Big Thread: Anarcho-Collectivism/Syndicalism Discussion

Mon, 2014-04-07 14:27

#2

MAD Crab

This is one I've commented on

This is one I've commented on in the past myself. I like the concept of anarcho-collectivism in the same way as I like the idea behind communism; It sounds good in theory, but falls short when it comes to dealing with human nature. That said, I believe that the standard anco answer would be along the lines "People wouldn't approve of their actions, and somebody would go kill/replace them." Possibly in addition to "Somebody would print off some new environmental equipment from a CM."

—

Mon, 2014-04-07 14:33

#3

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Has it not?

I mean the writers have a least given the college try of giving the other factions their fair shake. But from the writers, and a rather large majority of the player base, seem to prefer AnCol as the way to go. The critiques of it are almost nil, whereas the critiques of capitalist systems, in any form, have been done ad nausium. Now, I may be terribly wrong and one or two of the writers may be Extropian, but just from what I gathered in my readings of the material, "The heart of the Autonomist Alliance" Which could be true for all I know. They may have been the first to suggest it and they certainly could have the highest population. ~ ~ ~ ~ Now let me be clear, I wouldn't hold such a view against the writers. Eliminating creator bias is nearly impossible. And I would rather someone be truthful about their dislike of something while representing it than to lie through a grin.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2014-04-07 14:50

#4

MAD Crab

Well, AnCol plays to a lot of

Well, AnCol plays to a lot of our weaknesses. The ideas it espouses are like geek utopia. You can't be forced into a job you hate, everything is volunteer work on something you find fascinating. Basic need are taken care of. "Money" is based off of how hard you work, not how well you can climb some imaginary ladder. No real laws to stop you from living how you like, just the recognition of your peers. This ignores a lot of problems, though. Nobody's ever given an explanation of how the rep systems prevent gaming, which is an insanely huge problem. Flat organizational structures don't work well for large projects or self defense, and people naturally gravitate into hierarchies. Distribution and organization is still as much as a problem as ever. I've heard people say "well, jobs and material priority are assigned via a scheduling system," but that ignores the fact that somebody has to build and maintain that system, and invites unscrupulous actors to backdoor the system. Popular people get more rep, which means that they can upgrade themselves and get more rep, which seems just as bad as what happens in monetary systems, even if the books deny it.

—

Mon, 2014-04-07 14:56

#5

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

You are very slightly less

You are very slightly less screwed in AnCol than in AnCap. This is simply because the free nature of CM access in AnCol means that the barrier to starting up a Vigil in response to such an attack is much lower than in AnCap. AnCap, due to the issues with plans and affording them value, means that the Vigils probably want to be constant organizations whose members assemble when such trouble occurs, but who are always members.

Mon, 2014-04-07 15:44

#6

Lorsa

I guess to answer the

I guess to answer the question; if 3 people decide to do something like that, you are screwed no matter which habitat you live on. Well, technically you can try to bring them down and then psychosurgery-torture them or insert some behavioral modifications to get the codes back and then prune them down to skill-softs and have someone else do the job. Ancol works only as long as most people [i]want[/i] it to work. The ones making sure things happen on the habitat want it to work, the people with the skills want it to work etc. It's a system that can be abused, but so can every system out there. The only reason it can work in Eclipse Phase is because of the nature of habitats. People gravitate towards the ones with an ideology they like. And in a way I feel that is what we should do in the world today. Democracy is in general worse than the idea that we simply divide up the world and say that "here is a country for this system, there is one for that" and let people move to the one with the laws they prefer. Normally I would argue that human nature really isn't so doom-and-gloom as most people seem to say, and that people in general are nice but since I just had my very new bike stolen this weekend I might be less inclined to do so. However, I feel that I myself would much prefer an ancol way of living. I work much better when there's no "pressure" so to speak, of loosing my home or not being able to buy food etc etc. This fear really is more detrimental to my efficiency than anything else. If I knew I had my basic necessities taken care of no matter what I could stop spending time and energy worrying about that and focus on working. I want to help the society I live in flourish and prosper and usually feel much happier when I do.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Mon, 2014-04-07 16:00

#7

MAD Crab

People game the system. Even

People game the system. Even people who mean well game the system. And sometimes, as you've experienced, people don't mean well at all. You say that people can migrate, and that's sort of true. But people can migrate now, and don't. People settle down. They build friendships and routines and they don't want to uproot themselves because a few people do things that they don't like. Look at the counties in the USA where the sheriff is known to be corrupt. People make noises, but they don't leave. Back to the environment systems. The thing about a centralized system (like any democracy that we're familiar with) is that it would have structures set up such as a military/police force that could take back the environmental systems by force. You could set up a militia in an ancol hab, but that's asking for whoever runs the militia to become a dictator. You say ancol only works as long as everybody wants it to work. That's the point. If your system requires perfect cooperation and no malicious actions from the participants, it's simply not a viable system. It will collapse in short order.

—

Mon, 2014-04-07 17:22

#8

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Freedom

Okay, all well and good. The system has it's problems, but nothing that can't be overcome by those committed to it. What about someone like myself though? Someone who likes to buck the crowd and not let popular opinion determine how I spend my time? For instance, let's say my morph was an Olympian (which it is for my EP persona), and I considered it "my body." So I was hesitant or even outright to rent it out to anyone. Would, from an AnCol perspective, I'd be wrong and be penalized for it?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2014-04-07 18:44

#9

Lorsa

I guess that's one of those

I guess that's one of those things you'd get rep for if you did but not get penalised for if you didn't.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Mon, 2014-04-07 18:52

#10

MAD Crab

Depends on how your hab

Depends on how your hab thinks. If people disapproved, your rep would get dinged all the time. Which of course brings up one thing about AnCol that people don't really like to talk about. If it's anything like Reddit or Slashdot (or any site with a voting mechanism) anybody who disagrees with the group consensus gets dinged badly. If they're right or wrong doesn't factor in.

