A question to Communists:

[greenpeace]

"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?

Well the community is not really a lazy answer because it designates that is in the enitre community nobody wished to actually carry out measures then the ruling is meaningless and needs to be reduced in potency.

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?

If there are so many people that it becomes nearly impossible to manage then it gives incentive to reduce size.

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?[/quote]
If there are so many people that it becomes nearly impossible to manage then it gives incentive to reduce size.

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.

First of all, "rich" can have no bearing since artificial incentives are banned. Second, the claim that people will surrend real freedom cause they like someone, needs a little more support.

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."

First of all where does this "wealthy" come from. Second, as I said if the common person (who by the way would not have nearly the same amount of work as it would in a Capitalist society) can't vote it gives incentive to reduce size.

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.

Well since other communities are equally (and don't have much incentive to attack in the first place) they also can't raise much an army either. That and if another community wishes to act aggressively they will give incentive to many others to stop their threat.
If you refer to other non-centralized societies attaking the other communities well I would need an example to really understand. Obviously if the US decided to slaughter everyone in the community then the communities would probably die. Of course, due to the nature of the US this would cause massive riots since there wouldn't be much to find fault in, but this is getting kind of off topic so I'll end here.

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.

Yes I have much work and this is my major recreational acitivity of the day (I don't have mush recreational time). Besides, why not do this?

Happy Birthday Greenpeace, LOL

Haha, thanks.

 

[bardolph]

Well the community is not really a lazy answer because it designates that is in the enitre community nobody wished to actually carry out measures then the ruling is meaningless and needs to be reduced in potency.

What I'm asking is that you move your case from the general to the specific. The problem with claiming that "the community" takes care of all problems is that individuals will never take responsibility since it is this unspecified, amorphous "community" that's supposed to solve their problems for them.

If there are so many people that it becomes nearly impossible to manage then it gives incentive to reduce size.

I'd put the limit, then, at about 100 people. Good luck!

First of all, "rich" can have no bearing since artificial incentives are banned.

You never said anything about "banning" anything, and wealth is not really an "artificial" incentive, since it's driver is "acquisition," and virtually anyone is capable of acquiring things.

Second, the claim that people will surrend real freedom cause they like someone, needs a little more support.

They are not surrendering their freedom, they are exercising it (albeit in a selfish an mean-spirited way). It's called "trading favors." You scratch my back, and one day I'll scratch yours.

First of all where does this "wealthy" come from.

Same place it has always come from. From acquiring stuff.

Second, as I said if the common person (who by the way would not have nearly the same amount of work as it would in a Capitalist society) can't vote it gives incentive to reduce size.

First of all, the smaller the community, the poorer the community, since you miss out on all the benefits of economy of scale and specialization.

The poorer the community, the harder everyone must work in order to survive. Truth of the matter is, it is large societies that can afford loafers who sit around in court all day.

Well since other communities are equally (and don't have much incentive to attack in the first place) they also can't raise much an army either.

Where did you get that idea?!!?!?!?? Just because one hippie commune decides to commit economic suicide, doesn't mean that their neighbors are compelled to do the same!

As for "incentive," how about (a) land, (b) resources, and (c) slaves? These things are available for the taking, no matter what the government or ideology of the victims may be. Has Civ taught you nothing?

That and if another community wishes to act aggressively they will give incentive to many others to stop their threat.

No. If they've adopted your system of government, their only "incentive" is to hold more town meetings and wait for "the community" to do something about it, while the enemy burns the buildings, kills the men, and ravishes the women.

If you refer to other non-centralized societies attaking the other communities well I would need an example to really understand.

No. I'm talking about centralized societies attacking non-centralized ones.

Your basic assumption that once one community adopts "Greenpeace-ocracy," all other communities in the world will automatically adopt the same government, is a pretty absurd assumption.

The world consists of diversity in culture, not homogeny.

The test of any social order is how well it can survive against other, competing social orders. If your system can't compete, then it is not viable. No fair assuming that everyone just falls in line because they think "it's a good idea." Society doesn't work that way, it never has, and it never will. The only people who can rule by decree are those with access to enough soldiers to enforce those decrees.

Obviously if the US decided to slaughter everyone in the community then the communities would probably die. Of course, due to the nature of the US this would cause massive riots since there wouldn't be much to find fault in, but this is getting kind of off topic so I'll end here.

Or, the US can find defenseless, under-developed nations all around the world, and slaughter their citizens in the name of "patriotism."

 

[BasketCase]

Your system requires tons and tons of work.

Welcome to reality. The system is the way it is because the voters want it that way. Why do you think they chose this messed-up system instead of yours?

Because yours is worse.

Letting the rest go for now because there's actually been 6 posts in a row without me writing half of them. I need to take a break and let somebody else get a word in edgewise.

Edit: Bah, who am I kidding, that last line was a bald-faced lie. I'm just tired of you.

 

[BasketCase]

Your system requires tons and tons of work.

By the way--that's an incentive. You broke one of your own rules again.

 

[greenpeace]

What I'm asking is that you move your case from the general to the specific. The problem with claiming that "the community" takes care of all problems is that individuals will never take responsibility since it is this unspecified, amorphous "community" that's supposed to solve their problems for them.

Yes, I'm saying if no individual in the community wishes to carry out the actions then the individuals that take apart in the decision making process are going to have to reform their decision (most likely they wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place).

I'd put the limit, then, at about 100 people. Good luck!

I don't think I'm getting what you mean...? I think your concept of a community is distorted so read on to get a clearer picture. Also your crime rate is incredibly high, I don't think a tenth of the population commits murders on a daily bases:lol.

You never said anything about "banning" anything, and wealth is not really an "artificial" incentive, since it's driver is "acquisition," and virtually anyone is capable of acquiring things.

Let me put it this way, you tell me how someone could possibly become rich enough they don't have to work (unless of course they are physically unable in which case they must be provided for so that they aren't physically harmed).

They are not surrendering their freedom, they are exercising it (albeit in a selfish an mean-spirited way). It's called "trading favors." You scratch my back, and one day I'll scratch yours.

That would lead to "blocks" which only leads to unwanted things (such as semi-dictatorship) which gives incentive to stay away from popularity votes.

Same place it has always come from. From acquiring stuff.

How are you going to acquire an unending supply of food, without be unable to produce and being provided for by the community or doing work?

First of all, the smaller the community, the poorer the community, since you miss out on all the benefits of economy of scale and specialization.

