A question to Communists:

[bardolph]

Just to set the record straight: Capitalism isn't synonymous with "free market trade."

Capitalism is based on the principle of PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Originally, this meant land. It has now been extended to include abstract concepts such as "intellectual property".

This implies that a common property (such as the earth) must be siezed and "owned" by a private party, who can then lend out that property to people who do not own it, for the sake of making a profit. Capitalism also implies access to a strong-arm system (such as law enforcement, or a standing army) whose primary job it is to ensure that these properties do not change hands without permission from the current "owner," and to ensure that no one profits from using such property without the "owner's" explicit permission.

That's Capitalism.

Under Capitalism, the vast majority of citizens own ZERO capital, and those who think they own capital because they "own" a mortgage or car payment are just fooling themselves. Still others who think they own capital because they have weathered a 30-year mortgage or a 5-year car loan are still just fooling themselves, since zoning laws and lack of mineral/drilling rights often prevent homeowners from ever converting their lots into actual profit-making enterprises.

"Trade" is an entirely different concept than Capitalism, and free markets can exist with or without Capitalism.

 

[BasketCase]

This implies that a common property

No such beast exists.

You can't have "everybody" deciding all together what gets done with which chunk of common property. At best, 51% of the people will decide to do something with it, and the minute that happens, SWISH. The land just got swiped out from under the 49%. And guess what you've got? Property owned by a PORTION of the people.

This is all aside from the fact that once you do decide what to do with a chunk of land, you need to have experts in that field to actually do it. Which is something else I already covered:

You don't put doctors in charge of the military, you don't put soldiers in charge of the economy, and you don't put bankers in charge of the hospitals.

If somebody decides this or that chunk of land is going to be a farm, you need to have the farming done by--big surprise--people who are good at it. At which point it's those farmers (who are good at it) who control the land. And your public ownership just went bye-bye.

 

[bardolph]

This implies that a common property...

No such beast exists.

Fine, let me call it "un-owned" or "non-private." Ownership of land has nothing to do with who knows how best to use it, but rather who was the FIRST person who had the bright idea of building a fence and threatening to shoot anyone who crossed it.

You can't have "everybody" deciding all together what gets done with which chunk of common property. At best, 51% of the people will decide to do something with it, and the minute that happens, SWISH. The land just got swiped out from under the 49%. And guess what you've got? Property owned by a PORTION of the people.

Ever driven on a road, or visited a park or library? Police Station? Fire Department? Public property.

This is all aside from the fact that once you do decide what to do with a chunk of land, you need to have experts in that field to actually do it. Which is something else I already covered:

If somebody decides this or that chunk of land is going to be a farm, you need to have the farming done by--big surprise--people who are good at it. At which point it's those farmers (who are good at it) who control the land. And your public ownership just went bye-bye.

Most skilled workers do NOT own the land they work on. Hell, most business owners don't own the land they work on either. They RENT it. What qualifies their landlord to receive a rent check every month? A bunch of guys with guns that will evict the tenants if they don't pay up, that's what.

It gets even more absurd when you try to delve into the world of "intellectual property," where the "property" that's being defended doesn't even exist in the physical world, and therefore has no fence at all. In this case, it simply amounts to the suppression of thought. But hey, that's Capitalism.

 

[greenpeace]

No, it does not. If there's no law against it, it's legal. You went and cast the broadest possible net, and said "any form of labor I disapprove of is harm".

Yes, it defines that as not harm therefore it is not considered harm, but the original point remains.

Why should I?

I have no business telling the national government how many B-2 bombers to build, or whether or not to send a sniper to have Osama Bin Laden assassinated, or what changes to make to the prime interest rate, or whether saccharine should be banned as a carcinogen, or whether we should ban cars to stop global warming. These issues SHOULD be handled by (in order) military experts, covert ops experts, economic experts, health experts, environmental experts. Note the frequent use of the word "experts" above.

Now, if a major server in Arizona has a crash and causes your Internet access to go on the fritz, you damn well better come straight to me. Because I'm a tech support expert, and I know how to get the right people out there to fix the server. Unlike that idiot three weeks ago who tried to get me to dispatch a tech to replace the memory sticks on a DOCKING STATION.

You don't put doctors in charge of the military, you don't put soldiers in charge of the economy, and you don't put bankers in charge of the hospitals.

As I already, said none of those functions involve either natural property being distributed (which really isn't much of an issue) or harm being dealt, and even if they did, in reality people would just listen to the experts when they were needed.

