| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 2:07 PM
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| By their very definitions, a democracy cannot be a dictatorship. The concepts are mutually exclusive. However, a democracy CAN be authortarian and infringe on the rights of the individual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 9:07 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Not unless you consider the following example infringing on your freedom-- my friends and I own all the coca plants in Bolivia, you want to start your own cocaine manufacturing ring, we refuse to sell you coca leaves. |
No, but then the stability of your system rests on the complete monopoly of the councils on basic resources.
If that monopoly is broken by finding new unclaimed resources, or even one council agreeing to private property in some case everything would fall apart, as private companies would outperform the centrally planned basic industry, or the cooperatives.
Leaving aside the question of how the collective came to own all the basic industries (hell, let's say all owners voluntarily decided to give away shares to everyone else in their country/on the planet, and they later decided to form all those councils and shit), the system is essentially free market capitalist if there are no institutions forcing those limits, as they are just a consequence of people managing their property, but the way things are produced would change very quickly, because what you described is an economic disaster.
If it wasn't allowed to change the system wasn't free market capitalist, but then, it was authoritarian like I said at the start.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 2:07 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | No, but then the stability of your system rests on the complete monopoly of the councils on basic resources. |
Yep.
| Quote: | | If that monopoly is broken by finding new unclaimed resources, |
That's a pretty big "if", and depends on having large, unexplored property that is not held in common, which would likely not be the case.
| Quote: | | or even one council agreeing to private property in some case |
Unlikely they would take the risk of undermining their own monopoly.
| Quote: | | everything would fall apart, as private companies would outperform the centrally planned basic industry, or the cooperatives. |
There's no way to prove that private companies would outperform centrally planned basic industries (at least in all potential scenarios, the one I described being among them), and even if I were a free-marketeer, I'd have no economic basis for believing a traditional company would outperform a worker cooperative in a competitve marketplace.
| Quote: | | Leaving aside the question of how the collective came to own all the basic industries (hell, let's say all owners voluntarily decided to give away shares to everyone else in their country/on the planet, and they later decided to form all those councils and shit), |
Irrelevant-- Locke's theory on property acquistion is solid on a completely academic basis, but in reality most property is grounded in some level of theft, coercion or expropriation at some point in the past. No one's property has a completely "clean" pedigree. My landlord's building is on land once stolen from the original inhabitants of this country. The tantalum in my cell-phone is made from coltan, most likely mined at gunpoint by a modern-day slave in the Congo or Rwanda.
| Quote: | | the system is essentially free market capitalist if there are no institutions forcing those limits, as they are just a consequence of people managing their property, |
How is it capitalist if most of the basic resources and industries are collectively owned and operated?
| Quote: | | but the way things are produced would change very quickly, because what you described is an economic disaster. |
Says you. I imagine it would be much more efficient than the Soviet model and that lasted for over 70 years. In any event, I think it would be difficult for either one of us to prove whether or not it would be an economic disaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | By their very definitions, a democracy cannot be a dictatorship. |
By definition, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.
Looks like you lose again.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Irrelevant-- Locke's theory on property acquistion is solid on a completely academic basis, but in reality most property is grounded in some level of theft, coercion or expropriation at some point in the past. |
Irrelevant.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | For example: The Police.
The Police are there to keep the peace and protect individual citizens. I would argue that individual citizens rather need to be empowered in the aspect of self protection with knowledge.
As in the Constitution's Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right of self defense. The problem of the second amendment is some people think that's putting guns in people's hands without first arming them with knowledge. |
And your point is....ignore the Constitution?
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 9:07 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | There's no way to prove that private companies would outperform centrally planned basic industries |
Actually, there is.
Look up "the problem of economic calculation in a socialist economy".
| Quote: | | I'd have no economic basis for believing a traditional company would outperform a worker cooperative in a competitve marketplace. |
Yeah, this one is more tricky.
I have nothign against cooperatives in and of themselves, but I can think of lots of problems that could come about. Also, if they were better then traditional companies, they would outperform them in the current system.
