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.
If say twenty people use a public road. Those twenty are the users and have to agree on what to do with it...
but wait, you'll say how to I force anyone to go by this agreement, well here is the thing you miss. As private property is artificial and cannot sustain itself without outside support, control is based on usage.
If twenty people physically control something you can't get rid of anyone of them without physical force (which is aggression or a crime if you will). Anything besides that is ignored because that is the reality of the situation.
If you don't like a roommate you have, you still have to acknowledge there opinion on maintenance just from the reality that they physically take up that space. The only other option is leaving yourself.
Your other point is a different subject. Roads don't produce anything, they are on maintained. In terms of something with output like a factory, I never said that should be shared equally, such decisions would vary.
But everyone still has a say in ownership and labor distribution. How? from the fact that they work there. It is like living in a country, people might not benefit equally from the economy, but everyone has one vote from the nature of being a citizen. You have to work with the people around you least you use force which is a crime.
But then you ask why won't people form a group to exert force on others, because there is no long term gain. If there is no means to accumulate wealth beyond storage capacity, what do you gain from terrorizing others?
Of course people can still do that, but they do that here to in our current system, they're called gangs.
The entire system you're trying to push is artificial. Calling something 'artificial' is a meaningless statement. If I don't like my roommate under your system, I don't have to acknowledge their opinion on anything. I can simply let them do all the maintenance around the house, and I can do nothing. Without any sort of legal agreement and regulatory body to oversee that agreement, I can choose to screw that roommate over however I want.
Why on earth would anyone choose to live in the kind place you describe? A place where anyone can screw over anyone else without consequence, hard work of individuals is not recognized, and any sort of freedom is stepped on.
Honestly bud, it sounds awful. It sounds like the kind of thing a naive 18 year old would come up with.
The entire system you're trying to push is artificial. Calling something 'artificial' is a meaningless statement. If I don't like my roommate under your system, I don't have to acknowledge their opinion on anything. I can simply let them do all the maintenance around the house, and I can do nothing. Without any sort of legal agreement and regulatory body to oversee that agreement, I can choose to screw that roommate over however I want.
Why on earth would anyone choose to live in the kind place you describe? A place where anyone can screw over anyone else without consequence, hard work of individuals is not recognized, and any sort of freedom is stepped on.
Honestly bud, it sounds awful. It sounds like the kind of thing a naive 18 year old would come up with.
Who said anything about no oversight?
I may be an anarchist but I haven't mentioned it yet, argue with the facts at hand.
The reason you work with your roommate is because you have to, otherwise your living arrangement won't work; you have to share ownership of the place in terms of living arrangement if not work, that is the nature of things.
And private property is artificial, look at it earliest versions in sumeria, you cannot control land you don't live on, that is a fact of reality.
or perhaps you don't want to accept something that goes beyond your preconceived notions.
You still don't get freedom should not be on sale, and limited abilities are not limited freedoms. We all are naturally limited, if you want to expand those limits you have to work hard, the thing you say isn't appreciated. In your mind handwork is owning capital and allowing it to increase in value, not creating wealth yourself.
If freedom was realized the opposite would be true.
I may be an anarchist but I haven't mentioned it yet, argue with the facts at hand.
The reason you work with your roommate is because you have to, otherwise your living arrangement won't work; you have to share ownership of the place in terms of living arrangement if not work, that is the nature of things.
And private property is artificial, look at it earliest versions in sumeria, you cannot control land you don't live on, that is a fact of reality.
or perhaps you don't want to accept something that goes beyond your preconceived notions.
You still don't get freedom should not be on sale, and limited abilities are not limited freedoms. We all are naturally limited, if you want to expand those limits you have to work hard, the thing you say isn't appreciated. In your mind handwork is owning capital and allowing it to increase in value, not creating wealth yourself.
If freedom was realized the opposite would be true.
I understand what you're saying completely. I think it's a terrible idea that would lead to poverty, wars, and chaos. You don't want freedom. You want it to be legal for you to steal what other people have worked for.
I enjoy the condescension though, your real nature is finally coming out. You feel you have things figured out more than the rest of us. Unfortunately, you just have a bad idea. There's nothing wrong with that, I was naive when I was young too.
I may be an anarchist but I haven't mentioned it yet, argue with the facts at hand.
The reason you work with your roommate is because you have to, otherwise your living arrangement won't work; you have to share ownership of the place in terms of living arrangement if not work, that is the nature of things.
And private property is artificial, look at it earliest versions in sumeria, you cannot control land you don't live on, that is a fact of reality.
or perhaps you don't want to accept something that goes beyond your preconceived notions.
