A question to Communists:

[Ecofarm]

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 to a community or not.

What happens when my community, who has been hording weapons for years (think of me as David Caresh) decides to kill everyone in your community (except the hot chicks) and take all your stuff? We decide to do this by popular vote with all stipulated authorites of my community in agreement.

If your government only works when people act in responsible and respectful ways, well... your plan sucks. Anyone can create a government for perfect people, that's easy.

That said, I'm pro-decentralization.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

What happens when my community, who has been hording weapons for years (think of me as David Caresh) decides to kill everyone in your community (except the hot chicks) and take all your stuff? We decide to do this by popular vote with all stipulated authorites of my community in agreement.

Then my community decides to do the same to your community, and probably gets a few other communities in on it, because these communities agree that your community is dangerous.

And while we're at it, let's scrap the whole community thing, and live in a sort of anarcho-capitalist society where individuals instead of communities act this way, much like the society set out in The Probability Broach.

(BTW: Note that the above is [google]ha ha only serious[/google].)

 

[greenpeace]

No. Your system is impossible on its own. That there is no free space left on Earth for you to found your new system in, however, is an additional speed bump. Your system requires specific definitions of harm and a specific method of administrating justice; no country anywhere will allow you to supercede their laws with yours. Unless maybe you move to Antarctica or something--which you're not going to do.

First of all, even if ever single square meter of Earth was inhabited by a hundred people and that somehow was guarenteed to be the case for the rest of humanity, I could simply convince people to adopt my system which makes it possible. Second, again, you need a complete and total hegemony for it to be impossible at all.

I never said that. I said this: "When opponents ACCUSE the USSR of failing, Communists reply that the USSR was not a true Communist state".

When did I ever say "the USSR failed, therefore Greenpeacocracy will fail"? Either quote me saying that....or you are a liar.


Wasn't talking about you. Was talking about radicals in general. You're a partial exception to the rule.

I thought you were implying me.

Can't fit any in there--your foot is in the way.

What happens when my community, who has been hording weapons for years (think of me as David Caresh) decides to kill everyone in your community (except the hot chicks) and take all your stuff? We decide to do this by popular vote with all stipulated authorites of my community in agreement.

If your government only works when people act in responsible and respectful ways, well... your plan sucks. Anyone can create a government for perfect people, that's easy.

That said, I'm pro-decentralization.

First, its impossible according to the laws to make someone work to produce weapons (or anything else except for food for elderly, young and otherwise physically ill or someway incapable). Second, there is no use taking over another community because not only does it violate core rules all that would happen is that you'd have to go to court twice as often and it would involve twice as many people (there are no economic benefits or any difference except what I described and a good chance at a sadder life). Third, by acting aggressive it gives other local communities incentive to make sure your community does not get out of hand.

this has got to be the longest debate on ive seen on cfc.

I think if it reaches 1000 posts we're going have to make a "Question to Communists II- The endless debate doesn't end" thread.

 

[BasketCase]

First of all, even if ever single square meter of Earth was inhabited by a hundred people and that somehow was guarenteed to be the case for the rest of humanity, I could simply convince people to adopt my system which makes it possible.

No, you couldn't. Your system is jacked to hell. Your method of administrating justice is unworkable and there's no way to make certain that essential services are provided. (There are other problems, but those are the biggest ones)

At best you would be living as a community within a larger country whose government provides the services your community fails at. Which means you end up obeying that larger country's laws, which kind of defeats the whole point of creating you idyllic little society in the first place.

 

[greenpeace]

No, you couldn't. Your system is jacked to hell. Your method of administrating justice is unworkable and there's no way to make certain that essential services are provided. (There are other problems, but those are the biggest ones)

How is the justice system "unworkable"? See next paragraph for my response to the basic services not being met.

At best you would be living as a community within a larger country whose government provides the services your community fails at. Which means you end up obeying that larger country's laws, which kind of defeats the whole point of creating you idyllic little society in the first place.

Who says I have to take the services of the more militarily powerful and larger nation? My system completely ensures that basics are met. I mean you're implying that, for example, people would just happily starve rather than set up a permaculture farm.

 

[scy12]

All those the perfect community theories neither prove to be better than the general consesus of a community that obeys the lows of a functioning state with . Neither is better than the already established subcomunities that live by the law of the city counsil , or the apartment subcommunity or the school's or the army's. Communities that abide by state rules but also by their own laws. We live in a world where rules for subcommunities that are a part of a larger community have already been established and any theory should try to improve upon them and prove to be better than them.

The anarchist model tries to describe how a functional subcommunity can suceed under it's own rules. Well bad luck to you because this idea exists today you are not discovering anything.

 

[greenpeace]

All those the perfect community theories neither prove to be better than the general consesus of a community that obeys the lows of a functioning state with . Neither is better than the already established subcomunities that live by the law of the city counsil , or the apartment subcommunity or the school's or the army's. Communities that abide by state rules but also by their own laws. We live in a world where rules for subcommunities that are a part of a larger community have already been established and any theory should try to improve upon them and prove to be better than them.