—

Mon, 2014-04-07 20:45

#11

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

AA problems.

I see. As I've said in the other thread, I'd rather be under the heel of one man with too much power, than held in contempt by the hundreds. So in AnCap, we have potential tyrants of coin. In AnCol, we have potential tyranny of the masses. I say every member of the Autonomist Alliance is just playing "pick your poison." I think that we can all agree that, whatever miseries are vistied upon us by the shortcomings of our respective systems. They are a price we gladly pay in favor of being under the Consortium's eye. Now . . . was that in-character, or out of character? ;)

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2014-04-07 20:50

#12

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Ambition

Now here's one I have a problem with. Let's just say I love martial arts (which I do), I'm passionate, I'm dedicated, and I've trained. (Well, I've had some difficulty with that last part X#) I still don't feel like I've been vindicated by my training alone though. I need a test. Something external to prove my skills. Would I be able to challenge others to fair competitions and earn a place of standing as a great fighter?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2014-04-07 21:51

#13

Undocking

MAD Crab wrote:People game

MAD Crab wrote:
People game the system. Even people who mean well game the system. And sometimes, as you've experienced, people don't mean well at all. You say that people can migrate, and that's sort of true. But people can migrate now, and don't. People settle down. They build friendships and routines and they don't want to uproot themselves because a few people do things that they don't like. Look at the counties in the USA where the sheriff is known to be corrupt. People make noises, but they don't leave.

EP is a diasporic setting where very few egos live where they were born. Most humans today live near their hometown: in the United States ~55% have never lived outside their home state. This is because of the status quo bias: humans don't like change, change is seen as a loss. But what does that have to do with diaspora? Transhumanity has a new status quo, and therefore a bias towards this new. Many of those who had qualms with transhuman ideas were left behind. In the grips of a civilization spanning PTSD and exodus, transhumans have found different routines. And, as the Jovians and neo-prims (luddites) show, there is a status quo bias for the ancient as well. Removing EP from the equation, any contemporary ancollective would require immigration. If I set up an ancollective on an oil rig in international waters, people will have to show up. Those who are willing to move into a new society are also more willing to move again, and are less afflicted by the status quo bias. Now, people can move, but it is not always financially or legally possible. Every human is a forced rider of the capitalist-realism nation-state. I am able to move to Sweden or Finland due to my British passport and the EU, but I cannot financially move there. The same limiting factor is true for EP, but farcasting is comparatively cheap and infomorphs allow existence without total physicality. Even if you wanted to move to an ancap or inner-system, write a contract for terms of indenture. While it is true that forced indentures have an issue leaving their situations, transhuman notes that this is the minority of the population. Regarding the sherif, in a horizontal society, people are less likely to take other people's crap. The ultimatum game and dictator game show cooperation in equal situations, especially when reputation is concerned, is the norm.

MAD Crab wrote:
Back to the environment systems. The thing about a centralized system (like any democracy that we're familiar with) is that it would have structures set up such as a military/police force that could take back the environmental systems by force. You could set up a militia in an ancol hab, but that's asking for whoever runs the militia to become a dictator.

Suspending horizontal society for horizontal heirarchy is a suggested practice in ancol when expertise and centralization are required, referring to those with the most authority (specialized knowledge). Since this is an EP-like formulated situation, in most situations, nobody is a forced rider. The vast majority of those societies in the outer-system (besides Jupiter) are participating in a society they want to participate in. If someone believes in ancol and is a military veteren, they have no reason not to accept the position of milita-head and relinquish command when the situation has ended.

MAD Crab wrote:
You say ancol only works as long as everybody wants it to work. That's the point. If your system requires perfect cooperation and no malicious actions from the participants, it's simply not a viable system. It will collapse in short order.

That is exactly why it is a viable system. It doesn't have to be perfect, but cooperation and concensus are needed. How many times have democracies collapsed into dictatorships or 'free' nations failed to uphold the rights of their citizens? Lack of cooperation and malicious actions by the participants are epidemic because not everyone exists in their desired system. Movements, protests and revolts are common.

Steel Accord wrote:
What about someone like myself though? Someone who likes to buck the crowd and not let popular opinion determine how I spend my time? For instance, let's say my morph was an Olympian (which it is for my EP persona), and I considered it "my body." So I was hesitant or even outright to rent it out to anyone. Would, from an AnCol perspective, I'd be wrong and be penalized for it?

Nope. There is a difference between private property and personal ownership. Ancol's mantra is 'to each according to her/his labor' and is an individualist and collectivist system. A majority of ancol writers agree to use a labour credit economic system to obtain personal property, while keeping production, distribution and subsistence communal. For example, the fabber is everyones, but if you make a sandwich, it is your sandwich. EP strays into a strange grey area with morphs. Depending on the situation, there could be an instance where someone would have to give it up temporarily—it would be borrowing of personal property. Same with your room. It is personal property, but if it was needed for a makeshift medbay it would be borrowed to become a makeshift medbay. And there are limits to what Rep and vouchers could be used to do. You can't Rep someone to perform sexual acts (or provide a fork for said acts), to jump into a torture virtuality, to space themselves et cetra if they are unwilling. Succeeding a Rep check to borrow/obtain a morph in an ancol hab would assume someone is willing to provide one.