You still don't get freedom should not be on sale, and limited abilities are not limited freedoms. We all are naturally limited, if you want to expand those limits you have to work hard, the thing you say isn't appreciated. In your mind handwork is owning capital and allowing it to increase in value, not creating wealth yourself.
If freedom was realized the opposite would be true.
I understand what you're saying completely. I think it's a terrible idea that would lead to poverty, wars, and chaos. You don't want freedom. You want it to be legal for you to steal what other people have worked for.
I enjoy the condescension though, your real nature is finally coming out. You feel you have things figured out more than the rest of us. Unfortunately, you just have a bad idea. There's nothing wrong with that, I was naive when I was young too.
I'm not arrogant, that is why I listen to a plethora of people on this subject and discern the truth;
As for the bold, what do you mean work for? Did you work for the increased value in a stock?
And what does it mean to control more than you can store, why would you exert force onto others to control material wealth. Perhaps if society was not based on the value of capital, and rather the rights and equality of all, you wouldn't have the bizarre belief that all you ever owned is rightfully yours.
The reason you work with your roommate is because you have to, otherwise your living arrangement won't work; you have to share ownership of the place in terms of living arrangement if not work, that is the nature of things.
But I don't have to work with my roommate; I'm bigger and stronger than he is. I make the rules, and I've decided that the way things are going to work in our shared living space is that he will do 100% of the work. If he doesn't like it, he's free to leave and live elsewhere. If he disagrees with my rules and tries to stick around, I'll simply beat him into a bloody pulp. It's not like he can do anything about it.
Who can he call on for help? This isn't a hunter-gatherer clan or a small farming community, but a city; he's not surrounded by his kin, who might be willing to risk their own safety to protect his, but by unrelated people (most of whom are total strangers). Why should a total stranger risk running afoul of my wrath (and my fists) by intervening in a personal quarrel that is no concern of theirs? If they keep their nose out of it, they won't be hurt. And my roommate can't call the police; there are none in your system (because there's no government to form a police department, and no courts that could convict me of a crime).
Throughout this thread, you have kept insisting that mutual aid defines human nature. Mutual aid is a part of human nature, but it is not the entire sum of it. Conflict (up to and including extreme violence) is also just as integral a part of human nature, and you steadfastly ignore that. Any society has to find a way to control interpersonal conflicts within the group, conflicts between what is best for the group as a whole and what is best for one particular individual, and conflicts with other groups (who may or may not be friendly). Any society that is ineffective at managing that will not survive.
Yes, we help each other. We also harm each other with equal enthusiasm. Any system that doesn't have ways to effectively curb the latter behavior will turn into a society you really don't want to live in. And no, handwavium isn't good enough to explain away this particular problem.
The OP is fond of suggesting reading materials. My turn: he needs to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and the old folk take of the mice who decided to bell the cat.
But I don't have to work with my roommate; I'm bigger and stronger than he is. I make the rules, and I've decided that the way things are going to work in our shared living space is that he will do 100% of the work. If he doesn't like it, he's free to leave and live elsewhere. If he disagrees with my rules and tries to stick around, I'll simply beat him into a bloody pulp. It's not like he can do anything about it.
Who can he call on for help? This isn't a hunter-gatherer clan or a small farming community, but a city; he's not surrounded by his kin, who might be willing to risk their own safety to protect his, but by unrelated people (most of whom are total strangers). Why should a total stranger risk running afoul of my wrath (and my fists) by intervening in a personal quarrel that is no concern of theirs? If they keep their nose out of it, they won't be hurt. And my roommate can't call the police; there are none in your system (because there's no government to form a police department, and no courts that could convict me of a crime).
Throughout this thread, you have kept insisting that mutual aid defines human nature. Mutual aid is a part of human nature, but it is not the entire sum of it. Conflict (up to and including extreme violence) is also just as integral a part of human nature, and you steadfastly ignore that. Any society has to find a way to control interpersonal conflicts within the group, conflicts between what is best for the group as a whole and what is best for one particular individual, and conflicts with other groups (who may or may not be friendly). Any society that is ineffective at managing that will not survive.
Yes, we help each other. We also harm each other with equal enthusiasm. Any system that doesn't have ways to effectively curb the latter behavior will turn into a society you really don't want to live in. And no, handwavium isn't good enough t explain away this particular problem.
The OP is fond of suggesting reading materials. My turn: he needs to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and the old folk take of the mice who decide to bell the cat.
These are different questions. If people have 50/50 share they must come up to some consensus where both concede some ground.
In your case where violence and force is applied is equivalent to a crime. How society punishes crimes is a different philosophical argument than the one we're having. Remember local institutions still exist connected with one another to the same capacity they are today. I don't want to recreate a hunter/gatherer society, just understand the greater capacity for freedom and sustainability they provided.
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.
