A Discussion About A Gift Economy

The following conversation took place at my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

holeymoley
https://returntonow.net/2017/01/19/auroville-city-no-money-no-politics-no-religion/?fbclid=IwAR0oCtvLv5jHYScQ3oYnocz58LOHuKVKTcHPqZoRyAZUj3N5BAmuCG0BWJA

ⒶMP3083 > bbblackwell
You might be interested in the above article.

bbblackwell
I already know how well it will work—you don’t need practical evidence when you’ve got hold of valid principles—but this sort of material is of immense interest due to its rarity, so thank you both.

So few people even tiptoe into this topic. This is the BIG god, and its disciples are legion.

The success of this system is a function of the alignment of its participants with their true inherent nature. It is a precisely direct correlation.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Sounds like a great place for bbb to live according to his beliefs. Of interest is the fact that “The township was created with support from the Indian government, UNESCO and well-wishers around the world”. Ooooo, the govt helped in the creation.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
yes, they do commerce with surrounding individuals and entities. but it’s not a project “from” the government.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
bbb is big on a “gift” economy, I think. I’m surprised he isn’t packing already. it got support “from” the Indian govt.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
yes, it got support, but in exchange for services the community provide. they do commerce with all entities, not only the indian government.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
“Although the government of India owns and manages the Auroville Foundation, it finances only a small chunk of the city’s budget”. Manages? Isn’t that control?

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
hmmm, that sucks. they’re government’s little bitch basically. I guess they did need an army afterall.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I don’t have a “belief” about it. Money, or any medium of exchange, is a falsehood, and as such, is destined to create chaos within any system founded upon it.

It’s a symbolic proxy that can never accurately represent what it’s intended to symbolize because value cannot be quantified in this way (particularly at the point of transaction). The concept of “price” is an attempt to do the impossible, and this must always yield a counter-productive outcome.

There are only two appropriate responses to what I just said: ”I didn’t understand that” or ”Yeah, that’s about the size of it…”

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Sorry, I guess I have you confused with someone whom I have seen promote a “gift economy”. I also guess what you just wrote are NOT your beliefs?

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Yes, advocacy for a gift economy is the sole result of an irrefutable process of elimination. What I have stated is no more a belief than “I think therefore I am”. It is a necessary logical conclusion founded upon undeniable premises.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Mmmkay. Nice to see someone who believes so adamantly in their beliefs. Your belief of my observations notwithstanding.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Ok, so it’s gonna be ”I didn’t understand that.” No shame in that, but not caring to rectify it… well, that’s another matter.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Oh, I understand your position and that it is based on what you believe not first hand knowledge and experience.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Logic is a means of knowledge acquisition based on first-hand knowledge and experience in the realm of thought, is it not?

1. All cats need water to survive.
2. Al is a cat.
3. Therefore, Al needs water to survive.

I do not need to know Al personally, or to have ever even seen a cat, to know with certainty—if our premises are true—Al needs water to survive.

Earlier in this conversation, I outlined premises about money that are irrefutably true (though, perhaps not obvious without some contemplation). It is upon these premises that the conclusion rests securely.

Man’s greatest thriving can never occur while the practice of trade as we know it continues in any form, because it is error by definition (misperceived value), and error is never a stable basis for any endeavor. There’s no belief, opinion, conjecture, speculation, divine revelation or psychic premonitions required to arrive at this conclusion.

Abdul > bbblackwell
So what syllogism would apply to the practice of trade? (to arrive at your conclusion).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Well, it’s a good thing that you’re around to correct all the errors and humans that find merit in the present system of trade. A system that has evolved through trial and error over thousands of years. I wish you luck in such a daunting task. Maybe they’ll erect a statute in your honor when all humans realize your wisdom and conclusion as not only “true” but, viable.
Or not.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“muh trial and error for thousands of years” logical falacy again. Go to Africa, go to native America. Anarchy has been practiced for millenia, still practiced in many places.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
No thank you. I like modern infrastructure too much – as do most people. Btw, most advances in the human condition have come from “trial and error”.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
oh, you forgot that most of it was made by private companies

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
Yes, hired by communities to perform.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
communities can hire them directly, did you know that?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
Yes, most all do.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
no need for government, in fact, sometimes the communities institute their own infrastructure companies, and those work much better than regular government-companies shady contracts.

to be honest, I’ve been to towns where they manage their stuff so well that federal or state government presence is almost non-existant, it’s all local companies.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
True. That’s why I live in such a community where there is no such “govt”.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
big cities are toxic

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
Absolutely. I call my 800 acres my social security – where I can be secure from society.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
it wouldn’t take much to completely dismantle the local government in a well working town, and give the people direct democracy technology to decide by themselves how money should be spent.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
It would take a persuasive activist that could pull people together. I had to “shop” around for several years to find my community back in the 1970s. It already operated the way you describe. There’s less than 500 adults in the whole county.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I don’t want a statue. In fact, I’d prefer to be utterly forgotten, and have it begin now while I’m still alive to enjoy the tranquility.

This isn’t about me. I don’t want to win arguments. I don’t even want to have arguments. I’d rather just be appreciating the glorious Truth of our existence together, but nearly every time I try to do that, somebody tells me I’m full of shit without adequately explaining why.

It behooves an intelligent being to eagerly and earnestly investigate ideas, and it frustrates me to no end that you, and others, will dismiss uncommon ideas out-of-hand without any desire to figure out whether or not they actually have validity.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
I have investigated much of what you write about in my earlier years. You really haven’t discovered any new ideas, it’s just “new” to you, maybe. Weighing all I have investigated in my lifetime against my real life experiences with a variety of humans, I can logically come to conclusions of what seems valid and viable and what does not. No offense intended.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I suspect that you advocate based upon what you think humans are capable of at this time (the current general condition of humanity’s consciousness).

You have reason to suppose that people will be lazy if they get stuff for free, or that they’ll be greedy and create an imbalance. From this, you reason a gift economy will not work, or at least will not work best. Is this correct?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
“I suspect that you advocate based upon what you think humans are capable of at this time (the current general condition of humanity’s consciousness).”

You suspect correctly since that is reality at this time.

The closest thing to a gift economy that I can think of was the experiment in New Harmony in 1825. You had 800 people who were all of the same mindset and dedicated to the new “economy” and social structure they had developed. Even with that start “human nature” of self-interest took over. And given the human nature that I have observed in my 71 years doesn’t conflict with that of New Harmony, I have my doubts.

Abdul > bbblackwell & Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I think the “gift economy” is already present everywhere. Anytime anybody gifts someone something, that’s part of the gift economy. It’s just not currently our primary form of economy, but it certainly exists everywhere, and “works”.

