Chrungka posted:

Is there any way to just watch, without joining the hangout itself?

Caros posted:

Just a reminder for anyone who wants to come and laugh at libertarians for a while.

Who What Now posted:

Sorry I had to bounce early from the podcast, but life finds a way to interfere. Paragon pm me how you want me to send my audio.

Caros posted:

Life happens

GunnerJ posted:

So, this is an old point but the question of employee ownership and workplace democracy still interests me.


jrod posted this in reply to someone asking about John Lewis, and the praxealogical handwaving here is that this might work for things like retail or grocery stores but not for tech companies I guess? Well, this reads like kind of a fluff piece but it describes Publix, an America grocery store chain that is organized in a way similar to John Lewis. More evidence that it can work for this kind of business I guess! But my question is why this would not apply to other kinds of businesses.

Ostensibly this is because democratic consensus would be needed for all design decisions in a company like, say, Apple rather than just letting Steve Jobs do it (although I have no idea why that should be the case). The thing is there's other objections here that are not industry-specific. "Slowing down decision making" matters at any business, but it doesn't hold John Lewis or Publix back. If you look carefully, though, there's a bit of a trick here: jrod "can't believe that you don't think that having to achieve democratic consensus for every single business decision would" suck, except the person he's talking to said nothing about the need for consensus on every single business decision. gently caress, really actually operating democratic governments don't require democratic consensus for every policy or operating decision.

There is no reason to expect that "achieving democratic consensus for every single business decision" is how workplace democracy would have to work if democratic government does not. Democratic workplaces could be organized in a "republican" fashion where employees elect management staff or general decision makers and let them sort out assignments of specialized roles, for example. The division of labor would be maintained.

jrod, whenever you come back, I hope that you will not ignore this post like you did the last post I made on this subject, because your thoughtful comments would be appreciated, etc. Just to hedge my bets a bit, you are a gigantic racist and so are Ron Paul and Walter Block. Now that I have tricked you into paying attention to this post, go back and read the whole thing to figure out how (or indeed whether) I actually reached this conclusion.

I posted:

Your position was "A problem with "democracy" and all forms of collective ownership either of the factory or of public spaces is that use for such resources is heavily constrained by the need for consensus to act. If all workers owned factories together, endless meetings and deliberations would be required to make any decisions about the use of capital and production. Furthermore, conflict is enhanced rather than reduced. Who would REALLY have the final say on the use of collectively owned property?"

Now you don't agree with by rebuttal because it is anecdotal, but the problem is you agree with the basis of my anecdote (and in having to do so have had to specify that you're only talking about if the entire economy was run on a co-operative basis) and in support of your view you have nothing, not even an anecdote or any other scrap of evidence.

I don't usually use anecdotes, but the reason I did here is because it was just one of any number of examples which showed your point of view is wrong. We know Co-operatives are not doomed to failure because they exist now and the circumstances you describe don't happen.

You now apparently believe that in a fully co-operative economy everything we know about how co-operatives work would suddenly changed for no given reason and all co-operatives would suddenly change to work in an inefficient and obviously stupid manner? Why would anyone possibly think this would occur? You've offered no rationale and it seems to be based on everyone suddenly getting very very stupid and changing the basis of how these companies are run for absolutely no reason. Hence why I say you're holding onto unsupported ideological narratives; you make these wild sweeping statements that at face value seem absurd and do nothing to back them up.

Democratising the workplace does not mean democratising every single decision. Having a once yearly meeting to elect directors of the company, decide on a way forward and cast votes on important workplace matters democratises the workplace. Staying half an hour late once a month to have monthly meetings of each office/factory to discuss and deal with local issues democratises the work place. It does not involve democratic unity of every single mundane decision and trying to frame it as that just shows how irrelevant your comparison is. The nature of a co-operative is not that you have "to achieve democratic consensus for every single business decision" so your point is irrelevant.