WRONG. You should have known better than to write that, because I already told you: I did have a better job four years ago, at a higher salary. I told you, to your cyber-face, that I chose a lower-paying job. I already told you I am not working the best job I could to make ends meet. I work six hours a day in a comfy office. Oh, and I get to play Supreme Commander at work.

The steel mill was the best job that provided ends meat.

On the contrary, Capitalism ensures that almost everything people make is worth making, and that waste is minimized. Not perfectly, of course, but far better than any other system out there.

It definitely insures that the products are wanted, but it doesn't insure they are worth making.

I choose the President and the senators. My voice pwns their voice.

You must feel special because you:
Get to say 1/~100 millionth of a say in who will be the president, and not only do you get to say that, you get a huge slection of two whole people. Yeah, very direct input .
But it gets better, because if you liked the person in the beginning and then they turn into the a maniac and started ripping apart country, you don't get to do anything about it to stop them.

I already have this too, in the form of local elections. Not just for mayors and senators, but for ballot issues. Guess how ballot issues get started? WHEN ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE ME PROPOSE THEM. The system starts with ME. It answers to ME. I do have a direct say in local government.

Its true on the local scale one gets little more power (though mind you not that much), but in my system you, along with your local community, have complete control over the government.
VII

 

[BasketCase]

Fine, let me call it "un-owned" or "non-private." Ownership of land has nothing to do with who knows how best to use it

I'm not one to mince words. It's the idea behind them. The person who knows best how to use any given chunk of land is the person who should be making the decisions regarding that chunk of land--that person has power. Power that other people do not. That person controls the land.

That's the way it should be.

 

[BasketCase]

Yes, it defines that as not harm therefore it is not considered harm, but the original point remains.

Wrong. "Well, your system says anything other than what it defines as not harm is harm". Bullpuckies. My system says "anything other than what I define as harm, is not harm".

As I already, said none of those functions involve either natural property being distributed (which really isn't much of an issue) or harm being dealt, and even if they did, in reality people would just listen to the experts when they were needed.

The experts say smoking kills you. The experts say drinking and driving kills you. The experts say nuclear reactors are one of the safest forms of power on the planet. The experts say you should wear your seat belt when you're in a car. The experts (well, most of them--I disagree with them, but that's beside the point I'm driving at) say global warming is a big problem that needs to be dealt with NOW. The experts say pot is bad for you. The experts say the average American is overweight and not getting enough exercise.

Those are all ways in which people like you and me are NOT paying attention to the experts. No. The people are not going to listen to the experts unless you hold them at gunpoint. Sometimes they won't listen even then.

You've shown in about twenty different ways now that you have no idea how the world works. If you're like me and can't be bothered to pry your butt away from that computer, at the very least, boot up the CNN web site every now and then.

The steel mill was the best job that provided ends meat.

No, it's not. The job I currently have is the best one. For me.

<Capitalism> definitely insures that the products are wanted, but it doesn't insure they are worth making.

You keep going at this from the wrong end. Nobody gives a crap if YOU think it's worth making. The people who want something--THEY are the ones who should decide if it's worth making. Nobody cares about keeping what they produce. They care about getting what they want.

You must feel special because you:
Get to say 1/~100 millionth of a say in who will be the president

Should I get more?

Assuming there are 100 million people who will be voting in the 2008 elections: how much "say" should I have?

WARNING: DO NOT ANSWER. THAT QUESTION IS A TRAP.

But it gets better, because if you liked the person in the beginning and then they turn into the a maniac and started ripping apart country, you don't get to do anything about it to stop them.

Heheheh. You must be referring to George Bush.

News flash, bud. George Bush has done almost exactly what I wanted him to do. He destroyed the Taliban and deposed Saddam Hussein. He IS doing what I want--why would I stop him???

Edit: Actually, there are already controls in place to minimize the number of times a President does stuff the People don't want. For example, if the President wants to deploy troops for more than sixty days, he has to get approval from Congress. Guess who elected Congress. ME. The reason the government doesn't (appear to) listen only to me is because there are two hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine other citizens out there who also are voicing their opinions.​

Its true on the local scale one gets little more power (though mind you not that much), but in my system you, along with your local community, have complete control over the government.
VII

Wrong. The local community has complete control over the government. I am one voice in a multitude. You promise me nothing I don't already have. But then, that's how most dictators work.

 

[Gecko1]

Fools, none of you control the government, only the corparations have a true say. Considering that the true power in America comes from congress, that means that your argument is futile Greenpeace. The corparations own the government and that's it. If Exxon Mobile doesn't like something that law will never EVER get passed. So if you think that America has a chance of ever becoming socialist or a welfare state, go to Finland.

 

[BasketCase]

Corporations are merely groups of PEOPLE, Gecko.