Well, first you have a misconception about a "community." In this case a community is really just people ruling over themselves, you could have a neighboorhood be a community, but still be apart of a larger city (although in this context, a city would be much different).
Second, this system actually aids specializtion to a certain extent, because people only work if the product is worth having, so functionally people will simply farm (alot less than a typical Capitalist farmer)/ do some basic work to insure its all comfortable enough, and then people can do whatever they wish (which often leads to specialization).

The poorer the community, the harder everyone must work in order to survive. Truth of the matter is, it is large societies that can afford loafers who sit around in court all day.

society is different than community. A community is simply a local government, and can easily be living in the same vicinity working with each other when they wish.

Where did you get that idea?!!?!?!?? Just because one hippie commune decides to commit economic suicide, doesn't mean that their neighbors are compelled to do the same!

I was thinking in those sentences in terms of it being wide spread, but you weren't and I did adress that later on so read on...

No. If they've adopted your system of government, their only "incentive" is to hold more town meetings and wait for "the community" to do something about it, while the enemy burns the buildings, kills the men, and ravishes the women.

If the community is being attacked my a combattable size what makes you believe that defense is out of the question?

No. I'm talking about centralized societies attacking non-centralized ones.

Dammit, I made another typo I meant centralized attacking non-centralized (I probably shouldn't respond so late, and in a rush).

Your basic assumption that once one community adopts "Greenpeace-ocracy," all other communities in the world will automatically adopt the same government, is a pretty absurd assumption.

I didn't assume that, I made a typo saying that

The test of any social order is how well it can survive against other, competing social orders. If your system can't compete, then it is not viable. No fair assuming that everyone just falls in line because they think "it's a good idea." Society doesn't work that way, it never has, and it never will. The only people who can rule by decree are those with access to enough soldiers to enforce those decrees.

I'm not assuming everyone will just fall in line, I'm saying a group of individuals who all wish to be apart of this type of society formed and followed the certain rules then it would function as such. If you want to say: "and if they don't want to be apart of it," then the answer is that they don't have to, we rely on its freedom being the primary motivational factor for staying.

Or, the US can find defenseless, under-developed nations all around the world, and slaughter their citizens in the name of "patriotism."

(reference to Iraq right?) Well, not only is that a tad bit different since Iraq was seen to be holding WMDs terrorists and a dictator, were as this invasion would be practically impossible impossible to spin, even if it was spinned into some cause, the same that can be applied to any system.

Welcome to reality. The system is the way it is because the voters want it that way. Why do you think they chose this messed-up system instead of yours?

Because yours is worse.

Letting the rest go for now because there's actually been 6 posts in a row without me writing half of them. I need to take a break and let somebody else get a word in edgewise.

Edit: Bah, who am I kidding, that last line was a bald-faced lie. I'm just tired of you.

Do you really not see all the logical fallacies in that arguement? The USSR required tons on beaurucratic work (mainly managing a massive command economy), that doesn't mean the citizens really wanted (especially if you don't include brainwashing).

By the way--that's an incentive. You broke one of your own rules again.

I think you misquoted, and I don't see any incentive (except a natural one), care to explain?

 

[bardolph]

Yes, I'm saying if no individual in the community wishes to carry out the actions then the individuals that take apart in the decision making process are going to have to reform their decision (most likely they wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place).

So, lemme get this straight: the governing body* hears a case, and renders a judgment. The judgment is posted somewhere where everyone can see it, and anyone who wishes will pick it up and carry it out. And if nobody carries it out, it is the responsibility of the governing body to amend the judgment so that someone will carry it out. This might include posting a reward or whatever. Works kind of like those "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters you see in Hollywood Westerns, right? Just out of curiosity, where does the governing body come up with the bounty? Taxes?

* by "governing body" I mean "anyone from the community who happens to show up to a hearing"

I don't think I'm getting what you mean...? I think your concept of a community is distorted so read on to get a clearer picture. Also your crime rate is incredibly high, I don't think a tenth of the population commits murders on a daily bases:lol.

Actually, I think my concept of a community is fine. However, I will grant that my concept of your concept of a community is distorted Not all "crime" is "murder." I'm also talking about "Tom slept with my wife," "Dan molested my child," "Ted killed my horse," "Billy ruined my crops," "Bob Bishop called me a dirty name," or "Mary Sue stole my lollipop." There's also suspected crimes. Someone accuses someone else of "harm" when it was only a misunderstanding. Then there are issues like breach of contract or breach of agreement.

Bottom line is, people have disagreements all the time. You can't "ban" disagreements just by banning private property. People are a lot more irascible than that. And if you have to round up the whole dang community every time someone has a grievance, it takes a toll on the community. That's why we have judges and sherriffs.

Let me put it this way, you tell me how someone could possibly become rich enough they don't have to work (unless of course they are physically unable in which case they must be provided for so that they aren't physically harmed).

Here's one scenario. I fence off a farm, get married, have 10 kids, rustle up some livestock, and put my kids to work on the farm. Now, I just live off my kids and spend my whole life in court, voting on stuff.

That would lead to "blocks" which only leads to unwanted things (such as semi-dictatorship) which gives incentive to stay away from popularity votes.

Wrong. Blocks are very much wanted things, since they benefit every member of the block. If you don't belong to a block, you will have no power, so there is a great incentive to join a block. Otherwise, you are silenced. And yes, this would lead to semi-dictatorship. Just because you declare something as "unwanted," it doesn't mean that people will have an automatic incentive to vote the way you want them to.

How are you going to acquire an unending supply of food, without be unable to produce and being provided for by the community or doing work?

The same way people acquire it today. By taking it from others. Or by exploiting others. Or by converting others to a religion, and convincing them that it's God's Will that they work for me. Or by simply providing a valuable good or service and getting fair exchange for it. There are as many ways to get rich as there are rich people.

Well, first you have a misconception about a "community." In this case a community is really just people ruling over themselves, you could have a neighboorhood be a community, but still be apart of a larger city (although in this context, a city would be much different).

Please explain. You never mentioned any kind of federal relationship between communities. Do you have neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, nations? You never mentioned that. How do these "super-entities" function? Who forms their governing bodies? How do they render judgments and accept new members? Do the smaller communities elect "representatives," and send those representatives to the larger governing bodies? And are the smaller communities bound to obey the judgment of those larger groups?

If this is the case, we already have that. It's called "representative democracy," and it's actually quite popular

Second, this system actually aids specializtion to a certain extent, because people only work if the product is worth having, so functionally people will simply farm (alot less than a typical Capitalist farmer)/ do some basic work to insure its all comfortable enough, and then people can do whatever they wish (which often leads to specialization).