But I too think it’s quite a leap to go to a 100% gift based economy, based on where people currently are, which is why I believe intermediary steps are necessary (which is something I’ve discussed b4).

There’s also something I’m unclear about with the idea of a gift economy. Let’s say we live in a community where we grow our own foods in a shared community garden. We all contribute a fair amount of time and energy to this garden. If I pick a fruit from this garden and give it to another contributer, is that really a gift?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
While the idea of no trade and only a gift economy may be a wonderful Utopian idea, such concepts have historically been rejected in practice. Even the “gift economy” in India that started this thread has been accepted by only 2,800 people worldwide in 50 years.

Sometimes it seems bbb and others are absolutists – it’s all or nothing. I wonder if compromise is within their wheelhouse. And you make a great point about trying to make a 100% leap. Like trying to eat an elephant. Not all at once but, one bite at a time.

Bernie Sandfrög
gift economy is moot because it cannot be enforced, by definition. it can only be judged at individual level. if you were to enforce it somehow, by a law, or even (in the anarchist way) by a contract or something like that, then it isn’t “gift” anymore, it’s just plain old communism.

The_NFE
I don’t think a gift economy is something to be ‘enforced’ (at least in the current sense of the word). it’ll happen if it’s in the interests of most people to associate in that manner. it might be enforced in the sense that you could hypotheically form a contract around the community that “enforces” it (any who doesn’t gift will be disassociated from the community). just as a market economy wouldn’t really be something to be ‘enforced’ in the same manner.

the great thing about voluntary interactions is that since all parties work to their own self-interest, all parties win. This is why I say there won’t be just “one stateless society”. “society” will just become about the individual rather than the collective.

bbblackwell > Abdul
I offered the syllogism as a reminder that we are capable of attaining valid knowledge in some areas by thought alone, without any corresponding physical experience. I find the format far too painstaking to be useful in conversation.

Innumerable syllogisms are, however, nested within the general discussion. For example:

– Inaccuracy (or error) consistently yields net counter-productive consequences in any endeavor.

– Trade is entirely founded upon inaccuracy (subjective valuation, symbolic value, etc.)

– Therefore, trade will consistently yield net counter-productive consequences.

Of course, we can go on for days breaking down each word and all the connections between them. I find this minutia better handled by the organic thought processes of the individual.

Discourse is not suited for laying bare every intricacy of the mind to be dissected; it serves better as a method of exchanging and contriving food for thought, then each person can ruminate in isolation before returning to the table to share their new conclusions.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
As I recall, the failing of New Harmony was attributed to ”poor human material” by its conceiver; and I would agree that we are drowning in a sea of such material.

The means by which we arrive at a gift economy must be a holistic rise in consciousness, not just idealistic hopes about freedom and cooperation.

It must include an understanding of how obligation arises, and where it is sourced; a real sense of our inherent unity, and a level of authenticity beyond anything modern society can conceive of at present.

Imagine the position of the abolitionist in 1850… His ideas would have seemed impossible, even insane. In the south especially, their entire world ran on slavery, and “human nature” was not showing much promise for a turnaround.

I’m just trying to help get the ball rolling in a better direction; to begin preparations for making this shift by putting these ideas on the table.

The concepts need to be evaluated on their inherent merit, and then we can try to grow into them. They cannot be judged with any consideration for where we are right now.

Human nature is not the problem, but our deplorable, degraded condition is a prohibitory impediment, and must be addressed first before any meaningful change can occur.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Of course the “conceiever” of New Harmony blamed the participates and not his theory. Btw, when Owen, the conceiver, returned to Europe, Karl Marx became one of his followers. Marx adopted his ideas from Owen and those theories have also been economic failures. Failures based on Marx’s not recognizing the human “frailties” of self-interest, diverse thought and desires for their family. Lenin and Stalin tried purging the source of those frailties – people and “re-educating” the remainder.

I see the course of human events swinging to overbearing globalism based on the sales pitch that all dreams will be fulfilled under the guise of equality – which is paramount to a growing number of people’s self-interest. This “pandemic” is a perfect example of what I see coming. So far my predictions of the future, dating back over 50 years, have been spot on. I understand the forces at work that has and will make it happen. I’m not so sure you do.

My education and experience with philosophy and philosophers is that there is an endless ability to imagine what can be. However, with reality – not so much. When philosophy meets persuasive propaganda, philosophy often loses.

I wish you luck in your “ball rolling”. You are up against a monolith promulgating the contrary. You know what the philosophy of the South ran into – much more than just propaganda. The monolith of Power. Today that Power is used in more subtle ways to “win the hearts and minds”. Mostly through creating “victims” of perceived inequalities and social injustices.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Then what do you suggest people do?

Abdul > bbblackwell
Thx for ur answer, but you forgot about my other question:

“There’s also something I’m unclear about with the idea of a gift economy. Let’s say we live in a community where we grow our own foods in a shared community garden. We all contribute a fair amount of time and energy to this garden. If I pick a fruit from this garden and give it to another contributer, is that really a gift?”

And regarding syllogisms, is it possible to have a major premise that is not a universal statement? Also, can there be a positive conclusion from a negative major premise?

bbblackwell > Abdul
I didn’t get to that comment yet Hahaha. The reason why it’s called contributionism or a gift economy is because property rights are duly acknowledged. You can only gift what you rightfully own.

If you contribute your labor, then you do not own what’s created. Therefore, you cannot gift the product. By the scenario you described, the fruit of the garden is morally a found object. I suppose if you pick it up first, you own it, and can now gift it, but you can see how ludicrous this is Hahahha

So what truth is revealed in this nonsense? That “ownership” is only a useful concept in a misaligned society. There is no need for enforcement of rights amongst the enlightened—morality is intuitively exercised.

I’m not an authority on syllogisms, as I don’t find them particularly useful and have not given them much attention. They are a last resort for when we just can’t figure out what’s going on and we’re reduced to engaging raw mathematics. It evokes a feeling of starvation; being entirely bereft of right-brain participation.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I agree with your perception entirely. I’m not sure why you think I don’t. But what should I do—act like the truth ain’t the truth and that we can achieve peace and universal prosperity while engaging some polished version of the same satanic principles that got us into this mess?

No. I speak our potential—as it’s still possible, if not probable—and let the chips fall where they may. It’s not up to me who listens, but those who understand what’s required must not degrade their message only to gain compliance for a lesser ideal that won’t achieve the desired end anyway.

