iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.


Only a classless society can get rid of that oppression of human by human. That is the dream of both anarchists and socialists, although we have different opinions on how to get there.
You can't have classless society unless you force it upon people. Because there will always be people who want more than others, that's the nature of Mankind and the source of progress. That's precisely why Socialism ends up breeding totalitarian regimes. It's not by chance, it's by necessity.
I don't agree. There are historical examples of classless societies: the primitive communism that existed before agriculture was invented, is a counter-example to the theory that the biological nature of humans makes class-based societies inevitable. As far as behavioral biologists can tell, humans are not egotistical or greedy by nature, but social and altruistic by nature -- but of course lots of our natural tendencies can be very effectively overruled culturally.

However, I also don't agree with anarchists who think that it suffices to somehow take away the state in order to immediately obtain a classless society.

We do have many centuries, millennia even, of class-based societies behind us: the slave societies of ancient Greece and Rome, the feudal societies of the middle ages, and a few centuries of capitalism. This has of course left deep tracks in our common cultural heritage. It would be foolish to say "it's just a matter of changing our mentality a bit" -- much more than that will be necessary. That is why I don't think it is possible to arrive at a true classless society overnight -- I think it will take several generations before such a "withering away of the state", to quote Engels, is possible.
 
the primitive communism that existed before agriculture was invented, is a counter-example to the theory that the biological nature of humans makes class-based societies inevitable. As far as behavioral biologists can tell, humans are not egotistical or greedy by nature, but social and altruistic by nature -- but of course lots of our natural tendencies can be very effectively overruled culturally.
Based on the fact we have nothing much left from such civilisations, it's very hard to make political judgments on how they actually worked and functioned.

Besides, even among animals (and especially among primates) we see clear indications that they tend to behave with ruling classes as well, so it would be very natural for Mankind to inherit a very similar behavioral trait.

On top of that, discussions on prehistoric ages do not make much sense since the fabric of society is proportional to the density of people living in the same place. The more you have people, the more a system is needed for everyone to live together peacefully.
 
There are historical examples of classless societies: the primitive communism that existed before agriculture was invented, is a counter-example to the theory that the biological nature of humans makes class-based societies inevitable.
If you hold prehistoric, pre-agriculture human communal life to be a model, then you need to destroy civilization (and throw away your pandora) to achieve it. The neolithic revolution - the birth of agriculture - was achieved only due to the establishment of property rights - the right of a farmer to invest his time and labor on a claimed piece of land to produce an excess of nourishment. "Three successive (though overlapping) proto-historical cultures arose in northern Mesopotamia: the Hassuna, Samarra, and Halaf cultures.  All three made great strides in art, trade, and the technologies of agriculture, building, implements, pottery, and even irrigation.5  And not one of them showed any signs of having a central government". The subsequent specialization of work naturally led to some people acquiring more property than others. This is deeply distasteful to socialists and Marxists -- that someone is allowed to keep the result of their labor. (and I consider that a deeply sick ideology.)

That is why I don't think it is possible to arrive at a true classless society overnight -- I think it will take several generations before such a "withering away of the state", to quote Engels, is possible.
1) I think you are right that it will take generations. But the "withering away of the state" is precisely what libertarianism and classical liberalism aims for. Historically, limiting the powers of the state is precisely what made some societies prosperous. The instances in which the powers of the state were reduced occurred due to free-market, classical liberalism. The examples throughout Europe and Asia abound, where the right of the rulers to confiscate property was limited by classical liberal ethics and law.  All socialist endeavors, even those led by self-proclaimed Marxists, have enhanced the power of the state and created a class of priveleged bureaucracy.

2) A classless society is only achieved by a free society, absent overlords and underlings. There is no such thing as a capitalist "class". In a free market, every enterpreneur is a capitalist, everyone who invests in stocks or bonds is a capitalist. (EDIT: EvilDragon is a capitalist). If a worker wants ownership of the means of production, he or she need only invest in his or her own company. (Why on earth would it be better to force workers to invest in their own company, even if they feel there are better uses for their money?) In a free market society, the industrious and inventive poor can become well-off, even rich, and the rich can make grevious mistakes and become poor. People are not born "stuck" in a particular class.

3) The market allows for companies to experiment with different types of organization. Valve, Inc. is an example of a company with no bosses, no managers at all.

4) An enterpreneur/capitalist in the free market is not an oppressor, because he competes not only with others to provide goods and services at an acceptable price, but he competes with other enterpreneurs to attract workers with agreeable wages and working conditions. No system of conscription (forced labor, forced military service) provides comparable working conditions. (EDIT: Under interventionism or mercantilism some companies enjoy special priveleges and protections by the state, which functions as the oppressor. For example, see the US military interventions in Central America to benefit United Fruit: This is an anathema to libertarianism and classical liberalism)

On top of that, discussions on prehistoric ages do not make much sense since the fabric of society is proportional to the density of people living in the same place. The more you have people, the more a system is needed for everyone to live together peacefully.
This is a dangerous way to phrase what you mean. Socialists of all types clamor for "systemization" - planning by "experts", usually with the argument that some new aspect of "modern society" requires it. In reality what happens naturally as population density increases, is capital accumulation, specialization of work, and trade of produced goods and services. Calling this evolutionary process a "system" or saying a "system" is needed plays into the rhetorical hands of socialist planners. To live together peacefully you just need to outlaw violence, theft and fraud and have some means for providing security.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are historical examples of classless societies: the primitive communism that existed before agriculture was invented, is a counter-example to the theory that the biological nature of humans makes class-based societies inevitable.
If you hold prehistoric, pre-agriculture human communal life to be a model,
I don't.

