Brodgar!

[Eosarose]

Last night my friend used Gilbert's barterstand to buy iron and we were happy to learn it let him discover metal, too! Now we can have a cellar

My friends and I decided to build our own barterstand near the idol. I hope it's not in anyone's way. What kinds of things should we sell in it? Some ideas I had: backpacks, leather, blueberry pies, perch.... everyone seems to want intelligence. But I wanted to ask you guys for advice on what my friends and I should aim for producing to sell?

[Snackish]

Last night my friend used Gilbert's barterstand to buy iron and we were happy to learn it let him discover metal, too! Now we can have a cellar

My friends and I decided to build our own barterstand near the idol. I hope it's not in anyone's way. What kinds of things should we sell in it? Some ideas I had: backpacks, leather, blueberry pies, perch.... everyone seems to want intelligence. But I wanted to ask you guys for advice on what my friends and I should aim for producing to sell?

I'd be interested in buying blue berry pies, backpacks would be a nice idea for newbies coming to town. Dunno how much you'd sell it for.

[factnfiction101]

Last night my friend used Gilbert's barterstand to buy iron and we were happy to learn it let him discover metal, too! Now we can have a cellar

My friends and I decided to build our own barterstand near the idol. I hope it's not in anyone's way. What kinds of things should we sell in it? Some ideas I had: backpacks, leather, blueberry pies, perch.... everyone seems to want intelligence. But I wanted to ask you guys for advice on what my friends and I should aim for producing to sell?

You might want to move it a little further away, JS. Maybe a trade plot needs to be created somewhere near the idol.

Blueberries and Perch are a good idea.

Edit:Maybe a few curios for a backpack, like Dragonflies or something.

[toshirohayate]

Last night my friend used Gilbert's barterstand to buy iron and we were happy to learn it let him discover metal, too! Now we can have a cellar

My friends and I decided to build our own barterstand near the idol. I hope it's not in anyone's way. What kinds of things should we sell in it? Some ideas I had: backpacks, leather, blueberry pies, perch.... everyone seems to want intelligence. But I wanted to ask you guys for advice on what my friends and I should aim for producing to sell?

INTEL is the best food to sell really. It takes more fox for sausages than any other animal. (Unless you're making something with rabbit?) And you have to forage blueberries to make decent pies.

[_Gunnar]

I am an anarcho-capitalist.

Sure, thats consistent with the posts of yours that I read too.

Also, there are no "different kinds" of communism for you to pick and choose from. This isn't fucking wal-mart. Communism MEANS and IS control over production and the economy. That means NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. You can't have a communist system without THE ABOLITION of PRIVATE PROPERTY. That means a state. That means no anarchy. Your argument basically consists of "I don't like the real definition of that word so I want to think that it means something differnet than what it is universally accepted to mean".

I imagined that I didn't know anything except how to use google, this is what happened:



So I'm terribly sorry, but your definition is the one that is wrong. Your argument is also flawed, in that no private property does not imply a state. I totally agree with you that so-called "state communism" is quite awful, and my beliefs are probably closer to yours than to those of Lenin et al.. You didn't seem to read my post at all, so I'm essentially restating what I already said, perhaps you will have a slightly less knee-jerk response this time.

[dagrimreefah]

I'm sorry but wikipedia doesn't exactly qualify as a very credible academic source./cheapshot

But nevertheless:

Yes admittedly, originally the term "communism" was coined from an idealogy that DID originally INCLUDED a state ran society, and in theory would eventually evolve into a "stateless society" and all of that other good jazz. Still, communism is communism and it doesn't matter if wikipedia describes the flawed ideology the term was coined from, rather than what communism really is.

The reason why that idea is flawed is because private property is not a human construct, but rather naturally occuring through the first appropriation of a good or thing in nature, or through barter. People are going to claim things and are going to trade things. The next logical outcome to that is people engaging in a free market and private property "rights". In order to abolish or completely control these things, you need FORCE. Particularly violent force. This is only accomplished through a centralized institution WITH A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE, or a state. So thus, as I said, your political belief is a sham and is a contradiction in and of itself, since a society without private property will not and cannot naturally occur, and its' people will inevitably need to be coerced out of their private property.