No. If your community is small, then all you will be able to do is farm, and hunt. If any sizeable portion of your population does anything else, you will all starve. Have you ever studied primitive societies? These societies live in systems similar to the one you describe.* The way they outgrew their primitive capabilities was by forming more sophisticated means of interacting with one another. And a big part of this is government. Another huge factor is economics. You can't eliminate government and economics, and expect your society to grow.

*Actually, even primitive societies recognized the need to have leaders.

If the community is being attacked my a combattable size what makes you believe that defense is out of the question?

It's not out of the question, it just won't succeed. A small community (of a few hundred) can't possibly defend itself against a well-trained and well-equipped army of thousands.

The problem is that a single army can very easily attack these dinky de-centralized communities one by one until they are all gone. Your system has no means for these tiny communities to organize themselves in any way to protect themselves against any kind of large threat, since there is no federal government, no state government, no binding agreements between communities, and NO FREAKING ARMY! If you have NO FREAKING ARMY, you won't be able to defend yourself against someone who has one.

I'm not assuming everyone will just fall in line, I'm saying a group of individuals who all wish to be apart of this type of society formed and followed the certain rules then it would function as such. If you want to say: "and if they don't want to be apart of it," then the answer is that they don't have to, we rely on its freedom being the primary motivational factor for staying.

So, if someone "opts out," do they have to move away? Or can they hang around and leech off the community?

(reference to Iraq right?) Well, not only is that a tad bit different since Iraq was seen to be holding WMDs terrorists and a dictator, were as this invasion would be practically impossible impossible to spin, even if it was spinned into some cause, the same that can be applied to any system.

You've got to be kidding me. You think that:

• Iraq was a legitimate invasion?, and
• Illegitimate invasions are "practically impossible to spin"?

I don't know what to say, except please study a little history.

 

[BasketCase]

Do you really not see all the logical fallacies in that arguement? The USSR required tons on beaurucratic work (mainly managing a massive command economy), that doesn't mean the citizens really wanted (especially if you don't include brainwashing).

Actually, the USSR took quite a lot LESS work to run than it does now.

Dictatorships are pretty simple and straightforward things. You don't need an extensive court system, for example. If the dictator or his minions suspect you of dissidence, no trial is needed. They'll shove you up against a wall and have you shot then and there.

Stellar choice of example there, Nimrod.

I think you misquoted, and I don't see any incentive (except a natural one), care to explain?

"Adopt Greenpeacocracy, or get saddled with more work".

 

[greenpeace]

So, lemme get this straight: the governing body* hears a case, and renders a judgment. The judgment is posted somewhere where everyone can see it, and anyone who wishes will pick it up and carry it out. And if nobody carries it out, it is the responsibility of the governing body to amend the judgment so that someone will carry it out. This might include posting a reward or whatever. Works kind of like those "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters you see in Hollywood Westerns, right? Just out of curiosity, where does the governing body come up with the bounty? Taxes?

* by "governing body" I mean "anyone from the community who happens to show up to a hearing"

Only if the all the people making up the community have a fetish for being stupid (sorry if that was a tad to vulgar). No, much more likely it would be the best judgement people are willing to carry out without bribery. Also, stop it with the conception that the government is anyone who happens to show up at a random time. Much more likely is having a few different meets so that anyone who wants to participate (wich would probably be very high for reasons already stated) can and the best judgement carried out.

Actually, I think my concept of a community is fine. However, I will grant that my concept of your concept of a community is distorted Not all "crime" is "murder." I'm also talking about "Tom slept with my wife," "Dan molested my child," "Ted killed my horse," "Billy ruined my crops," "Bob Bishop called me a dirty name," or "Mary Sue stole my lollipop." There's also suspected crimes. Someone accuses someone else of "harm" when it was only a misunderstanding. Then there are issues like breach of contract or breach of agreement.

Yes I know murder isn't the only crime, I was just trying to be a little humorous.

Bottom line is, people have disagreements all the time. You can't "ban" disagreements just by banning private property. People are a lot more irascible than that. And if you have to round up the whole dang community every time someone has a grievance, it takes a toll on the community. That's why we have judges and sherriffs.

I'm not banning disagreement, people can come to a "civilized" (although I don't like that term, since I disagree with the concept, but whatever) agreement, without having to harass a hundred people because someone put is playing their rap music a little to loud.

Here's one scenario. I fence off a farm, get married, have 10 kids, rustle up some livestock, and put my kids to work on the farm. Now, I just live off my kids and spend my whole life in court, voting on stuff.

First of all farming almost defenently wouldn't work that (irrelevant I know, but I wanted clarify). Anways, assuming the person is young enough to easily farm, this is a case where the only way it sustains is based on indoctrination to get people to work for you, which is considered mental harm, which gives basis for the community to stop this unjustified abuse.

Wrong. Blocks are very much wanted things, since they benefit every member of the block. If you don't belong to a block, you will have no power, so there is a great incentive to join a block.

Exactly, it harms everyone not in them giving them all incentive to stop this kind of behavior through words. If it escalates well then that just more incentive to end it all.

The same way people acquire it today. By taking it from others. Or by exploiting others. Or by converting others to a religion, and convincing them that it's God's Will that they work for me. Or by simply providing a valuable good or service and getting fair exchange for it. There are as many ways to get rich as there are rich people.

It is only possible if you mentally harm someone (in this case brainwash) which gives the basis for others to take action against your fanatic religous cult.

Please explain. You never mentioned any kind of federal relationship between communities. Do you have neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, nations? You never mentioned that. How do these "super-entities" function? Who forms their governing bodies? How do they render judgments and accept new members? Do the smaller communities elect "representatives," and send those representatives to the larger governing bodies? And are the smaller communities bound to obey the judgment of those larger groups?

No, your making a million and one assumptions and conclsions that aren't true. Let me put it this way, a rather large apartement building could function like a community, and it could be geographically close to many others apartents, and the way one person acts towards a person of another "community" is the exact same as one acts towards one of the same community except that if one of yours commits a crime, you and your community have to decide what to do about it.

No. If your community is small, then all you will be able to do is farm, and hunt. If any sizeable portion of your population does anything else, you will all starve. Have you ever studied primitive societies? These societies live in systems similar to the one you describe.* The way they outgrew their primitive capabilities was by forming more sophisticated means of interacting with one another. And a big part of this is government. Another huge factor is economics. You can't eliminate government and economics, and expect your society to grow.