Hell, a lot of good business will spend this kind of time with employees anyway. The Human Relations school of business management thought (used to good effect in Japan) specifically focuses on working with and engaging with employees in the nature of running the business and many non-co-operative business will spend similar amounts of time discussing workplace issues even if automatic primacy isn't given to majority opinions of the workforce. Not to mention the issues which come with a lack of democracy in the workplace, where strikes are a notable drain on efficient.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Since I'm apparently in nostalgia mode today, I'll remind everyone that our old standard rejoinder to most/all libertarian treatises was: "on the other hand, all of recorded history."


Yeah. Time was, people bought banner ads specifically to advise people to put happyelf on ignore/beg the mods to not let him off probation.

team overhead smash posted:

Don't hold your breath. I responded in depth with exactly that being one of the points I made:


Caros even pointed out that Jrod really should answer my post. When no response was incoming I posted trying to get him to respond to that single post more than once.

All I got for my trouble was him saying "Yeah, it kind of would be good if I could respond to these kind of posts, that's why I want to debate" and then doing nothing to answer the points raised or (presumably) to actually involve himself in a debate.

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

Sometimes I am sad I was not around for SA's shitposting heyday but it's probably more entertaining in retrospect than it was at the time.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Well as one old-school, massively overweight, and questionably hygienic prostitute aficionado once said,

VitalSigns posted:

Oh my God, that thread links a von Mises article praising Somalia's Libertarian Warlordism.

I guess Somalia isn't a strawman argument after all, tribal warfare is Von Mises Institute approved

quote:

Economists familiar with the Rothbardian tradition have taken the analysis even further, persuasively arguing that Somalia is much better without a state than it was with one. The standard statist put-down — "If you Rothbardians like anarchy so much, why don't you move to Somalia?" — misses the point. The Rothbardian doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss. Rather, the Rothbardian says that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an institution of organized violence and theft will only make things worse.

quote:

What is particularly amusing is the complaint that businesses currently must pay private security firms to guard their goods. Well, a government police and court system won't work for tips — they too will need to be financed, but through involuntary taxation. As with any monopoly, the government's provision of a "justice system" will be more expensive — other things being equal — than the provision through private, competing agencies.

quote:

I have answered the generic "warlord objection" to anarchy elsewhere. Regarding Somalia in particular, Ben Powell et al. have done fantastic work analyzing Somalia before and after its transition to statelessness, and also comparing its fate with similar African nations. Their conclusion is that — of course — stateless Somalia is no paradise, but its lack of a corrupt, brutal government has given it an advantage over its former self and its current peers.

Somalia has achieved remarkable progress since the collapse of the brutal dictatorship of Siad Barre in 1991. If people in the more developed countries of the world wish to help the impoverished region, we can certainly send money and even visit to offer medical services and other assistance. But if the West foists the "gift" of another state on the beleaguered Somalis, their appropriate response should be, "No, you shouldn't have."

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

I don't think hired security in Somalia is exactly competing for your patronage. It's more like a "pay us or die" kind of ultimatum.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

quote:

The Rothbardian doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss

Anticheese posted:

I missed the thing. Can you please add me to the PM list?

paragon1 posted:

Sorry you missed it! If there's any consolation, we hope to do this again. Probably to talk about bitcoins and such.

Caros posted:

Can we amend a couple of minutes to Eripsa's fever dream Synereo? Because I have been waiting to laugh about that for a while.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Oh, you don't have to go back to 2006 to find a mises article praising Somali totally-not-warlordism.

theshim posted:

Yes they do.

paragon1 posted:

Tell you what, we'll call it a generalized Currency and Crazy People talk so we'll do that and goldbugs too.

But first I need the audio from you guys from last time! No rush though, I know you're all busy.

Caros posted:

Can we amend a couple of minutes to Eripsa's fever dream Synereo? Because I have been waiting to laugh about that for a while.

Buried alive posted:

So...the arguement is that stateless-Somalia is better than brutal-dictatorship Somalia? I mean..okay, I guess. No one is saying that states never go wrong, just that they're less likely to wrong and to not go as wrong as stateless societies. Way to strawman.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

It's a mild pity thanksgiving is over, as his thoughts on the optimal way to plan that dinner are...interesting to say the least.

