A question to Communists:

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

I still don't understand how not allowing people to do harm is censoring.

I never said it wasn't...

Everyone has the right to make a choice up until they make a choice that doesn't allow those around them to make their own (Murder, Slavery, Ect.) Then they should be locked up and duely dealt with.

 

[greenpeace]

I never said it wasn't...

Everyone has the right to make a choice up until they make a choice that doesn't allow those around them to make their own (Murder, Slavery, Ect.) Then they should be locked up and duely dealt with.

So how is this society censoring the greedy?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

So how is this society censoring the greedy?

Tell me...

When you do a puzzle and a peice doesn't fit, do you just hammer it in?

My society will not attempt to censor greed, but rather try and negate the negative effects it has as bestwe can.

 

[greenpeace]

Tell me...

When you do a puzzle and a peice doesn't fit, do you just hammer it in?

My society will not attempt to censor greed, but rather try and negate the negative effects it has as bestwe can.

I think we have different definitions of greed. I'm saying if you try to offer incentives to others to get them to work against their will, thats greedy. If someone wants to do that thenthey want to cause harm. Nobody whould be allowed to cause hamr, even if they want to. I mean, if someone wanted to go around hitting people in the face you could say its hammering in a puzzle piece to forbid the, but in that case its neccesary (and even then, if they really don't like it they can leave and go to a place where that is allowed).
If your defining greed as hording non-essentials you produce, then couldn't you also say its greedy to get the non-essentials others produce? In which case its impossible to prevent greed? Because in that situation, if the materials beings produced are completely non-essential then I say they have the right to do whatever they want with them (except offer them as incentives or harm people in any other way with them).

 

[BasketCase]

Actually I meant some of what I said in that from here on out there is no returning to a barter economy.

When we did have a barter economy, people simply hoarded up whatever was being bartered and charged exhorbitant prices. And sometimes backed up their words with weapons. It's not the money that is the problem.

Money is merely an intermediate form of barter. If you're a car salesman, you don't actually have to bring a bunch of cars to market and sell them in a stall. Money solves the problem of how you're going to trade one four-thousandth of a car to a cobbler when you only need one pair of shoes in return. Money provides a wonderful level of convenience to all of us.

Money is not the problem. It's the scapegoat.

 

[BasketCase]

I have said this so many times. Of course there are going to be incentives from nature, I'm saying that you shouldn't be given "artificial" incentives

Many intelligent animals woo potential mates with food. Labor and paychecks exist in the wild.

Offering somebody money to work for you is a natural incentive. And it is not harm. If you refuse to take the job, you're no worse off than you were before--any harm that exists in the equation already existed before the job was offered.

You're hungry. Some guy walks up to you and offers you ten bucks to wash his car. If you wash his car, you are no longer hungry. Pain is taken away.

Incentives are not always forms of harm. I don't care how hard you flail away, I will never accept your definition.

 

[BasketCase]

Simple, the boss position doesn't exist in the first place

Wrong. This is the REAL WORLD, Greenpeace--I wasn't talking about whatever idyllic fantasy you're lost in.

This is the real world, and you either have a job now, or you will get one. Mark my words. You will get a job. Oh, and when you do, think of me.

And when you get that job, you will demand a paycheck from your boss. Either your boss gives you money, or you will quit. That IS how it WILL be. That is you using incentives to force your boss to do what you want.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

*sigh* as usual in these sorts of threads, my post gets ignored.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

*sigh* as usual in these sorts of threads, my post gets ignored.

Not really...

Think of it like this:

Basketcase and Greenpeace are basketball players. Me and you are spectators yelling out advise and occasional insults We aren't really ignored... They're just to busy to really respond.

Even the ones I post usually get swallowed up as Basketcase or Greenpeace go on with their arguement.

 

[greenpeace]

*sigh* as usual in these sorts of threads, my post gets ignored.

I'm sorry, its just that I basically agreed.

Wrong. This is the REAL WORLD, Greenpeace--I wasn't talking about whatever idyllic fantasy you're lost in.

This is the real world, and you either have a job now, or you will get one. Mark my words. You will get a job. Oh, and when you do, think of me.

And when you get that job, you will demand a paycheck from your boss. Either your boss gives you money, or you will quit. That IS how it WILL be. That is you using incentives to force your boss to do what you want.

Huh? Bosses, aren't a neccessity (except, of course, in Capitalism and in certain types of games).

 

[greenpeace]

edit: oops, sorry I didn't mean to double post, I meant to add it back into the original, but forgot by the time I finished the post.

Many intelligent animals woo potential mates with food. Labor and paychecks exist in the wild.

Offering somebody money to work for you is a natural incentive. And it is not harm. If you refuse to take the job, you're no worse off than you were before--any harm that exists in the equation already existed before the job was offered.

