A question to Communists:

[greenpeace]

Dude. Get this through your skull:

Greenpeacocracy has two rules: #1, prevent people from doing harm. #2, no other authority should exist. A Stalinist dictatorship that enforces these rules with draconian force and firing squads, and a laissez-faire regime (i.e. near-anarchy) that puts next to no effort into enforcement at all, both obey your two Rules.

YOu say it can't be done--well guess what, Nimrod, I just did it.

Your rules say WHAT should be done. THEY DO NOT SAY HOW.

No, you took two aspects of it and then said that they were the only rules. I specifically stated that it has to be directly democratic.

The reason capitalism works so much better is because it doesn't run on rules that anybody wrote down. It runs on rules that are implicit in the nature of life. Rules that existed before pens and paper (and indeed, before alphabets).

Those rules cannot be changed. But we can improve the methods by which we appease them. Used to be we would hunt for food--or fight for it. And we would fight for mates to. We came up with a gigantic improvement. Instead of fighting for stuff, we trade for it. And instead of fighting for that hot babe, we came up with movie theaters, nice restaurants, and flower shops. A few people have of course not entirely shaken off their Neanderthal genes, and still fight over women--we throw people in jail when they do that.

No rules exist except the laws of physics, all laws other than those are human-made. For example in Capitalism, you don't allow theft (or else the system is completely pointless) but that is a rule that has to be enforced by humans.

Yes there is, Greenpeace. There are several of both. There are many different Capitalist parties, and many different Communist parties. I've seen how badly you mangle definitions--your word is not law here, and your definition of "capitalism" is, to put it bluntly, bollocks.

Yes there are parties that support Capitalism, but there is no party that supports all versions of Capitalism because that would be contradictory. Same thing apples to Communism. Oh, and congratulation on using bollocks in a post correctly for the first time (I didn't know how to spell it either).

Because he doesn't want to be a farmer?

Neither do most, but the product that is produced from it is something every living person wants and therefore need to produce, otherwise they just transfer the unwanted work to others (of course those who like farming can work as much as they wish and with the excess food simply share it).

You just keep failing to get it. The above line in really big annoying type should have driven it home, but I know it didn't.

You are going to spend countless hours working away your life. No matter what. In a steel mill or in a Communist state or an anarchy or a Greenpeacocracy.

Yes, but I'm saying that I want to only spend the time doing what I wish to do as opposed to what I have to do in order to get enough money to survive.

A thousand years ago, people worked their lives away for poor and unreliable food supplies, ramshackle wood or thatch houses (WITH NO INTERNET CONNECTIONS), primitive pointy weapons, poor law enforcement, and cheesy musical instruments.

Today we work 16 hours a day in steel mills for excellent and very reliable food supplies, much better-built and better insulated houses, Internet connections for ten bucks a month, guns, tanks, jet planes, and lots of other awesome weapons for killing stupid morons who try to take our stuff, much better law enforcement methods such as tissue typing and DNA analysis.....and truly awesome music.

Me? Well, I kinda break the rules. In fact, I average only six a day. As a result I get a lower salary and fewer goodies.

That is my choice.

And you would still have that choice. You see if you really want product X than you can produce (along with people who also want product X) product X.

Yet another extremely simple idea you don't seem to be getting. If somebody wants to work longer hours for more money, the choice should be theirs, not yours. You have no right to tell anybody how many hours are "too many".

How is deleting positive incentive keeping people from working to produce more?

People chose to work in those dirty factories for 16 hours a day at cheesy salaries because it was an improvement to their lifestyle. You don't seem to get that back then, they didn't have the Internet, and they didn't have pink fiberglass insulation for their houses, producing food took a LOT more work than it does today, and a whole lot of the goodies you now take for granted DID NOT EXIST.

Its irrelevant that they didn't exist, either way they spend 2/3 of their days doing work they didn't want to do (unless they wanted to spend 16 hours because they really wanted the steel they produced and they got the steel they produced- of course I doubt that was ever the case).

