This topic contains 315 replies, has 39 voices, and was last updated by 
IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) 1 year, 12 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Anonymous42How would you implement a form of economics that facilitated the equitable distribution of resources according to each inhabitants needs, wants and entitlements?
Every man for himself! The rest goes to the sharks!
See that black fin rising out of the water? That’s where the welfare line begins! That’s our social worker! Bon’voyage…..Doc, you claim to be an individualist but you subscribe to society.
Well I suspect we’re just using different definitions for “individualist”. Let me define my terms a bit and see if that helps clear things up.
I am thinking of the communal <–> individual spectrum when I talk about individualism. To me, it means holding the needs, values and experiences of the individual above those of the group… thinking for yourself, acting for yourself, taking responsibility for yourself and producing value for yourself. These also happen to be what I consider the main values of MGTOW are, for the record, I see this in contrast with collectivism which is holding the values and success of the group as higher than those of the individual… thinking what your group things, acting along with your group, holding others responsible for your situation and depending on others to produce value for you.
You might consider my idea of individualist to be very similar to Rand’s concept of a “producer” and my idea of a collectivist to be her “looter”.
While I speak of individualism, I recognize that no man is an island unto himself and that we are all part of a community… a community of individuals… who must work together to survive and prosper in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin and the founding fathers of our nation. To this end, I believe that each of us should select a vocation according to our comparative advantage (i.e. the value producing task we are best at) and then do that task in order to create value which we can exchange for the value created by others in order to meet our material needs and, thereafter, provide ourselves with as broad a base of experience, opportunity and pleasures in our lives as we may desire.
The Miriam Wenster definition suits me:
Full Definition of individualism
1
a : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine
: the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals
b : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theoryI suspect when you speak of individualism, you are thinking more along the lines of actual, near total self reliance in the spirit of a Grizzly Adams type who lives alone and apart from society, does not take part in any form of economic behavior and produces for himself everything he needs for survival. Is that a valid assumption?
This I would not call individualism, I would maybe call that man a hermit, a man who chooses to live a simple life away from society for religious-like reasons. But honestly unless you strip down to your bare skin and walk into the woods to live a solitary life as one with nature, you aren’t really separating yourself from society completely so even hermit doesn’t capture the sense of what I’m thinking you’re talking about.
Does that help clear up my position at all? Please correct any misconceptions I have of your intent in use of the word “individualism” and we can continue from there.
Yes, Doc, that clears up your position completely, and we agree on a few points of that. The point where your Individualism turns into collectivism is here: “collectivism which is holding the values and success of the group as higher than those of the individual”. By claiming that the “free market” is more important than individual lives, you are prioritizing the collective. It doesn’t matter what you label it, you can call it “The Free Market”, “Society”, “The Nation”, etc.. it’s collectivism. A person does not deserve to die just because they might currently be obsolete in function to the collective. THAT is where we differ, sir. Freedom IS individualism, and “Grizzly Adams” types are the people who are closest to it. If you truly are against theft of the individual by the state and collectivism, then you should count amongst that the theft of labor, and not just the theft of the currency it is translated into. It should be a voluntary process, and not a compulsory one. THAT is individualism, DOC. That is freedom. The right of a man to own his prerogative and not have it decided by others, instead of having his worth decided by the “invisible hand” of a free market where if nobody is willing to exchange the tokens of their time, effort, intelligence and creativity for your products and services, then you are, by definition, economically useless. In other words, compulsory labor and value determined by the collective. That’s totalitarian, that’s tyranny, and that is collectivism.
No, because psychopaths will always use violence and superior weaponry to control the money supply, justifying that they deserve it simply because they are capable of it. If we could cure psychopathy, medically, then maybe we might have a chance.
