anarchists are liberals when it comes to self-interest.

it's the point of being an anarchist. otherwise, we'd just be marxists. and, it's the reason you end up with these goofy ancaps that can't figure out what the state even is.

but, what the anarchists have always argued - following kropotkin, who wrote prominently about a kind of proto-dawkinsian social order called mutual aid - is that rational self-interest is not manifested in this capitalist mayhem that is bound to collapse in on itself, but in the realization of universal positive freedom through automation and the proper articulation of "from each as they can, to each as they need".

but, i'm an artist, of course - i'm not a worker. so, i'm going to tell you to read oscar wilde: the soul of man under socialism. that, to me, is probably the best articulation of this that i've read.

if you're interested in ideas of duty and honour and sacrifice to some greater good, you're thinking about historical toryism and religiosity, not liberalism or anarchism or anything else on the left.

but, i've been over this.

and, i'm not shy about where i stand on it.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

so, again: should i have taken the pay out? if i leave, i just lost hundreds of dollars i could have taken, right?

no.

if i had signed an agreement to move out, then i'd have to move out - i'd have no options to appeal. maybe i'd find something better. maybe i wouldn't.

and, i did look - i couldn't find anything better.

this particular unit came up the same day as the trial. i couldn't have organized this.

if i had organized a move-in before hand, would it have made sense to take the cash? sure. but, i didn't know that, then. i could have agreed to move and then ended up with nowhere to go. that's not rational self-interest, it's risk - and i'm exceedingly risk averse.

i would argue that it's far more rational to lose the pay out than to take a risk of ending up optionless. i guess you could have that argument. but, you'd be warping logic around dramatically to do it.

on top of that, you have to remember that i still think they're acting in bad faith and i'm still intending to sue when i figure it out. so, i have a plan to get those funds, in the end.

you can argue i got unlucky. i might even agree with you. but, i made the rational choice in the context of maximizing self-interest.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

i got something back from the one i'm most interested in.

monday viewing, apparently.

like i say: i need to better my situation in order to do this. this does it.

i've been saying for years i'm waiting the existing tenants out, and i am, but that in itself is only proving so worthwhile. even if the guy upstairs keels over tomorrow, and they sell next week, i still have to deal with the fact that the neighbours are smoking outside my window, the cats in the neighbourhood, etc.

i thought i got rid of a problem upstairs when the three pack a day smokers moved out, but the lady that moved in sits on her porch and smokes all day, which means i lost all the windows in the front - and the air return along with it.

there's no solution to the roaches, or the gas smell, which is coming back again with the cold weather. there's some kind of mildew in the walls. the place really ought to be condemned. i mean, that's why it's cheap, right? that's the point. but, i can maybe do a bit better...

i got a lot of work done down here. and i would tough it out if i wasn't being coerced. but, maybe it makes sense, anyways.

if they are actually moving her mother in here - and i doubt it - i pity her for what she will endure down here.

if they put it on the market, which i'm sure they will, i'll recoup more funds through legal action. and, these are funds i should be able to keep.

today is a discography day. i'll get back to looking tomorrow.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.