*Actually, even primitive societies recognized the need to have leaders.

First of all there is no destruction of government or economy. Second, please tell me the basis for your arguement that "if any sizeable portion of the society does not farm than they'll all starve" has any more relevance to this society than any other.

It's not out of the question, it just won't succeed. A small community (of a few hundred) can't possibly defend itself against a well-trained and well-equipped army of thousands.

How many times do I have to tell you that a community isn't neccessarily an isolated entity that exchange between communities is not only allowed but very important.

The problem is that a single army can very easily attack these dinky de-centralized communities one by one until they are all gone. Your system has no means for these tiny communities to organize themselves in any way to protect themselves against any kind of large threat, since there is no federal government, no state government, no binding agreements between communities, and NO FREAKING ARMY! If you have NO FREAKING ARMY, you won't be able to defend yourself against someone who has one.

Really, tell me one thing inhibiting this society from getting communities to defend themselves together. I don't even get the point of this, since in real life if anyone wanted to invade thanks to media, it probably wouldn't turn out that well and even if it did, the type society has nothing to do with it.
Of course, I could start a whole different topic on the issue of peace (you might be able guess what kind of things I would say based on my signature), but thats an entirely different matter.

So, if someone "opts out," do they have to move away? Or can they hang around and leech off the community?

If you don't produce food, then you don't produce food. They can stay if the people in the community or others from outside the community are generous enough to share their produce, but slakers generally won't be able to leech.

You've got to be kidding me. You think that:

• Iraq was a legitimate invasion?, and
• Illegitimate invasions are "practically impossible to spin"?

I don't know what to say, except please study a little history.

No, I didn't say Iraq was a ligitimate invasion, I said is was fairly easy to trick people into belieiving that it was. I also said that even if you did spin an illigitmate invasion, that kind of spin can be applied to any system.

Actually, the USSR took quite a lot LESS work to run than it does now.

Dictatorships are pretty simple and straightforward things. You don't need an extensive court system, for example. If the dictator or his minions suspect you of dissidence, no trial is needed. They'll shove you up against a wall and have you shot then and there.

Stellar choice of example there, Nimrod.

The government had a huge secret police that had to stalk its citizens which is comparable to a jury in management, but by far the American economy has alot less work for the government to do since the USSR had to decide what everyone needed, how many worked, where they worked, how they worked, and basically everything that prices in market systems solve for. Even with its huge bureacracy it still made management errors, like measuring engine production in weight instead of units which caused engineers and workers to put in tons of unneccesary weight in their engines in order to reduce the amount of time they had to work lol:, that sounds like something I would do).

"Adopt Greenpeacocracy, or get saddled with more work".

If you breathe living will be easier, if you drink water you won't be as thirsty. Cause and effect is a natural incentive.

 

[bardolph]

Only if the all the people making up the community have a fetish for being stupid (sorry if that was a tad to vulgar). No, much more likely it would be the best judgement people are willing to carry out without bribery. Also, stop it with the conception that the government is anyone who happens to show up at a random time. Much more likely is having a few different meets so that anyone who wants to participate (wich would probably be very high for reasons already stated) can and the best judgement carried out.

I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt with the Wanted Posters concept, but OK.

Let's try to visualize what you're talking about. OK, let's assume that your "communities" can handle 1000 people before getting too unwieldy to manage. Let's also assume that 1/3 of these people are too young or too sick to vote. That leaves about 650 voting members in a single community.

First of all, try to imagine a room of 650 people trying to hear, vote, and render judgment on various cases. 650 people is a LOT of people, especially if each one of them wields a vote. The US House of Representatives has less than 500 members, and you can tune into CSPAN yourself to see how agile such a body is. (Now, before you jump into the "incentive to make smaller communities" argument, hear me out)

So, let's say that 2% of a community's members have suits on a given week. That's 20 cases per 1000 people. How long does it take to hear a single case? 60 minutes? How long, then, does it take to vote? 15 minutes? And how long to render a judgment? 15 minutes? OK, so in this example, 20 cases take THIRTY HOURS to resolve. So, considering a "normal" work week of 40 hours, we've just taken up 75% of that time in court. That leaves each of these citizens TEN HOURS to do productive work during the week. And this is assuming an INCREDIBLY TURBO-CHARGED SUPER-FAST EFFICIENT FLASH GORDON court system, since the numbers I gave above are NOT realistic numbers. Then you have to ask, how does such a system organize itself to achieve such stellar speeds?

Now, let's talk about scale for a moment. I live in Los Angeles, which contains about 10 million people. So, at 1000 people per community, we're talking about TEN THOUSAND individual communities in Los Angeles ALONE. Think about that. That's TEN TIMES more communities than there are members of a single community. And that's just a single metropolitan area. How on earth do TEN THOUSAND communities organize? Just try to imagine that.

Now, let's say that my 1,000 figure is too much to handle for a single community. OK, let's try something a bit smaller, like 250 people per community, with about 175 eligible voters. We can even drop this further, and say that only half of the eligible voters actually come to court, so that's about 85 people. A single deliberative body of 85 people is certainly a lot easier to manage than 650, but stop to consider a moment how long a single jury of TWELVE members can take to render a verdict in the US court system today.

I seriously doubt that even a body this small can get through its weekly allotment of cases in a single day, but let's take a moment to pretend that they magically can. In this scenario, Los Angeles would have FORTY THOUSAND individual communities, at 250 members each. OK, now HOW exactly do FORTY THOUSAND individual communities interact in a meaningful way?

And remember, this is just one metropolitan area.

First of all farming almost defenently wouldn't work that (irrelevant I know, but I wanted clarify). Anways, assuming the person is young enough to easily farm, this is a case where the only way it sustains is based on indoctrination to get people to work for you, which is considered mental harm, which gives basis for the community to stop this unjustified abuse.

So, the community can intervene on behalf of someone else, even though they haven't filed a suit? For example, Joe thinks Bob is exploiting Terry, so Joe brings this case before the court on behalf of Terry, even though Terry doesn't think he's being exploited? If this is the way it works, then the number of cases the governing body will have to hear will increase about threefold.

Again, your "jury of all citizens" will NEVER get through all the cases that wish to be heard. Prepare for a backlog that extends centuries into the future.

Exactly, it harms everyone not in them giving them all incentive to stop this kind of behavior through words. If it escalates well then that just more incentive to end it all.