Mon, 2014-04-07 22:24

#14

MAD Crab

Undocking wrote:MAD Crab

Undocking wrote:
MAD Crab wrote:
People game the system. Even people who mean well game the system. And sometimes, as you've experienced, people don't mean well at all. You say that people can migrate, and that's sort of true. But people can migrate now, and don't. People settle down. They build friendships and routines and they don't want to uproot themselves because a few people do things that they don't like. Look at the counties in the USA where the sheriff is known to be corrupt. People make noises, but they don't leave.
EP is a diasporic setting where very few egos live where they were born. Most humans today live near their hometown: in the United States ~55% have never lived outside their home state. This is because of the status quo bias: humans don't like change, change is seen as a loss. But what does that have to do with diaspora? Transhumanity has a new status quo, and therefore a bias towards this new. Many of those who had qualms with transhuman ideas were left behind. In the grips of a civilization spanning PTSD and exodus, transhumans have found different routines. And, as the Jovians and neo-prims (luddites) show, there is a status quo bias for the ancient as well. Removing EP from the equation, any contemporary ancollective would require immigration. If I set up an ancollective on an oil rig in international waters, people will have to show up. Those who are willing to move into a new society are also more willing to move again, and are less afflicted by the status quo bias. Now, people can move, but it is not always financially or legally possible. Every human is a forced rider of the capitalist-realism nation-state. I am able to move to Sweden or Finland due to my British passport and the EU, but I cannot financially move there. The same limiting factor is true for EP, but farcasting is comparatively cheap and infomorphs allow existence without total physicality. Even if you wanted to move to an ancap or inner-system, write a contract for terms of indenture. While it is true that forced indentures have an issue leaving their situations, transhuman notes that this is the minority of the population.

You point out that people don't like to move, then go straight into saying that people will somehow feel differently in the future because they all had to move at some point. Running for your life doesn't make you more likely to want to move around. I personally move on average every two years. I live in Canada, and I've been across the whole damn nation. Roaming is fun and all, but as time goes on it starts to drive you insane. I've finally settled down, and I've been holding on against all kinds of pressures to move simply because I want. to. stop. I cannot see that people would be any different in EP.

Undocking wrote:
Regarding the sherif, in a horizontal society, people are less likely to take other people's crap. The ultimatum game and dictator game show cooperation in equal situations, especially when reputation is concerned, is the norm.

Why? Why are they less likely to take crap? So the guy over there is playing silly buggers with the mining system. It's not my problem. Well, it's a bit annoying but hey, my friends are here. We'll go out for coffee and complain and maybe we'd ding him a few rep points but I guess we are getting what we need and he's a really good talker...

Undocking wrote:

MAD Crab wrote:
Back to the environment systems. The thing about a centralized system (like any democracy that we're familiar with) is that it would have structures set up such as a military/police force that could take back the environmental systems by force. You could set up a militia in an ancol hab, but that's asking for whoever runs the militia to become a dictator.
Suspending horizontal society for horizontal heirarchy is a suggested practice in ancol when expertise and centralization are required, referring to those with the most authority (specialized knowledge). Since this is an EP-like formulated situation, in most situations, nobody is a forced rider. The vast majority of those societies in the outer-system (besides Jupiter) are participating in a society they want to participate in. If someone believes in ancol and is a military veteren, they have no reason not to accept the position of milita-head and relinquish command when the situation has ended.

So? Militias only work if you train together in advance. You train together, you learn to follow your superior's orders. You make friends with your comrades, you trust your commander. Then your leader starts talking about this problem or that, it's really bad, Jovians in the streets and all that and we need to stop them. Maybe it's a bit odd, but hey you trust em. And things go further and hey presto you've got a military coup. You're depending on the leader to be a good AnCol, and eventually you'll hit a situation where that's not true. You can talk about how panopticon will remove that but it's just not true. It's not like we have lack of evidence against lies in government now, and people still go along with it because the person talking is their leader and is a great guy, no really honest!

Undocking wrote:

MAD Crab wrote:
You say ancol only works as long as everybody wants it to work. That's the point. If your system requires perfect cooperation and no malicious actions from the participants, it's simply not a viable system. It will collapse in short order.
That is exactly why it is a viable system. It doesn't have to be perfect, but cooperation and concensus are needed. How many times have democracies collapsed into dictatorships or 'free' nations failed to uphold the rights of their citizens? Lack of cooperation and malicious actions by the participants are epidemic because not everyone exists in their desired system. Movements, protests and revolts are common.

Never said that what we have is much better. Our leaders are corrupt, the institutions uncontrollable. Doesn't negate any of my points. But what you have to have in a system is the ability to tolerate malicious actors. Because they happen. They always happen. Maybe somebody was an AnCol but got frustrated one day. Maybe the person is a manipulator who hangs out in your hab because it's easier than making his way somewhere else. Maybe the person really is working for the good of the group, but just needs a bit more control to meet some important goal and will put it back together when he's done, but it just never seems to be the right time.