Also, the free market crucially depends on the state, e.g. to maintain property rights even if they are clearly and blatantly abused to the detriment of the entire society (even possibly including the owner himself).
 
Also, the free market crucially depends on the state, e.g. to maintain property rights even if they are clearly and blatantly abused to the detriment of the entire society (even possibly including the owner himself).
That much is true, that is why most libertarians do not aim at the destruction of the State itself, but the limitation of its power to its core mission, i.e. guaranteeing that the Rights and Laws are respected.
 
the birth of agriculture
This is not possible anymore. The farmable grounds have been farmed to exhaustion. (unless you count the soy tilled on football fields stolen to the rainforest)

We need fertilizer to keep them going. We use monoculture a.t.m. and need to start roulating crops.

Also, would you reset the origins of crops? So tomatoes and potatoes, passion fruit, new zealand crawnberry/tazzyberry (yes, it's (south)american, even the name Nieuw-Zeeland is a dutch name, go figure), cashew, and, my favourite, strawberries are south-american only. Juck, european food suddenly feels so... incomplete, each day the same grub.

source (yes, I knew a few, but still, had to look it up):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Crops_originating_from_South_America

also a nice note: In Peru, there are these terraces, we do not know where they came from (they were there before modern humans got there), but the ground on them is still fertile (more than any surrouding area) and used to this day. So a mix of that knowledge, together with modern agricultural knowledge could go a long way. Thing is, this way also the genetical variety can be sustained.
 
The US Government is Finally Trying to Make Kickstarter Scammers Pay

Some of the comments make interesting reading.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/05/the-us-government-is-finally-trying-to-make-kickstarter-scammers-pay/

http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/2/5675834/washington-sues-card-game-developer-for-failing-to-deliver-on

Not before time, hopefully the UK government will start doing this too.

I doubt it though as there have been scammers for years in the UK that take peoples money, claim bankruptcy then open up under another name, even selling the same products.

There was a famous incident with a sofa company doing exactly this, the father closed it down, then the wife re-opened & closed it then the son did the same.
 
I don't really like the idea that all funded projects that don't deliver are classified as theft. Only money that can be shown to have not been used in a good faith attempt to deliver on the project should be considered stolen and subject to repayment. You can't legally enforce a project with no extra liquidity to be on schedule and on budget.

There could still be a lot more done in order to reduce chance of failure and place more burden of responsibility on the project teams. I saw a blog post from the Novena people (sadly can't find it now for the life of me) that has argued that Crowd Supply is a much better fit for hardware projects than Kickstarter. Makes sense, it was really not started with that in mind. I've long since felt that if KS doesn't do more to try to make projects successful they'll start losing out to competitors who will, and I guess this is finally happening. The thing with crowd funding is most people don't find the projects just by roaming the crowd funding site but because it was reported somewhere else, so you really don't need to be on the most successful funding site to be visible.
 
Seeing since its been 6 months since the project was canceled and the parts have been on sale.  One needs to ask what exactly is going on here.  I know ED was talking about lowering the price of the parts to clear the last lot several months back - did that happen? .  It seems to me from the last updates that Link has completely walked from this project.  
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seeing since its been 6 months since the project was canceled and the parts have been on sale.  One needs to ask what exactly is going on here.  I know ED was talking about lowering the price of the parts to clear the last lot several months back - did that happen? .  It seems to me from the last updates that Link has completely walked from this project.  
It's certainly looking that way. Ryan had been in contact with the Attorney General of Vermont, who in turn had been trying to contact Link with no response whatsoever. Link hasn't communicated directly with anyone here for months, as far as I'm aware he's only responded once to comments on Kickstarter and he doesn't respond to any other communication. He's not exactly going to great lengths to give the impression he gives a crap about all this. I can't help but think he's just playing the waiting game, hoping most people will give up and walk away.

No matter what goodwill people here feel toward Link, he isn't treating backers any differently than Craig did. And the only real information, as always, ends up coming from EvilDragon.
 
No matter what goodwill people here feel toward Link, he isn't treating backers any differently than Craig did
Except that Craig took the money and Link got nothing but trouble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't speak for others here, but I don't have any kind of goodwill towards Link at all. I simply don't think he has moral responsibility to deal with the angry backers of what was effectively Craig's project. I don't deny that he's treating them no differently than Craig, or that he's walked from the project, I simply think that is understandable given the circumstances and trying to go after Link probably doesn't accomplish that much anyway.

This whole thing reminds me of cases where parents get in a lot of trouble because their child did something wrong outside of their control and they're the ones legally accountable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Link pretty much made the mistake of loaning money to his family
 
This whole thing reminds me of cases where parents get in a lot of trouble because their child did something wrong outside of their control and they're the ones legally accountable.
In many cases, they ARE accountable for not being responsible parents.


:p
 
In many cases, they ARE accountable for not being responsible parents.
You want Link to become Craigs Dad oO?
I have no idea how you can get that from what I say. Some serious mental juggling I guess.


I was just commenting on Exophase's example. Some people (not saying he is one of them) tend to neglect the parents role in raising children, as if we were born with fully developed characters. I find that disturbing.
 
Of course, but this is where a good legal system should work. Or not.

But what is the point here? Sorry I just stepped in here out of nowhere.
Just using it as an analogy.

In this case some people have realized they'd have a much easier time going after Link than Craig so that's what they're doing, all they care about is his legal accountability in the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top