I’m inclined to agree with you Veni but isn’t that more of a reflection on those psychopaths than it is on currency per se? Almost anything with a useful facility can be abused in the wrong hands. I know the MGTOW ‘way’ is one of dignity and stoicism but how does one defend oneself from a system that refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of individualism? Or to put it another way, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you, along with several other individuals, purchase/lay claim to an Island in the middle of the pacific, far from the notional sovereignty of existing civilisations with the intention of creating an egalitarian, individualist Utopian commune. How would you implement a form of economics that facilitated the equitable distribution of resources according to each inhabitants needs, wants and entitlements?
I don’t claim to have all the answers, Bob. The point that I’ve been making this entire time is that no one else has the right to compel me into servitude. I am well capable of taking care of myself and shouldn’t be obligated by the collective to take care of others. On your imaginary Island, I would *voluntarily* do my best to contribute whatever I can, and any surplus I create I would gladly share. However, if others on the island attempted to compel me to work, or otherwise do something I don’t want to do, they would be met with violent resistance. The collective does not have a right to enslave the individual. When a collective goes too far, revolution happens every time, with the rebels being the individualist people who simply secure the right to rule themselves/ seek independence, and the empire being the ruling class who believe they are so inherently superior to others, that their subjects do not have a right to, nor own their individual prerogatives. The ruling class uses the ideology that whatever they decide is best for themselves, is for the “common or greater good” to attempt to justify the slavery. What they really mean is that they decide what is good, and whatever that is, is what is individually better for the ruling class, at the expense of the populace.
Thank you guys for really digging into the topic without getting emotional, it’s been an enjoyable reading your discussion. After reading your latest post, I realize I agree with Veni more so than I do Doc. This reminds me of my debates (friendly of course) with my father on freedom. I criticize his patriotism by saying that our country (America) isn’t really the “land of the free” because we arn’t completely free to do what we want, we are the “land of the relatively free”. He calls himself an individualist and likes to say that I am using “idealistic” thinking, but that is my point and the one that I believe Veni is getting at. There is an individualistic/collectivist spectrum and those of us that believe we need society and must work with it are not as far down the individual side as the guy who believes he doesn’t owe society his cooperation.
Now where is the turning point in the spectrum that switches someone’s label from one to the other? I sure don’t know. Labels tend to just distort our understanding of each others positions so I’m learning to avoid them as much as I can.
Thank you, Tiga
Anonymous42Grizzly Adams type who lives alone and apart from society, does not take part in any form of economic behavior and produces for himself everything he needs for survival. Is that a valid assumption?
Grizzly Adams trapped and hunted for fur, he purchased traps and bullets, I’m sure with REAL MONEY, the gold and silver stuff, the money that had a shiny ring to it when dropped on the counter, the money that disappeared when I was a small child, the SILVER money, the REAL money.
At the same time silver vanished, they initiated a war on poverty, and the FREE stuff started to flow through what has become extortion, not taxation. A cancer, and it’s now apparently incurable, the host is now in critical condition, I’m preparing for much harder times. There’s no free lunch, the
welfareI mean the “farewell” tab is still growing.The welfare state has spanned over an entire lifetime covering 3 to 4 generations, from great grandma, to great grand child, most of them never working a day in their lives. Now we have destroyed cities, a rundown ruined economy, endless national debt, and the WORKING POOR living under hostile socialist state conditions.
It now actually pays more, and has better SECURITY, to join the welfare state, get the free stuff, than it is to work hard, and avoid it!FEMINISM and it’s group mentality has made this civilization into something abominable!
Move over Grizzly, MG-Tower needs more space, besides I’m the only blacksmith within a 4 day walk!
To better sum it up in very few words from a “Soviet” Russian I heard decades ago; he said: ” we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay”, he was a hotel worker somewhere in Moscow, the story was about the atrocious service and lack of good work ethics throughout the (now extinct) Soviet Socialist Republic “Soyuz Sovetskih Sosalistichiskih Republic” (Soviet Union) …..
IT’S OUR TURN>
I agree. Fantastic debate and it’s certainly helped to clear up a lot of ideological conflicts in my mind. You’re a principled man Veni and a credit to MGTOW. Also, despite some apparent disagreements on the interpretation of certain definitions, I think, in general, we’re all very much of a similar mindset – perhaps the focus of antagonism is more on practice than theory.
