thing for people to believe. For many people, explaining why their ideas are detriment to society simply doesn't work everytime. So religion helps society maintain at least some values which are pluses for civilization. (Disclaimer: Not all religions are made equal in that regards as history shows).

Every time I think about the island theory, I sometimes revisit old ideas and think about new ones.

There is another eye opening way that the island theory helps you understand how people are.

For example, is homosexuality bad? 99 are homosexuals, and 1 is not. Will the one die because they disagree? Like science, that is taken out. We simply want to know is homosexuality bad? Well 99 say it's not bad. So no, they are right on the island, however what happens to the society in 100 years? With only 1 straight person no living human beings will survive on the island.

So this example shows you two things.

1) Homosexuality can be bad, because it can lead to a society that goes extinct.

2) However, that doesn't mean I will die or be hurt for others being homosexual. Therefore, I have nothing to fear, or be resentful for about their choices.

In essence, because of the island theory's results, I do not agree with people being that way, however I do not care enough to force my ideas on them because they do not effect me.

On a final note, I have always said, there must be someone out there who has thought/written about this exact idea. However, I did think of this completely on my own.