You're hungry. Some guy walks up to you and offers you ten bucks to wash his car. If you wash his car, you are no longer hungry. Pain is taken away.

Incentives are not always forms of harm. I don't care how hard you flail away, I will never accept your definition.

Just answer me these two questions, is prostitution, which comes about from positive incentive, not harm to the person selling their body, even though they would not do so if it weren't for the positive incentive?
Also, what do you say of the 1800's when little children spent their entire day and childhood working away at factories, for the positive incentive of money?

 

[BasketCase]

Wait, wait, stop everything.

(Yes, this is gonna be yet another post aimed at Greenpeace, I seem to be obsessing on him for some reason)

This whole time, GP has been chanting the line that incentives are bad, and he said more than once that he meant incentives offered by people--that "natural" incentives such as that hungry feeling in your stomach are okay.


I never thought to ask--why?

What is it that makes "natural" incentives good, and "artificial" ones (i.e. incentives offered from one person to another) bad??

Is it because "artificial" ones are one person trying to control another? So what??? Natural incentives are also forms of control. What's the actual thing or quality that makes natural control okay?

 

[BasketCase]

Just answer me these two questions, is prostitution, which comes about from positive incentive, not harm to the person selling their body

No.

That's positive incentive being misused. I consider the practice despicable because it manipulates positive emotions, and also because it doesn't produce anything. Except maybe unwanted children.

When somebody is murdered, you don't throw the gun in prison for life. You punish the person who pulled the trigger.

It is not positive incentive that is bad--it is the misuse of it. And in that, you're certainly right--positive incentives can be abused. That doesn't mean positive incentives are bad.

Also, what do you say of the 1800's when little children spent their entire day and childhood working away at factories, for the positive incentive of money?

Before this, people generally lived on farms and fended for themselves. Why do you think so many people switched to factory work? Because it was an improvement over the previous alternatives.

 

[greenpeace]

Wait, wait, stop everything.

(Yes, this is gonna be yet another post aimed at Greenpeace, I seem to be obsessing on him for some reason)

This whole time, GP has been chanting the line that incentives are bad, and he said more than once that he meant incentives offered by people--that "natural" incentives such as that hungry feeling in your stomach are okay.


I never thought to ask--why?

What is it that makes "natural" incentives good, and "artificial" ones (i.e. incentives offered from one person to another) bad??

Is it because "artificial" ones are one person trying to control another? So what??? Natural incentives are also forms of control. What's the actual thing or quality that makes natural control okay?

Well mainly its that its impossible to not have these "natural" incentives without killing yourself.

No.

That's positive incentive being misused. I consider the practice despicable because it manipulates positive emotions, and also because it doesn't produce anything. Except maybe unwanted children.

When somebody is murdered, you don't throw the gun in prison for life. You punish the person who pulled the trigger.

It is not positive incentive that is bad--it is the misuse of it. And in that, you're certainly right--positive incentives can be abused. That doesn't mean positive incentives are bad.

But if you allow positive incentives they are going to be misused, unless you have some wishy-washy ideal that everybody will use them just for good (how one can use them for good, I have no idea).

Before this, people generally lived on farms and fended for themselves. Why do you think so many people switched to factory work? Because it was an improvement over the previous alternatives.

Even if it was better (which I doubt), it still could be improved upon by just getting rid of positive incentives all together (well actually in that case it was so horrendous that they decided to remove that paticular job, but same concept applies).

What I mean is, the only reason you would use positive incentives is to get people to do something they otherwise wouldn't do or in otherwords, something thats against their will.

 

[BasketCase]

Aaaaand....yet another Greenpeace-obsessing post.

This one's about "natural" vs. "artificial" incentives again. I'll go ahead and use your definitions in here, Greenpeace. Just for clarity.

We've already been around the block about both kinds. Natural incentives being those imposed by your empty stomach and the like.

Now, before civilization came along and "artificial" incentives were invented, what incentives existed for people? Hunger, of course. Plus we had to be wary of predators.

I'll keep it short and sweet: I vastly prefer the "threat" of losing my paycheck over getting torn to shreds and eaten alive by a mountain lion. In today's modern world, I am at zero risk of being eaten by mountain lions, and hunger is something I never worry about. I say I'm better off with artificial incentives. I say you have it all backwards--I say it is artificial incentives that are good, and natural incentives that are bad.

Errrr....natural incentives are mostly bad, but there's one glaring exception.


Edit: and, no--once again I didn't read any of your previous posts before writing this.