Literally The Worst posted:

GO ON

quote:

You are correct that everyone has individual preferences. The point isn't to predict them from scratch, but to anticipate them from models generated by their past behavior. If I have the history of the meals you've eaten over the last year, there will be patterns that emerge that will allow us to predict what you will likely eat next year. This is why I've emphasized the importance of human computation in this thread, because these problems can be (and are routinely) solved by brains, and that reduces the computational load that is carried elsewhere.

So let's try something different. You've raised the correct and challenging point that sorting out the "Thanksgiving Dinner" problem is computationally hard. Let's look at how some different decision-making systems would address this problem:

The strong dictatorship (aka, Dad's house, Dad's rule): Dad carves the bird and serves the turkey. He also serves every other course, on an individual basis one at a time, so everyone stands in line waiting for their turn. Advantages: The decision making apparatus is simple, as are the rules everyone has to follow. Disadvantages: Slow and potentially unresponsive to individual needs. You might suggest your preferences or restrictions to Dad when it's your turn for a plate, and he might follow those suggestions or he might not, and there's little you can do about it. His house, his rules.

The weak dictatorship (aka, the Traditional American Thanksgiving): Dad carves the bird and serves the turkey, but the rest of the dishes are laid out on a table in a first-come, first-served kind of way. This is a mixed system, with some things being decided by the elite few, and everything else left for the guests to figure out for themselves. The free-for-all table is minimally constrained, by the arrangement of items on the table and how many people can gorge themselves around it. Advantages: Even simpler decision apparatus than the strong dictatorship, since Dad has even less to decide on his own. Therefore, it is also faster than the strong dictatorship. Individuals are also given more say in what they eat, at least for the side dishes. Disadvantages: Still biased, still slow, and there's a chance you'll get the short end of the stick in the free for all and be left with no good side dishes.

The central planning authority (aka, the Soviet dinner): Individual plates and portions are decided and prepared for days in advance by Dad, Mom, and a few powerful Aunts. Advantages: Potentially faster and more egalitarian than a strong dictatorship, since advanced preparation means less time spent serving food while people are waiting in line, and potentially more consideration over who gets what. Disadvantages: Heavily biased by whatever makes it easier for the central planning authority to prepare all foods. Good luck getting your individual dietary needs met, since you'd have to submit requests weeks in advance. Potentially much, much slower than any form of dictatorship, since if Dad, Mom, and the Aunts don't get along the whole thing grinds to a halt.

The representative democracy (aka, death by committee of salesmen): Family members convene once a year in early November to elect a coalition of representatives, who are then tasked with operating something like the central planning authority. In practice, the result is a mixed system that looks more like a weak dictatorship from the perspective of individual choice. The representatives take strict control over some dishes, but others are left in an unregulated free for all and guests must fend for themselves. There is little rhyme or reason why certain dishes become disputed from year to year, and voting becomes less about "who will make the best dinner" to "who will gently caress it up least". Advantages: Potentially more egalitarian than a central planning committee, since guests have some say who gets onto that committee. Disadvantages: Slow, ad hoc, and introduces petty political fighting among dinner guests.

The every-man-for-himself (aka, libertopia): Guests are responsible for bringing their own meals, which are all placed on open tables on one side of the room. Then, to make it "fair", everyone is gathered at the other side of the room and there's a countdown to a musket shot that signals dinner, at which time everyone rushes at the tables to grab whatever food they can. Advantages: No collective planning whatsoever. Mildly entertaining. Disadvantages: The competitive nature of the dinner makes the first ones at the table grab far more than they'll eat, which they gorge on like pigs. Anyone in a wheel chair or with asthma gets no food at all. Most people don't even get the food they brought.

The anarchist collective (aka, how small groups actually work): Some guests bring their own meals prepared, but most of the guests come ready to cook together and bring whatever resources and labor they have to contribute. When the meal is ready, everyone shares. Advantages: This is basically what our brains spent the last hundred thousand years learning to do. Disadvantages: Doesn't scale well, and is susceptible to cheats that eat the meal but never contribute to its creation. Preparing the meal doesn't take much collective planning, but all the planning time for the group is devoted to the issue of how to keep the cheats out: namely, planning who to invite next year, discussing who did a lovely job this year, etc. This group preening is meant to keep the group small and the dinner manageable among cooperators.

