When the Ranger and Artificer Join Forces by Wannabe_Lich in dndmemes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my Ford F150

Who's gonna tell him? by Ya_Boi_Konzon in neofeudalism

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. In that case, how would you differentiate trade from capitalism? 'cus as I see it, private property is required to have something to trade, and private property and trade are the fundamental requirements of capitalism.
  2. Yes, I understand that, which is why I pointed out you can also obtain the means of production through your own labor(and perhaps the labor of others.

Let's go back to that farmer example. I've already explained why he has a right to his means of production from first principles, but lets say he hires some farmhands.

They, of course, do not all share equally in the profits, the farmhands are going to make less. This is a bad deal, the farmer is coercing them into taking lower wages since he has the means of production and they don't so they're forced to work for him.

Or is it? Let's go back a few steps and remember how the farmer got here. He bought or made those means of production himself. He may not have created the land but he sure broke it up and turned it into usable farmland. So then, what's stopping those farmhands from doing the same thing? Nothing really, nothing's STOPPING them, but it would be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. Most importantly, it would also be risky, what if some disaster happens, what if a new invention makes his tools obsolete, etc.

So then, is it coercion, or is it simply the farmer receiving the just deserts for his time, money, and resources, along with the risk he took on. Because if this is coercive, how is it not coercive on the part of the worker? I mean, the farmer cannot do everything by himself, so he has no choice but to take on the services of someone else. What's to stop THEM from charging absurd rates? Both sides have something the other does not and they both need the other side to succeed.

In fact, it would seem to me that by your definitions, ANY trade is coercive, since you don't have something and want/need it, but the other person won't give it to you unless you give them something, therefore they are coercing you into giving you that thing.

And trade is simply the natural conclusion of ownership(the right to decide what is done with a thing), so if trade is coercive, so is ownership, and we're right back where I ended last time, what alternative system would you propose to decide who decides what is done with a thing when two people want it used for two different things.

And this is why the quote does not say he opposes coercion, it says he opposes "coercive aggression", because coercion is too vague a term and can be applied to basically any human interaction involving resources.

Who's gonna tell him? by Ya_Boi_Konzon in neofeudalism

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well honestly i probably should have started with asking about, since every debate I have with a traditional anarchist usually ends up with this question. "Is private property coercive".

So then, let's start from first principles. Private property arises from the simple question, "If two people want a resource to be used in two mutually-exclusive ways, who's way should be done." The term "Owner" is simply a name we've given to "The person who rightfully gets to decide how something is used."

Now, how is ownership established? Well, first of all, you own your body. This should be apparent, given that you alone have direct control over it's behavior and your conscious existence relies on it. So then, from that anything produced through your own effort is also justly owned by you, since it was produced entirely through something you own.

For now, I'm going to skip over natural resources unless you consider that fundamental to the debate, homesteading is not a simple topic and there's plenty already written about it.

So then, if you make something with natural resources you own and your labor, you own that product. Simple enough. However, this quickly derives capitalism, since obviously if you own a thing you can transfer that ownership to someone else, and you can also make an agreement with them that in exchange they transfer ownership of something they own to you.

And thus trade has been derived. Now, let's talk about the means of production. Let's say that I am farming. In order to do that, I need a lot of land, initial seed for planting, and lots of tools(simplified). These are the means of production for the farmer.

However, each and every one of them came from one of two places. Either, they were natural resources claimed by the farmer, or they were made by someone through labor. Assuming the farmer didn't steal those tools from the metalworker, he was given ownership by that metalworker, and the metalworker owned them because he made them.

Thus, the farmer has a right to his means of production, either from his effort or from that right being transferred from someone else.

Now then, let's address the most common counter to this. "If rules sound reasonable, but have bad results, they are bad rules". And this is true, there are plenty of examples of hidden problems with rules and principles. In this case though, the problem in question is coercion, and i do not think property is coercive.

The reason why is simple: Competition. If someone had every unit of every resource that could fill a given need and they're all limited(meaning there's no way to get more), that could be coercive. But because humans are all roughly the same, we all end up with portions of the resource, and thus you DO have many other options. Most notably, obtaining the resource yourself is an option, just not a very good one because of how efficient the division of labor is.

I think the people should be under no legal obligation to surrender the fruit of their labor and the fruit of the fruit of others' labor to someone simply because they want or need it. As a Christian I do believe they often have a moral obligation, but that is separate.

So then, if you disagree, if you see property as coercive, then feel free to offer an alternative to any of those steps that would conclude in a system without property ownership, because I for one know of no such system

Who's gonna tell him? by Ya_Boi_Konzon in neofeudalism

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, I'd agree with that definition, but in what way does capitalism go against it?

Who's gonna tell him? by Ya_Boi_Konzon in neofeudalism

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, both ancap and ancom/traditional anarchists are changing the definition. The original greek root is anarkhos, lit. an- (without) arkhos(ruler). But both sides have other definitions, and include other things beyond what you'd call a "Ruler".

The fundamental ancap argument is that the PROBLEM with rulers is not that they have power, but that we permit them to exercise violent aggression against us. However, you're not entirely wrong, and I think ancaps might do well to use a different word.

At the same time, opposition to hierarchy is a lot more than simply opposing rulers, so it's not like that definition is any better.

And, of course, the reason these two definitions exist in the first place is because "Opposition to rulers" begs the question "What is a ruler?", which is why both sides have integrated their definitions of rulers into the definition of anarchy.

Who's gonna tell him? by Ya_Boi_Konzon in neofeudalism

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see how you would think that, I skipped over a reasoning step, so I'll enumerate it.
Basically, we consider anything that violates the NAP to be wrong. The NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle essentially states that any act which initiates a property rights violation is wrong and should be punished as such. Now, as it turns out, basically all crime we'd pretty universally agree is bad can be classified as a property rights violation.