—

Mon, 2014-04-07 22:39

#15

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Ownership

But, if there was something dubbed "an emergency" and I ego-casted away for business elsewhere. There's nothing keeping the habitat from sleeving someone else in my morph while I'm gone?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 01:13

#16

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Well, that depends. If you

Well, that depends. If you're a citizen of the hab, then no, nothing stopping them. If you were just a long-term visitor and brought the morph from outside, maybe. Unless the situation is truly critical, they would probably respect your property rights over the morph, assuming you came from some ancap hab where people own morphs. If you're a citizen, then it's not really 'your' morph. It's a communal morph which has been set aside for your use. Similar, I guess, to having a room in a family home. It's not *your* room, it's the family's room. But it is your space. But if you're not using it and there's an emergency, the hab's going to borrow it temporarily. If the house is on fire and your room is the only one with an unblocked window/door, then yeah, the family is going to go through your room to get to it. So sure, nothing's stopping them from using it. But, if it's an emergency and the hab needs your morph to save lives or save the hab or something, I am severely questioning your moral right to deny the hab its use. (Which goes back to our lovely discussion about the justifiability of property rights. Though you really should have picked a better example, this one is the one which is absolutely worst for your position. You're not using it right now AND it's an emergency? If there's one case where property rights absolutely shouldn't apply at all, this is the one.)

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Tue, 2014-04-08 02:02

#17

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Disagreement and a question

That's where we will have to disagree. That's pretty much why I would not want to be "of" an Anarchist habitat. I would be more than willing to lend my morph or other property, IF ASKED. If we are just going by our character backgrounds, my morph was designed by a friend of my nat-dead father after I fled the Junta. I left my birth body behind and took up this new one. It has deep, personal significance to me, and I consider it as much my body as the one I was born to. So I would at least like to conduct a fork interview, before I agree with whoever wants to use it. Like my ship, which was another gift by a friendly Captain whose life . . . well his current backup anyway, I saved. Re-christened "Accelerando Returns," it's my home, and the home of my crew. If an emergency is called for, I would gladly volunteer my ship and my friends to help. But again, that's MY CHOICE to do so. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ If I may ask though, what's the problem of people fabbing their own fabbers?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 02:59

#18

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Damnit, I meant to go to bed

Damnit, I meant to go to bed an hour and a half ago, yet here I am. These forums are becoming increasingly unhealthy for me. If the hab is in the middle of, let us say, fighting off a PC merc squad sent to egonap some of its members, do you feel you are justified in refusing the hab the use of your morph to fend them off? (And don't deflect by saying you'd grant it if asked. There is no prerogative to ask unless you have a moral right to refuse, and given the immediacy of most emergencies, obligating the hab to spend time tracking you down and sending you a light-speed message for courtesies seems rather selfish and arrogant.) Would this change if you were less intensely attached to this particular morph?

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Tue, 2014-04-08 03:55

#19

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Conditions

If less attached? Yes. If that particular morph did belong to the habitat and I was using it just for my time there, obviously I would have no objections to sleeving someone in it to fight or run. If however, it is my proper Olympian morph, then no. I would still want my ownership of it respected. Now that doesn't mean I would say throw them to the wolves. If it's an absolute emergency, you obviously don't have much of a choice. But when I find out what happened at a later date, I would like some assurance of where my body went, whose in it, and my right to reclaim it.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 04:18

#20

Lorsa

Steel Accord wrote:But, if

Steel Accord wrote:
But, if there was something dubbed "an emergency" and I ego-casted away for business elsewhere. There's nothing keeping the habitat from sleeving someone else in my morph while I'm gone?

If there was a real, honest to God, emergency and not using your morph would result in higher chances of loss of continuity for people, or loss of the habitat itself I could see them taking it from you. However, considering your mental health issues with sharing your morph will someone else, you would get bumped to the front of the queue for new morphs and get replaced with a new one. EDIT: Depending on how you feel about forking, it is even possible they might sleeve YOU into your morph in case of an emergency. Especially if you were good at martial arts or hardware (repair the habitat) skills.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-04-08 04:49

#21

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

The latter

I would actually PREFER to have an alpha fork of me defending people in such a circumstance. (Imagine a reaper drone getting bisected by a lion-man with a monofilament sword!) Could just re-integrate later. Or if he doesn't want to, find a replacement morph that fits "our" tastes. Really, my biggest issue with these rules, and this may vary from hab to hab, is just that they don't even recognize my body as belonging to me. I understand with ego-casting, that's become a common thought, but not everyone prefers to think of every morph as just another port in the storm. Especially if, like me, you have spent quite some time in that morph honing particular skills. To go from years of cultivating training and reflexes in an olympian moprh, only to loose all that with a splicer or bouncer . . . ugh, I don't even want to think about it!

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 05:29

#22

Lorsa

Steel Accord wrote:I would

Steel Accord wrote:
I would actually PREFER to have an alpha fork of me defending people in such a circumstance. (Imagine a reaper drone getting bisected by a lion-man with a monofilament sword!) Could just re-integrate later. Or if he doesn't want to, find a replacement morph that fits "our" tastes. Really, my biggest issue with these rules, and this may vary from hab to hab, is just that they don't even recognize my body as belonging to me. I understand with ego-casting, that's become a common thought, but not everyone prefers to think of every morph as just another port in the storm. Especially if, like me, you have spent quite some time in that morph honing particular skills. To go from years of cultivating training and reflexes in an olympian moprh, only to loose all that with a splicer or bouncer . . . ugh, I don't even want to think about it!

I do think they would respect your attachment to your morph. It's something that is still important for many people and not everyone is comfortable sharing or changing or whatever. So, given that they would know of your feelings, it's quite likely they would fork you. And even if they don't (say you are completely useless under pressure of an emergency due to some mental disorder or another), you already admitted there were some circumstances that were warranted as long as you could check up what happened. Transparancy is quite important in an ancol habitat after all. So, given all that, do you still think you would be unsatisfied?

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-04-08 10:02

#23

Undocking

Erulastant wrote:If you're a

Erulastant wrote:
If you're a citizen, then it's not really 'your' morph. It's a communal morph which has been set aside for your use.