Nope. Not true. It only harms the people who are not in blocs. And since these people don't have enough votes to overrule the blocs, they will NEVER get justice.

No, your making a million and one assumptions and conclsions that aren't true.

Again, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let me put it this way, a rather large apartement building could function like a community, and it could be geographically close to many others apartents, and the way one person acts towards a person of another "community" is the exact same as one acts towards one of the same community except that if one of yours commits a crime, you and your community have to decide what to do about it.

So if I go a few blocks away from home and commit a crime, it's up to MY community to judge me? How exactly does this happen?

First of all there is no destruction of government or economy.

I only assumed this because you assumed that there can be no rich people.

Second, please tell me the basis for your arguement that "if any sizeable portion of the society does not farm than they'll all starve" has any more relevance to this society than any other.

OK. I happen to live in the US. The US is not a "Greenpeaceocracy." It is a representative democracy, running a regulated Capitalist economy. If you dismantle this system, and replace it with the one you describe, you will lose the entire marketplace. You can no longer walk down to the local supermarket or McDonald's to buy your food, because THAT system isn't compatible with YOUR system.

My argument is that an isolated community of a few hundred people will need to devote a vast majority of its activity to producing food if it's going to survive.

You argue that your communities aren't isolated, but you haven't given ANY concrete examples of how such communities would interact, so the burden of proof is on you.

Really, tell me one thing inhibiting this society from getting communities to defend themselves together.

Lack of organization.

I don't even get the point of this, since in real life if anyone wanted to invade thanks to media, it probably wouldn't turn out that well and even if it did, the type society has nothing to do with it.

The Mass Media in this country are run by CORPORATIONS. What role do corporations play in Greenpeaceocracy?

 

[greenpeace]

I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt with the Wanted Posters concept, but OK.

Let's try to visualize what you're talking about. OK, let's assume that your "communities" can handle 1000 people before getting too unwieldy to manage. Let's also assume that 1/3 of these people are too young or too sick to vote. That leaves about 650 voting members in a single community.

First of all, try to imagine a room of 650 people trying to hear, vote, and render judgment on various cases. 650 people is a LOT of people, especially if each one of them wields a vote. The US House of Representatives has less than 500 members, and you can tune into CSPAN yourself to see how agile such a body is. (Now, before you jump into the "incentive to make smaller communities" argument, hear me out)

So, let's say that 2% of a community's members have suits on a given week. That's 20 cases per 1000 people. How long does it take to hear a single case? 60 minutes? How long, then, does it take to vote? 15 minutes? And how long to render a judgment? 15 minutes? OK, so in this example, 20 cases take THIRTY HOURS to resolve. So, considering a "normal" work week of 40 hours, we've just taken up 75% of that time in court. That leaves each of these citizens TEN HOURS to do productive work during the week. And this is assuming an INCREDIBLY TURBO-CHARGED SUPER-FAST EFFICIENT FLASH GORDON court system, since the numbers I gave above are NOT realistic numbers. Then you have to ask, how does such a system organize itself to achieve such stellar speeds?

You don't really even need that many people to participate, its just that if a small elite started forming as you described then it would give incentive for more and new people to start making decisions (also, what is "flash gordon").

Now, let's talk about scale for a moment. I live in Los Angeles, which contains about 10 million people. So, at 1000 people per community, we're talking about TEN THOUSAND individual communities in Los Angeles ALONE. Think about that. That's TEN TIMES more communities than there are members of a single community. And that's just a single metropolitan area. How on earth do TEN THOUSAND communities organize? Just try to imagine that.

What more is there to manage that is created from communities?
Now, let's say that my 1,000 figure is too much to handle for a single community. OK, let's try something a bit smaller, like 250 people per community, with about 175 eligible voters. We can even drop this further, and say that only half of the eligible voters actually come to court, so that's about 85 people. A single deliberative body of 85 people is certainly a lot easier to manage than 650, but stop to consider a moment how long a single jury of TWELVE members can take to render a verdict in the US court system today.[/quote]
There is less to to decide upon in this society, so where did all this new time spent come from?

I seriously doubt that even a body this small can get through its weekly allotment of cases in a single day, but let's take a moment to pretend that they magically can. In this scenario, Los Angeles would have FORTY THOUSAND individual communities, at 250 members each. OK, now HOW exactly do FORTY THOUSAND individual communities interact in a meaningful way?

Again, where is this need for special management? Sure people will self-organize if they all want to produce a common thing, but if anything thats more efficient.

And remember, this is just one metropolitan area

Honestly, I don't see metropolitans areas as very desirable. They contain a very high population density which is only neccessary for more Capitalist needs (mainly that the system gets people to work much harder than is desirable/neccesary for the products it produces and a metropolitan area is very efficient for that due to its high population density).

So, the community can intervene on behalf of someone else, even though they haven't filed a suit? For example, Joe thinks Bob is exploiting Terry, so Joe brings this case before the court on behalf of Terry, even though Terry doesn't think he's being exploited? If this is the way it works, then the number of cases the governing body will have to hear will increase about threefold.

Again, your "jury of all citizens" will NEVER get through all the cases that wish to be heard. Prepare for a backlog that extends centuries into the future.

For some reason I almost couldn't stop laughing at "a backlog that extends centuries into the future." But anyways, if there is a religous fanatic cult forming that worships a single person its different than your routine annoyances. Obviously, "spam" cases where someone is trying to intrude on others lives doesn't require much effort and would most likely be ignored.

Nope. Not true. It only harms the people who are not in blocs. And since these people don't have enough votes to overrule the blocs, they will NEVER get justice.

Even if it got that horribly out of control (which I highly doubt), then people in the minority can simply ignore this "block" and be apart of a new community.

Again, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So if I go a few blocks away from home and commit a crime, it's up to MY community to judge me? How exactly does this happen?

Well the other community can tell my community that I commited crime. Although you do have a point that the other community should have a voice if they have been hurt (with their votes waited so they are equal to the other communities, which matters due to population variations).

I only assumed this because you assumed that there can be no rich people.

I thought I described the government, and somewhat the economy, but whatever.

OK. I happen to live in the US. The US is not a "Greenpeaceocracy." It is a representative democracy, running a regulated Capitalist economy. If you dismantle this system, and replace it with the one you describe, you will lose the entire marketplace. You can no longer walk down to the local supermarket or McDonald's to buy your food, because THAT system isn't compatible with YOUR system.