The anarchist model tries to describe how a functional subcommunity can suceed under it's own rules. Well bad luck to you because this idea exists today you are not discovering anything.

I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say, if you would rewrite that paragraph I could understand it better. What I think you're trying to say though is that decentralized communities have the weakness that the decisions of community members are not inherently good and can contradict core rules. Well, first of all there is no guarentee that a centralized authority is better at making rulings (in fact, as I have mentioned they are actually much worse because it is easily possible that the power will corrupt the centralized authority as opposed to the community who is directly affected to a corrupt decision). Second, the rules are made such that if one agrees with them they than pursuing them does not generally conflict with ones own self-interest, and if they don't agree than there is nothing preventing them form leaving.

 

[BasketCase]

How is the justice system "unworkable"?

And here we go again. The answers I already gave, fail to penetrate the thick armor protecting the brain.

How is your justice (lack of) system unworkable? Because human beings have specifically evolved AWAY from mob rule and do not want it. Because you're not a lawyer and don't know the first thing about administrating justice. Because you're not a policeman and don't know the first thing about how to investigate a crime scene. And because you specifically banned all the incentive methods to tempt people to train at the above.

Who says I have to take the services of the more militarily powerful and larger nation?

Two entities say that: the more militarily powerful and larger nation says it, and your own citizens will say it when Greenpeacocracy fails to meet all their needs.

My system completely ensures that basics are met.

No it doesn't. You specifically banned all possible methods of doing it.

I mean you're implying that, for example, people would just happily starve rather than set up a permaculture farm.

No, I'm not implying that. It's already happening.

People right here in the U.S. are starving right now. They're not setting up farms; they're trying to bum food off other people, or demanding handouts from the government.

Other people in the U.S. are homeless. They're not trying to get jobs in order to afford houses; they're not trying to build houses. They find a cardboard box or a blanket and stop there.

Various towns and cities in the U.S. are being overrun by gang warfare and crime; the people are not signing up to be police officers. They're demanding that local and state governments provide protection. Or they're running away and moving to some other city that has decent police protection.

Gas prices are going through the roof. Americans are not conserving fuel or purchasing bicycles. In fact, their gasoline usage has not changed much at all despite the higher cost; people are dialing down their spending everywhere else in their lives in order to keep getting their gasoline.


Your faith in human idealism DOES NOT WORK.

 

[scy12]

I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say, if you would rewrite that paragraph I could understand it better. What I think you're trying to say though is that decentralized communities have the weakness that the decisions of community members are not inherently good and can contradict core rules. Well, first of all there is no guarentee that a centralized authority is better at making rulings (in fact, as I have mentioned they are actually much worse because it is easily possible that the power will corrupt the centralized authority as opposed to the community who is directly affected to a corrupt decision). Second, the rules are made such that if one agrees with them they than pursuing them does not generally conflict with ones own self-interest, and if they don't agree than there is nothing preventing them form leaving.

What i am saying is that there already decentralized communities sometimes with their own different rules (than central athorities) but they also live in Harmony with central authority and the system works with very good efficiency.

 

[greenpeace]

And here we go again. The answers I already gave, fail to penetrate the thick armor protecting the brain.

How is your justice (lack of) system unworkable? Because human beings have specifically evolved AWAY from mob rule and do not want it. Because you're not a lawyer and don't know the first thing about administrating justice. Because you're not a policeman and don't know the first thing about how to investigate a crime scene. And because you specifically banned all the incentive methods to tempt people to train at the above.

First of all there are not literally thousands upon thousands of laws that rewuire a professional deceiver to interpret and understand. There is a simply paragraph definition of harm for people to agree with and execute. Second, police, fire fighters, hospital workers, etc. have the natural incentive in that they are very useful to a community so people would have to become one in order to reap the benefits (besides, do you really believe that fire fighters really risk their lives everyday going in harsh conditions for the crummy little check?).

Two entities say that: the more militarily powerful and larger nation says it, and your own citizens will say it when Greenpeacocracy fails to meet all their needs.

First: that requires complete and total hegemony for possibility. Second: you still have yet to prove that it fails to meet all needs.

No it doesn't. You specifically banned all possible methods of doing it.

This sentence shows a very huge lack of understanding about my system. There is absolutely no reason a person could not set up a permaculture farm (or any farm for that matter).

No, I'm not implying that. It's already happening.

People right here in the U.S. are starving right now. They're not setting up farms; they're trying to bum food off other people, or demanding handouts from the government.

Other people in the U.S. are homeless. They're not trying to get jobs in order to afford houses; they're not trying to build houses. They find a cardboard box or a blanket and stop there.

Even if you disregard the fact that the vast majority of homeless can't farm, so what if they try to bum. If the people give them food then they don't mind. If they don't than they get no food (which inevitably means they would get). However, you have to realize that permaculture can be used since although it may not be great for capitalist entrepeneurs since its low density and doesn't get the highest cash crop, for people in the society its great because requires extremely little work to maintain.