On the whole, if cooperatives turn out to be more efficient I'm all for them. I'm all for people trying to do whatever they want with their property.
| Quote: | | How is it capitalist if most of the basic resources and industries are collectively owned and operated? |
Because capitalism is based on property rights.
Assuming the collective's claim on the resources and industry is legitimate (which, like I said we can leave aside for now), the fact that it's owned by many people doesn't contradict capitalism.
| Quote: | | Says you. I imagine it would be much more efficient than the Soviet model and that lasted for over 70 years. In any event, I think it would be difficult for either one of us to prove whether or not it would be an economic disaster. |
Says Ludwig von Mises actually, and it's actually quite easy to show how it's an economic disaster.
Basically the point is without prices being able to adjust to supply and demand, rational allocation of resources in an economy is impossible, central planners operate blindfolded.
Now take into account that economic conditions are constantly changing, and it turns out it's just plain impossible for central planners to efficiently allocate resources.
Also the Soviet system lasted for so long because it was imposed by force, the people weren't given a chance to modify it.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | This does not mean that the Police aren't currently "necessary". But if everyone in society were enabled to defend themselves by a non-lethal means, with some basic level of law enforcement knowledge, there would need to be less of them.
Let me ask this question: What do you think the effect would be of the abolishment of intellectual property rights would be? There would still be physical capital, but all knowledge being free and accessible to all citizens. |
All knowledge isn't free and accessible--so long as it's not communicated.
I would also suggest that you look into Stephan Kinsella's writings on abolishing IP.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 2:07 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Godless Red Scum wrote: | | By their very definitions, a democracy cannot be a dictatorship. |
By definition, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.
Looks like you lose again. |
Really? I'd like to see what dictionary you're using.
A dictatorship is rule by one or a minority-- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship-- so you just said "By definition, rule by the majority is a ruling institution of the minority by the majority"
Sounds like you're using Marx and Lenin's erroneous (or at least unorthodox) definition of "dictatorship" as "authoritarian or exclusive rule", ironically enough.
So unless you post a bunch of funny cat pictures, it looks like I win again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 2:07 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ivan I gotta run and it's gonna take some time to address most of the arguments in your post, but for now I'll just address this...
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | Because capitalism is based on property rights.
Assuming the collective's claim on the resources and industry is legitimate (which, like I said we can leave aside for now), the fact that it's owned by many people doesn't contradict capitalism. |
We are simply defining capitalism in two different ways (as is common in discussions/debates between free-marketeers and socialists, as I'm sure you're aware of). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | By their very definitions, a democracy cannot be a dictatorship. |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | By definition, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.
Looks like you lose again. |
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Really? |
Yes. Democracy is the rule of the people i.e. unlimited majority rule i.e. dictatorship of the majority, e.g. 3b of the definition you linked to: b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
I don't know how you don't know that. Perhaps you're just not as educated as you thought you were.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Last edited by Knight_of_BAAWA on Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | We are simply defining capitalism in two different ways (as is common in discussions/debates between free-marketeers and socialists, as I'm sure you're aware of). |
Yes, and socialists always define it incorrectly.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 9:07 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | We are simply defining capitalism in two different ways (as is common in discussions/debates between free-marketeers and socialists, as I'm sure you're aware of). |
Yeah, I hinted that might be the problem earlier.
You and gnosis tend define a system by it's effects, I try to define it by it's framework.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 2:07 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Perhaps you're just not as educated as you thought you were. |
Is it difficult being a total cunt 24/7? Or do you balance it out by doing the big swinging dick thing on the internet and doing the total pussy thing in real life?
Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 1:07 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Perhaps you're just not as educated as you thought you were. |
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Is it difficult being a total cunt 24/7? |
So you can dish it out but you can't take it?
Fucking little shitstain. Get the fuck off the internet. You got spanked by the very definition you linked to, and now you want to take it out on me for pointing out that you didn't fucking READ the fucking definition. Fuck. You. Asshole.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
