A question to Communists:

[BasketCase]

Lemme back up a little:

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.

huh?

You said it yourself: "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."

Note the boldface word there. The decentralized government MUST be composed of all people able to communicate in the community.

You MUST have this. But what if nobody wants to produce it? Then you have to force them. Is that justified? Be careful how you answer this.....you painted yourself into a corner, after all:

If no wishes to produce, than one isn't justified in getting them to.

I see no need to bother answering the rest, because I've got you over a barrel with just this one tidbit.

 

[greenpeace]

Lemme back up a little:




You said it yourself: "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."

Note the boldface word there. The decentralized government MUST be composed of all people able to communicate in the community.

You MUST have this. But what if nobody wants to produce it?

When you say "it" to you mean produce a government/ produce decisions?
I so then (if not tell what you mean then):
Well the government is composed of all the communicating people, but there are no requirements tfor particpation. So although you are a part of the government, in this system you don't have to participate.

 

[BasketCase]

Then you cannot say this:

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.

 

[greenpeace]

Then you cannot say this:

How so? All members of the community have the right to participate in the community's government, how is that contradictory?

 

[Gecko1]

How so? All members of the community have the right to participate in the community's government, how is that contradictory?

Because the buissness doesn't like the community. The buissness wants the community's land and goods.

 

[greenpeace]

Because the buissness doesn't like the community. The buissness wants the community's land and goods.

What business?

 

[BasketCase]

How so? All members of the community have the right to participate in the community's government, how is that contradictory?

You didn't answer the question.

But what if nobody wants to produce it?

("Producing" a government may sound a little screwy--think it over, governments take work just like anything else)

By your own rules, if nobody wants to produce something, it's not worth producing.......

 

[onedreamer]

You're a nitwit if you think personal experience > facts.

you're an hopeless naive victim of low level propaganda if you think TOLD facts > personal experience.

 

[onedreamer]

I can testify from personal experience that this isn't the way it works.

My first two jobs were in software development, and I made significantly more money than I am now. Now, can you explain to me how you exploit people by writing software for them???

At the end of that second software job I got tired of the high stress level (actually, it was affecting my health, and not in a good way) so I went for a lower-paying job which is stress-free and also lets me post in here and play World of Warcraft at work.

I am currently poor, relative to my previous job. Yet I never exploited any poor people at either one. Why am I currently poor? Because of a choice I made.

You don't get rich by exploiting poor people. Sure, you can take money from poor people, but where did the poor people get their money from to begin with??? You get rich by doing work, plain and simple. Getting rich by stealing from the poor is the exception, not the rule. And it's a pretty stupid way to get rich. A far better way to get rich is to steal from the rich.

These are the silliest economic arguments ever. It seems a 12 years old child is speaking. You don't even have the minimal knowledge of what is the world economy and how it works, or you never asked yourlsef where did your employer take the money to pay you, how is that money available and where it comes from , etc etc.

 

[onedreamer]

I have to agree that i Capitalism gaining wealth does not always mean exploitation (at least not directly). If I give you capital I created myself for doing something you really love to so, thats certainly not exploiting anyone. My qualm is that this certainly does not always happen (in fact its unfortunantely rare).

In short let's read it like this: I made money but didn't make anyone poor directly. Or at least I just think so, or I didn't notice because I just don't care. Anyways, let's assume I became richer and none became poor or poorer as a direct consequence of my actions. So, it's all fine, Capitalism is good because it made me make money.

WOOHOOO !!! Way to go man.

 

[onedreamer]

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".

Like I said Capitalism started when the primitive started saving and accumulating stuff, and then land. Apparently americans claim that they invented Capitalism and that Free Market and Globalization are the same as Capitalism.

 

[greenpeace]

You didn't answer the question.

("Producing" a government may sound a little screwy--think it over, governments take work just like anything else)

By your own rules, if nobody wants to produce something, it's not worth producing.......

Oh, I understand what your saying. Well if nobody wanted to take the effort of producing the very minimal amount of government structure, then the government would dissolve and the society would not be my system. In other words if the group doesn't want my society they don't get it. Same things somewhat holds true for other governments, except they can use incentive to keep it together. This also applies to the individual citizen too since if they don't want to be apart of the system they don't have to be apart of it.

I mean you basically just said if citizens don't want my system they won't have it. Which I think is a good thing because that way they aren't forced into a political system they don't want.

In short let's read it like this: I made money but didn't make anyone poor directly. Or at least I just think so, or I didn't notice because I just don't care. Anyways, let's assume I became richer and none became poor or poorer as a direct consequence of my actions. So, it's all fine, Capitalism is good because it made me make money.

