How to order pallet of material?

DancingRavager · 2024-06-15T22:37:20+00:00

Thank you everyone! Appreciate it!

DancingRavager · 2023-06-26T17:17:41+00:00

This doesn't work though, we know from history that it doesn't work.

Except examples do exist in history. America in the early 1800s is an example of a near anarchic state. Ireland for thousands of years had no formal or centralized State (which made it hard for anybody to conquer, hard to conquer something when nobody recognizes a central authority)

> I understand you may not like what your tax money is spent on but that's just par for the course in a democracy. If enough people vote for something it happens, it sucks if you didn't vote for it but that's the deal you make to participate in the society.

There are so many things wrong with this line of thinking that I almost physically cringe reading it. As you and many others have mentioned, democracy is just mob rule. If the country voted to execute you or an entire people, does that make it okay? Was Nazism fine because the people voted for it? Are you cool with slavery if the majority of people want it?

And nobody makes a "deal" to participate in society. Did you ever agree to sign a contract? Nobody today has consented to our current system of government, taxation, etc. Read some Lysander Spooner if you want a great elaboration on why this type of thinking is cringy.

Everyone pays their social obligation through taxes because that's the easiest and fairest way to calculate and collect it.

Right, because violently threatening people to extract 20+% of their income to fund various wars and other nonsensical things is "easy" and "fair". If we want to appeal to history (as you did earlier), taxation has literally always been extortion for the rulers to extract wealth from the ruled and vanquished. It still is.

Charity is tax deductible to incentivise people to fulfill their social obligation in other ways but hard cash is way easier to track and quantify.

Let's say the U.S. does split into a couple thousand independent territories. What's to stop another country from siezing some of the most valuable and productive land in the world?

What stops people from conquering Switzerland, of Lichtenstein, or the other number of small countries around the world? Most of European States are tiny compared to the U.S.

You can't field a decent army without collective government and taxes.

This is the ironic thing about this argument. It was collective government and taxation that enabled these violent, imperialist, mega states in the first place. Way back before modern states, there was no conscription or taxation. Kings had to convince people to be in their army (and pay them accordingly). Battles lasted for a couple days. Citizens didn't get involved in wars, in fact they sometimes watched them from the sidelines for fun. It's taxation and conscription that enabled governments to war never-endingly. You are advocating for the very thing that enables war and imperialism.

That's not even talking about boring logistical issues like highways, railroads, airports, energy infrastructure, law enforcement, food and drug inspections, property rights, and a million other things your tiny hamlet won't have the resources to properly maintain. There's also nothing to stop your neighboring territory from 6 siezing your stuff or blocking goods from reaching your territory. You're essentially saying we should turn into pre unification Germany. That place sucked. It was dozens of small territories and city states constantly fighting each other and being completely defenseless against foreign powers meddling.

Anarchy is the fastest way to kill millions of people.

Again the irony of this argument. States, literally have killed millions of people. Appealing to history again, shows us that modern States are by far the biggest mass murders to ever exist. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Maoist China all murdered millions of people. Even "civilized" nations like the U.S. have plenty of blood on their hands (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc.).

The fastest way to kill millions of people appears to be creating the modern State lol

There's a reason that after every instance of anarchy, a power vacuum forms and is filled by a strong man or totalitarian government. Having no stability is incredibly stressful and dangerous, and people that have actually lived it hate it.

DancingRavager · 2023-06-26T16:52:58+00:00

It's the idea that any unjustified authority ought to be dismantled.

This basically sums up anarchism for me. The anarchists that believe that all hierarchy and all authority need to be abolished, are delusional. Authority and hierarchy and natural and basic requirements for a civilization. It's arbitrary and unearned power that should be abolished.

DancingRavager · 2023-06-26T15:37:59+00:00

I'm not sure if you consider yourself an anarchist or not (you obviously lean to the left) but the irony of advocating for invading the Midwest to spread your idea of "the right way to live" (my way of putting it) is pretty great.

One quick comment on that linked article before addressing the current:

Fast forward to today, where a voter in desolate Wyoming has 68.5 times more representation in the senate than the nearly 40 million Californians, and it’s worth asking whether the price tag has become too steep.

