Interesting, balanced, mature writing on freedom, thank you. I just found you via search for Derrick and Alison, trying to find info on their feud. Reading your three articles and comments from Alison has certainly framed her as a fundamentalist idiotologist (sicK). I gather she like Chomsky believes in her brand of the State coercing the Free Market for the Greater Good? It seems as if you are tending towards a Voluntaryist position (all governments are unnecessary evils) but are still leaning into Libertarianism (small governments are necessary evils)? Whatever, stay safe and free.
Thank you! Yes, I am a Voluntaryist but wrote this to describe the fundamental differences between "left" and "right" Populism. My feeling is that without unity around the concept of Federalism (decentralization of power), the state/corporate apparatus will continue to grow. I followed Allison for a while and even tried to produce a few podcasts with people from her perspective to achieve this goal, but discovered that her foundational principles are, as you describe, fundamentalist. I wrote this out of frustration with an ideology that sows disunity and further entrenches the current centralized power structure.
If I was to play Devil's Advocate, in your world you describe people having a choice eg to participate in a community currency but what if they felt they had to? I was thinking of people who work in sweat shops because if they didn't, they would starve. Or people who go to work for 35 years in order to pay off their mortgage.
The world in which they live doesn't give them the choice to opt out and easily live.
The world has the law of scarcity baked in. That is axiomatic and easily observable. However, through cooperation we can enable people to make more choices for themselves, though those choices are still ultimately constrained by the unyielding law of scarcity.
You state 'the world has the law of scarcity baked in' as if that was a fact rather than a title for a debate. If the scarcity is in knowledge and freedom, then indeed a perosn's world would offer limited choices. Not offending the community would constrain some peoples' behaviours as is axiomatic and easily observable from the last 3 years.
Axiomatic and easily observable is another way of saying factual. Knowledge itself is not subject to scarcity since it is metaphysical, but the inputs to create it still are. Layers of abstraction can create an illusion of infinity, so maybe that is a topic of debate.
Interesting, balanced, mature writing on freedom, thank you. I just found you via search for Derrick and Alison, trying to find info on their feud. Reading your three articles and comments from Alison has certainly framed her as a fundamentalist idiotologist (sicK). I gather she like Chomsky believes in her brand of the State coercing the Free Market for the Greater Good? It seems as if you are tending towards a Voluntaryist position (all governments are unnecessary evils) but are still leaning into Libertarianism (small governments are necessary evils)? Whatever, stay safe and free.
Thank you! Yes, I am a Voluntaryist but wrote this to describe the fundamental differences between "left" and "right" Populism. My feeling is that without unity around the concept of Federalism (decentralization of power), the state/corporate apparatus will continue to grow. I followed Allison for a while and even tried to produce a few podcasts with people from her perspective to achieve this goal, but discovered that her foundational principles are, as you describe, fundamentalist. I wrote this out of frustration with an ideology that sows disunity and further entrenches the current centralized power structure.
If I was to play Devil's Advocate, in your world you describe people having a choice eg to participate in a community currency but what if they felt they had to? I was thinking of people who work in sweat shops because if they didn't, they would starve. Or people who go to work for 35 years in order to pay off their mortgage.
The world in which they live doesn't give them the choice to opt out and easily live.
The world has the law of scarcity baked in. That is axiomatic and easily observable. However, through cooperation we can enable people to make more choices for themselves, though those choices are still ultimately constrained by the unyielding law of scarcity.
You state 'the world has the law of scarcity baked in' as if that was a fact rather than a title for a debate. If the scarcity is in knowledge and freedom, then indeed a perosn's world would offer limited choices. Not offending the community would constrain some peoples' behaviours as is axiomatic and easily observable from the last 3 years.
Axiomatic and easily observable is another way of saying factual. Knowledge itself is not subject to scarcity since it is metaphysical, but the inputs to create it still are. Layers of abstraction can create an illusion of infinity, so maybe that is a topic of debate.
The truth will set us free.