In any case, I’m always heartened by the diplomatic, civilised exchange of ideas, even if, ultimately, there is no way to perfectly reconcile contrasting ideologies.
So what’s the solution… back to the gold standard? Crypto-currency? Barter economy? Bottle caps?
I’m not disagreeing that expanding the supply of a currency devalues the existing currency… but assuming that we need some method of easily and securely accounting for, transmitting and storing value, I wonder how one avoids erosion of value in any form of standardized expandable storage.
Anyone?
Very simple. Commodity backed/Basket currency as promoted by Milton Friedman if I recall correctly (its been a few years). Essentially the system we have now is a pyramid scheme where credit is given with ease with nothing to back it up. Basket currency uses commodities like copper (pre-1981 coins) nickel, silver, and gold. Any coin of a metal that is commodity metal that can be used by industry can technically be introduced. But for US purposes, its better to just go with commodity backed currency and let people use crypto-currencies if they want.
It now actually pays more, and has better SECURITY, to join the welfare state, get the free stuff, than it is to work hard, and avoid it!
If you’re going to be slave, why pay for your incarceration? I don’t think people are inherently idle and I don’t think indigents value their status as social liabilities. I find it interesting that elephants in zoo’s live considerably shorter lives than their free roaming counterparts. One might almost conclude that they ‘lose the will’ or motivation to go on. Humans are remarkably resourceful creatures but I think they need to be free to pursue their own calling without petty legislation dictating the limits of their purview. Copyrights, patents, monopolies, cartels, rampant nepotism and hostile business practices together with restrictive employment legislation and counter-intuitive political correctness campaigns do so much to damage the organic evolution of society.
Anonymous42Agreed! The welfare state has turned the human experience into a diabolical zoo of sorts, look at all the northern cities that have been governed by femicrats for the past 50 years, these cities are in shambles, and murder is commonplace! Remove the man from the family unit, replace him with government, and all you have left is animals to feed and barn.
The proof is in the destruction……..The welfare state isn’t the unguided orphans of society who, through no fault of their own, have not received the teaching and guidance to understand the world and be provided an opportunity by people who already have money. The welfare state IS the people who:
1. print the money, bail the banks out with it, and give it to their corporate friends on wall street and elsewhere in the world.
2. perpetuate the poverty of the poor via taxation, inflation, over draft fees, license, and an added artificial cost to subsistence, like agriculture taxes, land tax, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, etc.
3. The rich people who receive income just for having money, IE passive incomes like interest, dividends, tax breaks, etc. It’s pretty sad when there are dead people who have higher incomes than living workers. Elvis may be dead, but he makes more money than me, and I’m both a better singer AND a better guitar player.The strategy of the ruling class is simple, and it is working: DEFLECT all responsibility for the theft and low quality of life of the poor ONTO the poor. WTF. And you people really believe this? You need to take a step back and ask yourself, if it weren’t illegal or expensive to start your own business, if there would be as many impoverished people. The fact is that the state intentionally creates impoverished people to manufacture the necessary desperation to compel people into servitude doing the jobs that no one else wants to do. The welfare state is what created the poverty, yes? So then how is it the fault of the impoverished and not the state? This line of thinking makes no sense to me. You blame the victim for the crime. Little girls aren’t even allowed to sell lemonade from a lemonade stand anymore without the police interfering. It’s ridiculous. Stop blaming the people who have been compelled into slavery by the state for desiring freedom. Stop blaming the people who are clamped into serfdom by legislation, taxes, and licenses for being a serf.
…and above ALL else please stop behaving as if this system has any legitimacy. There is NO free market, and there never was. There are people who bust their asses working 2 or even 3 jobs who still are only able to live paycheck to paycheck… while there are other people who just play golf and make over $500 an hour by doing NOTHING.
The welfare state isn’t the unguided orphans of society who, through no fault of their own, have not received the teaching and guidance to understand the world and be provided an opportunity by people who already have money. The welfare state IS the people who:
1. print the money, bail the banks out with it, and give it to their corporate friends on wall street and elsewhere in the world.
