- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Gee: secret collectivist?

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on April 01, 1999 at 18:46:05:

In Reply to: its possible to be interesting without signing up posted by Gee on March 31, 1999 at 19:17:12:

SDF: Sorry if I'm being rude, but I'm testing your secret allegiance to collectivism. Since collective interests pervade society, anarcho-capitalism appears to me as denial through and through.

: You may be nonviolent, but almost every sentence is an aggressive one.

SDF: Have any of my sentences incurred bruises? Fractures? Dislocations? Sticks and stones...

: : SDF: Gee, why do you care about the "sum of global wealth"?

: Read the 'cake' discussion with Red below.

SDF: I did, and it led me to the conclusion that you're indeed secretly a collectivist, that you really have no rebuttal against Red Deathy's notion that "Considering that all wealth creation is necessarilly a social act, a collective effort, we are collectively responsible for what happens with that wealth."

: : Still secretly trying to rob other people of theirs?

: ho ho ho, I assume this is a joke, all zero sum economics is.

SDF: Sure it's a joke, but what I really think is that you are so concerned with the sum total of wealth because you want to collectivize your wealth with those of the rich, thus your constant arguing that you get rich when the rich get richer. If you really believed that such fabulous sums as they own were theirs and only theirs you wouldn't give a damn that they had them.

And how do you know I'm an advocate of zero-sum economics? Funny, I don't recall having claimed being such an advocate. I read your argument, over and over again, about everyone gaining in wealth. Why should you give a damn if the rich get richer, if you get yours?

: : Given your previous statements of belief, your only proper moral concern should be YOUR store of wealth. You've made it quite clear that you don't care about the "sum of global wealth" possessed by the impoverished people of the world

: I would not expect you to read every post of mine, hence this conclusion is false, as are its premises.

SDF: I see. Where is the counterevidence to show that my above conclusion is false? Supply a URL please.

: : SDF: Let's see. I ride a bike. Others drive their cars. From Gee's perspective, my goal is to "reduce the sum of global wealth," because, unlike any sane human being, I'm not trying to dry up the world's oil reserves.

: Wrong, you can ride a bike, jog or drive a truck if you want.

SDF: Thanks for your permission.

: If youre not out to stop others in their choices, fine.

SDF: I frankly don't care if you think it's "fine" whatever I do. You claim you don't have any interest in sharing any sort of collective anything with me; therefore your thoughts are your business. But let's get into this presumption that my goal is to "reduce the sum of global wealth". Where does it come from?

: I can see you never tackled "ultimate resource 2", whilst handing out book titles as answers yourself. If one set of data lead to a conclusion that world is at an end, and another set leads to the conclusion that it is not by a long stretch

SDF: Nobody's claiming that "the world is at an end" now, and it doesn't look good to me if you misquote debate opponents to make them look bad. I've read the results when others tackle Julian Simon's prose -- attempts to overturn the Second Law of Thermodynamics through book publication ARE mere dogma, anarcho-capitalist or otherwise. If I am to believe anything, I will still need to see an "other set" of DATA, not fantastic speculation. Where is it? Web sites such as this one seem to be playing the same shell game that Daly claims Simon is playing -- if we create satellites to replace copper wire, we simply push the problem of resource shortage, created by human overconsumption, onto another set of resources -- metal, rocket fuel, etc.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup