A question to Communists:

[greenpeace]

So can someone give someone else a gift?

It depends on you definition of "gift." If you mean just giving people something than not really because then the person being gifted could just "gift" back continuesly (sp?) such that it is basically trade/wage
Gifts would have to be genuinely gifts. The definition of a genuine gift would be that in an exchange of gifts in which neither party expects/has a (un)written contract to receive something in return.
In other words as long as the gifts aren't turned into "artificial" incentive than there is no problem.

 

[BasketCase]

I know that, and as long as the object in question isn't the basics I'm saying they are only entitled to get so long as people want to produce it for them.

Then how are we gonna have computers and an Internet, Sherlock?

You said it yourself: you're trying to preserve freedoms and prevent governments from controlling you. Well, guess what? What's the sharpest sword with which to preserve freedom? Information. What's the best way to control people? Control of information.

You need the Internet, Greenpeace. Where are you going to get the computers and the servers and the hubs and the ethernet cable? People aren't just going to make all that stuff because they want to. Takes hundreds of people and dozens of industries working in coordination.

You have to have computers and an Internet to truly preserve your freedoms, Greenpeace. Which means you have to INSURE THAT THEY ARE MADE. And pow: you're going to end up having to dangle incentives in front of people.


I keep telling you you're chasing a chimera. Tilting at windmills. Trying to do the impossible.

 

[greenpeace]

Then how are we gonna have computers and an Internet, Sherlock?

You said it yourself: you're trying to preserve freedoms and prevent governments from controlling you. Well, guess what? What's the sharpest sword with which to preserve freedom? Information. What's the best way to control people? Control of information.

You need the Internet, Greenpeace. Where are you going to get the computers and the servers and the hubs and the ethernet cable? People aren't just going to make all that stuff because they want to. Takes hundreds of people and dozens of industries working in coordination.

You have to have computers and an Internet to truly preserve your freedoms, Greenpeace. Which means you have to INSURE THAT THEY ARE MADE. And pow: you're going to end up having to dangle incentives in front of people.


I keep telling you you're chasing a chimera. Tilting at windmills. Trying to do the impossible.

The internet is not absolutely vital, there is no huge government to take repressive action, its just a local group of people deciding whether or not someone harmed someone else that the internet couldn't really solve for. Of course the internet can be useful, but whether or not its useful enough to warrant building and maintaining it is up to the citizens.

edit: tp back up my point further, your system much more heavily relys on the passing of information since it has a central authority. However, it existed relatively free for its first ~280 years (well at least for the eligable voters) and the advent of the internet has not changed the negative side of government (power corruption) that significantly.

edit: in addition there is much less incentive for information providers to skew information in this society because people can't give incentive to skew information.

 

[BasketCase]

The internet is not absolutely vital

Yes it is.

Before the Thirteen Colonies broke away and formed the U.S., a favorite tactic of the British King was to hold meetings with representatives of the States in ENGLAND--forcing U.S. representatives to travel long distances to discuss policy.

Many times throughout history, wars have continued or sometimes even re-started after a peace treaty was signed, because nobody was able to inform the battling armies that a peace treaty had been signed until after they were already flinging trebuchet salvos at each other.

One of the reasons George Bush Sr. got such high approval ratings for his handling of the 1991 Iraq War was control of information. The news media were strictly prevented from seeing any Vietnam-style war horrors that the administration didn't want us to see. You get away with inflicting harm by making sure there are no witnesses. The Internet provides witnesses.

The Internet is also essential for allowing me to instantly get my hands on your idealistic delusion and crush it before it harms anybody.


The Internet--the free and quick exchange of information--is essential. And when it did not exist, the human race suffered grievously.

 

[greenpeace]

Yes it is.

Before the Thirteen Colonies broke away and formed the U.S., a favorite tactic of the British King was to hold meetings with representatives of the States in ENGLAND--forcing U.S. representatives to travel long distances to discuss policy.

Many times throughout history, wars have continued or sometimes even re-started after a peace treaty was signed, because nobody was able to inform the battling armies that a peace treaty had been signed until after they were already flinging trebuchet salvos at each other.

One of the reasons George Bush Sr. got such high approval ratings for his handling of the 1991 Iraq War was control of information. The news media were strictly prevented from seeing any Vietnam-style war horrors that the administration didn't want us to see. You get away with inflicting harm by making sure there are no witnesses. The Internet provides witnesses.

The Internet is also essential for allowing me to instantly get my hands on your idealistic delusion and crush it before it harms anybody.


The Internet--the free and quick exchange of information--is essential. And when it did not exist, the human race suffered grievously.

But those examples where there was an elite power trying to increase its power. There is no real elite authority trying to cover itself up because the there is no elite ruling authority in the first place.

 

[BasketCase]

If it's trying to cover itself up, how do you know it's there.....?

The Internet is also essential so that we can quickly spread news about true-name fraud and how to stop it. So that we can quickly inform owners of 2002 Ford Rangers that their gas tank has a structural defect that could cause the vehicle to explode. So that we can get missing child alerts out to as many people as possible as fast as possible. So that we can get samples every sixty seconds from thermometers planted all over the nation to try and figure out if global warming is happening, and how fast.

Want more?

Edit: so that we can instantly get a look at Janet Jackson's pompoms when she has a wardrobe malfunction while performing live with Justin Timberlake. You know--IMPORTANT STUFF.

 

[greenpeace]

If it's trying to cover itself up, how do you know it's there.....?

If they are so secret tht nobody knows them, the internet won't solve it.

The Internet is also essential so that we can quickly spread news about true-name fraud and how to stop it. So that we can quickly inform owners of 2002 Ford Rangers that their gas tank has a structural defect that could cause the vehicle to explode. So that we can get missing child alerts out to as many people as possible as fast as possible. So that we can get samples every sixty seconds from thermometers planted all over the nation to try and figure out if global warming is happening, and how fast.

Want more?

Well, yes in those cases its definently useful but its not vital as human history shows.

 

[BasketCase]

If they are so secret tht nobody knows them, the internet won't solve it.

The Internet makes it easier for those who know to get the word out. It used to be that a dictator could clamp an iron curtain (not the Soviet one) around their nation and lock it up drum tight. No more. The Internet is allowing oppressed peoples to both get information out and receive news about what's really happening in the world and how their government is lying to them.

The Internet is making it a lot harder for bad people to keep secrets.

Well, yes in those cases its definently useful but its not vital as human history shows.

I listed only a few examples out of many.

 

[greenpeace]

The Internet makes it easier for those who know to get the word out. It used to be that a dictator could clamp an iron curtain (not the Soviet one) around their nation and lock it up drum tight. No more. The Internet is allowing oppressed peoples to both get information out and receive news about what's really happening in the world and how their government is lying to them.

The Internet is making it a lot harder for bad people to keep secrets.

But this isn't a dictaroship, and the chance of it becoming is so incredibly small that the internet isn't going to help much.

I listed only a few examples out of many.

But your point is moot, since its desirable for people to use, but not vital to the system.

 

[BasketCase]

But this isn't a dictaroship, and the chance of it becoming is so incredibly small that the internet isn't going to help much.

Irrelevant. The Internet makes it harder for George Bush Jr. and evil corporations to get away with stuff too.

But your point is moot, since its desirable for people to use, but not vital to the system.

The Internet is vital to the system.

 

[greenpeace]

Irrelevant. The Internet makes it harder for George Bush Jr. and evil corporations to get away with stuff too.

In my system there is no George Bush Jr. or anyone who has any position at all similar to his.

The Internet is vital to the system.

USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
Oh sorry I though it was make unbacked statements day.
I mean how is it vital in that context?

 

[BasketCase]

I already described how vital the Internet is. Lemme guess, you want me to quote forty million examples??? Dude, I AM AT WORK RIGHT NOW, I don't have that kind of time.

In my system there is no George Bush Jr. or anyone who has any position at all similar to his.

