| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2396
Local time: 10:50 PM
Location: California
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
So how are you going to fight against business without a state? |
By individual action.... or inaction rather. If everyone just refused to participate poof, neither would exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:50 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | By individual action.... or inaction rather. If everyone just refused to participate poof, neither would exist. |
So it's really nothing more then free market capitalism, with people acting a certain way.
_________________
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 |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2396
Local time: 10:50 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2396
Local time: 10:50 PM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
I'm not talking about personal privacy, but the buying and selling of information. The internet is a perfect example of the problems facing intellectual property rights... piracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 10:50 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:41 am 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.
I'm not talking about personal privacy, but the buying and selling of information. The internet is a perfect example of the problems facing intellectual property rights... piracy. |
I agree. If we as a society could get our shit together, I think you would need very, very few police. The only professional constabulary you would need would be one to provide investigatory services and training-- beyond that I think an armed, trained and active citzenry could do the actual law enforcement themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 10:50 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
So how are you going to fight against business without a state? |
By individual action.... or inaction rather. If everyone just refused to participate poof, neither would exist. |
So what would you call it? The General Theory of Apathy???
LOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:50 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gnosis, nothing you said disproves my point.
You're arguing for free market capitalism, with people acting a certain way.
I think the problem is you're trying to define the system by how people would act, while it should be defined by how people are allowed to act, and if you want to go that far, by institutions that would enforce those limits.
| gnosis wrote: | | 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. |
Oh hell, I have no idea how it would look like.
Many industries would have to change the way they operate, but on the whole I think it would be to the benefit of everyone.
Much more innovation would take place and the like.
Just so you know, I don't support intellectual property.
Property rights can only be applied to things that are scarce, and ideas aren't. They can be used without denying access to them by others, they can be replicated infinitely.
Intellectual property tries to limit what you are allowed to do with your own property, be it your computer, CD's, or whatnot, so I see them as wrong wrong wrong.
_________________
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: 10:50 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | Gnosis, nothing you said disproves my point.
You're arguing for free market capitalism, with people acting a certain way.
I think the problem is you're trying to define the system by how people would act, while it should be defined by how people are allowed to act, and if you want to go that far, by institutions that would enforce those limits. |
Ivan, you keep coming back to the free-market capitalism or authoritarian socialism dichotomy, so lemme ask...
What would you think of a system in which:
1. Basic industry-- e.g. material fabrication (steel, plastic, chemicals, etc.), agriculture, communications, housing, transportation-- is collectively owned and operated by the people according to democratic means of control by regularly elected consumers' and workers' councils w/ term limits. They determine national and/or international production and distribution, and prices. Furthermore, there are decentralized elected entities to address local concerns. For example, a community council could address enviornmental impact of a certain operation in their community and could also determine the best methods of distribution within a certain community or region; shop committees would determine how best to achieve production goals in their particular workplace, how to make operations there more efficient, and how workers shall be remunerated.
2. All other large to mid-size industries for consumer products-- e.g. iPod manufacturers, restaurant chains, luxury or convenience items, etc.-- would be worker cooperatives freely competing with each other. The only limitation on such businesses would be that if they exceed a certain number of shares, prices for goods distributed by the workers' and consumers' councils would increase, which would set a natural limit on wealth and power conglomeration and prevent monopolies. In other words, let's say my co-op makes MP3 players, we vote to reduce our individual remuneration in order to amass enough money to buy out the other MP3 manufacturers. We succeed in buying out 3 out of 5 of our competitors. Now the consumers' and workers' council can charge us more for the plastics and metals we use in our MP3 players.
3. Small companies exist either as co-ops, partnerships or independent contractors. Coffehouses, diners, plumbing contractors, etc. Again, the only limitation on size would be the prices on materials, foods, etc. charged by the councils.
How would you characterize such a completely hypothetical system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:50 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | How would you characterize such a completely hypothetical system? |
The economic system sounds syndicalist, and on the whole it's obviously authoritarian.
While some power is decentralized, you mentioned many institutions that tell people what they and aren't allowed to do on both the local and global levels.