Woah, woah, I'm never going to "dismantle" it in such a way as you describe, since that would force people into a system they don't want whuch violate a core rule (unless your saying that people loved the system and fled the US).

My argument is that an isolated community of a few hundred people will need to devote a vast majority of its activity to producing food if it's going to survive.

You argue that your communities aren't isolated, but you haven't given ANY concrete examples of how such communities would interact, so the burden of proof is on you.

Ok let me describe a fictional typical system (the way I predict).
Ok there is community 1 and com 2. In this example will take a common "countryside" example. Lets say, Bob and Joe love to help people's health, so they are both doctors (part time). However, Bob is in com 1 and Joe is in com 2. Fortunently it doesn't make a difference, since all the actions they would take working together would absolutely be identical whether or not they were in the same community unless Bob sexually harassing Joe or some other harm. Even better lets say the mainstream farming*. Lets say the inhabitants of coms 1-5 all are around one paticularly good spot for farming. Now the people from coms 1-5 could all be working on that farm together for maximum efficiency, working however many hours it takes to provide food for each person plus those can't physically farm. There is no difference between the people working the farm area just because they are of different communities.
The trouble is that you think of a community in the typical way that is very held together when it reality these communites don't.
*on a side note from what I know of permaculture (which is admittely less than optimal since I only recently fouind out about it) it would be the best farming technique since although it doesn't have the huge efficiency that Capitalism craves it requires much much much less work and resources which Capitalism doesn't mind providing.

Lack of organization.

How is it less organized?

The Mass Media in this country are run by CORPORATIONS. What role do corporations play in Greenpeaceocracy?

Well, I was actually referring to your media. But a good question nonetheless. You see, "corporations" would be much different. It would be more of a collective of people who actually think the product is worth the labor (as opposed to thinking its not starving and in some cases worth luxuries). They would most likely organize on a way of working however way they wish except when the way they work affects others in which case that would be solved by compromise since that way each person gets the most they want with out the other getting less (thats poorly worded but I couldn't think of any other way to put it). So lets say they all wanted to have a weather broadcast. The person who wants to do the talking (or the people) would obviously need to consult the people making the set. So if he wishes for the teleprompter to be pointing in a different way, then he would consult whoever sets up the teleprompter and they would set it up the most convenient way for both of them. Of course, teleprompters probably wouldn't be worth the effort since you have to mine and smelt them, but if people really want their community to have these resources enough that they are willing to work to produce it, then its possible.

ps- I feel like I quoted you but did not write a response and I'm in a little bit of a hurry, so just point it out.

 

[bardolph]

You don't really even need that many people to participate, its just that if a small elite started forming as you described then it would give incentive for more and new people to start making decisions (also, what is "flash gordon").

Flash Gordon. He's actually a horrible example, since I really meant to reference The Flash. Just goes to show how much of an ignoramus you're dealing with here

Ok let me describe a fictional typical system (the way I predict).
Ok there is community 1 and com 2. In this example will take a common "countryside" example. Lets say, Bob and Joe love to help people's health, so they are both doctors (part time). However, Bob is in com 1 and Joe is in com 2. Fortunently it doesn't make a difference, since all the actions they would take working together would absolutely be identical whether or not they were in the same community unless Bob sexually harassing Joe or some other harm. Even better lets say the mainstream farming*. Lets say the inhabitants of coms 1-5 all are around one paticularly good spot for farming. Now the people from coms 1-5 could all be working on that farm together for maximum efficiency, working however many hours it takes to provide food for each person plus those can't physically farm. There is no difference between the people working the farm area just because they are of different communities.
The trouble is that you think of a community in the typical way that is very held together when it reality these communites don't.

OK, I'm starting to get a picture of what you're talking about (I THINK). You're talking about groups of people getting together and forming "communities" regardless of whatever government/economy is already in place, kind of like the communes from the '60s and '70s here in the US. These communities are formed out of some kind of common interest, and they rule themselves by the system that you propose, while also abiding by the laws of the host country, unless, of course, they manage to take land that belongs to no country or maybe they're an Indian Reservation or something like that.

For example, a condominium complex consists of a hundred or so family units, and they all join a Homeowners' Association, which governs itself according to your system rather than a "standard" HOA contract.

Am I in the ballpark here?

Or are you talking about a scenario where the people of a country overthrow their current government and institute Greenpeaceocracy as a replacement?

Would your government be based on any kind of laws at all? Would there be a Constitution? How would such a system come into being?

I'm just trying to figure out your context here.

 

[greenpeace]

OK, I'm starting to get a picture of what you're talking about (I THINK). You're talking about groups of people getting together and forming "communities" regardless of whatever government/economy is already in place, kind of like the communes from the '60s and '70s here in the US. These communities are formed out of some kind of common interest, and they rule themselves by the system that you propose, while also abiding by the laws of the host country, unless, of course, they manage to take land that belongs to no country or maybe they're an Indian Reservation or something like that.

For example, a condominium complex consists of a hundred or so family units, and they all join a Homeowners' Association, which governs itself according to your system rather than a "standard" HOA contract.

Am I in the ballpark here?

Or are you talking about a scenario where the people of a country overthrow their current government and institute Greenpeaceocracy as a replacement?

I'm just trying to figure out your context here.

Neither really except its closer to the first. Idealistically it would be in a place no country owns. However, Antarctitca doesn't have the greatest farm land. So realistically it would be in a rather non-populated area, or at least a place that is technically owned by someone in the community. The main thing is that nobody is forced into the society hopefully the people composing it would actually know why it is said to be better rather than just coming to be rebellious). Although it would be founded on land that nations "own" it would not neccesarily act in accordance with the government (although these communities rather largely do not really violate the major nation's laws). Of course this may stir conflict, but if the citizens follow the rules of the society than the society would never be actively seeking to harm others giving it the "moral highground" to a certain extent.

Would your government be based on any kind of laws at all? Would there be a Constitution? How would such a system come into being?

