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.
And social hierarchies will always form, but that should not equate political hierarchies.
But it inevitably does, once the group exceeds about 150 people. And that happens out of necessity.
Quote:
And who said I want a 'a highly technological society'. If that requires economic inequality, the pursuit of profit over well being of people, and the power of money over freedom, is it really worth it?
But you keep claiming that your system will support high technology (such as the Internet). I suspect that because you know that if you admit the truth (which is that it won't), people won't support your ideas. Most people really don't want to live a life of subsistence-level farming. It's not pleasant, and it offers little in the way of security (as you're always one bad drought away from starvation).
And yes, it's worth it. Most people live better lives under the systems of government you keep railing against. Most people LIKE modern medicine, having enough to eat on a regular basis, not having to do hard manual labor all day, etc.
Quote:
Here we are again to your main-point. today regardless of scale, all large groups whether they be companies or states, are made up of smaller parts. Even in Unitarian systems and deal of autonomy has to be given to these smaller parts as they can function based on their own independent needs. This does not mean a larger network shouldn't be formed between these individual parts, but that they should be sharing power rather than having it collectivized by one power source.
As soon as you start forming these larger networks, guess what happens? Disparities in power, that's what. The person who's representing the smaller group in the larger network inevitably ends up wielding more actual authority than everyone else in the small group.
There's no way to structure a society of millions (yet alone hundreds of millions) which will result in each individual in that society holding an equal level of power. That's just how it is. We know your methods lead the creation of places like North Korea when they are applied at scale. No thanks. I'd rather work on discovering alternative political structures which both provide those at the bottom of the social order with a better life and which actually work at scale.
You still see things in terms of self-gain, but there cannot be any self gain without cooperation. If those are the requirements to benefit one's self, that is what even the most greedy individual will do.
Not true. That's why small groups such as hunter-gatherer bands use tools such as social ostracism or even violence to curb anti-social behavior. They don't do it because they enjoy it, they do it out of necessity, because some people simply won't cooperate in the absence of real coercion.
But it inevitably does, once the group exceeds about 150 people. And that happens out of necessity.
But you keep claiming that your system will support high technology (such as the Internet). I suspect that because you know that if you admit the truth (which is that it won't), people won't support your ideas. Most people really don't want to live a life of subsistence-level farming. It's not pleasant, and it offers little in the way of security (as you're always one bad drought away from starvation).
And yes, it's worth it. Most people live better lives under the systems of government you keep railing against. Most people LIKE modern medicine, having enough to eat on a regular basis, not having to do hard manual labor all day, etc.
As soon as you start forming these larger networks, guess what happens? Disparities in power, that's what. The person who's representing the smaller group in the larger network inevitably ends up wielding more actual authority than everyone else in the small group.
There's no way to structure a society of millions (yet alone hundreds of millions) which will result in each individual in that society holding an equal level of power. That's just how it is. We know your methods lead the creation of places like North Korea when they are applied at scale. No thanks. I'd rather work on discovering alternative political structures which both provide those at the bottom of the social order with a better life and which actually work at scale.
1. Again, all systems have smaller parts. just because a system takes place over more than 150 people, does not mean it doesn't breakdown to that size at some level.
2. No, the question is should we peruse a highly advanced economy to compete on the international stage, and I say no. Technological advancements would still come, but there should be no central plan to force there implementation for the sake of profit/competition. And no again, people won't be all subsistence farmers. Having less to buy on the market doesn't mean the current capital that we use will disappear, nor the educational institutions that help operate it.
3. Of course some groups would be larger than other, but because private capital cannot be accumulated, that disparity cannot be used to control others. Today economic size can be used to form power because the labor that creates it is seen as a commodity of that economic size. If the owners were the labor base, then that greater capital sharing won't be a tool to use against others.
So let's say that I have more of something in my home (am I allowed to have that at least: a home?) than you've determined is necessary - limiting which would somehow make me more free. You propose to stop me from having more than my needs as determined by you, and posit that in doing so, you actually make me more free from the state. Now how do you propose to ensure that I don't have more of whatever than is allowed?
I don't want a centrally planned system, quite the opposite in fact.
If you live in a house you own it. If you store capital there you own it. The question comes when you have extra capital you cannot protect or control yourself, why should you have authority over other's who use it.
Like vacant homes, or excessive capital you can't store that other people can take, in which case they shouldn't worried about be sued or gunned down by state officers.
So let's say that I have more of something in my home (am I allowed to have that at least: a home?) than you've determined is necessary - limiting which would somehow make me more free. You propose to stop me from having more than my needs as determined by you, and posit that in doing so, you actually make me more free from the state. Now how do you propose to ensure that I don't have more of whatever than is allowed?
in his communistic world, nope you don't OWN your own home..you OWN nothing, everything is the communities/communes , they allow you to use/live there and allow you to slave in their workers camps
even your intellect and skills are not yours, but belong to the commune, to dictate to you, how to use them for the communes benefit
Ask yourself why, if ownership cannot be practiced, how does it exist.
