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.
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.
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 obviously bad idea out, the flaws 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.
I can only offer you the evidence and logic that have brought me to this conclusion.
If say an electric cooperative or road cooperative was cumulatively managed by the workers and the users, to different degrees, people would come up to some consensus on the level of investment needed, relative to local demand.
Now if someone were to use a public good and not operate to it by agreed standards, then they would be exiled from such usage.
And even in the case of ISPs, they are reliant on that public works and are in no way independent of it.
Nope. Where I live, the poles are owned by the infrastructure company. The cables that transmit internet to my house are owned, and were installed, by Comcast. No government ownership there. In fact, all of the entities that use the power poles and lines pay a tax to the government for the privilege of crossing the public streets.
I can only offer you the evidence and logic that have brought me to this conclusion.
If say an electric cooperative or road cooperative was cumulatively managed by the workers and the users, to different degrees, people would come up to some consensus on the level of investment needed, relative to local demand.
Now if someone were to use a public good and not operate to it by agreed standards, then they would be exiled from such usage.
Why would people come up with a consensus? When has that ever happened in a group you've been a part of without some sort of authority? If you're even out of school yet, when have you ever been on a project at work where everyone puts in equal effort?
You have yet to show any evidence or logic. You keep repeating that people will simply work together if they were all partial owners, without giving any reason as to why.
I've been a partial owner of a company where most of the owners were workers. Just because you are an owner does not mean you are going to put any effort in. That's simply wrong.
Why would people come up with a consensus? When has that ever happened in a group you've been a part of? If you're even out of school yet, when have you ever been on a project at work where everyone puts in equal effort?
You have yet to show any evidence or logic. You keep repeating that people will simply work together if they were all partial owners, without giving any reason as to why.
I've been a partial owner of a company where most of the owners were workers. Just because you are an owner does not mean you are going to put any effort in. That's simply wrong.
That's true, but that is not always necessary.
The demands of maintenance or expansion are relative to the demands of the consumers/users.
If in the case of public works people who use it don't contribute, then in most cases they will get away with it. But conversely if the demands increase, the cumulative users and workers can come to some agreement to increase investment or else disallow all those who won't from using the public works.
And consensus is not about getting everyone to work, just coming to an agreement no one disagrees with.
The demands of maintenance or expansion are relative to the demands of the consumers/users.
If in the case of public works people who use it don't contribute, then in most cases they will get away with it. But conversely if the demands increase, the cumulative users and workers can come to some agreement to increase investment or else disallow all those who won't from using the public works.
And consensus is not about getting everyone to work, just coming to an agreement no one disagrees with.
Great idea. Let's call those agreements corporations and governments. We've done that already, and your system evolves into what we have today. Mainly because your system by itself simply doesn't work.
It's good for you to finally admit you need a corporation, government, or some sort of governing structure to punish people who refuse to follow your society's rules.
When have you EVER been in a group of more than 10 people where you came to a decision where no one disagrees? Are you old enough to work yet? (honestly curious, I don't mean that as an insult) because I've yet to see a single group of people where no one disagrees in my adult life.
And consensus is not about getting everyone to work, just coming to an agreement no one disagrees with.
In a group of any significant size, it’s almost never possible to come up with an agreement that no one will disagree with.
Two years ago, we had a major component in my condo building’s HVAC system break down. Repairing it would require an expensive special assessment - but not making the repair would have made the building all but unlivable in the summer heat. A vote was held, and two owners out of the total of 55 voted against the special assessment. They preferred to let the building become dangerously hot rather than perform the repair!
Fortunately, my condo association does not require unanimity to pass an assessment, merely a sufficiently large majority, so the assessment was levied and those two owners had to pony up their fair share of the repair costs (even though they clearly didn’t want to).
Any system requiring unanimous consensus will inevitably be derailed by the stupid, the short-sighted, and the crazy, to the great detriment of the majority of the people who are none of those things.
Confiscation of "surplus" from the productive for the benefit of the nonproductive will surely benefit - the takers.
But in short order, the amount of "surplus" will decline. No one is going to strive to produce MORE so it may be taken from them - for the good of the state.
And what will happen when the nation's productive slack off, and the nonproductive grows and grows, thanks to public subsidy.
THE GLORIOUS SOCIALIST COLLECTIVE?
Nope.
Nueva Venezuela.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 01-16-2019 at 09:53 PM..
Confiscation of "surplus" from the productive for the benefit of the nonproductive will surely benefit - the takers.
But in short order, the amount of "surplus" will decline. No one is going to strive to produce MORE so it may be taken from them - for the good of the state.
And what will happen when the nation's productive slack off, and the nonproductive grows and grows, thanks to public subsidy.
THE GLORIOUS SOCIALIST COLLECTIVE?
Nope.
Neuva Venezuela.
What confiscation?
If you cannot store or consume something, then it is not yours. Period.
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.