 

[bardolph]

I'm not one to mince words. It's the idea behind them. The person who knows best how to use any given chunk of land is the person who should be making the decisions regarding that chunk of land--that person has power. Power that other people do not. That person controls the land.

That's the way it should be.

But that's not the way it is. Ownership of land in a Capitalist society has very little to do with who knows what's "best" for it.

Hey, I'm all for meritocracy. I just don't believe that Capitalism results in meritocracy.

 

[greenpeace]

Fools, none of you control the government, only the corparations have a true say. Considering that the true power in America comes from congress, that means that your argument is futile Greenpeace. The corparations own the government and that's it. If Exxon Mobile doesn't like something that law will never EVER get passed. So if you think that America has a chance of ever becoming socialist or a welfare state, go to Finland.

Um, if that were completely true that would only strengthen my point that the common person doesn't have power over the powers that be.

Wrong. "Well, your system says anything other than what it defines as not harm is harm". Bullpuckies. My system says "anything other than what I define as harm, is not harm".

Thats garnicklewash!
I said it poorly, but lets say the only law says rap is harmful, than logically everything not rap is not harmful. You just said everything rap is harmful. Both statements are true. But either way your system says that my and other systems are harmful (since my system would metaphorically be rap).

The experts say smoking kills you. The experts say drinking and driving kills you. The experts say nuclear reactors are one of the safest forms of power on the planet. The experts say you should wear your seat belt when you're in a car. The experts (well, most of them--I disagree with them, but that's beside the point I'm driving at) say global warming is a big problem that needs to be dealt with NOW. The experts say pot is bad for you. The experts say the average American is overweight and not getting enough exercise.

Those are all ways in which people like you and me are NOT paying attention to the experts. No. The people are not going to listen to the experts unless you hold them at gunpoint. Sometimes they won't listen even then.

In this case your deciding whether or not someone is harming another so an "expert" would be anyone with knowledge regarding what happened in the circumstance, and since people have nothing else to base guilt, then it means that information will almost have to be used. Sure, I may stab myself even though an expert told me not to, but if I want to know whether not stabbing is harmful than what else would I have to go by other than an expert?

You've shown in about twenty different ways now that you have no idea how the world works. If you're like me and can't be bothered to pry your butt away from that computer, at the very least, boot up the CNN web site every now and then.

And you've shown in twenty different ways that your amazingly good at taking statements out of context and/or interpreting them in a way that was obviously not intended.

No, it's not. The job I currently have is the best one. For me.

I don't care what the best job is for you, thats completely irrelevant, I'm saying if that 12 hour steel mill job was the best job that provided ends meat for person X they would take it.

You keep going at this from the wrong end. Nobody gives a crap if YOU think it's worth making. The people who want something--THEY are the ones who should decide if it's worth making. Nobody cares about keeping what they produce. They care about getting what they want.

And they get what they want by producing it or getting it from others who wish to produce it (in terms of the actual act of producing). If no wishes to produce, than one isn't justified in getting them to. If I wanted to see someone killed would I be justified in seeing it?

Should I get more?

Assuming there are 100 million people who will be voting in the 2008 elections: how much "say" should I have?

WARNING: DO NOT ANSWER. THAT QUESTION IS A TRAP.

1/100th million. Ok, eat me alive!

Heheheh. You must be referring to George Bush.

, I didn't realize that could be a reference, haha. But yeah...

News flash, bud. George Bush has done almost exactly what I wanted him to do. He destroyed the Taliban and deposed Saddam Hussein. He IS doing what I want--why would I stop him???

And if you and the majority didn't?

Edit: Actually, there are already controls in place to minimize the number of times a President does stuff the People don't want. For example, if the President wants to deploy troops for more than sixty days, he has to get approval from Congress. Guess who elected Congress. ME. The reason the government doesn't (appear to) listen only to me is because there are two hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine other citizens out there who also are voicing their opinions.​

You can minimize it but you can never end it. In my system the decision the most people agree with is what they always get.

Wrong. The local community has complete control over the government. I am one voice in a multitude. You promise me nothing I don't already have.

So everyone in your community has equal power in all decisions?

But then, that's how most dictators work.

I IS DICKTATORZ! HEER ME ROARZ!!!
Seriously, are you accusing this system system of having an elite totalitarian regime?
VIII

 

[bardolph]

So can someone save me a little trouble and kindly tell me on which page of this thread is the proposed "Greenpeaceocracy" system of government?

 

[greenpeace]

So can someone save me a little trouble and kindly tell me on which page of this thread is the proposed "Greenpeaceocracy" system of government?