Sounds like you're not qualified to be telling people how to run the planet then. If you want to change the system, you need a viable system to change to, and you need to work out how to do it. The whole reason the world is capitalist and not socialist is because humans have never been able to figure those two out.

Well, nobody is qualified to tell people how to do anything (except just authority), but I know how it would function, I just don't know how to actually physically build the structures and everything needed for a community (or anyone willing to do it and teach me how to do it as well).

PS, how could one work more than 12 hours on a farm (thats about how much daylight they get)?

 

[BasketCase]

No, you took two aspects of it and then said that they were the only rules. I specifically stated that it has to be directly democratic.

Meaning that people get to vote on how the system is enforced.

Same result. Your citizens could vote for overly-stern police or none at all.

Direct democracy carries the implicit and unavoidable risk that the citizens will vote for the wrong things.

Instead of arguing this with me, why don't you simply state that a draconian system is not permitted? Of course, then you'll be well on your way to discovering why the U.S. Constitution is so darned long. Believe me, you're not the only guy who wanted to rewrite human government systems. I know you're in way over your head, because I tried the same thing many times, and got in way over my head.

Oh, and congratulation on using bollocks in a post correctly for the first time (I didn't know how to spell it either).

Yeah, I'm stoked--we finally accomplished something in here.

Yes, but I'm saying that I want to only spend the time doing what I wish to do as opposed to what I have to do in order to get enough money to survive.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Naturally you prefer to do what you want to do. Problem is, that doesn't put food on your table. Human wants don't always coincide with human needs. That's why incentives are necessary: because they're less cruel than the natural incentive "work or starve". At some point, you're going to end up doing unpleasant but necessary things such as digging potatoes out of your backyard farm.

You want to do what you want to do, but you have to do what you have to do. (read through that again and you'll get it)

Some kind of incentive is unavoidable. And that's the reason I'm so aggro about positive incentives here: because they're vastly preferable over negative incentives. Oh, and also because psychology experiments in laboratories have proven that positive incentives are a good deal more motivating than negative ones. The most effective combination is both positive and negative together, with positives happening around three times as often as negatives. Drop the ratio below that and the test subjects become cranky--and less productive.

PS, how could one work more than 12 hours on a farm (thats about how much daylight they get)?

They had these nifty inventions called lanterns.....

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Back then, it was either 16-18 hours in a factory

That only lasted about fifty years, if that. Legislation reduced the maximum work day to around 10-12 hours. If I could remember the name of the act, I could show you, but I don't...

or 18-20 hours on a farm (also barely making ends meet). The unreasonably long work day (in order to barely make ends meet)was simply unavoidable.

You're not too familiar with farm life, I presume.

There's no such thing as "traditional" hours working on a farm, because you work for yourself, though you would often spend sun-up to sun-down working in some form or another, with obvious breaks for meals, siesta, whatever. But farmers have traditionally not had a problem "making ends meet," because they provide the majority of the things they need themselves; only in the modern day have farmers encountered such a problem. Part of it is that farms aren't as encompassing as they once were; farmers nowadays often focus entirely on one crop or livestock (well, it's really two or three crops, because you rotate them, but its one at a time), so their livelyhood depends on the prices of that product, or the subsedies the government throws out. Farmers have to spend money on things they normally wouldn't, like milk, eggs, or whatever; things they would have traditionally provided themselves.

Personally, given the choice between farming and factory work, I'd take the farming without question.

We have the choice today (I myself only work six hours a week and am happy with my mediocre paycheck) but back at the dawn of the Industrial Age, this choice did not exist.

There were, of course, alternatives, and many people took them. Clerical work, soldiering, medical professions, being a teacher or governess, there were a host of things to be done that didn't involve factories or farms, and many people chose them, though their pay varied widly from being similar to that of a factory worker, to firmly planting someone in the middle class.

 

[greenpeace]

Meaning that people get to vote on how the system is enforced.