It’s much like a relay race: There are others who will no doubt devise ways to bridge the gap, but that is not my role. There is someone suited to every position, but the role of the philosopher is to stand firmly upon the most distant horizon and call those within earshot forward. Getting them close enough to hear is an endeavor outside my scope.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul & bbblackwell
“Then what do you suggest people do?”
“But what should I do—”


That my friends is the $64,000 question, as we used to say back in the 50s. Most here know what I did to prepare – prepared a remote place where generations of my family ( I had none in the beginning) could live and survive as if they were the last family on the planet. Most of my friends throughout the 35 years of developing the place, thought I was a paranoid nutcase. Almost none shared my “vision”.

I guess the answer is Polonius’s, “To thine own self be true”.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Did you build your own house and do you pay property taxes? (If so, who exactly is taxing you and where is this money going?).

Abdul > bbblackwell
If one is self-sufficient enough to cover all their basic needs in life, is gifting even necessary at that point?

If not, wouldn’t attaining self-sufficiency be a better and more practical goal?

I see gifting more as a luxury (and perhaps as a token of gratitude). I’m not so sure if that’s meant to work as an “economy”. There’s something in the definition of “economy” and “gifting” that isn’t gelling well for me (something feels off).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Yes, I built my own house. I did everything one has to do to turn wilderness into a self-sufficient farm/ranch. Like the way people did in the 1800s but with machinery, thank God. My property taxes are paid by an income producing trust. In other words, the money does not come out of my pocket or principle – my money does the work of producing, not me. My neighbors and I are taxing me. We all live by the same rules we decide on. So needless to say we will NOT overtax ourselves. The tax rate is about 0.2%. The money goes to my county from which I receive value for value. I actually donate more yearly to my county than I pay in property taxes.

How does this work? Here is a video from 1950 but it is a fair representation of how my county operates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzXXFsfg-x4
It’s about 16 minutes long.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Amish will still be there doing their amish things after the State is abolished. They don’t need the State, they never needed it.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
I live pretty much as the Amish, except I love electricity. LOL

holeymoley
Except in the sense that even in a self-sufficient community statism can rear its ugly head.

Bernie Sandfrög > holeymoley
how? They are very much voluntaryists. well, yeah, there are very strict communities, and there are more free ones

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > holeymoley
I’ve been in my self-sufficient community for over 40 years and statism has not and will not “rear its ugly head”. You insult the character of the liberty-loving rugged individuals that make up my community and the many other like communities.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul & bbblackwell
Here is pretty much my forecast from 50 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFpAcChNDQo

holeymoley > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Oh really? Forbidding the people of “The Village” from leaving is pretty much a statis t thing to do.

Im guessing that statism will rear its ugly head inevitably, if they arent aware of natural law, anywhere. Just like how the constitution did nothing to stop statism without teaching natural law first. It is only a matter of time. Even in your commune. Why do i feel confident of that? Simple. Youve shown how you flout natural law here, quite often.

Bernie Sandfrög
TBH the problem is not the State, the problem is Technoligarchs above the State and everything else.
https://invidio.us/watch?v=9OiZRr9V7Z4
Take the State away – that’s the wet dream of these sociopaths.
(I’m not quitting Anarchy, I’m just stating truth.)

bbblackwell > Abdul
A paradigm of utter self-sufficiency seems “off”, does it not? You’ve got to reduce life down to bear bones to even have a shot at that. We’re talking Robison Crusoe levels of reduction here. If you want to build anything better than a canoe, you’re going to need more than one person acting in cooperation.

Plus, humans naturally bond to family and families get bigger until they are towns. It’s not the human way to go it alone. An intelligent creature needs to share his ideas, and a creative creature needs others to help bring big ideas into manifestation.

The word “economy” is being used simply to reference material moving between people, and “gifting” signifies transactions without an expectation of direct compensation.

So it needn’t look entirely different than it does today. A man may have a store where he offers fruit from his farm, or lumber he has procured and
prepared, and people can come there to obtain these goods.

This shopkeep then goes to a bicycle store to get a bike, and everything works as usual except no paper, digital currency, or compensatory goods are offered in return for items obtained in either direction.

Trade, as currently conceived, only serves to limit what one may take. I can’t take all the bikes because I don’t have enough material to exchange for them (or don’t wish to invest too much of my limited stores). In a “gift” economy, this limitation is effected by personal responsibility, consideration for others, and ultimately, the giver’s placing limits on allowances for whatever reason (if he perceives an imbalance, or suspects a freeloader, etc.).

This latter check, rooted in property rights, is what distinguishes the gift economy from communism. The contributionist economy marries the virtues of both the communist and capitalist ideals, while obviating their pitfalls. It addresses the objections each has to the other—which are valid—without introducing new errors in the effort to solve their failings.

Abdul > bbblackwell
In the example I gave above (the community garden), I see that as people attempting to be self-sufficient (at least when it comes to food). I’m not so sure if that would count as a “gift economy”, even though no trade or monetary exchange is taking place (people there are just working to feed themselves and their families).

I think the word “self” in self-sufficient is a misnomer, because ideally it does require a collective effort to achieve a meaningful level of self-sufficiency. Again, perhaps achieving 100% self-sufficiency need not be the goal, but surely up to 90% or so is viable (and we are talking about the needs here, not wants).

Think of something as simple as implementing solar panels in your home. Depending on your energy usage, these panels may very well produce enough power for your day to day needs. Suddenly you find that you no longer need to keep paying those electricity bills, because you’ve become self-sufficient in that area.

Now maybe there was an upfront cost you had to pay to buy and set all these panels up, or perhaps someone even gifted them to you, either way, when we have self-sufficiency in mind as a goal, it frees us from the bondage of requiring us to pay and rely on others for those services.

This in turn frees up more of your time, energy and resources so you can do the things you really wanna do in life (like perhaps working on nice gifts to give to those you love etc.).

““gifting” signifies transactions without an expectation of direct compensation.”

“So it needn’t look entirely different than it does today. A man may have a store where he offers fruit from his farm, or lumber he has procured and prepared, and people can come there to obtain these goods.”

“This shopkeep then goes to a bicycle store to get a bike, and everything works as usual except no paper, digital currency, or compensatory goods are offered in return for items obtained in either direction.”


Setting up a shop seems odd to me in a self-sufficient and/or gift based economy. It implies that the shopkeeper is expecting some kind of recompense, if not immediately, then at some point in the future. You’re basically saying here that the farmer and bike seller should give away everything they produce for free (without expecting anything in return). In today’s world, you’d be considered a lunatic for even suggesting such a thing.

Also, in such a community, why would anybody sit around a shop all day when there is literally nothing to be gained? What you’re suggesting will only really work in a community that genuinely see and treat each other like family, in which case, setting up a shop will not even be necessary. Someone in that community should simply be welcome to go directly to the bike crafter’s house, and kindly request if they would be willing to create a bike for their young child. Maybe they’ll be happy to, or maybe they happen to be a little busy at that time, but they sort something out.

