Why do you stack?

PrettyPrettyShinyShiny

PrettyPrettyShinyShiny

Well-Known Member
This topic has been conventionally covered to death, but I wanted to look at it at a different angle.

Presumably EVERYONE here stacks for one of two reasons: because it's a hobby like gardening or cooking or because you're trying to safeguard your money.

For those that say the latter, this is for us.

Why are you trying to safeguard your money? (rhetorical question) Der it's because you need money to buy food and have the basics at least. With more money, you can get the extras. Even as misely middle to low income earners in the first world, we outstrip the lifestyles of the vast population in third world countries. So why do we want more? (pick any reason you want, it doesn't matter). The real question to ask is:

What is the cost of subscribing to a system where it is the norm to lock up food (your key to unlock it is money)? Of course if you've got money, great. Good for you. What about those who don't? The system forces them to work long hours at jobs they hate, separated from their families. The cost is: THE LIFESTYLE YOU FORGO. If you are one of the vast population who have to work for every waking hour just to keep afloat, I'm sure an alternative would be welcome - ongoing and readily available food, basic shelter, cameraderie, distributing the burden - everyone shares the workload.
This is not communism or socialism. It's also NO UTOPIA. This is exactly the way people have lived since before humans were humans.. Australopithecus..homo habilus..homo erectus. On the contrary, our current society is based on utopian mentality. We expect people to get BETTER. Our utopia will only exist when people get to a certain level (moral, intellectual, whatever). We must STOP expecting people to get better, but expect and ACCEPT flaws. When you ACCEPT flaws, you can better understand them and work with them. When people are immediately dependent on each other for the necessities, people form stronger bonds. When relationships are distant, we are more likely to think we can do without them. We lose bonds and think we are INDEPENDENT. This is a falsity. Independence is a crock. No one is independent. Can you grow your own food, tend your own wounds, build your own refrigerator, dig your own coal. Having the financial means to PAY for these things, doesn't make you independent. In fact, it increases you DEPENDENCE on people to provide you with services that you cannot provide for yourself. Don't embrace 'independence', embrace the dependence that close relationships afford. Think not that you depend on others but that you CAN depend on them for your needs and that you can be there for them.

Even if you didn't like the system that locks up the food, how many alternatives are there? As far as I know, Aborigines are very limited in their ability to continue their practiced tradition that has been around for longer than the entire modern world, pre-dates science, technology and modern monoculture agriculture. So, taking into account the very different world we live in, it's probably not best to return to complete hunters/foragers. Other solutions are out there.. we just need to put our minds to work. Really utilise them to lessen the burden; offer another option.

Is stacking a bandaid to the problem..forcing us to find ways to keep our heads above water (even though we're surrounded by extravagance at every turn)? Or do you have an alternative? I'm not saying stacking is wrong or right, I'm just laying out WHY I feel I have to at the moment.


I'm looking for those alternatives. An alternative to having to 'stack' to keep my head above water. I like the idea of leisure, shared burden, shared treasure, shared joy.


..maybe I'll go and start my own tribe. I'll call it the "Sharers" LOL
 
Did this line of thing come from the gorilla book you were spruiking?
:)

You need a commune or kibbutz.

I stack to save to buy things like, like property. Just easier and more effective this way
 
Naphthalene Man said:
Did this line of thing come from the gorilla book you were spruiking?
:)

I stack to save to buy things like, like property. Just easier and more effective this way
Click to expand...

Yup. Pretty similar lines. Not quite as succinct. Trying to get to the nut.. past the crap. Hoping for a gem.
 
I think that is a really complicated way of saying that division of labour is a great thing that significantly improves our quality of life. The system you are after that has all of the attributes is called Laissez-Faire capitalism.

It is also fundamentally competitive and yet highly bonding at the same time. The competition drives further progress as people work in the aim of seeking an even "better" lifestyle. Your discussion seems to be purely around what is "better". What's deemed "better" for one person is not deemed "better" for another. This just means that how much someone is willing to work in the hope of betterment can be different. This is essentially the "opportunity cost" of seeking the betterment.

The crap in the gears of capitalism are things that enable a bunch of parasites to benefit unjustly from your labours such that you are working not only for the betterment of yourself and those you care about but as a slave for others. The crap in the gears can be many things but most stackers would recognise the fraudulent, parasitic, fiat based banking system as a big bit of crap that screws millions of people over. One motivation for stacking is therefore to try to remove this crap from the gears of your life and, if enough other people do it, maybe remove the crap altogether.
 