2. perpetuate the poverty of the poor via taxation, over draft fees, license, and an added artificial cost to subsistence, like agriculture taxes, land tax, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, etc.
3. The rich people who receive income just for having money, IE passive incomes like interest, dividends, tax breaks, etc. It’s pretty sad when there are dead people who have higher incomes than living workers. Elvis may be dead, but he makes more money than me, and I’m both a better singer AND a better guitar player...Stop blaming the people who are clamped into serfdom by legislation, taxes, and licenses for being a serf.
…and above ALL else please stop behaving as if this system has any legitimacy. There is NO free market, and there never was. There are people who bust their asses working 2 or even 3 jobs who still are only able to live paycheck to paycheck… while there are other people who just play golf and make over $500 an hour by doing NOTHING.
Hahaha.. truly epic Veni.. that’s a keeper! Maybe I’ll plagiarise it! hurhur
Anonymous42You’re not going to get an argument from me, it’s a two fold issue, the additude that’s there’s something for nothing (entitlements) And lucrative back scratching that now replaces the free market place, making millionaires out of politicians that “LEGALLY” practice insider trading.
I feel sorry for the generations to come, they’re being born into a bondage debt, a debt they had no part of creating.
Multitudes will be standing at the gate with nothing to loose but their worthless lives, then there will be bloodshed, a day of reckoning, a day that the powers to be will hang from the trees.It’s a cycle of human existence that (until the constitution and the principles of liberty) was the worlds default mode, now with the constitution’s erosion and scrimshaw over the law, those days are certain to return!
The chess pieces are in place for Armageddon!
By claiming that the “free market” is more important than individual lives, you are prioritizing the collective.
This is where you misunderstand me, my point is that the invisible hand of the free market, which I define as the total collection of products and services that individuals find valuable enough to trade their own valuable products and services for, determines what kinds of products and services are valuable. So assuming that an individual must produce something of value in order to be able to trade for the things of value that other individuals produce, one would desire to produce something other people value greatly rather than something few other people value at all.
Again, this has nothing to do with the “intrinsic” value of a human, which I believe to be exactly zero to anyone but the person themself.. Sure, your life is valuable to you because it’s yours… but unless you can produce a product a service to trade for your sustenance or convince someone to sustain you for nothing, nobody else is going to care about your life and you have no right to assume they should. Believing that your “intrinsic” value grants you the right to live and receive food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, iPhones and Starbucks without yourself having to produce anything of value is, in my mind, the essence of collectivism. Ultimately your sustenance has to come out of someone’s pocket and if it isn’t yours, it’s someone else’s and you’re no longer an individualist.
The free market doesn’t set your value… you set it by the choices you make as an individual within the constraints of a resource limited world. The market is just the place where individuals take their valuable goods and services to trade for yours and money is just the symbolic representation of those values, nothing more. Collectivists who have nothing of value to trade or who don’t want to have to produce anything of value to trade denigrate the free market and wish for the abolishment of money so that their mooching can not be quantified. It is the collectivist dream to create an environment where they can simply say it’s their right to lay claim to what others produce and nobody can call them out on it.
You follow me?
…and above ALL else please stop behaving as if this system has any legitimacy. There is NO free market, and there never was. There are people who bust their asses working 2 or even 3 jobs who still are only able to live paycheck to paycheck… while there are other people who just play golf and make over $500 an hour by doing NOTHING.