Same result. Your citizens could vote for overly-stern police or none at all.

Direct democracy carries the implicit and unavoidable risk that the citizens will vote for the wrong things.

Instead of arguing this with me, why don't you simply state that a draconian system is not permitted? Of course, then you'll be well on your way to discovering why the U.S. Constitution is so darned long. Believe me, you're not the only guy who wanted to rewrite human government systems. I know you're in way over your head, because I tried the same thing many times, and got in way over my head.

Well, with a direct democracy the vast majority of people will be cotent about how stern it is because you are only deciding how you and relatively few people will be treated for harming people. On a somewhat related sidenote, the by farm most likely punishment system is simply rehabilitation (in a restrained environmet) since it is by far the most productive and least painful to experience in case you commit harm.
Also, any system carries the implicit risk that the governing body will make a mistake, its just that in this case its alot less likely to become corrupt because there is no real way power or anything else can corrupt decisions (except hate, which I admit can be very dangerous to the society).

Naturally you prefer to do what you want to do. Problem is, that doesn't put food on your table.

Actually, I do want to put food on my table, don't you? I mean wouldn't you rather farm than die of starvation?

Human wants don't always coincide with human needs.

There is no such thing as "need," since you don't really "need" do anything except follow the laws of physics.

That's why incentives are necessary: because they're less cruel than the natural incentive "work or starve".[/quote
I'll agree incentives are neccessary for preventing people from doing harm,

At some point, you're going to end up doing unpleasant but necessary things such as digging potatoes out of your backyard farm.

Yes, but the pain caused from starvation will naturally get you to get that food (unless your really really emo, or incapable, but your if your incapable you'll be provided with food or else you would be harmed, unless people can't provide you with food, in which case sorry).
You want to do what you want to do, but you have to do what you have to do. (read through that again and you'll get it)

Some kind of incentive is unavoidable.

I agree that there are natural incentives, and that there should be incentives for not causing harm, but I disagree that anythingelse in "unavoidable."

And that's the reason I'm so aggro about positive incentives here: because they're vastly preferable over negative incentives.

But unneccessary either way (unless, again to prevent harm).

Oh, and also because psychology experiments in laboratories have proven that positive incentives are a good deal more motivating than negative ones. The most effective combination is both positive and negative together, with positives happening around three times as often as negatives. Drop the ratio below that and the test subjects become cranky--and less productive.

Thats interresting, but again useless because basically:
1. The only real use for incentives is to get people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do
2. the only thing people may want to do that would violate the "do anything except harm" is to harm, so incetnives are useless in this context unless to keep people from doing harm.
Furthermore incentives translates to authority (where an authority is defined as an entity that attempts to to modify the behavior and actions of individuals) since one can only use incentives to modify the behavior and actions of others and since authority is not allowed (other than of coure the described authority) due to its harmful nature, no incentive is allowed. I feel like saying QED.

They had these nifty inventions called lanterns.....

Even if that were true, with inherently more people providing basics, the amount of time spent farming drastically decreases (If I remember correctly, half of people did not farm at the time of the Industrial Revolution in Britain).

Cheezy the Wiz- interesting information!

 

[BasketCase]

Random question--do you even care what kind of incentives they are, or are you just dead set on making sure it's never humans using them....?

 

[greenpeace]

Random question--do you even care what kind of incentives they are, or are you just dead set on making sure it's never humans using them....?

I might not understand the question right, but yes I believe incentives should not be used by or on humans (even parents on children- in fact especially parents on children). Of course, as I've already said, natural incentives which are either inevitable effects of causes or emotional responses (technically laughing at a joke is incentive, but were human), are allowed as well as incentives used by the just authoirty which by definition must only be used to stop harm (doesn't allow pre-emptive unless its on individuals who seem obviously about to cause harm, also doesn't allow incentives on innocent group for individual's harm).

 

[BasketCase]

You're not too familiar with farm life, I presume.