I made an uber-long post that can easily be misunderstood and doesn't really describe the system. And then I made another post which accurately describes the system:
edit: it turns out I don't really like my second post much either, so I'll just sum it up:

Society should be decentralized (to the point where a community is completely self-goverened). The decentralized government must be made of all people able to communicate in the community. These people make decisions by the democratic process in which the highest majorty agrees with the decision. The twp types of decisions it is allowed to make will be:
1. Whether or not a person (in the community) intentionally has, or is, or eminently will be causing harm and what to do about it. Harm is defined as anything that inhibits a persons ability to do something other than inhibit someone elses ability to do something (The primary way is offering of incentives and other forms of authority). Also harming is inflicitng emotional, physical, mental damage, The established authority is the only entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm. If there is a situation were it is physically impossible for one to not harm another than the authority must attempt to reduce the harm as much as possible.
Also harm is taking away the produce of another person/groups production without their (un-incentived) consent. Also harm is not allowing natural resources to be shared fairly (the authority decides fairness).
2. Whether to include a new member ot a community or not.
IX

 

[BasketCase]

What he left out is that it was me who came up with the term "Greenpeacocracy".

 

[BasketCase]

I said it poorly, but lets say the only law says rap is harmful, than logically everything not rap is not harmful.

If that's the way the voters want it, then leave it be. If We the People consider something to be harmful, we'll make a law against it. Or, sometimes already-existing laws will get overturned in the course of the ongoing debate over exactly what is "harmful". My system does not say all other governments on the rest of the planet are harmful--yours does.

so an "expert" would be anyone with knowledge regarding what happened in the circumstance, and since people have nothing else to base guilt, then it means that information will almost have to be used.

I already listed a bunch of examples of people NOT using that information.

And you've shown in twenty different ways that your amazingly good at taking statements out of context and/or interpreting them in a way that was obviously not intended.

All I do is post the actual truth. Must be something you didn't intend.

I don't care what the best job is for you, thats completely irrelevant, I'm saying if that 12 hour steel mill job was the best job that provided ends meat for person X they would take it.

No, I would not. The best way for me to make ends meet would have been to keep my previous job and get a prescription for Aciphex to calm my stomach.

I did not do that.

And they get what they want by producing it or getting it from others who wish to produce it (in terms of the actual act of producing). If no wishes to produce, than one isn't justified in getting them to.

A direct democracy.

Gotcha.

If I wanted to see someone killed would I be justified in seeing it?

If that person was trying to kill your kids, by all means. Kill the slimy bastard, and if the police give you trouble, I'll walk up to them and tell them you were in Cambodia at the time of death.

1/100th million. Ok, eat me alive!

Got a bottle of A-1 sauce right here.

For the last page or so you were deriding my "lack of direct influence" in government. "Oh, BasketCase, you feel so special having only 1/100 millionth of the total voice".

You just admitted you were wrong to do that. So I should have 1/100 millionth of the total voice? That was what I said in the first place.

So everyone in your community has equal power in all decisions?

All the decisions the voter should be making--yes.

Seriously, are you accusing this system system of having an elite totalitarian regime?

Actually, no. I didn't accuse your system.

I accused YOU.

 

[bardolph]

I made an uber-long post that can easily be misunderstood and doesn't really describe the system. And then I made another post which accurately describes the system:
edit: it turns out I don't really like my second post much either, so I'll just sum it up:

Society should be decentralized (to the point where a community is completely self-goverened). The decentralized government must be made of all people able to communicate in the community. These people make decisions by the democratic process in which the highest majorty agrees with the decision. The twp types of decisions it is allowed to make will be:
1. Whether or not a person (in the community) intentionally has, or is, or eminently will be causing harm and what to do about it. Harm is defined as anything that inhibits a persons ability to do something other than inhibit someone elses ability to do something (The primary way is offering of incentives and other forms of authority). Also harming is inflicitng emotional, physical, mental damage, The established authority is the only entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm. If there is a situation were it is physically impossible for one to not harm another than the authority must attempt to reduce the harm as much as possible.
Also harm is taking away the produce of another person/groups production without their (un-incentived) consent. Also harm is not allowing natural resources to be shared fairly (the authority decides fairness).
2. Whether to include a new member ot a community or not.
IX

OK, so there's only one governmental body, which can only hear cases for citizenship or "harm," and every member of the community is a member of this governing body. (This is a pure rather than representational democracy, right?)

I assume you are implying the dissolution of any kind of federal authority?

Yes, I can see problems with this model.