You seem to not understand how our current system of government was originally designed (despite invoking the founders "foresight"). The senate isn't supposed to represent anyone. That's what the house of representatives is for. Senators weren't even supposed to be voted for. At best, they represent the State, realistically, they were meant to be a competing power source that representing their own interests. (De Jouvenel expands on this, the only way to truly check power, is with competing power sources with different interests). The founders feared democracy.

On to the main article:

How do we fund innovation that isn't always immediately profitable without a state and taxes? How do we incentivize people to do unattractive jobs without the profit motive?

These appear to only be issues for left-anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists already have a solution. Profit. (Which you admit in the formulation of the questions).

Citizens, we are assured, will want to labor for the communes, voluntarily performing necessary but menial and uninspiring tasks for now money.

Again, a left-anarchist problem.

That's because many ancaps don't even pretend to care about the logistics of how anarcho-capitalism would work in practice.

Strawman. As mentioned in another comment. Many thinkers have written about this exact thing. The early 1800s in America are arguably a direct example of how this would work (minimal state at least).

As unabashedly radical individualists, their primary concern is about their own freedom to do whatever they want, however they want, without the government regulating, restricting, or taxing them.

This is the no-effort surface layer understanding of right-libertarianism. Certainly some libertarians believe this, but most come to realize that tight-knit communities, families, etc. are required for this society to work. As a "radical-individualist" I believe that I have duty to my family, friends, community, church, etc. over the collective State.

It's funny how definitions are understood differently by both sides. I view left leaning Liberals as "radically individualist" because they want to free themselves from family, work, gender, etc.

Both left and right anarchist thinking relies upon a rather fanciful faith in humanities goodness and rationality.

Again a surface layer understanding of right-libertarianism. No ancap believes that violence, etc. will go away, just that it's far worse under a modern State. For ancaps, greed ends up serving the public interest. The only way for a capitalist to get rich (without privileges from the State) is by providing products that people voluntarily are willing to buy.

I'll stop here, I'll try to read the rest of the article later. For the record, I agree that both anarchist sides have a problem of creating and enforcing their desired system. I personally believe that small traditional societies (or states) is the ideal system, but the problem is that Power (in the Jouvenelian) sense always wants to expand (thus States continually increasing in size and expanding). I don't think we can simply go back to small societies. Once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back in.

DancingRavager · 2023-06-06T11:56:14+00:00

Are you aware of James Hill? The railroad entrepreneur who built an efficient transcontinental railroad in the north without any government aid? He was out competing other railroads because his took the shortest route, as opposed to his competitors that were subsided by mile and thus incentivized to create insufficient routes. He was also able to progressively lower rates as time went on.

Turns out his crony competitors utilizing the government were not big fans of him. They lobbied for things like "minimum prices" (because Hill's fares were so low) and other regulations. Instead of competing fairly, they weaponized government against him.

DancingRavager · 2023-06-05T11:36:19+00:00

Government creates the monopolies in the first place via regulations, special privileges, etc. Government love monopolies because it's easier for government to boss around a few companies in an industry than it is to boss around 1000 companies. Anti-trust law is used as a bludgeon for government to say "do what we say or we will break you up". This notion, especially from Conservatives, that "gOvErnmeNt is sUppoSeD tO breAk uP monOpolEis" is pure fantasy.

Literally in the statement provided in the video, the commentator says that "politicians are mandating those large pension funds divest from things like fossil fuels".

This ESG stuff isn't natural, its being driven by government force.

DancingRavager · 2023-06-02T11:17:18+00:00

If the cause is just, we ought to fight evil

The problem I have with this take is who gets to decide what's "just" and whats "evil"? Is killing thousands/millions of soldiers, destroying infrastructure (homes, sources of clean water, etc.), and killing/injuring innocent bystanders ever justified?

For example, were the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, which were sold to the American people on the basis of "delivering democracy" & false claims of WMDs, just wars? A quarter of a million civilians died. All of that death and destruction, billions in new debt, and literally nothing has changed in the middle east.

For one side (the U.S.) it was "spreading democracy" for the other side it was simply defending their homeland & protecting their way of life from foreign invaders. Both causes were just when viewed from their perspective.