Of course there is. There's you. I don't know you. You could be Saddam Hussein's second-in-command for all I know.

 

[greenpeace]

I already described how vital the Internet is. Lemme guess, you want me to quote forty million examples??? Dude, I AM AT WORK RIGHT NOW, I don't have that kind of time.

How many times do I have to repeat this: all those functions are extremely useful, but the society can run and exist without them. If people want it so much they are willing to produce it with the only incentive of its existance than it will be attempted to be built, but if thats not the case it doesn't matter because none of the functions of the society depend on it.

Of course there is. There's you. I don't know you. You could be Saddam Hussein's second-in-command for all I know.

But in the society I, and every single citizen, does not have a dictator's position of power, or any power more than anyone else.

 

[BasketCase]

How many times do I have to repeat this: all those functions are extremely useful, but the society can run and exist without them.

Sure. People can live in a log cabin and wait six months for a letter from the relatives in Spain.

I'm just fine and dandy with my use of the word "essential".

But in the society I, and every single citizen, does not have a dictator's position of power, or any power more than anyone else.

Then who's supervising the elections? Who's gathering up the ballots and watchdogging their transportation to make sure nobody changes them? Those people are the ones with the power.

The potential for abuse and dictatorial meddling will always exist. If no authority exists, then the person with the biggest muscles will be the dictator. You keep grasping for the impossible. We need the Internet to watchdog the watchdogs.

Hell, on the Internet nobody has any real authority except the people controlling individual switches and web sites--and the system can sidestep those people easily. The Internet is the closest thing to your idealistic system that we will ever see.

 

[Evil Muppet]

Thanks for the answers Greenpeace. I'm going to have to read it properly later though.

 

[greenpeace]

Sure. People can live in a log cabin and wait six months for a letter from the relatives in Spain.

I'm just fine and dandy with my use of the word "essential".

Then who's supervising the elections? Who's gathering up the ballots and watchdogging their transportation to make sure nobody changes them? Those people are the ones with the power.

There are at the very max only a few hundred voters in the communities (since communities are most likely very small). You could easily craft a voting system that does not have this potential for abuse.

The potential for abuse and dictatorial meddling will always exist. If no authority exists, then the person with the biggest muscles will be the dictator. You keep grasping for the impossible. We need the Internet to watchdog the watchdogs.

First of all, there is an authority, second how has America had elections for the past 200 years, third the decisions the community makes as a whole are so simple that the internet couldn't possibly help.

Hell, on the Internet nobody has any real authority except the people controlling individual switches and web sites--and the system can sidestep those people easily. The Internet is the closest thing to your idealistic system that we will ever see.

Um no, where did I ever say no formal authority? And since when were people allowed to have whatever definition of harm that suits them as long as it follows American law?

 

[BasketCase]

There are at the very max only a few hundred voters in the communities (since communities are most likely very small). You could easily craft a voting system that does not have this potential for abuse.

You go right ahead and describe that system to me.

I will find a way to abuse it and put a candidate of my choosing into office.

Are you game?

 

[greenpeace]

You go right ahead and describe that system to me.

I will find a way to abuse it and put a candidate of my choosing into office.

Are you game?

Its the same one I've been talking about this whole time but I'll quote myself:
quote:
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 two 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.

edit: undid the "quote" around the society laws so it would be included when its quoted.

 

[BasketCase]

No no no.

You could easily craft a voting system that does not have this potential for abuse.

Let's see your un-abusable voting system. Describe it to me.

 

[greenpeace]

No no no.


Let's see your un-abusable voting system. Describe it to me.

Ok, I got this one from a text book on Athenian democracy:
Before people are to go to vote it is shown that two boxes are completely empty and then visibly sealed. Then people form a line. One person stands in front of the line and visibly hands each person one token. Then each person drops the token in one of the boxes through a slit that makes it impossible to take out other's votes. When the token audibly hits the box/the tokens in the box, the next person goes up and then the next, etc. At the end the boxes are taken out and opened in front of everyone and the votes are then visibly counted by everyone.