Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Controlled capitalism is not free market capitalism. If what you said was true, then Yeltsin would have made Russia far richer than China rather than bankrupting it.
The difference with China is that economic growth in the global market wasn't the central plan of the government. After Mao that changed, it had nothing to do with implementing a freer market meant to help individuals control the economy in their own right through capital ownership (something you love).
It may have not been the plan, but that's exactly what happened. Once China began participating in the global market and using its advantages (mainly cheap labor), their wealth skyrocketed and poverty plummeted.
So I'd no longer have the freedom to own my hunting land in a different part of the state, buuuut, that means I have more freedom?
How can you own something like hunting land in a far away state without some higher authority giving you this right? Which in a way really only means you dont "own" it really. You just have privileges to it granted by the higher authority.
How can you own something like hunting land in a far away state without some higher authority giving you this right? Which in a way really only means you dont "own" it really. You just have privileges to it granted by the higher authority.
Thank you, the term privileges is an excellent way of framing it
You want a conversation (as long as people agree with you). You came here looking for a fight, and are unwilling to consider you might be wrong. How narrow minded of you.
It isn't that your ideas are 'far left' that I have a problem with. My problem is that they are poorly thought through. It's as if you read this in a book, thought it sounded cool and are repeating back what you read without thinking any of it through.
A court case which allows criminals to be prosecuted for wrongs they committed? Yes, that's a huge public benefit that would not exist in your society.
In your system those type of people would be free to screw over anyone and everyone they like, with no consequence.
1. That’s not true, I am never looking for a fight, and I have had my views slightly altered before on this forum alone.
2. That’s not it, I have thought it through beyond what any one book has told me.
3. That’s not true, regulation on individual practices come in the form of districting. Say for example you have a river that is the water source for multiple communities, they own and regulate that water system in accordance with all other participants. In the same way cross county resources are operated by a network of authorities involved in its usage.
Now take consumer protection, in terms of public resources the consumers control it (like public health). Now take cooperative production of capital like food; as the cooperative is functioned by all the workers pooling together their capital, no one person can organize labor as to maximize profit, and as such low quality produce would not be marketed (if it were marketed at all). In fact the only reason for it to be marketed at all is for trade or mutual Aid.
But even then, the market wouldn’t be a place organized like a grocery store where all goods are stored for sale, if there was any such storage space quality standards would be set.
In today's society it is up to the laborer if they want to work for a wage. No one forces you to apply for any particular job.
Having a 'shared democratic ownership' does not make me more involved. I am still going to choose to not work, and just take the rewards from other owners working. How will you stop me from doing that? What incentive do I have to work? Being an equal democratic owner with equal results is not a motivation to do anything.
Why would I ever volunteer my help if I don't get anything out of it? What incentive is there for me?
I'm understanding your philosophy more, though. You want to get the rewards of other people working, and you want other people to volunteer their time and effort to do things for you. Laziness is not an attractive political system.
again this is not the case. If people don’t work they don’t achieve a higher standard of living. And if you don’t work then other would not cooperate with you to produce greater capital or distribute/trade it.
Roads and public infrastructure are different of course.
1. That’s not true, I am never looking for a fight, and I have had my views slightly altered before on this forum alone.
2. That’s not it, I have thought it through beyond what any one book has told me.
3. That’s not true, regulation on individual practices come in the form of districting. Say for example you have a river that is the water source for multiple communities, they own and regulate that water system in accordance with all other participants. In the same way cross county resources are operated by a network of authorities involved in its usage.
Now take consumer protection, in terms of public resources the consumers control it (like public health). Now take cooperative production of capital like food; as the cooperative is functioned by all the workers pooling together their capital, no one person can organize labor as to maximize profit, and as such low quality produce would not be marketed (if it were marketed at all). In fact the only reason for it to be marketed at all is for trade or mutual Aid.
But even then, the market wouldn’t be a place organized like a grocery store where all goods are stored for sale, if there was any such storage space quality standards would be set.
Enough flaws have been proven here alone that it shows you have not thought this through.
The cooperative is not functioned by all workers. It's functioned by a few workers, and consumed by all. It allows any person to take what they want from anyone else. As I have asked multiple times (and you haven't answered), what stops me from just not doing anything, and still consuming from the collective pool of resources?
You seem to ignore questions asked of you and copy/paste passages from some book you read instead as responses. If you're trying to have a conversation, try to respond to what I say.
Enough flaws have been proven here alone that it shows you have not thought this through.
The cooperative is not functioned by all workers. It's functioned by a few workers, and consumed by all. It allows any person to take what they want from anyone else. As I have asked multiple times (and you haven't answered), what stops me from just not doing anything, and still consuming from the collective pool of resources?
You seem to ignore questions asked of you and copy/paste passages from some book you read instead as responses. If you're trying to have a conversation, try to respond to what I say.
1. Not at all
2. It depends, public services that are not one time capital exchanges like electric systems, irrigation systems, roads, etc. are managed by both the consumer and the workers, think a credit union bank.
3. Yes people can do nothing, live in a decaying vacant house, receive public water, and live off of excess food. But the vast minority of people would want to live like then when so much more capital is available to them so readily and in such close proximity. The more people you work with, the more networks you make/join, and the more production you help procure, the more capital available there is for you to use and consume.
Do you think welfare for the extreme poor to just get by should be cut as is? Because this is not that much different and is the best case scenario as I describe it. If people don't use public services that is different, but when they are involved in management, a consensus in terms of how much everyone should give in support can be made, but if one person doesn't want to do anything they can get away with it.
4. This is a meaningless lie, if I copy and paste something, I would site a source, not claim it as my own.
again this is not the case. If people don’t work they don’t achieve a higher standard of living. And if you don’t work then other would not cooperate with you to produce greater capital or distribute/trade it.
Roads and public infrastructure are different of course.
Why wouldn't they work with me? I just lie to them, hide that I don't do work, and blend into the crowd. But thank you for the answer, you're telling me you have no way of stopping me from just taking what others produce in your system while contributing nothing myself.
Your ideas only work in small groups of people who all know each other. As a society beyond hunter/gatherer lifestyles, it's a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
1. Not at all
2. It depends, public services that are not one time capital exchanges like electric systems, irrigation systems, roads, etc. are managed by both the consumer and the workers, think a credit union bank.
3. Yes people can do nothing, live in a decaying vacant house, receive public water, and live off of excess food. But the vast minority of people would want to live like then when so much more capital is available to them so readily and in such close proximity. The more people you work with, the more networks you make/join, and the more production you help procure, the more capital available there is for you to use and consume.
Do you think welfare for the extreme poor to just get by should be cut as is? Because this is not that much different and is the best case scenario as I describe it. If people don't use public services that is different, but when they are involved in management, a consensus in terms of how much everyone should give in support can be made, but if one person doesn't want to do anything they can get away with it.
4. This is a meaningless lie, if I copy and paste something, I would site a source, not claim it as my own.
Then prove you've put some thought into this. Respond to people pointing out the obviously disastrous parts of your plan. Look, it's fine that you haven't thought this through. You threw an idea out, the disastrous results of it were shown to you. Accept it and move on.
Prove to us that it's more than you just not wanting to work, and wanting to make it legal for you to steal what other people have while severely restricting their freedom.
All local usage would be limited to the local level, as usage is determined not on a wide scale, but on a community level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