Generally, no. But I'm quite familiar with the very next sentence you wrote:

There's no such thing as "traditional" hours working on a farm, because you work for yourself, though you would often spend sun-up to sun-down working in some form or another

That's an important bit right there.

Personally, given the choice between farming and factory work, I'd take the farming without question.

And that's another important bit. Greenpeace, are you listening? This is for you.

Given the choice between farming and factory work, Cheezy said. The thing both of you are missing/ignoring is that when the Industrial Revolution happened, millions of people made the other choice--factory work rather than farming.

(If I remember correctly, half of people did not farm at the time of the Industrial Revolution in Britain).

Exactly. And the Industrial Revolution is the reason. People were able to produce more for the same amount of work, because of the Industrial Revolution. The trend progresses steadily as you go forward in time: farmers produce more food per unit work, and people are gradually freed from the farm and have more choices about where to work. There's no way anybody can call that harm.

Well, with a direct democracy the vast majority of people will be cotent about how stern it is because you are only deciding how you and relatively few people will be treated for harming people.

Same answer yet again: people will disagree on the definition of harm. They will not be content. Religious people will try to covert your system into a theocracy because they consider atheism to be harm. There's lots of other examples, but I only need that one because religious people are trying to destroy direct democracies, this very moment, in the real world, for precisely that reason: they say it is harmful to not worship their God.

At some point, you're going to end up doing unpleasant but necessary things such as digging potatoes out of your backyard farm.

Yes, but the pain caused from starvation will naturally get you to get that food

I call that harm.

The pain from starvation would cause me to die because I'm hopeless with plants. Believe me, I've tried. I can't keep a cactus alive. I'd end up working for food. And, once again, your system fails. I'd end up working for a paycheck by default, and there's nothing you can do about it.

So FORGET IT.

Fortunately I have other choices besides farming or starving--and capitalism gave me those choices. I choose to work for a paycheck and suffer the tyranny of a boss and suffer positive incentives and all that other capitalist crap. I prefer the tyranny of the police because one of the things they do is make sure I don't get my throat torn open by a mountain lion. Or by another human who wants my wallet, for that matter.

The freedom you offer is an illusion. Being a slave to your stomach (and to the fear of predators) is the worst possible kind of slavery. And, also, it's the second-worst possible kind of harm.

I might not understand the question right, but yes I believe incentives should not be used by or on humans

No, you understood it perfectly.

I just needed to make sure I was understanding you perfectly.


Your definition is (here's The Word again) bollocks. It's the actual harm done that is important--the source is not. It's the amount of pain, not who causes it. It's the amount of freedom won or lost--not the person who gives it, and not the person who takes it away. Try to take away freedoms that I value, and I'll kill you no matter who you are. If Ghandi tried to take away my freedoms, I'd rip his lungs out with my bare hands.

The pain of natural incentive is a lot more harmful than the tyranny of the Corporation and the Paycheck.

By the way, I'm writing this from work. Feel free to hate me now.

 

[greenpeace]

Generally, no. But I'm quite familiar with the very next sentence you wrote:
[cheezy the wiz said that he would rather farm]
That's an important bit right there.

And that's another important bit. Greenpeace, are you listening? This is for you.

Given the choice between farming and factory work, Cheezy said. The thing both of you are missing/ignoring is that when the Industrial Revolution happened, millions of people made the other choice--factory work rather than farming.

And that's another important bit. Basketcase, are you listening? This is for you.

And you would still have that choice. You see if you really want product X than you can produce (along with people who also want product X) product X.

I'll agree incentives are neccessary for preventing people from doing harm,

Exactly. And the Industrial Revolution is the reason. People were able to produce more for the same amount of work, because of the Industrial Revolution. The trend progresses steadily as you go forward in time: farmers produce more food per unit work, and people are gradually freed from the farm and have more choices about where to work. There's no way anybody can call that harm.

People can discover new technology and create inventions without incentives given by humans.