I stack so I can hopefully make more money and make up for the dumb financial decisions and wastage of my younger years.
 
bordsilver: "One motivation for stacking is therefore to try to remove this crap from the gears of your life and, if enough other people do it, maybe remove the crap altogether."

This statement, in my opinion promotes the seeking of utopia. It's expecting PEOPLE to get better for everything else to get better. It will never happen. It's a delusion. That's why clinging to these expectations makes people feel like they're losing the war.
 
Anglosaxon: Good for you! You're in the minority. There are over 6.5 billion people on Earth and half of those are barely able to nourish themselves. I'm not sure they are satisfied with their situation.
 
PrettyPrettyShinyShiny said:
bordsilver: "One motivation for stacking is therefore to try to remove this crap from the gears of your life and, if enough other people do it, maybe remove the crap altogether."

This statement, in my opinion promotes the seeking of utopia. It's expecting PEOPLE to get better for everything else to get better. It will never happen. It's a delusion. That's why clinging to these expectations makes people feel like they're losing the war.
Click to expand...
But I CAN largely remove these things from my life and that is what I am trying to achieve. I'm not actually expecting others to do it but I started because others taught me so I pass it on by trying to teach others.

I know utopia is a fiction. We're smart apes clinging onto a speck of dust in a hostile universe that doesn't give a flying proverbial about you, me or anyone else. The happiness and purpose come from within but because I am a social animal that lives in a social group I need to understand, enjoy and loathe the various effects I have on the society and that society has on me.
 
PrettyPrettyShinyShiny said:
Interesting take, bordsilver. :)
Click to expand...
Oop. I just logged back on to edit to make a bit clearer (had to run to catch my bus) but I won't now.

Essentially, besides the obvious things like education and trying to set an example of behaviour by general social bonding, the task is to change the system with which humans live. A good system will let the great things about human nature flourish while naturally reducing the bad things (ie without punitive, extreme punishments and restrictions - which works against the first goal). Capitalism under a liberal democratic model has been proven to be one of the best systems around for ordering a society. It's not perfect however (and neither is the Australian version), so I try to apply some of my time to trying to change the SYSTEM (not the PEOPLE, because that goes against my morality).

And in answer to your question, two big pieces of crap are the monetary system and the general reduction in personal and economic liberties that naturally occurs under a liberal democratic model.
 
Meaty philosphical problems over breakfast :D

Sorry if I'm confusing or we're talking at cross purposes BTW. You are attacking this area using quite different language to what I am used to.
 
What's bad and what's not? Who dictates these things? In our democratic system, the laws constantly change. It was once ok to smoke marijuana, but apparently now, not. That's a bad thing.

From my understanding, any system where the fuel of the economy is consumer goods and tangible wealth, it will always create haves and have nots. The haves are the only ones who want the system to stay the way it is. The haves are very few. The have nots are the many. You're probably wondering, "Well if the have nots are in such number, why don't they revolt". They often do but the revolt isn't to get more money, it's to get more freedom. Free food, more leisure time and freedom from persecution from those enforcing laws. They revolt by leaving the system.

The problem with leaving the system in a region where the current system is vastly prevalent (cities and towns of Australia) is that you're likely not to survive. It's like expecting a tribe of Aborigines who know how to hunt, seek water and use the land for survival to live in the middle of any capital city of Australia. It's similarly like asking a native inuit to migrate to Australia. They are only equipped with the knowledge to survive in a system they have been brought up in and the knowledge they possess to live accordingly.

there is a little bit of cross purposes, but I'm trying to get to the root. I went from trying to understand capitalism, to believing various forms of socialism and communism were better back to minimalist life under a capitalist system to realising the flow of the river needs to change. All these systems are just sticks in the river attempting to impede the flow.

Whatever the hierarchical position up from 'system' (capitalism, communism etc) is, THAT'S the thing we've got to swing around. I don't think there is or even CAN be any one solution. And that's the point. There shouldn't be. There has been a patchwork quilt of evolutionary success across the planet- each organism forming a niche. Utilising resources differently, but in balance with each other. Every human tribe had their own way. What worked/works for them works for them, but not necessarily for everyone else.

Right now.. what I see is 6.5 billion people thinking the way to get ahead is by accumulating stuff. There are a handful of people around the world, that are MUCH older and have survived for many thousands of years longer than capitalism/consumerism CAN survive that do it a different way.