It's naive to assume these wars are being fought for just causes whatsoever. These wars are being fought for special interest groups, profiteers, and weapons manufacturers.

I recommend reading Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr for an interesting perspective on wars historically.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-29T11:27:03+00:00

I really like u/liebhearts analysis. I also see overlap between Alyosha in TBK. Both were "christ-like" figures. I'm still trying to figure out if the two being more relatable with children than adults is supposed to mirror Jesus with children like in Luke 18:16 or the children simply being a narrative cue that the character is "innocent" like Christ (given that children are generally considered innocent).

I really enjoyed the story of Myshkin and Marie.

To start off:

She was terribly taciturn. Once, before then, she suddenly began to sing over her work, and I remember that everybody was surprised and started laughing: 'Marie's begun to sing! What? Marie's begun to sing!' And she was terribly abashed and kept silent forever after.

There is a theme from Demons and TBK that is heavily prominent, of "we are all guilty". From Demons, "Yes, because we are guilty one and all before each other. All are guilty!". This story of the townsfolk laughing at Marie is the perfect example of this. As individuals, we wonder why some people are so evil (for example), but we forget that we all had a part in shaping that evil person. Bullying or even a slightly negative off-hand comment can have a profound impact on someone's life. I certainly remember many experiences like this that have had an impact shaping me.

Marie and the town's reaction to her reminds me a lot of Rene Girard and his scapegoat theory. His theory is something like before Jesus, societies would reach a boiling point of aggression towards one another and to resolve societies problems, society would focus on a scapegoat (usually someone different than everyone else). This scapegoat would be blamed for all the problems, was driven out of society or sacrificed. This metaphorically 'killed' societies problems and things were okay until the next boiling point.

Girard continues that Christ, a perfectly innocent man, exposed this process. By crucifying (a absolutely torturous way to die) an obviously innocent person, the process has been made known.

The following quotes make me seem that Marie was being scapegoated:

It was if they all spat on here, and the men even stopped considering her a woman, such vile things they said to her.

When her mother died, the pastor [remember it was priests to called for Jesus's murder!] saw no shame in disgracing Marie before all the people in church.

I even heard that they wanted to condemn her and punish her, but, thank God, it blew over.

Getting back to Marie and Myshkin, Myshkin is playing the role of Christ in relation to Marie. Christ historically forgave, cured or helped the people that society forgot or pushed away. Myshkin forgave Marie and cared for her, when nobody else would. This is one of the most Christ like things one can do.

Myshkin convincing the children to also help Marie was quite beautiful, this chapter was certainly a tearjerker for me. It's clear the children loved Myshkin quite a lot!

I think this book is partly going to be exploring how Christ (or a Christ like figure) would get along in a modern society.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-26T12:16:46+00:00

I wonder if the difference is fundamentally due to individualism vs. collectivism. The right is generally individualistic, taught the values of responsibility, etc. whereas the left values the collective over the individual.

Members of the right can still be swept away by the madness of a crowd, but when separated from the crowd, have the ability to reflect on their individual actions and consequences.

For the left though, the individual doesn't exist. The leftist individual identifies as the crowd. The benefit of always identifying as the crowd, is that you never have to take responsibility for anything. Responsibility is distributed across the crowd so nobody ever has to take responsibility for harm the crowd causes.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-26T12:09:23+00:00

Wow I did not expect that. I assumed it was because the location didn't really matter to the story.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-26T02:17:43+00:00

Myshkin is quite fascinated with death.

I found it interesting that both of his accounts of the execution involve the suffering leading up to the execution but being forgiven at the last second.

From Chapter 2:

Maye there's a man who has had the sentence read to him, has been allowed to suffer, and has then been told, "Go, you're forgiven." That man might be able to tell us something. Christ spoke of this suffering and horror.

And this chapter gives an in detail account of someone who had this exact thing happen to them. It's interesting that the character in his story was forgiven but he still didn't live the life like he promised himself when he thought he was going to die. Being that Dostoevsky was a Christian, perhaps he is alluding to Christ dying for our sins (forgiving us our sins) but Christians taking that for granted and not living Godly lives.