_________________
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: 10:50 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
The economic system sounds syndicalist, |
It has syndicalist elements, but traditional syndicalism differs from what I laid out in some pretty important aspects.
| Quote: | | and on the whole it's obviously authoritarian. |
More, less or equally authortarian than current capitalist/mixed economy framework?
| Quote: | | While some power is decentralized, you mentioned many institutions that tell people what they and aren't allowed to do on both the local and global levels. |
Please explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 10:50 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:33 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. |
Who determines what "knowledge" is necessary to arm yourself in self-defense? Nope, I think armed self-defense is a natural right, not subject to limitation by the state. Not that I don't think gun owners need training and education...I definitely do, but saying that must be a condition of gun ownership opens a Pandora's Box of potentially discriminatory and arbitrary restrictions by the state on one's right to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:50 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | More, less or equally authortarian than current capitalist/mixed economy framework? |
Much more.
While today there are limits on who can do what, and how they're allowed to do it, the system you mentioned is outright dictatorship (and yes democracies can be dictatorships too).
| Quote: | | Quote: | | While some power is decentralized, you mentioned many institutions that tell people what they and aren't allowed to do on both the local and global levels. |
Please explain. |
Well, take the basic industries to start with.
What if I save up enough of my personal property to actually start a business in one of the industries, does it automatically become collective property?
If so, the councils are quite obviously infringing on me freedom. Suddenly it turns out I can't do certain things without their permission, and exactly how they tell me to.
Are all resources collectively owned too? On what grounds?
If I find some resource somewhere where no community lives, where no one had any idea that there's anything to be found there, and I use my time and labor to extract it. What claim does the collective have on something they haven't put a finger to?
Then take the secondary industries. What if the workers don't want a collective? What if they prefer the company to be run like they are today?
Will someone force them to work in a cooperative?
_________________
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 |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4681
Local time: 1:50 PM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least."
Tom Paine "Common Sense"
| Quote: | | I think the problem is you're trying to define the system by how people would act, while it should be defined by how people are allowed to act, and if you want to go that far, by institutions that would enforce those limits. |
I still contend that any institution that enforces those limits is The Government to that extent. If there are limits and enforcement, there are governments of some kind. The End.
Hell, if everyone was always thoughtful and did the right thing, we wouldn't need any kind of economy or government.
I'll call it anar-coop-charityism.
| Quote: | | and yes democracies can be dictatorships too |
I don't see how. If you can actually de-elect dictators then you don't have a dictatorship. If you can't, then you have a dactatorship and not a democracy.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 5:50 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | I still contend that any institution that enforces those limits is The Government to that extent. If there are limits and enforcement, there are governments of some kind. The End. |
Ok, and what's your point?
Do you actually think you can disprove anarchocapitalism by redefining "government"?
The system has a pretty specific framework, and it won't fall apart just because you will call one institution or another a government.
| Quote: | | Hell, if everyone was always thoughtful and did the right thing, we wouldn't need any kind of economy |
No, that would require food, water, shelter, clothes, etc to magically appear before them when they desire it.
| Quote: | | and yes democracies can be dictatorships too |
I don't see how. If you can actually de-elect dictators then you don't have a dictatorship. If you can't, then you have a dactatorship and not a democracy.[/quote]
Voting for someone else won't change the fact that he'll be able to force you to do whatever he wants.
_________________
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: 10:50 PM
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan wrote: | Well, take the basic industries to start with.
What if I save up enough of my personal property to actually start a business in one of the industries, does it automatically become collective property? |
Let's say you want to set up a private steel mill. The councils will simply refuse to provide you with the basic materials necessary to do so, or make it prohibitively expensive. So good luck starting your business in the first place.
| Quote: | | If so, the councils are quite obviously infringing on me freedom. Suddenly it turns out I can't do certain things without their permission, and exactly how they tell me to. |
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.
| Quote: | Are all resources collectively owned too? On what grounds?
If I find some resource somewhere where no community lives, where no one had any idea that there's anything to be found there, and I use my time and labor to extract it. What claim does the collective have on something they haven't put a finger to? |
If the land has not already been claimed as common ground, then the resource is yours I'd say.
| Quote: | Then take the secondary industries. What if the workers don't want a collective? What if they prefer the company to be run like they are today?
Will someone force them to work in a cooperative? |
Nope, but the councils are also under no obligation to sell the necessary materials to such an enterprise at all. The council can grant an exception to the company if they like, or sell the private company goods at higher rates, or refuse to provide them with anything. There is the third tier of businesses in the example I gave that operate traditionally which people can always opt for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