It’s just such a different kind of world than the one we’re living in today (unfortunately). The only thing comparable is how some of us may still treat family members and friends. Like for example, a close friend of mine requested some help from me recently, and I was more than happy to help him voluntarily, expecting nothing in return. Hopefully my contribution will help his future projects along. We help each other when and where we can, it’s simply what we do (and is perhaps why we are friends). Had we not been friends, he may have had to “pay” some random stranger to help him instead. And what if he couldn’t afford it? Now his productivity and creative projects will have to come to a halt, and he’ll likely end up doing some other work that he doesn’t really wanna do, to help fund the work that he really does want to do… (I wonder how many people are stuck in this kind of dilemma?)

“In a “gift” economy, this limitation is effected by personal responsibility, consideration for others, and ultimately, the giver’s placing limits on allowances for whatever reason (if he perceives an imbalance, or suspects a freeloader, etc.).”

Trust is key. Can you really trust a random stranger? The answer is no (especially in today’s world). I can trust some of my close family members and friends to be considerate and be thoughtful/responsible with an open shop. I expect random strangers to steal and loot everything the minute I’m gone, and they’ll run far away to escape, never to be seen again. There is no relationship there at all, and no care for any of the consequences (if they can get away with their theft). If my family member or friend attempted such a thing, there are immediate relationship consequences, and even if such a thing happened, I would care and be invested enough to find out why they are stealing (or being unreasonable with what they take, by hoarding everything etc.). It’s a continuous ongoing relationship, and who knows, perhaps they may have a good reason or have specific needs at that moment in time that they need help with, all they have to do is ask etc.

Our money economy is fundamentally rooted in distrust, and that signifies a deeper consciousness based problem. People who feel inclined to steal from others are operating from a lacking mindset (not an abundant one). What achieving self-sufficiency does is help bring about an abundance mindset, so behaviours like theft make little to no sense (and perhaps at a certain point, no longer brings one any real advantages, only disadvantages). It also frees up one’s bondage to all kinds of “essential services”, to the point where things like taxes make even less sense.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Yes, being totally self-sufficient is VERY difficult. While I produce everything from electricity to food, we still purchase things like flour as opposed to growing it and processing it. We could, we just don’t. Same with material for clothes, although my wife has a spinning wheel and a loom. Metal is something impossible for us to produce.

I disagree that a money economy is based on distrust. It’s more of a convenience and efficiency thing. Say, you need a suit and I have suits. You make chairs but, I don’t need any chairs. What is the most efficient way to conduct such a transaction? An agreed-to medium of exchange.

I still find this historical medium of exchange interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH45c7qQ59Y

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I’m not against using (sound) money as a tool when and where it makes sense. What blackwell is taking about is a different kind of world entirely. If we lived in the same community and you and I were good friends, I’d give you the suit I had for free. Maybe I don’t need your chairs, but I’m abundant enough to give you the suit no strings attached. It’s a very different kind of mindset. Again, think about how you’d treat a good friend (and if he was a good friend to you, he’d likely make it up to you somehow).

The distrust is in expecting some kind of recompense every time an exchange occurs. Imagine if your neighbor ran out of butter, and urgently needed some from you for whatever reason. Perhaps they’ll pay you back later or make up for it in other ways, but they only need a little. If you insist on charging them for a little bit of butter, essentially you’re saying that you want to be recompensated now/immediately (because in your mind you are losing something, and someone else’s gain is your loss, and you don’t trust that some form of abundance will come back to you later). It turns out your neighbor was baking a cake for a party, and although you weren’t initially invited, because you were kind enough to share what they needed, they happily invite you to come along and grab a slice of that delicious cake!

If instead you behaved like a stingy old man and demanded some kind of payment for a little bit of butter, what kind of relationship would that be fostering? And isn’t that behaviour coming from a place of distrust?

There are pros and cons to money. Money tries to guarantee recompense for both parties (both parties seemingly gain something, whereas in gift giving, only one person gains something).

The issue this brings about are several (and maybe blackwell can better expand on this). One of them being the actual valuation of the said item (the worth of it). There is plenty of room for manipulation and subtle forms of theft to occur here. What ends up happening is that you have people who get really good at manipulating the money game to their favour, and you end up with artificial winners and losers (the rich and the poor). This imbalance or discrepancy of worth/value is the price we pay for such “convenience”. In a gift based economy, becoming a billionaire for example would be impossible.

All exchanges would be pure and clean (free from economic manipulation). But this kind of system requires a different way of seeing things. You may not even be able to buy something in a gift-based economy, because your paper money could very well be worthless to them anyway.

My intermediate approach is that we should be as self-sufficient as possible with all our basic needs, and then when it comes to anything else (be it suits, electronics, cars etc.), if people really want those things, they can work for them. But ideally we shouldn’t be exchanging anything for our most fundamental needs (like food and water), these things should be abundant as possible, and if they’re not, why on earth should people be chasing fancy cars? Having self-sufficiency as a goal puts our priorities in order. If our community is barely producing enough food to sustain ourselves, perhaps we shouldn’t be worrying about fancy suits, we should get our priorities straight and focus on what’s important. Once a certain abundance level is achieved, by all means go crazy chasing fancy suits and Ferrari’s.

What we have now in the cities are people who basically don’t even own the basic means of producing what they need (like food), and yet they are occupied with chasing wants (fancy cars, clothes, jewellery, other luxuries etc.). If all the grocery stores shutdown for whatever reason, city people are basically fucked, because they are living a wasteful, dependent, “anti-self-sufficient” lifestyle.

It’s simple really: the more dependent you are, the more enslaved you are. The more self-sufficient you are, the more free you are.

Regarding your previous post, I asked about property taxes because I struggle to understand how if one truly is a homeowner (where you literally built the house yourself), how can anybody else tax you on your own property? Isn’t that a claim of ownership over your own property and/or land?

“Here is a video from 1950 but it is a fair representation of how my county operates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzXXFsfg-x4
It’s about 16 minutes long.”


Ah, a black and white clip. Those were much simpler times. I was born in the 90’s, so I was privileged to have colour tv from the get go. We didn’t have internet access until my teen years though, and frankly, I miss those simpler times. I feel like we’ve regressed in some ways with all these advancements (plus the music back then was way better.

Like I said before, in this clip it looks like there is actual engagement with the community with all these decisions that are being made. That already is superior to what we have now in cities, which is virtually no real community engagement (barring a once in a blue moon mass referendum on some particular issue). We have the technology now to easily pull off a direct form of democracy (similar to the clip you shared but working on a mass scale with millions of voters/participants).