Well that paragraph basically summarizes everything the society follows. As a summary of the previous paragraph, the society would be formed by a collective of individuals who suppport the movement while trying to have the least effect possible upon those that don't support it.

edit: I'm kind of tired but enough to go to sleep, so let me tire myself out giving some more explanation about what this society actually is:
Last week I picked up an economics book and started readed for fun (yes I know I'm weird). Its said there were two main types of economies: command economies (basically soviet-style communism) and market economies (basically US Capitalism). But when you look at it more broadly, its really just an economy based on negative incentive (command) and positive positive incentive (although positive and negative are almost identical in many if not most cases). I however, think this is entirely different, its based on no incentive. Unlike command economies where the products are produced to appease the ones commanding and markets where they are produced based on how much they are wanted, a lack incentives means that products are produced because they are worth the effort of production to the people who produce them. Unfortuenetly this, like every society except suicicde cults, requires enforcement, which requires incentive to a degree. So there will always be a little incentive, but the point is to reduce it as much a possible to the point that it only affects those trying to offer incentives to something other than keep other from offering incentives.
The reasons I believe the proposed government is by far better are a multitude, but the primary is the corruption of power. You see with everyones ability to possibly participate in government (if they can communicate) most effeciently stops the ability for a power to abuse its power. In other words if a rather elite wishes to act its in own self-interest, the community at large may suffer. However, if a community acts in its own self-interest (as it always and should) then the community benefits to the highest decree (although irrational emotions affecting rational decisions does harm this, but emotions aren't a unique trait of the common people). Another reason for this type of government is that it constantly reminds the citizens of the rules and function of its government. This in turn makes it the most likely that people do not allow decisions to be corrupted. Also those who do not support the type of community, but who are in it have the best chance at leaving when reminded their rights.
Speaking of which, the implementation of this system is important (although I originally went over this). This system lends itself to a peaceful method of formation. But I can finally go to sleep now, I'll write later.

 

[BasketCase]

a lack incentives means that products are produced because they are worth the effort of production to the people who produce them

Been through this already, GP. Nobody on this planet can produce all the stuff they want by themselves.

Capitalism is going to arise by default as people start making offers in order to get a refrigerator and a car and medical care and a computer. It's inevitable.

But you go right ahead and keep attacking that windmill. Keeps you occupied so you don't get in the way of capitalism. (Or maybe that's just reverse psychology? Who knows)

 

[Evil Muppet]

I forgot my glasses today, and that text was a bit hard to read, but what I think you're saying is that people produce what they want or need directly (where possible) and if they have a surplus they can trade with each other to get other things they need (that they can't or won't produce themselves). Am I on the right track so far? There are still some things I don't understand.

How does that society cope with people who work but don't produce anything tangible (a child minder, teacher, fireman etc.)?

Do people have to donate X% of their produce to a communal pool for funding people who produce nothing to trade?

Who decides how much is donated, and how is it enforced?

Does everyone have to contribute to services like child minders (even if they have no children themselves)?

Does this communal pool exist on a national level or does each community have their own?

If a community has a larger population of elderly or disabled people, is it at a disadvantage compared to other communities?

What if the young people in that community want to join a different community?

If people wanted to join friends, relatives, or a love interest in another community, how easy is it for them to emigrate?

If one community is more efficient and outperforms its neighbours, can people leave theirs and join up with the more successful one?

If somebody wanted to leave the community temporarily to visit friends or relatives (or perhaps even for a holiday) how would they support themselves at their destination? (if the produce they have for trade isn't accepted as currency there).

If there is a shortage of one kind of produce (i.e. food), then how do you encourage people to produce something they don't like producing? Hunger and the desire to survive is an incentive, but by the time it kicks in it may be too late to grow a full crop before the food is needed (a lot of humans in a group have a habit of expecting "someone else" to do something that the group needs, until their need becomes severe enough).

If people have to trade what they produce with someone else to get other items, how do you stop people making a profit?

Note: I'm expecting you'll say that someone can complain to the group about this behaviour, but is there really an incentive to do so? After all, if you do that the person may not want to trade with you anymore (you still won't get the items you want/need) - he might trade with your neighbour instead.

How is the value of goods worked out? If it takes a week to produce 1,000 hippyburgers, and a week to produce 10,000 hippyshakes (dumb music reference, lol - you might be too young to get that), does that mean a person who wants a hippyburger must trade 10 hippyshakes to get one?

If there is a shortage of a produced item (lets take food again), does a person have to trade at all? If a person who produces food (they keep what they produce remember) sees a shortage of food, isn't it in his best interest to keep the food for himself rather than trade it?

How does the community react to people not voluntarily sharing what they produce (if they can keep it) when the community has a need for those products?

If a food producer wants to ensure their own survival (or suvival of their family) in a time of need - isn't it causing harm for the community to take action to remove food from that person's posession?

I know withholding food might be seen as harm too, but taking it from an unwilling producer violates two laws (do no harm, and you can keep what you produce), so isn't that the worse of two evils?

What if the producer has enough food to feed himself and family for a year, but sharing it among the community would thin it out so much that it wouldn't guarantee that anyone has enough food to survive until the next crop is ready?

Is it better for the producer and his family to survive, or for everyone to die equally in the interests of fairness?

 

[BasketCase]

So much for the simplicity Greenpeace promised, eh?

Without even reading through his whole list, Evil Muppet has a lot of considerations that society must.....errrr.....consider.

Oh, and by the way--hippyburgers??? Are they made from real hippies?

 

[bardolph]

Hmm... all I can say is "make it so, Greenpeace!"

Go start your dream society, and let me know how it goes.

 

[Evil Muppet]

Just for the record, I'm not having a go at you greenpeace. I just can't get my head around how its supposed to work. Besides, if its something you're serious about its better for you to think about these things now, rather than later.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wow, you guys are still at this?

 

[greenpeace]

Been through this already, GP. Nobody on this planet can produce all the stuff they want by themselves.

Capitalism is going to arise by default as people start making offers in order to get a refrigerator and a car and medical care and a computer. It's inevitable.

But you go right ahead and keep attacking that windmill. Keeps you occupied so you don't get in the way of capitalism. (Or maybe that's just reverse psychology? Who knows)

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.

I forgot my glasses today, and that text was a bit hard to read, but what I think you're saying is that people produce what they want or need directly (where possible) and if they have a surplus they can trade with each other to get other things they need (that they can't or won't produce themselves). Am I on the right track so far? There are still some things I don't understand.

You know you could just copy it into a word file and enlarge the text right (I feel kind of guilty since I have been without my glasses and it sucks).
Thats not really how it works, although somewhat similar. I'm saying that people produce what they think is worth the effort and if some people produce things they either want for others or don't want themselves they can share it.

How does that society cope with people who work but don't produce anything tangible (a child minder, teacher, fireman etc.)?

Well, its most likely that the vast majority of people would spend the small time it takes to produce enough food to eat for themselves and those that can't produce basics (its relatively very small since practically everyone would be sharing the workpoad doing whatever it is they can to make up for themselves). Since there would be reletavely little on this manual labor they could spend the rest doing whatever it is they wish to do (which, due to rea life, would probably still include things they don't actually like doing but in the end are worth doing). Irrelevant note: whats a child minder?