And in terms of practical affects, people will work more realistically and cooperatively, unlike now where most of the personal output of one worker is insignificant alone since wage employment based on the needs of corporate profit drive work.
Think about it this way, when you work to improve your house, you work on something you have ownership over and to see the effects. When you work for a wage job you do not care about the output, just the compensation.
If I can take the fruits of someone else's labor, why would I put the effort in to work myself?
If I don't want the downside risk of being an owner (remember, owners are responsible for losses as well as profits), but I want to only work for a wage, why am I not allowed to? Many people don't want more than the compensation for the time and effort they give.
People won't work cooperatively. They will eat each other. What group based project in school or on a job have you ever been a part of when one person or a small group of people didn't end up doing the majority of the work? The concept that people will simply cooperate equally if made equal owners is wrong. There's a reason why even in legal partnerships today (which is what you're proposing) it is foolish to not have one person with a higher degree of ownership, so that they have a tiebreaking vote.
What incentive is there for me to personally contribute in your system? You have still yet to describe how you would control anything in your system.
1. Again, all systems have smaller parts. just because a system takes place over more than 150 people, does not mean it doesn't breakdown to that size at some level.
So a private in a squad has the same amount of power as a general, because ultimately the US Army breaks down into 10-person squads.
The larger the number of people who need to be organized, the more complicated the hierarchical structure needs to become, and the less power the average person working in that structure is able to actually wield. Your argument is like saying that because all matter is composed ultimately from quarks, we can use subatomic physics to understand ecology.
Quote:
No, the question is should we peruse a highly advanced economy to compete on the international stage, and I say no. Technological advancements would still come...
I hope they come in time to deal with the other societies on the planet who are fine with inequality of power so long as it allows them to build high technology - because they are going to conquer our ass otherwise. You need to look what happens to less-technologically-advanced societies when they come into conflict with more technologically-advanced ones. It's not pretty.
Quote:
Of course some groups would be larger than other, but because private capital cannot be accumulated, that disparity cannot be used to control others. Today economic size can be used to form power because the labor that creates it is seen as a commodity of that economic size. If the owners were the labor base, then that greater capital sharing won't be a tool to use against others.
Except that your system literally has no way to prevent private wealth from being accumulated. You have no solution to the problem of how to deal with those who AREN'T willing to play nice and fair.
More accurately, SOME people won't work cooperatively. And any society, regardless of its size, has to have effective ways to deal with those people. Otherwise the society can't function.
Quote:
What group based project in school or on a job have you ever been a part of when one person or a small group of people didn't end up doing the majority of the work? The concept that people will simply cooperate equally if made equal owners is wrong. There's a reason why even in legal partnerships today (which is what you're proposing) it is foolish to not have one person with a higher degree of ownership, so that they have a tiebreaking vote.
Exactly.
As I explained to our OP, even in a hunter-gatherer band the person who works harder and shares more receives a direct, personal benefit for doing so. They aren't being exceptionally hardworking and generous purely out of the goodness of their heart.
Honestly, some time spent working on the board of an HOA would strip some of the naivete from the eyes of this poster. Even in small groups, getting people to cooperate for their mutual good is like herding cats.
Quote:
What incentive is there for me to personally contribute in your system? You have still yet to describe how you would control anything in your system.
Because he can't. All he can do is wave his hands and chant "Read Mutual Aid!"
If I can take the fruits of someone else's labor, why would I put the effort in to work myself?
If I don't want the downside risk of being an owner (remember, owners are responsible for losses as well as profits), but I want to only work for a wage, why am I not allowed to? Many people don't want more than the compensation for the time and effort they give.
People won't work cooperatively. They will eat each other. What group based project in school or on a job have you ever been a part of when one person or a small group of people didn't end up doing the majority of the work? The concept that people will simply cooperate equally if made equal owners is wrong. There's a reason why even in legal partnerships today (which is what you're proposing) it is foolish to not have one person with a higher degree of ownership, so that they have a tiebreaking vote.
What incentive is there for me to personally contribute in your system? You have still yet to describe how you would control anything in your system.
The demand isn’t labor. When you have a group project the output is all that matters, not the usage.
But when dictation on the usage are democratic, like a road everyone uses, then it is a question of consensus. Work is not expected from owners.
So say you work at a university and use the roads to get to and from home. You are not expected to work there, as you already work, you just have shared democratic ownership which will make you more involved in changes as those affect you to, and could volunteer your help on matters that are more important to you than others.
And people are free to work for a wage, but that should be up to the laborer, not someone who claims ownership on capital.
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.