What we have instead is a con system that claims to be a democracy, but really is just some weird form of oligarchy.

However, with that said, I do think the way this community functions can be improved in many ways. In fact, look at all the commotion that has to happen just to convince someone to prepare some hot meals for those poor kids. If it was a voluntary run community, people who cared about providing extra resources to their school can choose to do so, whereas those who weren’t interested can focus their efforts elsewhere. In that clip there was a man that didn’t agree with the extra costs the school was asking for, but it seemed like the majority won on the vote, and the people that lost the vote will now be forcibly taxed extra for something that they don’t agree with. In a voluntary system, the man that didn’t agree shouldn’t have to pay anything, while all those who do agree can pay instead. Everybody can win in a voluntary system, but in a taxed based democracy, there can be winners and losers, and this can breed resentment with some community members that fall on the losing minority side (unnecessarily I may add).

In short, if this community functioned on voluntary principles (where everybody’s choices are respected), it would be an even better community to live in imo.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Interactions between family, neighbors and friends would be easy within a gift economy and in some cases with “strangers” as well. I did much pro bono work as an attorney throughout my career. But commerce (trade) on a wider scale would be more difficult without a medium of exchange and expecting an equal exchange doesn’t build distrust, imo. The majority of trade exchanges are a win-win situation or they don’t occur. In gift giving, both parties can also win – one materially and one spiritually. The “pros and cons” of using a medium of exchange and what is viable as such, have pretty much worked themselves out through the ages.

In reading your “immediate approach” I understand your analysis. However, individuals are prone to live their life pursuing what fulfills their desires. Some people can exercise delayed gratification, others can’t or won’t, ie: they’re always “chasing wants”. The people in the city have chosen that lifestyle, for whatever their individual reasons – being “fucked” in the manner you describe notwithstanding. Since their choices don’t or shouldn’t affect you, they should have the liberty to make those choices. They decide what is important to them as a lifestyle – even if it is chasing fancy suits and exotic sports cars. There was a time in my life when that was important to me for MY pursuit of happiness. I “loved” my custom suits and exotic sports cars. But in time, my pursuits changed along with my definition of happiness. I do agree with your statement: “It’s simple really: the more dependent you are, the more enslaved you are. The more self-sufficient you are, the more free you are.” Not all people share that view, however.

To property tax. Property tax is the oldest form of taxation going back millennia. In my community we all pretty much agree that we get value from them as they are used to benefit the community as a whole. Some things I get direct benefit from, some I don’t, but the issue is whether they benefit the whole. This is where compromise and cooperation come into play and in this sense nobody loses or is coerced. And everyone who lives or moves in our community understands that’s how our community operates. They are free to change things in an orderly fashion or move to a place more to their liking. After all, no one has forced them into joining and living in our community.

I have to disagree with your assumption: “In short, if this community functioned on voluntary principles (where everybody’s choices are respected), it would be an even better community to live in imo.”

To the contrary, it would sow the seeds of discontent and other negative human emotions which would work against compromise and cooperation and in the end harmony. Thinking that everyone “wins” in a voluntary system is a bit naive, imo. Always getting your way is antithetical to the concept of community. It doesn’t even work with a family unit.

The 90s were simpler times? That, of course, is relative. I was born in 1949, I’ve experienced REALLY simpler times. Not only did we not have color tv, there were no tv stations in our area until I was around 6 years old.

bbblackwell > Abdul
Within a context of freedom, if “self-sufficient” extends beyond the individual it loses all meaning. How far out would you permit cooperation to extend before you would no longer call it self-sufficiency? It’s sort of arbitrary once you extend beyond the actual self.

Within your offered context of the modern world, however, it takes on new meaning; as it refers to breaking free of the limits imposed by the system. The “self” now becomes the aggregate self, seeking to return to its natural state of sufficiency absent the construct. Without that system, there’s nothing to be self-sufficient from except other people, which we both agree is utterly non-sensical.

Yes, the dynamics in a free society are as you say, but a person may still have a bike shop to publically offer bikes in a set location, display numerous options, to help those who have bike questions/need repairs, to double as a workshop, to keep track of who’s taking what (if we’re still somewhere short of total enlightenment), to limit the hours in which he engages in bike dealings, etc.

Indeed, it’s simply about extending friendship, or brotherly Love, outward to a wider circle—one that includes everyone. Is that really so insane?

And you nailed it when you noted how your helping a friend allowed creativity to flourish where it otherwise may have been stifled. Imagine the impact of this in a trillion such interactions! My God… and economists want to tell us that it’s the individual profit motive that inspires humanity’s progress. Liars! Scoundrels, all! It’s a choke on the flow of progress; a satanic, oppositional influence, and absolutely nothing more!

Your understanding of the relevant factors is spot-on. Our current system is one of distrust; a symptom of the dysfunction resulting from socially-engineered deception in every area of life. That 1% (or less) do it to fill the void within themselves, but even they benefit not at all, as it only feeds their sickness.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“But commerce (trade) on a wider scale would be more difficult without a medium of exchange and expecting an equal exchange doesn’t build distrust, imo.”

It’s not that money builds distrust, but that distrust is imbedded in the very concept. Again, blackwell is the one who introduced me to that idea, if you don’t agree, argue with him about it.

I agree that commerce would be difficult to do on a wider scale, but another point of achieving self-sufficiency would be to make long distant commerce redundant or unnecessary. I used the example of 3d printing in a previous post. I’m feeling lazy today so I’m just gonna copy and paste an older post of mine:

“Just to add another thought into the mix of discussions here, do remember that unlike previous centuries we do now have very useful technologies to aid us and potentially automate a lot of tasks that otherwise would have been very difficult to do/produce manually even with a team effort.

There is a common misconception that attempting to live in a moneyless word means going back to living a frugal tribal lifestyle. It doesn’t have to be that way at all, especially with all the advancements we have at our disposal.
A world that no longer requires money is essentially a world that functions under decentralised principles. Right now, we live in a world that mostly functions under centralised principles ― hence the centralised governments, banks, corporations, institutions etc.


There is a process known as “ephemeralization” which essentially describes that as technology advances, we are able to do more and more with less and less. You can see this principle play out very clearly in the tech world, e.g. cpu’s have gotten more and more efficient to the point where now our phones that fit into our pockets are many times more powerful & capable than bulky computers of past decades.


Keeping this in mind, as things are playing out, I believe we are either heading towards a world that is even more centralised (putting the power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people), or we are finally heading to a more decentralised model (where the power and wealth flows more naturally/evenly, where each individual is empowered and is able to do more with less thanks to technological advancements).