Various towns and cities in the U.S. are being overrun by gang warfare and crime; the people are not signing up to be police officers. They're demanding that local and state governments provide protection. Or they're running away and moving to some other city that has decent police protection.

Its funny you should mention one of the worst by-products of capitalism. Furthermore, many people don't train to be police officers because they get incentives from capitalist society to be something relatively unneccesary. THird, you really just stated a problem of your own society

Gas prices are going through the roof. Americans are not conserving fuel or purchasing bicycles. In fact, their gasoline usage has not changed much at all despite the higher cost; people are dialing down their spending everywhere else in their lives in order to keep getting their gasoline.


Your faith in human idealism DOES NOT WORK.

This arguement simply makes no sense. First of all, I can almost ensure you that nobody would want gas enough to actually work for it. Second, so what? If people would rather use up a substance faster than they can get it, thats their choice. Also, even if it was a problem, you mentioned that it was a problem with your society too.
edit: BTW, Basketcase you said I am a radical wingnut and in your sig you say "Death to radical wingnuts," so isn't that a death threat?

The answers I already gave, fail to penetrate the thick armor protecting the brain.

Perhaps thats because they're crappy answers

edit: I'll reply to you scy in a sec edit: here we go:

What i am saying is that there already decentralized communities sometimes with their own different rules (than central athorities) but they also live in Harmony with central authority and the system works with very good efficiency.

But there is no need for a centralized authority in the system. Sure it would be possible to fit one in, but it would only lead to corruption.

 

[BasketCase]

Garbage across the board.

I'm not getting sucked into any more of your pointless babbling. If you're going to keep running around in circles, I make just as much progress standing still. I have no respect for circular logic.

 

[greenpeace]

Garbage across the board.

I'm not getting sucked into any more of your pointless babbling. If you're going to keep running around in circles, I make just as much progress standing still. I have no respect for circular logic.

Really, show me just one example of circular logic. After all, if its all circular logic than it should be fairly easy.

 

[BasketCase]

This whole goddamn thread.

 

[greenpeace]

This whole goddamn thread.

Well your examples are clearly much better. I mean, stating three different ways your society fails in an attempt to say mine fails, that has got to be the best arguement ever (I certainly would never of thought of it).

 

[BasketCase]

I never said my society fails.

It has problems but it still works.

Yours flat-out fails.

 

[greenpeace]

I never said my society fails.

It has problems but it still works.

Yours flat-out fails.

But you haven't proven that my society fails.

 

[BasketCase]

Yes I have. To my satisfaction.

I don't give a flying crap about yours.

 

[greenpeace]

Yes I have. To my satisfaction.

I don't give a flying crap about yours.

Proving false something is an absolute.
Also, you have made no point that I have not refuted in whice the refutation was followed by you clearly showing a logical fallacy. If you disagree, just site a spot where you clearly showed logical fallacy.

 

[BasketCase]

I did. I showed logical fallacies by YOU.

Edit: I also pointed out blatant lies by you. Such as your claim just now that you refuted all my claims. You didn't. I refuted them all. Mostly with examples from the REAL world.

You have not posted a single real-world example anywhere. Your system is based entirely on hypotheticals which cannot be proven by ANY examples. You're always using words like "would" and "could". I use the word "did". Hegemony, for example: the U.S. destroyed David Koresh's pleasant little utopia. If you say it's impossible because "a complete and total hegemony is necessary" then you MUST be wrong because it DID happen WITHOUT a complete and total hegemony.

Your complete disregard of things that DID happen trumps anything you could possibly say in here.

Proving false something is an absolute.

It isn't my fault if you're too dense to understand the proof.

Fermat's Last Theorem

See? Doesn't make a damn bit of sense to you. I certainly can't make heads or tails of it.

If you don't understand the proof, that's your fault.

 

[greenpeace]

You have not posted a single real-world example anywhere.

Even if that were the case, rationality can be very dangerous when allowed for the purpose of self-interest. For example, sure its not nice to cause massive suicide of Indian farmers, but if your goal is money as it is for Monsanto, then it is a very rational thing to do.

Your system is based entirely on hypotheticals which cannot be proven by ANY examples. You're always using words like "would" and "could". I use the word "did". Hegemony, for example: the U.S. destroyed David Koresh's pleasant little utopia. If you say it's impossible because "a complete and total hegemony is necessary" then you MUST be wrong because it DID happen WITHOUT a complete and total hegemony.

That "utopia" or any other political ideology could be recreated though and in the future after the inevitable collapse of all major modern nations to other nations, it could even be sustained.

Your complete disregard of things that DID happen trumps anything you could possibly say in here.

Complete disregard? If I completely disregarded anything in the real world I would have no reason or way to even form this political concept.

edit: Woah, I just realized thst this thread has more views than the OT notice board!