Furthermore, people will also inevitably have to be persuaded as well, namely through the use of statist and/or nationalist ideologies and war-making/percieved threats, as is shown throughout history.

[Vol]

I'm sorry but wikipedia doesn't exactly qualify as a very credible academic source.

It qualifies as a better academic source than you.

[_Gunnar]

I'm sorry but wikipedia doesn't exactly qualify as a very credible academic source./cheapshot

What are your sources, Senator McCarthy and Fox News? [edit: forget this, you've obviously thought about your personal philosophy a great deal, but I do wish that you wouldn't assume that I haven't thought about mine.]

Seriously though, I could give you plenty of stuff to read, but what's the point. This is an argument on the internet, and Wikipedia is generally right about the broad, common definitions of well-known terms.

But nevertheless:

Yes admittedly, originally the term "communism" was coined from an idealogy that DID originally INCLUDED a state ran society, and in theory would eventually evolve into a "stateless society" and all of that other good jazz. Still, communism is communism and it doesn't matter if wikipedia describes the flawed ideology the term was coined from, rather than what communism really is.

Socialism as a transitionary system is not a belief that is shared by all variants of communism, which is what I have been saying; if you bothered to find out anything about anarcho-communism you would find that I haven't just pulled it out of my ass, like you seem to think.

The reason why that idea is flawed is because private property is not a human construct, but rather naturally occuring through the first appropriation of a good or thing in nature, or through barter. People are going to claim things and are going to trade things. The next logical outcome to that is people engaging in a free market and private property "rights". In order to abolish or completely control these things, you need FORCE. Particularly violent force. This is only accomplished through a centralized institution WITH A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE, or a state. So thus, as I said, your political belief is a sham and is a contradiction in and of itself, since a society without private property will not and cannot naturally occur, and its' people will inevitably need to be coerced out of their private property.

Furthermore, people will also inevitably have to be persuaded as well, namely through the use of statist and/or nationalist ideologies and war-making/percieved threats, as is shown throughout history.

I think that your axiomatic assumption that private property is always natural is actually wrong, which means I cannot accept your argument. It may be true when resources are scarce, but I think that the goal of science and industry should be to create a post-scarcity society in which everyone's needs are satisfied, and I see no logical reason why this is impossible (although it seems to me that certain groups are constantly engaged in creating new "needs" for humanity, which is subverting this goal). Thus, I think that your "first appropriation" principle is an axiom which I do not think is necessary in what I think the ultimate human society should be.

Furthermore, in order to guarantee your oh-so-important private property in a scarcity based society, guess what you need? FORCE. Now you think that it is preferable to not have a central institution with a monopoly on force, which I completely agree with. But I would say that my philosophy is actually more self-consistent than yours, in that I envisage a society in which any use of force is unnecessary because everyone's desires are satisfied.

To be a self-consistent anarchist both you and I could not possibly persuade people through the use of force (which is partly why anarchism in any form has failed to have as major an impact on history as more aggressive doctrines). All we can do is talk. I am advocating a society in which there will be no economic motivation for any use of force; you seem to be advocating a society in which there is no monopoly on the use of force, but I'm not sure what you are suggesting beyond that. There are certain blueprints for anarcho-capitalist societies that I would prefer to any society existing in the world at the moment, but my personal inclination is towards anarcho-communism, for the reason I've given above.

[dagrimreefah]

Well said. I apologize for any condescendence on my part. You are obviously well-learned on the subject, and all the points you made in that post were well taken, although of course I do disagree with the whole scarcity issue, as scarcity will always occur, even in a garden of eden (namely, the scarcest good anyone will ever have: their own body). Even with society's endeavor to eliminate certain scarcities, others will always arise. But alas, I can go on and on, as I know you can. I am content to agree to disagree with you on this one (handshake).

It qualifies as a better academic source than you.

Go fuck yourself, plebian no-name.

[sabinati]

shut up