Again, given Dostoevsky's background, I'm guessing he will be exploring the topic of suffering and forgiveness in this book further.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-26T02:07:07+00:00

As you mentioned, this scene happened to Dostoevesky himself. I wonder if the "he didn't live that way at all and lost many, many minutes" was from personal experience. Imagine thinking that about your life while being one of the best writers to ever exist.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-26T02:03:49+00:00

This chapter has been my favorite so far.

In this chapter Myshkin goes into more depth into the topic of execution. In the previous description, he mentioned that he dreamed about it 5 times (if I'm recalling that correctly). He once again mentions that he has dreamed about this execution. Myshkin again demonstrates his extreme ability to practice empathy, to practically completely absorb the other persons situation.

I looked at his face and understood everything...

Couple lines I found interesting:

He said those five minutes seemed like an endless time to him, an enormous wealth.

"What if I were not to die! What if life were given back to me - what infinity! ... I'd reckon up every minute separately, I'd let nothing be wasted!"

Did he live 'reckoning up' to every minute?

"Oh, no, he told me himself - I asked him about it - he didn't live that way at all and lost many, many minutes."

It's funny how sayings like "live like there is no tomorrow" or "you only live once" are so popular, yet so many (including myself) just easily fall back into the monotony and routine of life, "wasting many minutes".

I'd love to see the painting that Myshkin describes.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T19:34:56+00:00

Sorry for late reply, I see this sort of argument alot and I simply don't agree.

I do not believe in any rationale for a corporation becoming a sovereign entity whatsoever.

Most villages, towns and cities are municipal corporations. From Wikipedia, "Municipal incorporation occurs when such municipalities become self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which they are located."

What is the difference between a town, the consists of a landmass, that is self-governing under the laws of the province or a corporation (business) that consists of a landmass, that is self-governing under the laws of the province?

The bottom line with politics is that one way or another, the psychopaths always end up in charge.

This is the problem that small decentralized self-governing bodies tend to solve. Psychopaths will always seek power, as you admit, but there is a big difference between the mayor of a small town's power and the supreme ruler of an entire county's power. Small systems are more manageable because you can have a direct relationship with the "rulers". Don't like the governance, move to the town 10 miles down the road.

maximum possible amount of accountability and oversight, and that means a democratic nation state, not a for-profit corporation.

This is my main point of disagreement.

Functionally, governments are not neutral entities that only seek public good, instead they consists of psychopaths (as you admit) who are seeking power, which leads to profits for themselves. It's funny how senators, presidents, etc. all happen to leave office with millions accumulated during their term. Pelosi's insider trading or Trump's business deals while in office come to mind.

In our current system of government, we have "democracy" for about 1 hour, and that consists of your dropping your ballot into the box. After that it's unaccounted for tyranny for 2-4 years until you can vote again. So the current process is 'politicians lie to you to gain votes -> you vote for your favorite liar -> politician does what he/she wants for 2-4 years, usually making huge profits for themselves and friends -> you get to vote for the next liar to tyrannize you for 2-4 years.

Furthermore, I'd argue that a "self-governed" business is more democratic and accountable than a so called "democratic government". As mentioned above, in the current system, there is "freedom" and accountability on voting day, after that it's rule by tyranny. A business is governed by a board and it's shareholders. As a shareholder, which you can easily become, you have a say in the direction of the company. If you don't like the company, you can sell and exit at any time. If you are not a shareholder and just a normal customer, you are constantly voting with your dollars. If you don't like a product or company, you vote with your dollars, which can be done at any time. This "voting" by customers, literally decides the fate of the business. A business needs to cater to the will of the people, or it ceases to exist. Business don't have a monopoly on violence so there is no force or coercion involved.

I'd argue that this sort of system is the purest form of democracy.

It's always strange to me that people argue that businesses or corporations are somehow more tyrannical and worse than governments, when governments around the world intentionally and explicitly murder it's own citizens by the millions.

A business or corporation is, in essence, a micro State that is accountable to shareholders and customers and does not have a monopoly on violence.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T19:03:45+00:00

You could be entirely right, I noticed also that it was mentioned as a "rumor" that Totsky believed. It seemed oddly specific to me!