Think about a home or a set of homes/community that completely functions under decentralized principles. Imagine having everything from your energy needs, to food production, water systems, manufacturing etc. whatever infrastructure that is involved or is necessary being performed 100% on a local level, or if possible, even at the home/individual level. That way instead of everyone being reliant on centralized sources for everything, we become much more self-reliant, and thus we become that much freer because we no longer have to sacrifice our livelihoods to continue paying for all kinds of bills and taxes for centralized services we no longer really need, because everything we would need would already be produced and be accessible within our own homes and local communities.


So instead of relying on some externalized power grid (which is usually coal powered―polluting the air that we breath), our houses could be completely solar powered using the latest and most efficient cells and battery systems producing 100% clean energy. Instead of relying on destructive and wasteful monocultural farms and supermarkets for all our foods (which encourage gmo/chemically infested produce since its profitable for them), we would grow what we need and we’ll know our produce to be truly organic since we’ll be the actual producers. Instead of relying on traditional plumbing and water services, we could utilize newer methods & technologies of water filtration and recycling systems. Instead of relying on massive companies to order parts we need, we could simply 3D print them and literally produce what we need in-house, for ourselves, for our communities etc. I could go on and on, but I hope you see the bigger picture that I’m painting.


As our ideas, methods and technologies advance, we are able to do more with less, and holding on to traditional centralised models make less and less sense, especially if they can be scaled down to the local level. The way most of us are living now is highly inefficient and damaging to the environment in many ways, and frankly just stupid. Like I mentioned before, if all the supermarkets were to close down, and all the power grids were to get shut down and water systems cut off, most people living in centralized city conditions would likely be dead within weeks.


In centralized systems, if a single failure point occurs the effects are unnecessarily devastating. In decentralized systems, a failure point only affects that one particular individual, and usually that can easily be alleviated and repaired due to the strength and abundance of all the other functioning systems surrounding it.


There is also the difference in power dynamics. With centralized systems, most of the power always lies at the top of the pyramid, with those at the bottom of the pyramid being completely subservient and subject to the commands of those at the top, and have little power or autonomy of their own. In this kind of system more and more of the wealth is funnelled away from the bottom of the pyramid towards the top ― which is how and why you get monopolies and ridiculous imbalances in wealth/massive distribution problems (where you end up having super billionaires whilst still having people out there who are literally starving to death). Essentially, it’s a slavery-based system designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many. This is basically the kind of model we’re living under right now, which is why there are so many problems in our world.


Decentralized systems are what nature intended and is how we would naturally live if we didn’t already have cultish monopolies already ruling in place. Decentralized systems are not pyramidally structured but are structured more like a web (or in more tech terms – network ordered/oriented). These systems naturally distribute power evenly across the net, and those with stronger linkages-bonds in a network structure only further reinforce and strengthen the entire web, which gives rise to even stronger linkages-bonds. It’s a self-reinforcing structure that empowers all, instead of just a few.


Decentralised systems and structures are incredibly powerful. Just look how much the internet has changed the world (which is essentially a decentralised network). Eventually in a mature decentralized world, we could get to a point where nobody has to work for a living anymore, because everyone would simply have become that abundant. When that occurs, we could all finally focus 100% of our time on following our dreams and passions in life, and the earth will be a much brighter and happier place to live.”


And of course, there’s no need to eliminate money entirely (I don’t think it would even be possible to eliminate all forms of money anyway). We can still have a medium of exchange when and where necessary, but ideally its use should be more of a luxury than a necessity (that dynamic alone will change everything).

“The people in the city have chosen that lifestyle, for whatever their individual reasons”

I would argue that the vast majority of people in cities are not actually choosing, and whatever choices they do have are extremely limited and are heavily manipulated/swayed by advertisement and whatever happens to be the status quo of the day.

I have yet to come across anybody that disagrees with the general ideas of self-sufficiency. Everybody pretty much agrees that it’s a good idea, just like everybody agrees that eating healthy is a good idea; but how many people actually do it?

That’s a $64,000 question that I’ll answer for free: very few people.

But regardless, people should still be free to live their lives how they want, of course I agree with this, I am an anarchist after all. But when city people start panicking when all the toilet paper runs out in all the stores… Well, what if it was food next?

Someone who is self-sufficient on the other hand wouldn’t have to worry about this kind of problem at all. People who don’t value this ideal shouldn’t complain then when things start to go wrong with their dependant lifestyles, and when things do go wrong, the question they should be asking themselves is: why am I living like this in the first place? Should I be living like this? And is there a better way I could be living?

I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes, and here we are exploring some of those better ways.

“I have to disagree with your assumption: In short, if this community functioned on voluntary principles (where everybody’s choices are respected), it would be an even better community to live in imo.

To the contrary, it would sow the seeds of discontent and other negative human emotions which would work against compromise and cooperation and in the end harmony. Thinking that everyone “wins” in a voluntary system is a bit naive, imo. Always getting your way is antithetical to the concept of community. It doesn’t even work with a family unit.”


Um, well you didn’t really explain how exactly a voluntary way of doing things would “sow the seeds of discontent”.

I was strictly talking about the tax part. If people get to choose exactly where their money is going in the community, how is this not a win?

I understand if people already agreed to the tax system before joining the community (so they have an obligation to stay true to their agreements). But why assume that this tax system is the best way of doing things?

In the previous example, the man that disagreed with increasing taxes to fund extra meals/equipment to the community school would still be taxed anyway because the majority won the vote.

It’s like if 9/10 people agreed that they should order pizza and split the cost evenly, would it be fair to still charge the one dude that didn’t want to eat? If the pizza cost $10, in your tax system, the guy that didn’t want the pizza would still be charged $1 (for nothing). Is that fair?

In a voluntary system, the one guy that doesn’t want the pizza shouldn’t have to pay. Instead the 9/10 people simply pay $1.11 each (ok, some sucker will have to pay a penny extra with this math, but whatever, you get what I’m saying).

The voluntary way of doing things is very simple: people only pay for what they actually use. So only the people who have children attending that school should have to worry about the costs associated with it.

When I went school, the school dinners (both hot and cold) were not free. We could either go home to eat or we could buy whatever foods we wanted from the cafeteria. How is this a bad system?

And hey, I noticed you edited your post. You were saying I was sooo “naïve” for thinking a voluntary system would actually work better. Well Mr Juan, relative to you, I am very young, so I am still allowed to be a bit naive.

“The 90s were simpler times? That, of course, is relative. I was born in 1949, I’ve experienced REALLY simpler times. :laughing: Not only did we not have color tv, there were no tv stations in our area until I was around 6 years old.”