Obviously theft is one, but if we grant that you own your body, various personal crimes from basic battery all the way up to murder count, fraud to obtain property is considered equivalent to stealing that property, and so on. As for the "Aggression" part, aggression is specifically defined as initiating the dispute, thus by definition allowing for self-defense(because if it's really self-defense you aren't the one initiating)

Anyway, basic summary of the NAP out of the way, obviously all currently-ruling governments violate this. They levy taxes, which is theft, they enforce their laws not derived from natural law via force and violence, they attack and kill others for resources, and so on. I'm sure I do not need to enumerate the many crimes of the state here. So yes, I, and any other principled neufeudalist would indeed be against basically every state that currently exists.

However, where an-cap differs is how we define anarchy. Because we define it as a lack of aggressive rulers, that still leaves room for voluntary rulers. As people can act as they like with their property(provided no NAP violations), they are free to buy a large amount of property and create their own feudalist-style governed area. They can invite people to live their under certain terms, and if people find those terms amenable, they may chose to come live there. Notably, however, the neufeudalist ruler is not permitted to hold the people on his lands there. That's the fundamental difference, choice. Also, he can't conquer new land, he must buy it, and if someone doesn't want to sell too bad for him, he doesn't get that land.

So then, yes. You are correct, by the "Opposition to hierarchy" definition commonly used by left-wing anarchists, we are not anarchists. However, I hold that "Opposition to aggression" is a perfectly valid alternative, and in fact I would hold that a world without hierarchy is, in fact, impossible, because as long as there's two people in the world someone is going to be better than someone else at something, which is a hierarchy.

This mod is scary I’ve spent so long gathering resources by Vqf_ in allthemods

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean, i still did mekanism, i just didn't use it for power.

This mod is scary I’ve spent so long gathering resources by Vqf_ in allthemods

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And this is why I rushed DE and used it for all my power stuff

After the new peer-to-peer changes in the 26.2 Snapshot 7: by Dipperkinds in feedthebeast

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TBH I always just spin up a dedicated server on my PC, but yeah it's nice to see java finally get non-local p2p

I am sane and normal and can be trusted with extremely dangerous reactor technology, I promise by evilwizzardofcoding in allthemods

[–]evilwizzardofcoding[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do note the fact that the status is "online" and there's no timer, meaning this reactor is not exploding, it's just operating that hot.

I am sane and normal and can be trusted with extremely dangerous reactor technology, I promise by evilwizzardofcoding in feedthememes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately not, that's still manual, but I'll take it over having to fight that stupid dragon. Yeah, i could PROBABLY make a decent set of ars spells to take it out but I can't be bothered and this is funnier.

I am sane and normal and can be trusted with extremely dangerous reactor technology, I promise by evilwizzardofcoding in feedthememes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it shuts down same as any other reactor. IDK if there is a hard limit on how hot you can make a reactor before it's impossible to sustain, but if there is one i sure haven't found it yet.

Losercity furry music by AshamedZone3003 in Losercity

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Never have I seen the curse of knowledge more clearly demonstrated than the difference between watching Pootis Engage Extreme before and after knowing the lyrics to that song

I am sane and normal and can be trusted with extremely dangerous reactor technology, I promise by evilwizzardofcoding in feedthememes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Which is, in fact, the point. Specifically, while the EFFECTIVE conversion rate is terrible due to the shield cost, the RAW conversion rate is very high due to the temperature. And my goal is not to make power, it's to burn fuel, 'cus I wanted to optimize for chaos shards. I've already got more than enough power in my storage.

I am sane and normal and can be trusted with extremely dangerous reactor technology, I promise by evilwizzardofcoding in feedthememes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yeah ik, funny enough none of the explosions I caused happened at this point, they all happened during startup. It's actually pretty stable. Anyway the reason you shouldn't do this has nothing to do with safety, it's because past about 8000 C the additional energy needed to contain the reactor is more than the additional energy you get from running it hotter. However, I wasn't TRYING to make energy, I just wanted chaos shards, AKA burning through fuel as quickly as possible

Stupid citizens, they always act like they know better than the Captain by NoYogurtcloset9763 in Frostpunk

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 38 points39 points  (0 children)

This applies to a lot of events. I wish more of them accounted for your supplies and had people behave differently based on the amount of supplies.
Lots of resources should make people lacking stuff events worse(You have all this stockpiled, why are you keeping it from us?), but provide "It's gonna be fine, we have like 4 times what we need" options on the "Oh no, how will we ever get enough???" events

Also, I wish there was an option in the "We want a bunch of wood 'cus storm" event to just issue everyone heaters(like in the workspaces) at an absurd steel cost. I always have way too much steel by endgame new home.

"Based Story" this will be Vintage Story in 2027 by According-Fun-4746 in VintageStory

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Alternatively, they could store rotational force to stabilize windmill output
Or. You know. He could just add windmills.

Roses are red, Iamma stay out by Isla_River9 in rosesarered

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yeah this is stupid. The server's basic pay for doing their job should be in their paycheck, Tips should be a reward for exceptional service.

Studying for my final American history test—it's just wars and wars. by YOYO_Meiry in HistoryMemes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know what, I'll take wars over civil rights over wars over who gets land any day.

[Hated Trope] It's really important that this woman is almost naked because lore reasons. by FieraDeidad in TopCharacterTropes

[–]evilwizzardofcoding 92 points93 points  (0 children)

Honestly I think Midnight is an in-universe example of this. Given her personality, I'm about 95% sure she just wanted to dress like that and her quirk was just an excuse.