Not at all. Communal morphs can, but do not necessarily, overlap with personal morphs—since ancol respects personal property personal morphs would exist. However, I do agree that they would seize and borrow the morph for an emergency. And in the case of the ego not being present, a copy of the ego's muse could be left behind to give the ego's opinion on forking.

Steel Accord wrote:
Really, my biggest issue with these rules, and this may vary from hab to hab, is just that they don't even recognize my body as belonging to me. I understand with ego-casting, that's become a common thought, but not everyone prefers to think of every morph as just another port in the storm. Especially if, like me, you have spent quite some time in that morph honing particular skills.

Your morph is personal property and does belong to you, unless it is a designated communal morph, which in this case it isn't. In straight up collectivism it would be considered communal—but because ancol brings in a dash of individualism, it allows personal property (but not private property) which extends to your morph.

Tue, 2014-04-08 10:10

#24

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Yes with a "but!"

Would I be "comfortable?" Yes. Would I be satisfied? No. Because even if I'm easily amused and pleased at the moment, given the outstretches of immortality, I may want more. I may wish to start a business enterprise, start my own habitat, maybe I would just like to be recognized for being good at something . . . and being rewarded therein for my dedication and hard work. The idea of living in a completely lateral society doesn't satisfy the latent ambitions I have within me. And even if I'm satisfied, I don't feel it's right to restrict the upward ascension of others.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 11:56

#25

Lorsa

Steel Accord wrote:Would I be

Steel Accord wrote:
Would I be "comfortable?" Yes. Would I be satisfied? No. Because even if I'm easily amused and pleased at the moment, given the outstretches of immortality, I may want more. I may wish to start a business enterprise, start my own habitat, maybe I would just like to be recognized for being good at something . . . and being rewarded therein for my dedication and hard work. The idea of living in a completely lateral society doesn't satisfy the latent ambitions I have within me. And even if I'm satisfied, I don't feel it's right to restrict the upward ascension of others.

I think that's the entire point of ancol. It doesn't restrict the upward ascension of others (which capitalism does) but rather makes it possible for everyone, regardless who gave birth to them, to have the same potential for growth. It does restrict the amount of stuff you can own but not the stuff you can do (or well it does a little bit). It's perfecttly fine to start an enterprise (just not a business), or start researching something close to heart or go on a gatecrashing mission or whatever. You may be restricted a little bit by your rep if it is low but that will just mean it takes longer to get going, not that it is impossible. Usually rep is much easier to get than money. You will also most definitely be recognised for your skills and actions, both in the form of rep and just simple favours. To give an example, I had a player who was the main source behind stopping a PC takeover of the habitat and for that the character was rewarded by getting a new much larger place to live because everyone else there thought she deserved it for being such a great individual. To give an example of what I think is the difference between an enterprise and a business I will use something from my own life. Many years ago now I was part of a chat-world, just before the 3D ones came out (or became popular). It was called Second Kingdom and very fantasy-inspired. There were plenty of stuff you could own there, things you won from various small games etc and collecting stuff was something many people enjoyed. That and decorating their "homes". It was a very friendly community but after some time a trend started to creep in from its sister worlds. People started opening shops to sell things for (in-world) money (as money could be used to buy other things). I didn't quite like that trend, so me and a woman decided to pool our stuff together and open something we called "The Unshop". Now, considering I was depressed at the time and spent basically all my day playing games in that world, I had A LOT of stuff, and she did as well. Basically it worked like this; you could come there and take stuff if you wanted. Basically we sold everything for free. We didn't put a limit on how much things you could take, although we did decide to keep track of it at the start. You could also donate items to The Unshop in which case it would be added to the collection and sold for free. Some people were very sceptical (we were a bit worried too) that this wouldn't work out and a few people would just come and take everything. What happened was the opposite. After a few days we completely stopped keepign track of items as our donations were three times as large as the amount of stuff that people took. One of the girls that had run a real shop got so inspired by the project that she gave us all her stuff and closed down (well, all the other shops also closed down after a while for obvious reasons...) the very first day. Many people were really embarrassed about taking things so we almost had to force it on some people. "Is it alright if I take 3 things you think?" was a common question to which I usually replied "only if you take two more to make it 5" or something similar. I think that was an enterprise worthy of an ancol habitat, but it sure wasn't a business. It also gave me huge amounts of rep (had there actually been something to keep track of it). One of the reasons it worked so great was that due to my insane stock of items I could basically squash all competition. It's one of those things I'm very proud of, because even if it was just some virtual chatworld with a not-very-large population, I still see it as a win over capitalism.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-04-08 13:11

#26

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Steel Accord wrote:Would I be

Steel Accord wrote:
Would I be "comfortable?" Yes. Would I be satisfied? No. Because even if I'm easily amused and pleased at the moment, given the outstretches of immortality, I may want more. I may wish to start a business enterprise, start my own habitat, maybe I would just like to be recognized for being good at something . . . and being rewarded therein for my dedication and hard work. The idea of living in a completely lateral society doesn't satisfy the latent ambitions I have within me. And even if I'm satisfied, I don't feel it's right to restrict the upward ascension of others.

When comparing ancol and ancap on this point, I think the important question is: Is ancol restricting people, or is ancap enabling them? Because if it's the former, then yeah, I can see your point that ancap is "more free". But I happen to think it's the latter. Ancap enshrines a few particular ideas that enable people to climb an artificial ladder of social power that does not exist in ancol (Or at least is not nearly so steep or tall). The thing is, for this "upward ascension" to have any meaning, some people must not be allowed to ascend. If everyone is on the top rung of the ladder, it's not a ladder. So is ancol taking away the ladder, or is ancap putting one in place that does not belong*? *A side note: We currently have a ladder, and any good ancap society would have to take away that ladder and put in a new one. I could perhaps forsee ancap working if when the society started, everyone was on equal ground. I can't see it working if we allow the people who currently have wealth to keep their wealth.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Tue, 2014-04-08 13:50

#27

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

"Just not a business."