We don't have time machines to look at how an advanced alien race has survived, but we do have evidence of how humans got to where they are now. It didn't involve burning fossil fuels and intensive farming and gene therapy. It involved PLAYING BY THE RULES OF SURVIVAL.

Many thanks for reading. I know it can be arduous at times.

Nick
 
Maybe another way to attack the whole issue that I think you are trying to think about is to start with the fact that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are entirely man made. Because they are man made, however, we can think about and construct our own in a way that seems to best suit the nature of humans.

By far one the simplest, yet most profound and fundamentally workable ethical principles is the so-called "non-aggression principle" (or NAP). The NAP sits at the core of libertarianism, anarchism, objectivism and individualism (and a bunch of other "ism"-type labels). There are a few ways of stating the NAP but I like this one:

The non-aggression principle is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.
Click to expand...

How far one takes this and to how much of society one applies it (i.e. are exceptions allowed) is essentially what differentiates most of the "isms".
http://nap.univacc.net/ said:
Several practical characteristics of the Non-Aggression Principle differentiate it from most other moral and ethical concepts:

= It is possible to construct a rational argument, from broadly agreeable premises, that leads directly to the NAP.

= It is possible to use the NAP as the guiding principle of personal ethics within the world as it exists right now and thereby live an ethical, practical, consistent, and successful life.

= It is possible to build a complete, workable system of jurisprudence from the NAP, that many consider superior to any presently in practice.

= It is quite simple, such that any person capable of useful abstract reasoning should be able to fully grasp the NAP.

= It is practical, focused on the real world, and says nothing in and of itself one way or another about metaphysical belief systems like Christianity, Taoism, Islam, Neopaganism, Materialist Atheism, and so on, nor about any moralities rational believers may infer as necessary consequences of these belief systems.
Click to expand...

Note also, it doesn't say anything about what is "best" or "sustainable" or a lot of other things. It does however, underpin and go hand in hand with the concept of private property rights which leads to most economic theory (primarily anything in Austrian economics but also most of every other "school") and this theory shows that scarcity results in scarcity pricing and when a good system of private property rights exists and is appropriately enforced leads to the "best" use of finite resources.
 
Nice take on the concept of right and wrong. NAP might be a great solution.

I'm not sure what's right and wrong gets at the root of the issue. What's right and wrong for me is VERY unlikely to be what's right and wrong for anyone else.

I also think we need to rethink the concept of private property rights.. ie. If I 'own' a million acres, it's mine to do what I wish, including farming, giving room to possibly prevent others from accessing food unless they work to earn money to pay for it. Private property ownership might work for some people in the future, but I think it's beginning to run it's course in it's ability to cater for the needs of the majority of people. This system will only benefit those wanting to ride on the backs of others. It's clearly disobeys rules of long term survival and has inherent flaws.
 
PrettyPrettyShinyShiny said:
Nice take on the concept of right and wrong. NAP might be a great solution.

I'm not sure what's right and wrong gets at the root of the issue. What's right and wrong for me is VERY unlikely to be what's right and wrong for anyone else.

I also think we need to rethink the concept of private property rights.. ie. If I 'own' a million acres, it's mine to do what I wish, including farming, giving room to possibly prevent others from accessing food unless they work to earn money to pay for it. Private property ownership might work for some people in the future, but I think it's beginning to run it's course in it's ability to cater for the needs of the majority of people. This system will only benefit those wanting to ride on the backs of others. It's clearly disobeys rules of long term survival and has inherent flaws.
Click to expand...
Private property rights are intrinsic to a working human socio-economic system. They are the fundamental difference between this:

6824_earlyaustralia_aboriginals.png


and this

6824_earlyaustralia_colonials.png


and this

6824_virgin-galactic.png


Essentially, either you have the right to own the fruits of your labour (capitalism) or you don't (communism).

Private property rights simply says that you can take a lump of wood and through your skills you can carve a beautiful statue and the statue is "yours". Or through your skills as a metal worker you can create a tool that makes carving easier and the tool is "yours". Or through your metallurgical skills you can melt and refine rocks to make the steel to make a tool and the steel is "yours". People seem to get concerned about the scale but not the concept of private property rights itself.
 
Are you saying that the people in the first picture didn't know how to live or live inferiorly? - bearing in mind the system they adopted has worked for them for quite a few more years than what we think of as modern society characterised by ownership and modern agriculture.

I'm just trying to see which you prefer and why.
 
Also, are you saying that apes are either capitalist or communist? Are we different to apes in any significant way that makes us exceptions to the rule that governs survival on earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top