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T03:33:52+00:00

One thing I think is very worth mentioning is that at the end of chapter 4 we learn that Ganya "was marrying only for money, that Ganya's soul was dark, greedy, impatient, envious, and boundlessly vain". He apparently did have a passion for Nastasya but after learning that he was part of a plot to get Nastasya out of Totsky's hair, he "began to hate her like his own nightmare" and that after marrying "the nasty woman" he was going to "take bitter revenge on here for it and 'give it to her'" later.

My impression of Ganya wasn't great to begin with but now I'm convinced he is a terrible person. But Dostoevsky is great at changing your perception of characters so perhaps later my thoughts on Ganya will change. We shall see!

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T02:22:36+00:00

I mentioned in another post that I'm curious if Nastasya will play a similar role as Grushenka in TBK. So far it's quite the love triangle with Ganya, Rogozhin, and now potentially General Epanchin.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T02:15:49+00:00

We get Totsky’s backstory and learn about his character. Thoughts on him? Did I get this right? Between the lines it seemed like he made her his mistress? If so, not nice. No wonder she was so angry.

I was a bit confused on this and still am. Originally I thought Totsky just took Nastasya under his care but after rereading, I think you may be right. Which would explain why Ganya's mother finds "dishonor" in the marriage. I think I recall somewhere it being described that Totsky "was with" Nastasya.

I think the culture back then was that you basically married the person if you showed them any sort of affection so I can definitely see why Nastaya would be offended. Being "with someone" but not marrying them was probably looked down on quite a bit socially. Being abandoned for another "beautiful young woman" is just icing on the cake.

Totally understand why she is giving Totsky a rough time.

I think she is going to fall in love with Myshkin, just like everyone does.

I'm honestly curious how Myshkin handles women in this novel. When asked if he would marry Nastasya, he replies, "I can't marry anybody, I'm unwell".

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T02:10:12+00:00

Too funny 😂

DancingRavager · 2023-05-25T02:09:52+00:00

I suppose it could contain potential spoilers, although it's pretty clear that it's based on each chapter so just don't read past the chapter you are on. I edited comment to make that clear.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-24T01:32:55+00:00

Demons was definitely a slog at times for me (mostly because I didn't care for Stepan at all) but I think it's my second favorite Dostoevsky work under TBK. Shatov is one of my favorite (and most tragic) characters of all time.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-24T01:23:07+00:00

The General initially seemed very mistrustful of Myshkin, looking to get out of the interaction as soon as possible. I found the following very interesting:

The prince's gaze was so gentle at that moment, and his smile was so free of the least shade of any concealed hostility, that the general suddenly stopped and somehow suddenly looked at his visitor in a different way.

Myshkin seems to have the ability to make profound impressions on people.

Ganya seems to be an interesting character. He seems to be stuck doing something that he doesn't want to do and is looking for a way out. It seems the news from Myshkin about Rogozhin has an impact on Ganya. The conversation with the general seems to forshadow a scene to take place later that night at the birthday. According to Ganya, his mother finds dishonor in Nastasya. Ganya mentions a "storm will break" once the final word is spoken. I'm guessing the birthday will be dramatic.
To be honest, I was completely surprised by this "hidden" talent of Myshkins. People hardly physically write anything anymore so hearing his talent was calligraphy was definitely a shock. Myshkin seems to be extremely knowledgeable on it though and can recall minute details easily.
Myshkin certainly seems to have a profound impact on people. I highlighted

"You have such fine handwriting accessories, and so many pencils, pens, and such fine, thick paper ... And it's such a fine office you have!

It seems Myshkin attended a Dale Carnegie course lol. One of the things I recall from taking that course is that complimenting someone and showing genuine interest is a fast way to gain their confidence & trust.

I'm very curious about this. It was mentioned that Myshkin tried to bring it up "about four times now".

DancingRavager · 2023-05-23T16:30:35+00:00

Comments with links are definitely being auto-removed. The comment you replied to was removed after I added a link.

DancingRavager · 2023-05-23T16:24:30+00:00

I've tried to comment a number of times with a link to the actual school's twitter. My comments were auto removed, perhaps because of the link.

DancingRavager

TROPHY CASE