Re-edit: You, Greenpeace, will not agree with me--in words. You will agree with me in your actions. You go right ahead and blab all you like in here. When push comes to shove, rather than living in a log cabin in Montana and growing your own food, you're going to have a job and a paycheck and you're going to put up with those evil "artificial incentives" because you will find them preferable to the alternatives.

Re-re-edit: Naah, just kidding, no more edits. Honest. Seriously. I'm done. Really.

Re-re-re-edit: What the heck, I'll throw in the full text of the U.S. Constitution for kicks:

Spoiler :

Hee hee.

 

[greenpeace]

There have been artificial incentives (mainly you do this or I bash in your skull or give you off-spring) before "civilization" (meaning non-nomadic farm-based structured groups) and there can be civilization without them. Just because a greater amount of people will but a certain non-zero amount of time doing essentials doesn't mean everyones a caveman (in fact, as I mentioned cavemen used artificial incentives). The assertion that the society would be a couple people on a farm is wrong. You can have rather large groups of people spending a relatively small amount of time doing essential things (its smaller because many more people are doing them so for each individual they have less to do). People can (and certainly have the incentive) invent and use new technology and expand the human race.

And if your not reading my posts, why bother debating?

 

[BasketCase]

*sigh* as usual in these sorts of threads, my post gets ignored.

Looks like someone needs a hug.

Yes, I did read your post. I didn't reply because "me too" posts are, well, kinda considered bad taste.

.....wait a minute.....I never had good taste to begin with.....

Short version: I agree, the world is not ready for Communism--and if all the participants wanted it (or if there was an election which approved it) fine and dandy. But socialist and Communist agendas universally fare very poorly in elections. Most of the people simply do not want either.

 

[BasketCase]

Well mainly its that its impossible to not have these "natural" incentives without killing yourself.

So what??? Just because it's impossible to get rid of something has no bearing on whether it's good or bad. Murder is bad, but it's impossible to completely eliminate murder from our lives. Luke Skywalker is good--and he's definitely unstoppable. No way to get rid of him. Rap music is horrible, but we're never getting rid of that. And, of course, there's no way we're ever going to stop people from having sex.

And, of course, sex is awesome.

So, you're going to have to come up with a much better answer. What's the actual quality that makes natural incentives good, and artificial ones bad?

But if you allow positive incentives they are going to be misused

Life itself can be abused--and frequently is. Yet you refuse to commit suicide (I can tell that because you keep posting in here ). Just because something can be misused is far from enough.

What I mean is, the only reason you would use positive incentives is to get people to do something they otherwise wouldn't do or in otherwords, something thats against their will.

Making people do things against their will isn't (always) bad; your own system requires an authority, if only to make sure no other authorities exist--that, in itself, constrains people who want to overthrow your system--you force dissidents to live in your system against their will.

You cannot allow people to always own their own will, because some people will want to harm others or overthrow your own system and replace it with, say, a BasketCasership. Which gets back to my original point: just because it's unavoidable has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad.


Forcing people to do things against their will is not (always) bad.

 

[BasketCase]

And if your not reading my posts

Because maybe somebody else is.

 

[greenpeace]

So what??? Just because it's impossible to get rid of something has no bearing on whether it's good or bad. Murder is bad, but it's impossible to completely eliminate murder from our lives. Luke Skywalker is good--and he's definitely unstoppable. No way to get rid of him. Rap music is horrible, but we're never getting rid of that. And, of course, there's no way we're ever going to stop people from having sex.

Well, I'm saying its pointless to say its either good or bad because no matter what we say, we can't stop ourselves from being hungry without food or death.

So, you're going to have to come up with a much better answer. What's the actual quality that makes natural incentives good, and artificial ones bad?

I'm not saying their good or bad (although I will admit that last post could have been alot clearer).

Life itself can be abused--and frequently is. Yet you refuse to commit suicide (I can tell that because you keep posting in here ). Just because something can be misused is far from enough.

Again, even if something can be better doesn't mean you have to kill yourself, so its pointles using suicide over and over again.

Making people do things against their will isn't (always) bad; your own system requires an authority, if only to make sure no other authorities exist--that, in itself, constrains people who want to overthrow your system--you force dissidents to live in your system against their will.

First of all, if they want to form their own anti-direct democracy authority they don't have to live in said society. Second, all these "dissidents" would really only be against not bribing people to do something they don't want to (unless of course ther is some kind of huge corruption or something similar).

You cannot allow people to always own their own will, because some people will want to harm others or overthrow your own system and replace it with, say, a BasketCasership. Which gets back to my original point: just because it's unavoidable has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad.

Forcing people to do things against their will is not (always) bad.

Your right, as I've said before when people want to harm others, forcing them to go against their will is not only a good thing, its vital (although its best to try to convince them not to, and should them why they shouldn't want to, but if it comes down to that point than as I said this force must be used).