Now I don't mean to sound like I'm nit picking, but the devil is in the details. The Unshop would not be unwelcome or unfeasible in an Extropian habitat as basically any economy, currency, gift, rep, is accepted. Whereas my "good ol' Earth fryer" griller that charges credits, would fail spectacularly. I couldn't even have my own fabber to prepare the ingredients. (Something I still don't get. What's wrong with owning a fabber?) My point being, the freedom to dare, is not as pronounced in an AnCol hab.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 13:52

#28

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Point taken

You're right, I shouldn't be comparing the two back to back as we are supposed to be focusing on one. My apologies.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 17:21

#29

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Steel Accord wrote:Now I don

Steel Accord wrote:
Now I don't mean to sound like I'm nit picking, but the devil is in the details. The Unshop would not be unwelcome or unfeasible in an Extropian habitat as basically any economy, currency, gift, rep, is accepted. Whereas my "good ol' Earth fryer" griller that charges credits, would fail spectacularly. I couldn't even have my own fabber to prepare the ingredients. (Something I still don't get. What's wrong with owning a fabber?) My point being, the freedom to dare, is not as pronounced in an AnCol hab.

Well, I don't think there's actually anything wrong with having a personal fabber, assuming you acknowledge the usual ancol caveats to personal property--It'll be borrowed if there is serious and urgent need for it. And, there's nothing stopping you from starting up your business, technically. It will just fail miserably because of the very market forces that you ancaps love so much. The food you produce is yours, so nobody will eat it without your permission (Unless there's a food shortage). And you don't give permission unless someone gives you credits. That's fine. But why would they give you credits for food when they can get food of comparable quality for free at "Phil's Phree Phried Phood" down at the other end of the station. It's not tyranny that ensures that ancol businesses can't work in ancap and ancap businesses can't work in ancol. It's that when either a rep economy or a capital economy is in place, attempting to run a business on the other model is extremely difficult. In a rep economy, the cost of using an capitalist business is much higher than the rep-based competition. In a capital economy, the cost of living and running the business makes an attempt to run a business without charging for it quite unfeasible.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Tue, 2014-04-08 19:15

#30

Lorsa

Steel Accord wrote:Now I don

Steel Accord wrote:
Now I don't mean to sound like I'm nit picking, but the devil is in the details. The Unshop would not be unwelcome or unfeasible in an Extropian habitat as basically any economy, currency, gift, rep, is accepted. Whereas my "good ol' Earth fryer" griller that charges credits, would fail spectacularly. I couldn't even have my own fabber to prepare the ingredients. (Something I still don't get. What's wrong with owning a fabber?) My point being, the freedom to dare, is not as pronounced in an AnCol hab.

I didn't say it was necessarily unwelcome in an Extropian habitat, but it certainly would be in a PC one. You are quite right that your griller that charges credits would fail spectacularly. But why this need to charge credits? Couldn't you simply hand out the awesomely prepared food for whoever came by? Then you could simply go and grab whatever it is you are interested in without having to pay yourself. Either you get credits and then go and spend credits, or you just remove the credits altogether and everyone is happier for it (well apart from you that apparantly likes credits for some reason). Of course you can own a personal fabber to prepare ingredients for your grill. You could even plug it into the habitat powergrid for free and get supplied with materials from waste products for free. What people would be upset with is if you then didn't use it, or only ever used it for yourself when others are hungry or used it to sell stuff outside the habitat and used that credits only for yourself etc etc. And if you're currently NOT using it for some reason, isn't it kinda rude not to let this other guy use it as it doesn't really cost you anything to have it running? So yeah, if you have your fabber and use it to make ingredients for your grill where you make awesome food for people I can assure you that fairly quickly you'd be given a second fabber along with a synthetic morph so you can make even MORE stuff. If you're a good chef, soon enough you'll have a whole restaurant where people will queue to get in unless you're alright with forking yourself so that more food can be prepared faster. If you're good at providing something for people, you'll be given the tools to do so. Now if you don't WANT a restaurant and prefer just a small grill that's okay and people won't push you into it. The great thing is that you can forget about money and just focus on doing what you're good at. Which supposedly is grilling and not the book-keeping and economic investment part of running a business.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-04-08 19:35

#31

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

"You ancaps"

I beg your pardon, but we aren't a separate species. I don't "like" currency based markets, they are just a tool. And I believe a universal currency system can work in a competitive environment.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 19:36

#32

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Faliure

I concede. I still don't agree, but that's why I wouldn't live there. Otherwise, your arguments have been well played.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-04-08 20:58

#33

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Well, to each their own. In

Well, to each their own. In all honesty, I wouldn't live there either. In-setting I have a problem with the ancols because they're a bunch of autonomist elitists ("Heart and soul of the AA" my ass. Extropia outpopulates the ancols all on its own. Titan has a larger population than ancols and ancaps put together. And yet the ancols pretend it's just them, holding up the purity of autonomist ideals despite those deviant Titanians and Extropians.) and because they're emphasizing their personal well-being and comfort in their political system over real and present transhuman rights abuses. (Per capita, the ancols are, I expect, contributing far less to the AA than either of their neighbors, because ancap and socialist democracy are both way more economically productive systems. And having a powerful economic and military force to oppose and eventually (ideally) topple the PC and the Junta is in my mind far more important than the minor increase in personal freedoms they gain by avoiding the Extropian and Titanian systems.) I guess I'm the opposition now. Bring it on, ancols! (: (Honestly the only reason I've been supporting ancol in this thread is because a lot of the discussion carried over from the ancap thread where I was wearing my pro-collectivist anti-capitalist hat)

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Tue, 2014-04-08 21:24

#34

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Struggling together

I mean, I got that idea from the books, but "creator bias." So I don't hold that too much against the Anarchists. I didn't think Anarchists, in-universe, were quite so full of themselves. If you've seen the majority of my posts, my most desperate and fervent plea has been, "Whether we agree or not, our true enemies are the Junta and the Consortium. We're on the same side here!"