Same answer yet again: people will disagree on the definition of harm.

Same answer yet again:

1. It doesn't matter how many people want it (in terms of whether it would work or not).

If twenty people in the world agreed with my definition than we could get together and form a society and there wouldn't be any problems of that nature.

Yes, but the pain caused from starvation will naturally get you to get that food

I call that harm.

So are you going to sue evolution?

The pain from starvation would cause me to die because I'm hopeless with plants.

If your unable to provide basics, than you will be provided with the basics you can't provide for yourself unless it is not realy possible to provide you with the essentials due to drought, or something similar (although, in reality, from what I know of you, you can easily rovide some manual labor)

Believe me, I've tried. I can't keep a cactus alive.

Haha, neither can I.

I'd end up working for food. And, once again, your system fails. I'd end up working for a paycheck by default, and there's nothing you can do about it.

If its impossible for you to contribute to providing the basics, than you would be making mw say the same thing twice in the same post.
So FORGET IT.
Forget what?...

Fortunately I have other choices besides farming or starving--and capitalism gave me those choices.

Thank God for Capitalism!!!!!!!!! Oh wait, all your doing is transferring unwanted work from yourself to someonelse. But at least you love your job to no end, oh wait thats not guarenteed (but if you do, congratulations).

I choose to work for a paycheck and suffer the tyranny of a boss and suffer positive incentives and all that other capitalist crap. I prefer the tyranny of the police because one of the things they do is make sure I don't get my throat torn open by a mountain lion. Or by another human who wants my wallet, for that matter.

You do realize that you would have just as much protection (if not, more) in the said society, right?

The freedom you offer is an illusion. Being a slave to your stomach (and to the fear of predators) is the worst possible kind of slavery. And, also, it's the second-worst possible kind of harm.

Everyone is a slave ot their stomach in any society except suicidal society.

No, you understood it perfectly.

I just needed to make sure I was understanding you perfectly.

Your definition is (here's The Word again) bollocks. WOOT It's the actual harm done that is important--the source is not. It's the amount of pain, not who causes it. It's the amount of freedom won or lost--not the person who gives it, and not the person who takes it away. Try to take away freedoms that I value, and I'll kill you no matter who you are. If Ghandi tried to take away my freedoms, I'd rip his lungs out with my bare hands.

What freedom am I taking away from you, and why can't you spell Gandhi (or Mahatma Gandhi) right?

The pain of natural incentive is a lot more harmful than the tyranny of the Corporation and the Paycheck.

Natural incentives are natural because they exist in every society no matter what you do (except suicide).

By the way, I'm writing this from work. Feel free to hate me now.

Why would I hate you for that (in fact why would one hate another anyways)?

 

[BasketCase]

And that's another important bit. Basketcase, are you listening?

Not until you change your screwed-up defintion of harm. No.

And you would still have that choice. You see if you really want product X than you can produce (along with people who also want product X) product X.

You know that's a load of crap.

I'm no good at farming, I already covered that. I also don't know how to build cars. Or do a root canal. Or remove a ruptured appendix. Or build an oil well. Or build a house. Or play an electric guitar. Or set up an Internet server.

There are a million things out in the world that I want--and a smaller number of things I NEED TO SURVIVE--which I CANNOT PRODUCE. Someone else is going to have to produce them. I cannot ethically force them to produce those things, and they will not just hand them over to me for free, and I refuse to just abandon them all and live in the forest in a tent.

So only one option is left: to offer my own labor in exchange for theirs.


That should have been blindingly obvious to you from the start. Which should give you an idea of why I'm not listening to you.

 

[BasketCase]

If twenty people in the world agreed with my definition than we could get together and form a society and there wouldn't be any problems of that nature.

Then please do so, and stop trying to convert me to your crackpot ways.