Do people have to donate X% of their produce to a communal pool for funding people who produce nothing to trade?

Nobody ever has to donate anything except basics for those who are physically unable to produce them.

Who decides how much is donated, and how is it enforced?

If people who are physically unable to provide work for themselves are starving when it is completely unnecessary, then the time it takes to stop that is how much time needed to "donate." This would be enforced by those who think a starving baby living a place with an abudance of potential food is wrong (in other words the community would enforce upon itself to provide). Of course, there are people who like the act of providing basics and these people would probably make up for those who can't provide the labor. Of course permaculture could potentially make the biggest basic of food production as easy as harvesting and releasing wastes (at the cost of land efficiency from what I know, which probably isn't a major concern).

Does everyone have to contribute to services like child minders (even if they have no children themselves)?

I'm guessing a child minder is some non-American term, but in terms of caring and doing things that aren't neccesarily basics, these are provided solely by people who think the actual product is worth the effort of producing it.

Does this communal pool exist on a national level or does each community have their own?

Have their own government you mean? The political decision making process of whether someone has violated the rules I previously mentioned is done by each community upon itself.

If a community has a larger population of elderly or disabled people, is it at a disadvantage compared to other communities?

Somewhat, but this may lead to false thoughts about what a community. A community is nothing more than a body insuring that its members follow the rules.

What if the young people in that community want to join a different community?

No problem, as long as that community doesn't mind having them (it could only really become a problem is the community has so many people in it that making a decision requires too much man-power).

If people wanted to join friends, relatives, or a love interest in another community, how easy is it for them to emigrate?

Extremely, there is nothing stopping a person from leaving a community or even the society (except of course the effort it takes to move).

If one community is more efficient and outperforms its neighbours, can people leave theirs and join up with the more successful one?

I don't really see this as possible, since a community can really be outperforming a society in decision making except due to its size which is good because it levels off the population of communities.

If somebody wanted to leave the community temporarily to visit friends or relatives (or perhaps even for a holiday) how would they support themselves at their destination? (if the produce they have for trade isn't accepted as currency there).

Well, I'm a little confused as to what you mean, could you give me an example?

If there is a shortage of one kind of produce (i.e. food), then how do you encourage people to produce something they don't like producing? Hunger and the desire to survive is an incentive, but by the time it kicks in it may be too late to grow a full crop before the food is needed (a lot of humans in a group have a habit of expecting "someone else" to do something that the group needs, until their need becomes severe enough).

You never should have to incentivize (is that a word?) the production of a product except in the case I mentioned.

If people have to trade what they produce with someone else to get other items, how do you stop people making a profit?
Note: I'm expecting you'll say that someone can complain to the group about this behaviour, but is there really an incentive to do so? After all, if you do that the person may not want to trade with you anymore (you still won't get the items you want/need) - he might trade with your neighbour instead.

The whole point is that positive incentives are banned (which includes trading).

How is the value of goods worked out? If it takes a week to produce 1,000 hippyburgers, and a week to produce 10,000 hippyshakes (dumb music reference, lol - you might be too young to get that), does that mean a person who wants a hippyburger must trade 10 hippyshakes to get one?

No, producing hippyburgers should only be done if one likes the actual production or finds the product to be worth producing it (ps, I'm curious what are these things?)

If there is a shortage of a produced item (lets take food again), does a person have to trade at all? If a person who produces food (they keep what they produce remember) sees a shortage of food, isn't it in his best interest to keep the food for himself rather than trade it?

As I said trade is not allowed, so most likely the vasat majority would be producing basics like that.

How does the community react to people not voluntarily sharing what they produce (if they can keep it) when the community has a need for those products?

If one produces something they get to keep it and if they want share it, otherwise the community can not take it (which reenforced by the fact that if one person's produce is stolen then everyone's is so it gives everyone an incentive to not steal). BTW, a "person" is not neccessarily a "person" since a group is often needed to perform a task, they all most acknowledge how the product will be shared between those producing it.

If a food producer wants to ensure their own survival (or suvival of their family) in a time of need - isn't it causing harm for the community to take action to remove food from that person's posession?

As I said, the amount of food shared between everyone is already decided so yes it would be harm for a person to have their fair share taken away and it would not be right of the community to take it.
I know withholding food might be seen as harm too, but taking it from an unwilling producer violates two laws (do no harm, and you can keep what you produce), so isn't that the worse of two evils?[/quote]
As I said above everyone is a producer and in a time of foos shortage, see below:

What if the producer has enough food to feed himself and family for a year, but sharing it among the community would thin it out so much that it wouldn't guarantee that anyone has enough food to survive until the next crop is ready?Is it better for the producer and his family to survive, or for everyone to die equally in the interests of fairness?

Haha, that would be PC to the max! Anyways, in a time of food shortage most likely it would have to be decided who would die, and if there aren't enough heroes/heroins and nobody can come to a decision of who else should die, then most likely it would decided on randomness.

So much for the simplicity Greenpeace promised, eh?

He only has alot of questions becasue I'm bad at explanation.

Without even reading through his whole list, Evil Muppet has a lot of considerations that society must.....errrr.....consider.

And somehow I'm stupid enough to have spent enough time answering them (never underestimate the power of stupidity!)

Hmm... all I can say is "make it so, Greenpeace!"

Go start your dream society, and let me know how it goes.

How would I tell you? By shouting really really loud? Unless I did some very hypocrtical things or managed to build a computer from the minerals of the land, I don't think it will be a short time before there is that high a level of technology
And even if I did it would be so awkward, "hey remember me from twenty years ago? Yeah, it friggin' works!"

Just for the record, I'm not having a go at you greenpeace. I just can't get my head around how its supposed to work. Besides, if its something you're serious about its better for you to think about these things now, rather than later.

Actually I'm thankful since I'm bad at explaning things, maybe this will help people understand.

Wow, you guys are still at this?

Yeah, I know what stupidheads. Especially that creepy Greenpeace guy.

 

[Perfection]

If one produces something they get to keep it and if they want share it, otherwise the community can not take it (which reenforced by the fact that if one person's produce is stolen then everyone's is so it gives everyone an incentive to not steal). BTW, a "person" is not neccessarily a "person" since a group is often needed to perform a task, they all most acknowledge how the product will be shared between those producing it.

So can someone give someone else a gift?