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2014-04-09 02:50

#35

Cerebrate

Giant portmanteau reply here,

Giant portmanteau reply here, 'cause my day job has been full of intense debugging and that ain't going away for a while: ...actually, before I reply to any specific post, let me clarify where I'm coming from in the post of mine that was quoted right at the very top of the thread. I don't think that's a good critique of ancol. That's because I don't think it's a good critique of ancap, either. My thesis, such as I have one in particular, is that it's pretty easy for us, if we wish, to put together picky little edge-case scenarios that can tear any system apart. What any of these systems depend on is that the majority of people in them believe in the system and are prepared to make it work. If you have a population of assholes - or a population apathetic enough to let assholes run unchecked and create these edge-case scenarios - literally no system will ever work. Having now preached context, I continue:

MAD Crab wrote:
That said, I believe that the standard anco answer would be along the lines "People wouldn't approve of their actions, and somebody would go kill/replace them." Possibly in addition to "Somebody would print off some new environmental equipment from a CM."

This is the answer I would expect, and the one I agree with. On the other hand, I don't think that it's significantly different from the standard ancap answer of "People wouldn't approve of their actions, and would mount a hostile takeover/sue them for coercive activity," possibly in addition to "and someone would build some new environmental equipment with a CM".

MAD Crab wrote:
people naturally gravitate into hierarchies.

This, in particular, is something I want to see more examination of the transhuman - or exhuman, or Remade - answer to. In an age of Science!, we shouldn't be trying to run modern technological nearly-post-scarcity societies on monkey-troop software, dammit.

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
This is simply because the free nature of CM access in AnCol means that the barrier to starting up a Vigil in response to such an attack is much lower than in AnCap.

I don't credit this one much simply because I have a hard time not seeing effectively free CM access in Extropia. You can only profit off of non-free CM access if you can limit CM propagation, and in a society without (ISTR canonically) IP law and without any means to stop Bob, here, from running off a couple of dozen copies of that CM he brought home from Locus and giving them to all his friends... well, y'know? The Extropian cash economy, IMO, runs mostly on novelty and services.

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
AnCap, due to the issues with plans and affording them value, means that the Vigils probably want to be constant organizations whose members assemble when such trouble occurs, but who are always members.

I'd actually expect that to be the case under ancol, too, simply for human-efficiency reasons. Adhocs are all very well and I can see 'em working well, but adhocs you're going to need repeatedly work a lot better when you remember how you put them together last time.

MAD Crab wrote:
Which of course brings up one thing about AnCol that people don't really like to talk about. If it's anything like Reddit or Slashdot (or any site with a voting mechanism) anybody who disagrees with the group consensus gets dinged badly. If they're right or wrong doesn't factor in.

Which is another point in favor of a monetary economy, in some ways. Like the old Roman guy said, "money doesn't smell". You don't have to like the guy you're doing business with to come to a mutually profitable arrangement in a monetary economy; in a rep economy, unpopular associates suck you down, too.

Undocking wrote:
There is a difference between private property and personal ownership.

Incidentally, if someone on this thread would like to tackle explaining the exact definition of personal vis-a-vis private property, that would be valuable. I haven't, in general, seen a definition of that that isn't, well, kind of uncomfortably fuzzy in the middle, there. ...for myself, my preferred solution, of course, is to fab enough fabbers that everyone has means of production coming out of their, um, ears.

Erulastant wrote:
When comparing ancol and ancap on this point, I think the important question is: Is ancol restricting people, or is ancap enabling them? Because if it's the former, then yeah, I can see your point that ancap is "more free". But I happen to think it's the latter. Ancap enshrines a few particular ideas that enable people to climb an artificial ladder of social power that does not exist in ancol (Or at least is not nearly so steep or tall). The thing is, for this "upward ascension" to have any meaning, some people must not be allowed to ascend. If everyone is on the top rung of the ladder, it's not a ladder. So is ancol taking away the ladder, or is ancap putting one in place that does not belong*?

Monkey-thinking. (Not quite as catchy as "pig logic", but one has to start somewhere.) Not intended as a pejorative; it's a literal. One of the most annoying parts of our legacy software, as social monkeys, is that we're predisposed to obsess over relative status hierarchies, which is what gives rise to the zero-sum fallacy and crab-bucket syndrome and, no offense intended, conclusions like 'for this "upward ascension" to have any meaning, some people must not be allowed to ascend'. Well, only if you insist on indulging that little inner voice that says you can't be the alpha monkey without some omega monkeys to tread on. Fuck that voice. When transhumanism comes along, cut out that voice. It's not only directly against the common good, it's directly against your own enlightened self-interest, too - and at least part of the economic theory of ancap societies involves rejecting cronyist zero-summage and negative-summage in favor of positive-sum, all-benefit transactions. And without said little inner voice, I'm pretty damn sure I can enjoy my future society of transcendently beautiful immortal billionaire genius demigods at the top of the notional ladder without having to keep around some miserable-poverty-in-a-box to compare it to.