Edit: Never mind. If you could, you would have. The fact that you haven't, means that you can't find those 19 other people.​

Even if you did, it would never work. Because eventually your Internet provider will have some kind of breakdown, and I should remind you that I work in tech support, and I'm reminding you of that because the minute your ISP does break down, you're going to come right back to me to have a tech sent out to fix it because nobody in your crew of 20 will know how to fix it.

And guess what, I'm not gonna do it for free. Nobody will. How do you suppose you're going to get somebody to fix the server......?

 

[BasketCase]

What freedom am I taking away from you

Economic freedom.

 

[greenpeace]

Not until you change your screwed-up defintion of harm. No.


You know that's a load of crap.

I'm no good at farming, I already covered that. I also don't know how to build cars. Or do a root canal. Or remove a ruptured appendix. Or build an oil well. Or build a house. Or play an electric guitar. Or set up an Internet server.

There are a million things out in the world that I want--and a smaller number of things I NEED TO SURVIVE--which I CANNOT PRODUCE. Someone else is going to have to produce them. I cannot ethically force them to produce those things, and they will not just hand them over to me for free, and I refuse to just abandon them all and live in the forest in a tent.

So only one option is left: to offer my own labor in exchange for theirs.


That should have been blindingly obvious to you from the start. Which should give you an idea of why I'm not listening to you.

You may still be able to have what they produce, its just that I'm saying their going to have to want to produce it in the first place. That way I insure that I don't have to constantly work against my will (since farming is indirectly my will since I don't want starve).

Then please do so, and stop trying to convert me to your crackpot ways.

I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just trying to see why my theory is "crackpot" (I never understod that, does it mean that its on crack and pot, or something completely different?).

Edit: Never mind. If you could, you would have. The fact that you haven't, means that you can't find those 19 other people.
Even if you did, it would never work. Because eventually your Internet provider will have some kind of breakdown, and I should remind you that I work in tech support, and I'm reminding you of that because the minute your ISP does break down, you're going to come right back to me to have a tech sent out to fix it because nobody in your crew of 20 will know how to fix it.

And guess what, I'm not gonna do it for free. Nobody will. How do you suppose you're going to get somebody to fix the server......?

You would provide it for me because you like providing it for people. Unless you don't, in which case I wouldn't get it from you, I would get it from someone who does (or learn how to, or just not get the service).

[I'm taking away] Economic freedom

You do realize thats so vague its pointless responding, right?

 

[greenpeace]

Also, why do you have to

 

[greenpeace]

respond in three seperate posts?

 

[BasketCase]

Because I don't think of everything at once. I write one post, and then later I go "oh, hey, I just thought of something".

You do realize thats so vague its pointless responding, right?

You're telling me my system is harmful. Trying to make me feel bad for the choices I make. Trying to control the choices I make. You are taking away my right to make my own goddamn choices. You are taking away my economic freedoms.

That way I insure that I don't have to constantly work against my will (since farming is indirectly my will since I don't want starve).

No, it's not. You farm against your will because you're afraid of pain and death. Slave owners use the same methods.

My method doesn't threaten anybody with anything. My method tempts you with a carrot instead of brandishing a stick. Vast improvement.

I'm just trying to see why my theory is "crackpot"

No. You're trying not to.

 

[BasketCase]

You may still be able to have what they produce, its just that I'm saying their going to have to want to produce it in the first place.

Oh, and by the way--capitalism already works like that. If I want to buy a car, am I going to walk up to you and ask you to make me one? Of course not. You're not a car builder. I'm gonna go to a car dealership because they already make cars.

Or, what if I had a heart attack? Am I going to call you on the phone for emergency treatment? Bad idea. I'm gonna call a hospital.

 

[greenpeace]

Because I don't think of everything at once. I write one post, and then later I go "oh, hey, I just thought of something".


You're telling me my system is harmful. Trying to make me feel bad for the choices I make. Trying to control the choices I make. You are taking away my right to make my own goddamn choices. You are taking away my economic freedoms.