Holy crap, you’re old enough to be my grandpa. C’mon, surely you had a radio?

Abdul > bbblackwell
“Within a context of freedom, if “self-sufficient” extends beyond the individual it loses all meaning. How far out would you permit cooperation to extend before you would no longer call it self-sufficiency? It’s sort of arbitrary once you extend beyond the actual self.”

Hmm, good question. Have you heard of Dunbar’s number? (If not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number?wprov=sfla1)

Maybe 150 individuals working together could be a theoretical limit (to your question). Though, as you have correctly pointed out:

“Within your offered context of the modern world, however, it takes on new meaning; as it refers to breaking free of the limits imposed by the system.”

Yes, this is what I really mean. Self-sufficiency from centralised systems (like government). As a simple rule: the more self-sufficient we are, the less power and influence the state has over us.

Again, it’s a method of attaining more freedom. If we desire more freedom in our lives, I believe self-sufficiency is a key concept.

“Indeed, it’s simply about extending friendship, or brotherly Love, outward to a wider circle—one that includes everyone. Is that really so insane?”

In an insane world like this one, such a sane concept is insane, yes.

Your understanding of the relevant factors is spot-on. Our current system is one of distrust; a symptom of the dysfunction resulting from socially-engineered deception in every area of life. That 1% (or less) do it to fill the void within themselves, but even they benefit not at all, as it only feeds their sickness.

I’m not sure if grandpa Juan understands this. Maybe you should try explaining it to him (it would be a fun read I’m sure.

bbblackwell > Abdul
It comes down to vision, imagination. Juan sees much that the average citizen does not, but he seems impatient about looking too far out. I, on the other hand, get impatient when we’re not looking out far enough. It exemplifies how nature has everything in hand; there’s someone for every role, just like the cells of the body.

That’s why it’s silly when people worry, ”Who would clean up the shit if we didn’t have money to entice them?” To the faithless, bereft of right-brained understanding, they know not whence such motivations would come.

If people would follow Juan’s advocacy and example, we would be a long way toward a free society. From there, another bridge or two may be needed before they can envision a world without money, voting, romance-based parenthood, or the other limitations that are discussed in these channels.

Ok, so as for Dunbar (I’ve not heard of this before, thank you), I think this is another example of conflating man’s current condition with his nature (primate brain sizes notwithstanding, as this sort of scientismic citation is often included to add legitimacy to preconceived biases; e.g. anatomical/biological arguments for antebellum chattel slavery).

The enlightened individual does not feel a significant difference in comfort, compassion, regard, etc., between strangers and friends, because there are no “strangers” when one is in touch with one’s true nature (which is the common foundation of all individuals).

That being said, we need to consider what need we would have for long-range economic interactions (or even travel) if we were living authentically. The further I’ve grown in this direction, the less desire I have for seeing other places or engaging various material luxuries.

The more full one is with Truth and Love, the less hunger there is for anything else. One tends to strive for deeper meaning in what’s right in front of them, rather than skimming the top of a broad range of experiences.

For this reason, I’ve often responded to the common statist objection by saying (half-jokingly) that they perceive my intent correctly—I am definitively against roads.

What need have we of ugly scars marring the landscape? Where the hell is everyone going anyway? The mind carries one forth far more efficiently, and with a significantly less obtrusive footprint.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
“I am very young, so I am still allowed to be a bit naive”

Yes I know, I figured that out by the content of your comments. I was your age once and had glorious idealistic unworkable ideas too. The voluntary way of doing things doesn’t even work harmoniously at the smallest social unit – the family. Perhaps as you experience life you will come to understand how the lack of compromise and cooperation breeds discontent. Or you may study human history and learn how said lack has led to all manner of negative human emotions to the extent of even causing bloodshed. Btw, we do not assume our tax system is the best way, it has proven as such through trial and error. Do you have a real life example that you personally have experienced that is a better way based on your premise? Or are YOU making an assumption? I would love to visit that place where you have lived where your premise is in practice.

Thinking one should always get their way will lead to a very angry and frustrated Life. Especially if you live among other humans in a community. The community in which I live is a friendly harmonious association with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals. And that is achieved through compromise and cooperation, which in the video involved hot lunches for kids at school. Interesting how you characterized the discussion as “commotion”.

“C’mon, surely you had a radio?”

Yes we did. But you referenced color TV.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
“Juan sees much that the average citizen does not, but he seems impatient about looking too far out.”

Well, I actually did imagine and look far out. In the late 60s, I imagined and looked far out into the future and what I envisioned 50 years ago has come to fruition – for me and others who live in the US. I was quite impatient that others could not imagine what I did. And it has proven to be to their detriment. For me and my family – not so much. Perhaps 50 years isn’t far out enough for you but, at my age back then, 50 years WAS far out.

So, do you use roads?

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Well you seem to make a lot of claims without really explaining yourself properly. All I’ve learnt from your recent post is that “I’m wrong, and you’re right”, but why?

“I was your age once and had glorious idealistic unworkable ideas too.”

Which ideas are unworkable and why?

“Perhaps as you experience life you will come to understand how the lack of compromise and cooperation breeds discontent.”

Hold on, where have I said that we shouldn’t have any cooperation or compromise? We always compromise something, even if it’s just our time. And unless someone’s living like a hermit, we are usually cooperating somehow in someway with someone. To put it another way, we are discussing what is the best way to compromise & cooperate. Why is my way worse than your way? You still haven’t really explained how.

“The voluntary way of doing things doesn’t even work harmoniously at the smallest social unit – the family.”

You need to explain how, because from my experience it works very harmoniously… It’s when people start imposing their will on others is when harmony goes out the window.

I think you and I have a different definition of what “voluntary” means. How are you defining “voluntary”?

“Do you have a real life example that you personally have experienced that is a better way based on your premise?”

My pizza example wasn’t good enough for you?

That was a simple real life example. In fact, something like this happened the other day, and we solved it via a common sense voluntary approach, where people that weren’t interested in ordering food didn’t have to pay anything… How much more of a real life example do you want?

“And that is achieved through compromise and cooperation, which in the video involved hot lunches for kids at school. Interesting how you characterized the discussion as “commotion”.”

“Commotion” as in does this even need a discussion? Of course our children should be getting the best kind of food in their schools, why on earth would any community be compromising there in the first place?

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
For sure, it’s a natural progression. My father was born in ‘49… I’m a product of the ideas you guys ventured to think.

Yes, I use roads. But I’d rather them be dirt.