You speak of the free market as though it’s purpose is to reward people for their time and effort rather than for the value they produce. You could literally work 24 hours a day at a low value job and go broke doing it but you seem to think that the time and effort spent entitles you to a comfortable living. It does not. Only by producing value can you reasonably expect to be able to amass and store wealth,
Then you speak of those who have amassed and stored wealth as though they have produced nothing… I suspect that, like many, you assume that people who have wealth came to it by nefarious means,,, demonizing the wealthy while desiring to become one of them is a common theme among collectivists.. Yes, of course there are wealthy people who are criminals, just as there are people in every socio-economic strata who are criminals, but the man who plays golf all day while he lives off the legitimately amassed dividends of his investments or those of his forebears is not a criminal,,, he’s a utopian. He or someone in his family has produced enough value that he never needs to work again,.. a state of being we should all aspire to, not cast aspersions on,
If you can prove someone came to wealth through criminal action, help police the market and keep it free by prosecuting them for their crimes as an individual… but don’t blame money and the market for the criminal actions of individuals or for the fact that some people have been able to produce enough value to buy a comfortable life while you have not,
How would you implement a form of economics that facilitated the equitable distribution of resources according to each inhabitants needs, wants and entitlements?
What’s equitable? Half the people do all the work while the other half f~~~s around, yet they all get an equal share of food and shelter?
3. The rich people who receive income just for having money, IE passive incomes like interest, dividends, tax breaks, etc. It’s pretty sad when there are dead people who have higher incomes than living workers. Elvis may be dead, but he makes more money than me, and I’m both a better singer AND a better guitar player.
How is this unfair? People who save their money make interest on it and grow it via investments, people who can’t hold on to their money don’t. Nobody would ever be able to retire if this wasn’t the case. Should we all just put our savings in 0% growth accounts because interest is unfair?
I think its more unfair people can borrow money, spend it, then claim bankruptcy and get their debts wiped while the rest of us actually pay our way in life. I think its more unfair people borrowed a s~~~load of money for college and now want to run and and vote for Bernie Sanders because uncle Bernie promised them he’d make someone else pay the tab.
Don’t get me wrong, I think its an issue the middle class pays 30-40% tax rates while super high earners are only paying 15-20 because its all capital gains, but at the same time I’m just a middle class guy who will have saved enough money by the time I’m in my mid 30’s to retire. I simply lived a pretty minimalist lifestyle most my life and save more money than I spend every year…is it somehow unfair I did that instead of doing what most of my coworkers do who make the same amount of money but all have bigger houses, nicer cars, take more vacations, and don’t save anything? Should I make things fair by blowing all my savings and running myself into debt?
Debt might be slavery but at the end of the day people voluntarily put the shackles on.
I haven’t misunderstood, you said that If I have no value to the collective “free” market, which isn’t free at all, that I and others like me deserve to die. That’s collectivism. This is exactly what George Bernard Shaw was saying the previous video I posted. There is no “free market” because government intervenes at every avenue. So please stop saying free market because you might as well be talking about Santa Clause. There is no such thing. The intrinsic value of a human has to do with their compassion and willingness to do good for others. If such a thing didn’t exist, there would be no such thing as relationships. Friendships, family, and pretty much ALL social networks are built, and all collaborative groups are built on intrinsic value of a human being, those being virtues. You’re not going to sit here and tell me that virtues are worth exactly zero. If you believe that, it’s because you have no friends, and if that’s the case then you should ask yourself why.
DOC: “Believing that your “intrinsic” value grants you the right to live and receive food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, iPhones and Starbucks without yourself having to produce anything of value is, in my mind, the essence of collectivism.”
Me: At what point did I ever express that this is my belief? You are framing this false assumption. You have nothing material from which to draw this conclusion. At no point in time did I express that I expect to receive anything from anyone else. My entire point all this time is that no one else should expect anything from me. That’s individualism. I don’t owe you anything, therefore I do not have to earn my living FROM YOU. It is the law that prevents people from working for themselves. I already pointed out that I have earned my living every step of the way. The only reason I recently left my job is to learn to code, to take a similar path to Bunker Mode, because I don’t like being stuck paycheck to paycheck the way I am.
Money is not the “symbolic representation of goods and services”, because the people who create it from nothing produce neither goods nor services. Again, you are referring to what it *would* be like if we had real money.
DOC: “It is the collectivist dream to create an environment where they can simply say it’s their right to lay claim to what others produce and nobody can call them out on it.”
