At this point is there any point in Antico being 'Antico'? and has it ever really been 'Antico'?

``T h e A n t i s t a t e P r o j e c t``

<:Ancap_Smiley:538150164800733204> <:Force_Without_Force:549486576535732225>

I'd never thought I'd see the day I'd become a communist

Well it seems a post-scarcity society would logically conclude at communism

I was previously a market socialist

Automation seems to be an inevitable trend and the decrease of value as a result appears to point towards socialism in the future wherever far or near I cannot claim.

Communism seems to be the system that maximises individual liberty the most

(I'm not a good commie? 😢 )

However I suppose I'm a commie insofar as one points out the flaws of it being an end goal

It depends on the growth of supply verses growth of demand

There are limitations to people's demands

What do you mean?

if rate of change of supply is greater than rate of change of demand assuming both values are sustainable at the start then there is no way it can stagnate assuming constant influx

why so?

People would have needs and demands and aspirations and they would establish their workplaces to follow suit and produce at quality

The quality of goods wouldn't be limited to what is profitable

Of course not, it'd just be a net increase in quality, difference is needs would consistently be met?

Right

That's not necessarily true if the aim is to perfect it and if there is a demand for better iterations of product?

Does development solely stem from competition?

This comes from the assumption that development solely stems from competition and that market competition is the only form of competition substantial to development

No no I get that

but how would your system maintain the value of products if ever user has their own means of production?

without labor how would one accumulate currency to begin with?

I mean without working how would someone earn a wage to earn start a transaction in such a future where everybody has a means of production?

So everyone has a means of production and everyone can transfer their goods for currency

this currency can be used to purchase goods from others

why would this be needed post scarcity if anybody could just make the same product?

I kinda need to rest rn, could we continue later Reaper?

Thank you for questioning my beliefs

I really appreciate this

Why would I? 😂

I was an Ancap once and I'm not an unethical marxist leninist type either 😂

Anyway ttyl m8

@ʀeaper Hey Reaper, wanna continue our talk?

https://lucasnorth.uk/sapply/thequiz.html

Lol

Perhaps if you were subjectivist and actually was an ancap meme

selling kids, no nap, etc.

perhaps that'd place you in that corner

Definitions do matter though, especially with 'libertarian'

I was thinking of making my own political compass

with values of deviation/consistency, end goal traceage

I think they're the thing that is most missing

LCU emoji

Depends on your definition of government

I've always thought of government as a cluster service provider of (some if not all) public goods including retaliatory force

Non-hierarchy government could exist in some form unless ofcourse you see the actuation of service provider and consumer as some kind of hierarchy

Anyway point is: State implies Government however Government doesn't have to imply state

@unwoundtoast What do you mean McToast?

You aren't referring to this: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/492157062797590531/601956556371656705/unknown.png?width=1163&height=677 are you?

Or are you referring to: The right most, anti authoritarian corner?

I assume you're referring to the political compass

What caused you to renounce communism?

What of a world in which industry was automated? if this is an argument from potential downplay of productivity

How does communism necessarily imply 'there is no room to better yourself'?

That isn't necessarily true

personally I only see communism as a viable end-goal, post scarcity when automation takes hold

or perhaps even without the guise of automation if incentivisation methods are used

but that devolves into what is essentially a currency in some form

so it wouldn't be communism, more like collectivist anarchism

Communism is outlined by making people do as much as they want and taking what they want

Alright

Well I want to make it clear i'm not a state socialist nor a accelerationist or even a revolutionary

I'm a voluntaryist at heart and I'd like to see gradual change through market anarchism towards 'fully-automated luxury communism'

Indeed, and in a fully automated world where scarcity isn't the issue we would be liberated to do so

The ultimate liberation

The choice to hobby what is hard to do and what is slothful, 'work' would be a concept of the past in the traditional sense but the hard working could work hard and the not so hard-working; so be it. I doubt people inherently want to do as little as possible, people have loyalties, passions.

If the rate of change of supply is greater than the rate of change of demand and we have a substantial value of supply then we have essentially achieved post-scarcity

i.e. : If I have 10x more chickens than humans and the rate of human consumption is Y and the rate of chicken growth is 2Y then i've achieved post scarcity

Depends on how much I care about the business

in a market socialist climate you would effectively eliminate such behaviour as the workers would be working towards their own business cause

'Worker Capitalism' in essence

As i've said prior there is 'effective post-scarcity'

and i've outlied how it can be achieved

But sure, if such were the case I would be happy to contend with the previous iteration: Left wing market anarchism or some form of mutualism for the time being

Sure, but a lot of these needs can be quantified under a capitalist mindset

If certain goods are simply status objects and status disappears wouldn't the demand for the goods also disappear?

We are currently already producing 1.5x the world populations demand in food supplies

but then again if you can own planets and armies, then would scarcity be an issue at that point?

(Side note: Isaac arthur makes some cool vids, shame I haven't seen a lot of them, I'll check this one out)

Right, I acknowledge that the system cannot be transformed viably until every resource reaches post-scarcity

Of course there are: *looks to space*

plus most of the issues are labor related with labor costs and efficiency

Right

Which can fuel itself through acquiring more resources

my point is that only once you can maintain that constant gap between supply and demand with an substantial excess in supply and a large rate of change of supply exceeding that of the rate of change of demand then it would be effective to switch to communism as at this point you wouldn't be 'running out of other peoples money' if you're accruing labour from automating systems.

Post scarcity literally is referring to the inability for our demand to exceed our supply

Which is why I try to make it very clear that I see it as a effective end-goal

And under the claim I've made which hasn't been countered yet I see it is as possible

Then let me rephase to 'effective post-scarcity'

whereby the supply exceeds the demand and the rate of change of supply exceeds the rate of change of demand

this is the logical conclusion of human advancement in labour

All we've done is devalued product in favour of new product

eventually all product will reach net devaluation given the criteria is met

Right, but the rate of change of that has been constantly exceeded every technological revolution

Even from a realist stance let alone optimistic stance it can be seen to be heading in such a direction

Why would we have millions of times larger homes?