The attention economy (aka, the turkey singularity): For the past five years, the creepy uncle has been taking multi-camera recordings of the Thanksgiving festivities, which has allowed him to make obsessively detailed records over which sides and portions are eaten by each dinner guest each year. The uncle notes not just what sides are given by that year's authority, but also what items were taken in any potential free for all scenario, and also what items were given but uneaten. Using this data, the uncle obsessively builds a model that predicts how much of each course will be needed each year to best fit the aggregate patterns of the guests, and then uses this data to build that year's menu. The menu, and all the collaborating data, is then passed around to all the years guests a few weeks in advance, where they might make suggestions or corrections to the menu. Someone might mention, for instance, a new medical restriction that will change the amount of gravy they'll be consuming this year, or a grievance about the previous year's distribution of food, and the model can be tweaked to fit whatever new information is raised in this stage. Finally, guests can claim responsibility for preparing some portion of that year's menu, with unclaimed but necessary tasks potentially being automatically assigned as the dinner approaches. And then everyone simply follows their chosen or assigned role for the dinner, where they can each take as much as they like for themselves, while trusting that there will be enough for everyone. The model might take a few years to calibrate, but eventually the menus it produces begin to converge arbitrarily close to the total of what everyone likes, within an acceptably small margin of error, and with little excess food produced.

Advantages: an exact solution to the problem without computing all the factors that inform the decisions of each individuals. Everyone has opportunities to provide feedback in the calibration process, and can be sure that their individual concerns are taken into consideration in the planning process. This system also can't be cheated over the long run: we'll know if any of the food you took was wasted, and it doesn't particularly matter if you didn't contribute anything as long as all the work was assigned.

Disadvantages: While it's not a purely technological solution, it does require some serious technological infrastructure that has to be maintained (presumably in the same open, collaborative way in which the menu is produced). In order to perform well, it also has to assume that people will actually take advantage of the system by providing feedback to the model as required during the planning stages. So beyond the time that goes into the meal preparation itself, this solution also requires some work from everyone to support the organizing infrastructure to support the model. It involves more work from some people than they might have to do in other models, but less than in some others.

paragon1 posted:

Jrod believes all states are inherently sinful immoral and cannot see the true light of God really be moral or free, yes. He's argued in the past that any bad outcomes in a stateless society would be preferable to what we have now because it would be ~more moral~. Praexology is a hell of a drug.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

From their perspective, all states are equally bad due to the immorality inherent within their involuntarist structures and all that poo poo.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Buried alive posted:

I know that's what Jrod-of-the-market-god believes (we seriously need a better nickname than Jrodimus Prime) I was wondering what Rothbard's take is.

EndOfTheWorld posted:

Wait, how the gently caress can a place be both "stateless" and "law-abiding" at the same time?

EndOfTheWorld posted:

Wait, how the gently caress can a place be both "stateless" and "law-abiding" at the same time?

GunnerJ posted:

Think of the terms and conditions of your phone plan, all the restrictions and requirements and the payments you have to make and the various things you are enabled to do and your god-given right to sign up with a new phone company if you don't like your current one. Now imagine that instead of phone service providers, we're talking about governments. Ancap law in a stateless society works the same way.

paragon1 posted:

Sorry you missed it! If there's any consolation, we hope to do this again. Probably to talk about bitcoins and such.

YF19pilot posted:

I took one of those Facebook polls about "which candidate do you side with the most." Typically, I could tell you right off the bat as I'd take these things like a test clicking the "right" answers that I "learned" from my grandparents and listening to talk radio. Today, I actually thought a bit about each answer and how I feel about the issues now, and I got...Rand Paul. gently caress.

(I got Bernie Sanders as number two by 1 percentage point; not sure how that works besides "this isn't a scientific poll").

I'm going to try this again and see if I can guess jrode's answers, see what I get.

My best guess at jrode with a Top 5:
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Carly Fiorina
Ben Carson
Donald Trump

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

As a social democrat, I find myself in non-aggression pacts with libertarian-leaning conservatives pretty frequently.