First, I'm not forcing anyone to adopt the system (that would be contradictory), second why are you ok with stopping people from kicking each other? Although, you think not being able to offer positive incentives is harm, but in that case your just saying you disagree with my definition of harm without stating a reason (well, at least not in that statement). Also, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or harm you, geez.

No, it's not. You farm against your will because you're afraid of pain and death. Slave owners use the same methods.

Well, the actual manual labor I don't want, but if you include the product I get from it (and I am ensured I get my product, except I may have to share some of it with the old, young, and injured), then it is in my and practically every able bodied persons will. Of course, you could probaby say the same thing about any job in the Capitalist world, the difference is that the work you do does not directly give you food, it just creates more unwanted work for others and yourself.

My method doesn't threaten anybody with anything.

Thats impossible, every single method threatens someone with something, because of the natural threat of starvation.

My method tempts you with a carrot instead of brandishing a stick. Vast improvement.

Over what? My method doesn't brandish a stick, unless you count the fact that it doesn't involve re-wiring the human body to be immortal.

No. You're trying not to.

Oh really, because I didn't know I thought that. I always love it when people tell me what I think because it seems I never know what I'm thinking.

Oh, and by the way--capitalism already works like that. If I want to buy a car, am I going to walk up to you and ask you to make me one? Of course not. You're not a car builder. I'm gonna go to a car dealership because they already make cars.

The people working at the factory didn't neccessarily want to do that if it weren't for the food and shelter it provides.

Or, what if I had a heart attack? Am I going to call you on the phone for emergency treatment? Bad idea. I'm gonna call a hospital.

Huh? Who says I want to be a doctor, no you should call someone who really wants to help people out physically (although in that paticular case, people in a community may become doctors for reasons similar to farming).

 

[Gecko1]

I call for more work for the people!!! And then we give the money to the people!!!! and then we kill the capitalist dogs!!!!!

 

[BasketCase]

No, it's not. You farm against your will because you're afraid of pain and death. Slave owners use the same methods.

Well, the actual manual labor I don't want

EXACTLY. You don't want to. But you do it anyway. That is called "against your will". I am not going to let you rewrite the dictionary to suit your agenda. You are doing something against your will.

Thats impossible, every single method threatens someone with something, because of the natural threat of starvation.

Wrong. I already explained this very clearly: if I offer you a paycheck to mow my front lawn and you refuse, what happens? Do I tie you to a post and have you whipped? Do I throw you in jail? Do I shove you up against a wall and have you shot?

No. NOTHING HAPPENS to you. Capitalism does not threaten you with anything.

 

[greenpeace]

EXACTLY. You don't want to. But you do it anyway. That is called "against your will". I am not going to let you rewrite the dictionary to suit your agenda. You are doing something against your will.

Well, I don't want to do manual labor but I think its worth it since it provides food. There is basically that "natural" incentive. I want food, and in order to get it I farm. Nobody can or should stop me from wanting food.

The difference between our systems is that you allow indirect ways of getting food so that for example I could produce steel for food. However, I do not neccessarily want the steel enough to want to work for it (and even if I did, I don't own what I produce neccessarily).

Wrong. I already explained this very clearly: if I offer you a paycheck to mow my front lawn and you refuse, what happens? Do I tie you to a post and have you whipped? Do I throw you in jail? Do I shove you up against a wall and have you shot?

No. NOTHING HAPPENS to you. Capitalism does not threaten you with anything.

Well, I would starve to death if I don't mow your lawn, how exactly is that so much better?
You could ask what if I thought mowing your lawn felt better than... and I really wanted to do it. Well,
1. Than your just transferring the undesirable manual labor of farming to someone else (remember, those who love their job and do it because they love the work are lucky and wouldn't benefit too much from switching to my system- except would probably would get a little more "job security" (unless it involves harm) at the cost of probably having to farm.)
2. You can mow someone's lawn in the new society as well.

and then we kill the capitalist dogs!!!!!

But I like my dog (check him out, he is in my sig).