Erulastant wrote:
*A side note: We currently have a ladder, and any good ancap society would have to take away that ladder and put in a new one. I could perhaps forsee ancap working if when the society started, everyone was on equal ground. I can't see it working if we allow the people who currently have wealth to keep their wealth.

On that, I would say that one of the truly beautiful things about a free market is how acutely hostile it is to unearned wealth. Properly functioning, the only way to get any money is to persuade your fellow man to give it to you, in exchange for whatever you can do for them. Transactions of mutual benefit. So, I say let 'em keep their wealth. The thought of all those people who've specialized to making money through extortion and exclusion and transactions definitely not of mutual benefit watching their wealth slip away through their fingers while the honest man walks all over 'em in the new paradigm just warms the cockles of my heart, so it does. Well, something near the cockles, anyway.

Erulastant wrote:
And, there's nothing stopping you from starting up your business, technically. It will just fail miserably because of the very market forces that you ancaps love so much. The food you produce is yours, so nobody will eat it without your permission (Unless there's a food shortage). And you don't give permission unless someone gives you credits. That's fine. But why would they give you credits for food when they can get food of comparable quality for free at "Phil's Phree Phried Phood" down at the other end of the station.

I may have said it before somewhere, but it bears repeating: that's a feature. Markets exist to serve consumers; therefore the ideal market is one which provides all desired goods at a cost of zero; therefore whatever can be supplied for free should be. That's pretty much free markets 101 and how we want the economy to work in ancapia for non-scarce goods. You don't need an allocation mechanism for non-scarce goods. All of which is to say: when you go to Bloodmouth Bob's Burger Bar on Extropia, what you pay for is not the food. -c

Wed, 2014-04-09 11:07

#36

MAD Crab

That's a wall of text, and no

That's a wall of text, and no mistake. A good wall though. I'm not going to try and address all of it, but I did want to make a couple of comments, all relating to your comment that we shouldn't be using monkey troop software. First is that we simply cannot project what a society would look like if everybody underwent pychosurgery and cut out the parts of their minds that made them act in such a competitive manner. And make no mistake, nothing short of that would do the trick. Second, I'm not convinced that doing so would be survivable. Aggression keeps us alive. For better or worse it equips us defend our homes, ensures that we keep sufficient territory, that we keep resources that we might need someday. And the need for resources never goes away, not even in a nominally post scarcity world like EP.

—

Wed, 2014-04-09 14:50

#37

Cerebrate

MAD Crab wrote:That's a wall

MAD Crab wrote:
That's a wall of text, and no mistake. A good wall though. I'm not going to try and address all of it, but I did want to make a couple of comments, all relating to your comment that we shouldn't be using monkey troop software. First is that we simply cannot project what a society would look like if everybody underwent pychosurgery and cut out the parts of their minds that made them act in such a competitive manner. And make no mistake, nothing short of that would do the trick.

Just to clarify myself a little, here, I'm not against competition. I'm all in favor of it - it's approximately half of what makes markets work, after all [1]. My beef here is with two specific oft-related but distinct concepts: 1. That we tend to equate success in narrow areas with moral worth, which is idiotic at best; and 2. That we habitually think in terms of relative status rather than absolute status. Which leads to two highly undesirable conclusions: a. That relative positioning is more important than absolute positioning, which leads people to ethically bizarre conclusions such as expressing a preference for a world of nothing but starving peasant farmers over a world of mixed billionaires and trillionaires, on the grounds that back-breaking labor and dysentery are small things to pay for the knowledge that no-one's any better off than you are; and b. That worsening someone else's position makes you better off, which, yes, it does in relative terms, but it takes some truly perverse rationalization to believe that it is in any way beneficial for the world. This level of monkey-think goes beyond idiotic and verges on the practically criminal. And, on the general point, as an SF writer I'd like to dispute the notion that we can't simulate people who think differently from us ape-descendants. It's hard, certainly, that I won't deny, but it's a long way from impossible. (Obligatory Much More Published Than Me Author Reference: C. J. Cherryh, who writes very good nonhuman mindsets.)

MAD Crab wrote:
Second, I'm not convinced that doing so would be survivable. Aggression keeps us alive. For better or worse it equips us defend our homes, ensures that we keep sufficient territory, that we keep resources that we might need someday. And the need for resources never goes away, not even in a nominally post scarcity world like EP.

Well, the thing to remember here is that evolution doesn't optimize for the best solution, it optimizes for "good enough". We pursue strategies for aggression, etc., which were "good enough" to get barely-sapient monkeys in line to fend off other monkeys way back in the jungle. But it's not the jungle any more, and we've got entire sapient-people's sciences like economics and game theory and so on and so forth to teach us what the actually-optimal strategies are to pursue such things. And unless we bring instinct in line with the rational strategies to pursue in such situations are, then listening to those instincts will lead us wrong - and in ways specifically suboptimal for survival, resource acquisition, defense, etc. Cognitive bias makes fools of us all. (In pervasively subtle ways, too, as well as obvious ones like, well, if you throw around nuclear weapons like monkeys throw poop to ward off the other guy, and then pat yourself on the back 'cause your post-apocalyptic radiation-scarred wasteland is less fucked up than their post-apocalyptic radiation-scarred wasteland and thus your relative position has improved, you fail progress and quite possibly evolution forever.) -c [1] The other half being cooperation. The two are really an inseparable whole, really: we compete in order to find the best people to cooperate with, and cooperate in order to compete better. They're the yin-yang of the free market economy, and much like yin and yang, neither works well at all on its own.