I use and do a lot of things I’d rather not, as necessitated by the artificial construct I was born within.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
We have been talking about how my community operates, which is similar to the video. You think you know of a better way. I disagree and have seen nothing you have proffered that supports your premise, your pizza analogy notwithstanding.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Ever lived on a dirt road? What about “washboarding”? lol There’s a lot of artificial constructs that were developed way before either of us were born.

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
You keep posting this video, but you haven’t answered yet why should it matter? The goal (a statist indoctrination camp, aka “school”) is exactly what we’re trying to avoid.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
Well then, don’t move to my community. Although, my grandkids are home schooled.

bbblackwell > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
No, I’ve never lived on a dirt road for more than a week. I give the example as a way of saying that modern life is disastrously complicated, and most of it is not only unnecessary and/or somewhat detrimental, but that it’s symptomatic of species-threatening dysfunction. The amount and degree of travel we engage in is one such symptom, as are the means, most often.

I don’t have anything against washing machines, provided they are powered and used responsibly. I’m all for technological advancements, provided they are life-affirming (in authentic alignment with our true nature).

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
Yes, modern life IS complicated. Wasn’t it Thoreau who that said, “Simplify, simplify”? I finally did. In that regard, I use nature to produce my power for the technological advancements. Although self-sufficiency can be complicated.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“We have been talking about how my community operates, which is similar to the video. You think you know of a better way. I disagree and have seen nothing you have proffered that supports your premise, your pizza analogy notwithstanding.”

See you did it again… You say you disagree, but you never explain why. How will I ever learn from you then? At this rate I’m gonna be forever naive. Don’t you care about guiding and educating the youth?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I’ve explained how always wanting to have your way is not a harmonious way to live among others in a community. I’ve explained how discussion, compromise and cooperation are an effective way for a group of people to decide how to perform projects that benefit the community as a whole. The only thing left is for you to experience what life has to offer – and that takes years of living. Those are the basis of my disagreement with your premise. My 71 years of life experiences and interactions with diverse humans and situations tell me you are wrong.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
Um, all those things are included in voluntarism…

The voluntary way of doing things doesn’t mean that compromises cannot be agreed upon. I really don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Your comprehension is not my responsibility. Having people pick and choose when they will support the community and when they will not will breed acrimony. It’s really that simple.

I’ve never seen it fail.

Throughout my life I’ve been involved in thousands of negotiations and mediation. They only fall apart when one refuses the give and take necessary to reach an agreement.

bbblackwell
But of course, we would not look at the behavior of hardcore drug addicts to draw conclusions about healthy, functional individuals… Likewise we should not make determinations about fundamental human nature based upon how victims of nefarious, lifelong mind-control behave.

I just like to add that asterisk to any conversation concerning speculations based upon historical experience.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I hope you’re not intimating that the members of my community (or anyone I have ever interacted with) are “victims of nefarious, lifelong mind-control” without proper first hand professional examination, testing and diagnosis.

Bernie Sandfrög
do they watch tv? CNN?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
idk but, that wouldn’t mean they’re mind-controlled if they did. many people like me can detect bullshit and lies and therefore are immune to “mind-control”. Still, professional evaluation is needed, otherwise it’s an merely a broad unsubstantiated opinion. Probably based on a confirmation bias.

Bernie Sandfrög
if your tv is streaming bs 24/7, and you keep watching it, then you are brainwashed, no exceptions. if that’s the case of your community members… then I have bad news for you

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
I have bad news for you. To be brainwashed you have to accept what you see and hear as true.

Bernie Sandfrög
If you know that someone is lying to you all the time, why keep listening to them? this is not what a sane mind does.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“Your comprehension is not my responsibility.”

Sure, but explaining yourself properly is (which you now finally have).

“Having people pick and choose when they will support the community and when they will not will breed acrimony. It’s really that simple.”

Ok, I understand where you’re coming from now. I’m not saying people should be selfish and only think about what they want.

There is a reason we talk about morality a lot in these channels. Having consideration for others is a major part of that, and having care for others in a small scale community is much easier to do than in some large city. But there are other ways besides throwing money in a pot to solve this problem.

I don’t know all the details of the tax system in your community, but I’m going to assume it’s a much fairer system than what we have in the cities. My surveying would depend on how your community treats people who are struggling to keep up with their payments. Would they be kicked/forced out of the community?

Let’s say there was someone just getting by, and now you just increased their taxes making their lives more difficult, how would your community deal this problem?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Our community is very poor compared to many standards. There is no major industry other than recreation seekers. Therefore, since we tax ourselves, we are very cognizant of our finances. Property taxes are so low that they are affordable. We have helped struggling neighbors in the past and delinquents are not foreclosed on. I myself have bought delinquent tax liens and never sought to redeem them. We are like a big family. Would you harm a family member when they are struggling? People who are in dire straits usually leave for greener pastures.

Bernie Sandfrög
classic naivety
yes, people do harm their family members
you may not see it now, but your system is flawed, because that can and will happen eventually

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
your opinion. We do not harm each other. some people just can’t grasp my reality. you know nothing of my community, Bernie Sandfrög.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
“Would you harm a family member when they are struggling?”

Unfortunately this happens all the time in cities. It’s a different world out here.

I like that you all treat each other like a big family, that is most important. If everyone is truly in it together, things will work themselves out.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I have lived in several major cities. Hated it! But, it was a necessary sacrifice. I totally know what you mean. That is exactly why I planned my life to where I could provide a better environment for my family and progeny. C’mon. You’d love me as a grandpa. LOLOLOLOLOL

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I’m sure I will. You are already a whole lot more interesting than my actual grandpa. It looks I may be on a similar path as you. I’m stuck in this city for now though lol.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I don’t know how old you are but, I made my decision in my early 20s. And yes, I was stuck in the city too but, with a future purpose. There I could earn more towards my goal. That’s about when I finally decided to pursue law school – a BIG change.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I’m 26. Oldest in the family too

Bernie Sandfrög > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I didn’t say that it’s happening, I say that it will happen eventually. No need to know your community to realize that. It’s human nature.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Bernie Sandfrög
Still your opinion based on pure speculation.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
What were you doing before law school?

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
I worked in the insurance industry administering claims. That’s where I became familiar with many attorneys and legal procedure. Bodily injury claims.

Abdul > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
So what made you make your decision? (In your early 20’s)

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Abdul
Actually, having been raised on a farm/ranch, I always wanted a lot of land. I consider land the most important investment. They’re not making any more ya know. lol

I was an income tax protester at that time and had a vision of where the US was headed. My study of economics, especially with Milton Friedman, I became aware of where we were headed economically. So, I began looking at land as my “social security” – a place where I could be secure from society. Pax vobiscum

Join our Discord community!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

1st BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTEhttps://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
FACEBOOKhttp://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s