WOOHOOO !!! Way to go man.

These are the silliest political arguments ever. It seems a 12 years old child is speaking. You don't even have the minimal knowledge of what I'm talking about and what I mean, or you never asked yourlsef what conclusions I made, entertained the thought that I made no conclusions other than its possible to take an action in Cpaitalistic society that does not harm another person, etc., etc.

(in case you didn't notice this is a an edited version of onedreamerer's post towards Basketcase).

 

[BasketCase]

Oh, I understand what your saying. Well if nobody wanted to take the effort of producing the very minimal amount of government structure, then the government would dissolve and the society would not be my system.

Go take a look at a real election in detail and you'll get an idea of how much work it really takes to run even a small government. Elections alone are a huge amount of work--to print and distribute the ballots, make sure nobody tries to vote more than once, receive and count the balllots, prevent the counters from rigging the election.....

This also applies to the individual citizen too since if they don't want to be apart of the system they don't have to be apart of it.

But you said any other system besides yours is harmful.

You started out with a definition of harm and a fairly strict set of rules describing the kind of governments people are permitted to live under. The general tone of most of your posts has been the opposite of what you said above--you've been saying people should be living your way, and if they're not, then they're bad people.

Instead, Democracy does it this way: it defines the government instead of the laws. The U.S. Constitution does start by outlining some basic rules about what most people want, but instead of saying "thou shalt not X", the Constitution outlines how the government will work. It outlines things the government is not permitted to do. Such as impose state religions. Then the citizens use the government to figure out for themselves how to prevent people from being harmed (and, indeed, what is and is not "harm" to begin with).

Here's a basic rule I start from: people should always have the right to speak their opinions without being shot, and should always be allowed to have a say (i.e. a vote) in choosing who will govern them. Everybody MUST have these rights. Whether they want them or not. If you don't want them, don't exercise them (I myself haven't voted since 1992).

Democracy doesn't tell other countries how to live.


However, deposing dictators so those other countries can decide for themselves--I'm all fine and dandy with that.


@onedreamer: No, I'm not 12 years old, but any 12-year-old could dismember your arguments with little difficulty. If you think jumping in here and incinerating everybody is going to accomplish anything, it won't. I know this because I jump into random threads and torch people all the time. Mostly just for fun.

 

[greenpeace]

Go take a look at a real election in detail and you'll get an idea of how much work it really takes to run even a small government. Elections alone are a huge amount of work--to print and distribute the ballots, make sure nobody tries to vote more than once, receive and count the balllots, prevent the counters from rigging the election.....

Your system requires tons and tons of work. Mine really only requires a meeting place for a community to debate and voting probably wouldn't be that great a deal to operate (since the amount of votes is drastically less).

But you said any other system besides yours is harmful.

I also said that a community can have no jurisdiction over the actions of other against others and I also said it is illegal to force people to do anything unless they are a community member commiting harm.

You started out with a definition of harm and a fairly strict set of rules describing the kind of governments people are permitted to live under. The general tone of most of your posts has been the opposite of what you said above--you've been saying people should be living your way, and if they're not, then they're bad people.

I absolutely never said that anyone in the group would ever be legally able to impose anything on people who are opposed to the system, nor do I believe in "bad people."

Instead, Democracy does it this way: it defines the government instead of the laws. The U.S. Constitution does start by outlining some basic rules about what most people want, but instead of saying "thou shalt not X", the Constitution outlines how the government will work. It outlines things the government is not permitted to do. Such as impose state religions. Then the citizens use the government to figure out for themselves how to prevent people from being harmed (and, indeed, what is and is not "harm" to begin with).

Well, I believe one should be allowed to do whatever they want except interfere with others ability to do whatever they want. Most people want to do whatever they want and if they want others to do what they want according to me it isn't justified. However, you may easily disagree with the "according to me" part, and the beauty of this system is that it offers the least possible resistance to people exiting the system (in fact it encourages people to leave due to its definition of harm). This means 100% of the people approve the definiton of harm. Your system on the other hand goes by majority on this fundamental and important issue and does not neccessarily encourage such disobediant behavior.

Here's a basic rule I start from: people should always have the right to speak their opinions without being shot, and should always be allowed to have a say (i.e. a vote) in choosing who will govern them. Everybody MUST have these rights. Whether they want them or not. If you don't want them, don't exercise them (I myself haven't voted since 1992).

Well, you still get all those rights in my society only they don't have to be ruled over. Of course, some may want others to rule over them so they may allow the rest of the community to do so (by not participating in government). If someone truly only wants to decide who will rule over them, well they have your system to go to.