ME; That is correct. The people who print the money, along with government and people who think like you, believe that you are entitled to my labor, and that if I don’t give it to you, then I don’t deserve to live. That is not freedom. It is the opposite.
Again, the issue isn’t that I don’t want to take care of myself. I have been doing so all this time, completely alone. The issue is that I do not wish to be compelled to take care of others. How many times do I have to repeat this to you before you comprehend it?DOC: “Then you speak of those who have amassed and stored wealth as though they have produced nothing… I suspect that, like many, you assume that people who have wealth came to it by nefarious means,,, demonizing the wealthy while desiring to become one of them is a common theme among collectivists..”
ME: This is the DUMBEST thing you have said yet. Let me just refer back to a previous post I made on THIS EXACT SAME FORUM where I said the EXACT F~~~ING OPPOSITE OF THIS :
“4[No one is going to just give you that stuff in our current world of scarcity.] I’ve already disproven this by referencing programs such as kickstarter.com and very generous rich people. Not all rich people are evil, especially the ones who built their businesses from the ground up with honest labor. In fact, recently groups of entrepreneurs are banding together to change things in an effort called “Voice and Exit”. You should check it out.”DOC:”If you can prove someone came to wealth through criminal action, help police the market and keep it free by prosecuting them for their crimes as an individual…”
ME: Are you serious? You really think that the government is going to prosecute it’s self? I take back what I said earlier about the dumbest thing you’ve said yet, because this is a new record. “Yeah, let’s just have the government investigate and prosecute it’s self”. Brilliant idea /sarcasmWhat’s equitable? Half the people do all the work while the other half f~~~s around, yet they all get an equal share of food and shelter?
One could argue that in our current system, 99% of the people do all the hard work, while the other 1% f~~~s around, yet they get a higher share of the food and shelter. But that’s by the by since I don’t actually agree with socialism.
No, I believe that each worker should be paid according to their fraction of the output value. If the days net productivity equates to £100,000 worth of retail goods, less manufacturing costs of say £30,000. Then Bill, who sat on his bum for most of the day and contributed exactly 0.001% of the final tally should be remunerated accordingly.
How is this unfair? People who save their money make interest on it and grow it via investments, people who can’t hold on to their money don’t. Nobody would ever be able to retire if this wasn’t the case. Should we all just put our savings in 0% growth accounts because interest is unfair?
How one chooses to store their surplus is entirely up to them. If they blow it, they blow it.. Interest on the other hand, as I understand it, is the product of usury, to which I attribute most of society’s current economic woes – it ensnared and enslaves.
I think its more unfair people can borrow money, spend it, then claim bankruptcy and get their debts wiped while the rest of us actually pay our way in life. I think its more unfair people borrowed a s~~~load of money for college and now want to run and and vote for Bernie Sanders because uncle Bernie promised them he’d make someone else pay the tab.
Again… usury…
Don’t get me wrong, I think its an issue the middle class pays 30-40% tax rates while super high earners are only paying 15-20 because its all capital gains, but at the same time I’m just a middle class guy who will have saved enough money by the time I’m in my mid 30’s to retire. I simply lived a pretty minimalist lifestyle most my life and save more money than I spend every year…is it somehow unfair I did that instead of doing what most of my coworkers do who make the same amount of money but all have bigger houses, nicer cars, take more vacations, and don’t save anything? Should I make things fair by blowing all my savings and running myself into debt?
Speaking of unfair, I worked for a frozen foods packing company once during my youth as a six month stint between more lucrative work. The majority Polish immigrants who worked there were employed as ‘seasonal’ workers so as to exempt them from minimum wage legislation. They worked tirelessly for ten hours a day, six days a week in freezing cold conditions with little or no job security. The Boss, on the other hand, would park his rolls outside his lavish office each afternoon, spend three hours making calls and wise cracking his junior partner before heading off home after a strenuous days work.
Debt might be slavery but at the end of the day people voluntarily put the shackles on.
Not me, I live within my means but sure, I agree, so what do you propose?
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