The #1 problem is that members of the community wouldn't have time to sit around all day every day hearing and voting on cases. What would happen is most people wouldn't bother showing up (since they obviously have better things to do), and the few people who DO show up would then have the authority to make decisions with FAR less than a majority. Also, once the governing body makes a ruling, who enforces it?

For example, if 10 people out of 100 show up to a hearing, and if 6 out those 10 make a "majority ruling," you end up with a situation where 6% of the population is speaking for the entire community. Who, then, carries out the will of that 6%?

Problem #2 is when an organized military shows up with enough force to subjugate the individual communities. End of government.

 

[BasketCase]

Oops, wait a second, I messed something up.

My system does not say all other governments on the rest of the planet are harmful--yours does.

That's not capitalism I was describing. That's democracy.

Capitalism is far, far simpler. The rule is this: if either the buyer or the seller don't agree to the deal, the deal doesn't happen. If the seller doesn't want to sell it? Or produce it for that matter? Then there is no sale.

"Fair" is whatever the participating parties agree to.

 

[Gecko1]

Well, if that's capitalism, then I'm capitalist. All I do is tax the richer of the two heavily then distribute the money evenly between the two.

 

[BasketCase]

Not really. The richer they are, the more often they hide their money in Switzerland where you can't get to it.

 

[Gecko1]

Not really. The richer they are, the more often they hide their money in Switzerland where you can't get to it.

That's why we nuke the swiss and their damn chocolate bars and knives.

 

[greenpeace]

THIS IS MY 100TH POST IN THE THREAD!!!!!
[o]100th post band![o]
[o][o]
=============
​

If that's the way the voters want it, then leave it be. If We the People consider something to be harmful, we'll make a law against it. Or, sometimes already-existing laws will get overturned in the course of the ongoing debate over exactly what is "harmful". My system does not say all other governments on the rest of the planet are harmful--yours does.

So your system didn't say Stalin's Soviet Russia was harmful?

I already listed a bunch of examples of people NOT using that information.

In those examples people enjoyes the pleasures of soemthing that ultimately caused them harm (according to experts). In this system, and in any real system, there is no incentive to not listen to information because that information helps make a decision whether someone is guilty, not whether you should radically alter your life style.

All I do is post the actual truth. Must be something you didn't intend.

I like yellow bananas. Thats the truth. Unfortunently its irrelevant to this discussion.

No, I would not. The best way for me to make ends meet would have been to keep my previous job and get a prescription for Aciphex to calm my stomach.

I did not do that.

Lets say working at a steel mill is the best job, the one you want most out of all the available jobs in your area, that can get you enough money to not starve. Then you would work it would you not? However, it is not neccessary for people to do such things.

A direct democracy.

Gotcha.

huh?

If that person was trying to kill your kids, by all means. Kill the slimy bastard, and if the police give you trouble, I'll walk up to them and tell them you were in Cambodia at the time of death.

And if I want someone to be killed because I like to see people's head blown off would I be justified then?

Got a bottle of A-1 sauce right here.

For the last page or so you were deriding my "lack of direct influence" in government. "Oh, BasketCase, you feel so special having only 1/100 millionth of the total voice".

You just admitted you were wrong to do that. So I should have 1/100 millionth of the total voice? That was what I said in the first place.

In your system each individuals vote should count for ~1/100millionth. I'm saying that in general though, that is not a good system.

All the decisions the voter should be making--yes.

So the mayor counts just as much as a common person?

Actually, no. I didn't accuse your system.

I accused YOU.

Interesting, who and how am I dictating?

OK, so there's only one governmental body, which can only hear cases for citizenship or "harm," and every member of the community is a member of this governing body. (This is a pure rather than representational democracy, right?)

I assume you are implying the dissolution of any kind of federal authority?

Yes, I can see problems with this model.

The #1 problem is that members of the community wouldn't have time to sit around all day every day hearing and voting on cases. What would happen is most people wouldn't bother showing up (since they obviously have better things to do), and the few people who DO show up would then have the authority to make decisions with FAR less than a majority. Also, once the governing body makes a ruling, who enforces it?

For example, if 10 people out of 100 show up to a hearing, and if 6 out those 10 make a "majority ruling," you end up with a situation where 6% of the population is speaking for the entire community. Who, then, carries out the will of that 6%?

Problem #2 is when an organized military shows up with enough force to subjugate the individual communities. End of government.

#1 As I said the enforcing entity is the community ("decides which action to take" and "the authority is the entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm"). In order to really get decisions that are actually functional you need wide group participation. Without that than everyone isn't protected from harm, which gives them incentive to participate.
#2 that problems goes for any society

That's why we nuke the swiss and their damn chocolate bars and knives.

If you are nuking the Swiss, something has gone horribly astray.