Democracy doesn't tell other countries how to live.

Actually my system outright illegalizes that whereas your system has changed other peoples' government system.

However, deposing dictators so those other countries can decide for themselves--I'm all fine and dandy with that.

What if a group of people who lived in America and then decided for themselves (without any brainwashing or even arguements from others) that they wished to form a society that was a dictatorship where the dictator had absoute power except he/she was not allowed to keep people from leaving the society? That way you would know that everyone wanted that system, and you would simply be killing people for living the way they want to live.

Hm, I feel as if I quoted you and did not reply to the quote but I can't find the place. Just tell me if that is so.

 

[Gecko1]

Who's winning?

 

[greenpeace]

Who's winning?

[stereotypicalanswer]This isn't a game, its an exchange of ideas where everone wins[/stereotypicalanswer]
I have to admit I love your posts Gecko, they're spammy in such a lovely way.
But yeah, thats true I'm not trying to "win" an arguement and Basketcase is just stress testing Capitalism (nobody really wins an experiment), much like I am "stress testing" my beliefs.

 

[Gecko1]

[stereotypicalanswer]This isn't a game, its an exchange of ideas where everone wins[/stereotypicalanswer]
I have to admit I love your posts Gecko, they're spammy in such a lovely way.
But yeah, thats true I'm not trying to "win" an arguement and Basketcase is just stress testing Capitalism (nobody really wins an experiment), much like I am "stress testing" my beliefs.

This entire thread means nothing to me, you two are just bickering, so I guess I'll just spam it once in a while. Don't you guys have jobs or something, you guys may need a life more than I do.

 

[bardolph]

Like I said Capitalism started when the primitive started saving and accumulating stuff, and then land.

Not quite. Feudalism, for example, is not Capitalism.

Capitalism means that parties other than the government own land. By "own," I mean they have an essential right to deny access to other people.

Capitalism also assumes that one of government's essential duties is to protect the property rights of those private owners. That means, once I build a fence around "my" property, anyone who enters my property is now considered a "trespasser" and shall be punished by the government (or, at the very least, the government will allow me to do enforce my own boundaries by harassing or harming these trespassers).

While Capitalism does extend to "stuff," it's really LAND that forms the basis of the Capitalist system.

Apparently americans claim that they invented Capitalism and that Free Market and Globalization are the same as Capitalism.

Actually, it's the British who hold this claim. While Free Market and Globalization are both compatible with Capitalism, neither of these is the same as Capitalism. Goods do not need to be built in privately-owned factories in order to be exchanged freely, and many non-Capitalist economies certainly participate in the global marketplace.

 

[bardolph]

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?
...
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").

"the community" is a lazy answer. It's not like a town of 10,000 people all simultaneously pick up a hammer to hit the same person. Someone has to actually do the work to carry out the judgment of the ruling authority, whether that is building and administering jails, banishing or executing someone, returning stolen property, bringing people to trial, etc. Sometimes this work (especially when it comes to justice actions) is extremely unpleasant or even violent. What happens when the designated "peace officer" disagrees with a legitimate vote to execute someone?

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.

This is exactly the problem. Let's say that, in a community of 10,000 people, Joe steals Bob's horse. How many people do you actually expect to show up to listen to this case and vote on it? 10? 20? 100? Surely you don't expect a majority of the citizens to show up to this trial, do you?

Now, what happens when there are 100 different disputes, all happening at the same time? Who hears which trial? How many people participate in votes? Do the hearings happen one at a time? How long does a grievance stay "in the system" before it is heard, and what do the parties do in the meantime?

Another huge problem is that you can "win" virtually any case by simply dragging enough votes to your hearing to come vote for you, which means if you are popular or well-connected or rich, you can easily get away with murder. Especially if you just kill everyone who knew your victim, so that no one is left to vote on their behalf.

What will inevitably happen is that only a small number of people will actually be able to afford to hang around in court all day, waiting to vote on the dozens or hundreds of cases that might be pending at any one time: the wealthy, the power-hungry, and the idle.

Actual productive members of society -- the farmers, craftsmen, and professionals who spend their time doing their jobs, will be the ones who have the LEAST amount of say in this government, and will be the MOST likely to get totally shafted by the "law."

#2 that problems goes for any society

No. It only applies to societies that are significantly weaker militarily than their neighbors, or that have no allies to help defend them. Your completely decentralized society is not just weak, it's SUPER weak, and would probably be attacked by an aggressive neighbor in a matter of weeks, not years. Simply put, localized communities can't raise armies.

 

[Newbunkle]

Happy Birthday Greenpeace, LOL