|
On May 05 2012 04:28 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 04:02 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
3. I don't believe we would advance technologically. There would be no inovation. No competition. In this world, who cares about making a technological inovation. It brings nothing in return to the creator or company. It brings nothing to the company who makes the newest, fastest, safest car. After all, everything is generic anyway and there can only be 1 car company. There's very little innovation being done in our current system. Mostly just new iphone apps.
I am disagreeing:
Why has apple become so competitive in consumer technology? Because they changed and created new products that challenged the current status quo. All that to gain sales.
As far as government funding and control of scientific programs, for instance the Manhattan project and NASA, these programs were funded because of competition! Why did we authorize the Manhattan project? Because we needed a quick solution to end a war where our enemy was busy developing the same technology to use against us. NASA for the same reason. The USSR launches the first satellite into space asserting it's potential scientific dominance over the rest of the world. Think about it, without the competition between the US and USSR would we have the NASA we do today?
And while NASA landed on the moon, there is no reason for going back. Absolutely none. Corporations are going to continue operating in low space orbit.
If we want to mine on astroids, we need a reason to mine. If there is no competition on earth for resources and we have all the resources we need, then there is no reason to go astroid mining even if it was for 'free' (it would still take time, suplies, logistics, and human energy). Now only when we run out of resources will we go asteroid mining in the 'moneyless world'. Because we have the reason to go.
|
On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others.
lol. i dont think you understand how amusing your statement is considering my income bracket. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play?
|
|
|
Soo... Let's dominate the means of production and create a nation where the proletariat gets a fair shake from whoever leads us. What a radical new idea, somebody should try it. I hear they could use some change in Russia.
|
On May 05 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:12 Hertzy wrote:On May 05 2012 04:58 how wrote:On May 05 2012 03:47 Hertzy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:43 Hertzy wrote:I read through the charter, and the beginning struck me as a bit too hardline environmental. However, my main objection is to section six: Our community provides for all its members the necessities of a healthy, fulfilling and sustainable life, freely and without obligation. This is the sort of ambiguity they said they were trying to avoid. Also, this would enable cydial's counterexample. I'd like to elaborate on this; There should be an obligation to do your share of the work. Yes, there should be some accounting for disabilities and such, but if you declare a policy of giving everyone a basic living stipend, to borrow a term, you risk ending up with a community of deadbeats with a few bitter dutiful members carrying the load. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunantly, we do not live in a society that would allow something like to work even for a day. All philosophical arguments of human nature and what not aside, do you honestly see this working? It is a nice theory, but not, in my eyes, a realistic one. The real problem would be that you'd need the seed society to consist of people who earnestly agree with the system. Essentially, if you got a bunch of people together and loaded them into cryopods and loaded those pods to a colony ship headed into another star system, you could start this model of society up. Point of fact, it would probably work better than capitalism in a fresh coldship colony. I think the main problem with past experiments is building a cult around the leadership or being forced into totalitarianism because you had the old bourgeoise pining for the good old days. Here again, history says otherwise. http://mises.org/daily/5947/The-Fall-of-Communism-in-Massachusettshttp://mises.org/daily/5908/There are also a lot more examples from early America and 19th Century America if you want to read about them. I'll let the Governor of Plymouth tell you why: Show nested quote +All this while no supply was heard of.… So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length … the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves.… And so assigned to every family a parcel of land … for that end, only for present use.… This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing.… For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.… Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so … did … work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men.… Let none object this is men's corruption … all men have this corruption in them.… No one wants to work for others without any improvement of their own lot above others for their work. I tend to call that slavery as the value of your work is enjoyed by those who had no contribution, in other words, they receive benefit while you receive toil. People don't mind giving a part of their earnings to charity because of the way marginal utility works. The more you have of something the less you value it. The less you value something the more apt you are to give it away, or waste it. You want to bet that you would see charity dry up if people were less wealthy. I don't see African countries leading the way in giving away their property to others. Thus, if you really want to help others you want to make society as prosperous and free as possible. This the market accomplishes, and communism destroys. Also, let's be clear here because folks whose opinion differs from my liberalism always strawman that what we have today constitutes a market society, but it doesn't. It's Corporatist or Fascist, not liberal or market-society. As bad as Fascism or Corporatism is, at least there is some quasi-private property and even if prices are heinously distorted, at least there are prices. You think it bad now....I don't think people realize how intolerable it is to live in a Communistic society. If you were to plot happiness and prosperity it would go something like: Liberalism >>>>>>>> Fascism >>>>>>>>>>.Communism. The third answer no one talks about: Liberalism (Liberty) far superior to the so-called only two choices we have around today.
Funny, I made a very similar argument against capitalism in a post some way above. Also, as I mentioned, members of the society should be rewarded for a greater contribution, and the problem is that a company can buy your contribution at a pre-agreed rate and keep whatever worth they derive from your contribution to themselves even if your contribution is greater than the pre-agreed rate.
|
On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play?
Everyone. The fact you think you don't just reflects how jobs and employment function in our society - it also tells me that your working experience was shit, regardless of you boasting of (presumably) being in a high income bracket.
Besides, you wouldn't be choosing "work over play". You would be getting enough time for both, which is a good thing, given that people actually want both. You couldn't live that hypothetical life of playing games, watching tv, watching streams and doing nothing work-related for longer than a month without starting to feel miserable.
|
On May 05 2012 05:36 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play? Everyone. The fact you think you don't just reflects how jobs and employment function in our society - it also tells me that your working experience was shit, regardless of you boasting of (presumably) being in a high income bracket. Besides, you wouldn't be choosing "work over play". You would be getting enough time for both, which is a good thing, given that people actually want both. You couldn't live that hypothetical life of playing games, watching tv, watching streams and doing nothing work-related for longer than a month without starting to feel miserable.
its amazing how you know me better than i know myself.
edit: i took a month off work so that i could travel. and when i was done travelling, i was ready to take a vacation from travelling, but i sure as hell didnt want to go to work.
|
On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. lol. i dont think you understand how amusing your statement is considering my income bracket. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play?
People who feel enjoyment from achieving something? Well obviously I don't like working at Quiznos, but when I'm doing something that takes intellectual effort, I have a unique feeling at the end of the project that "playing" will never satisfy.
|
On May 05 2012 05:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:36 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play? Everyone. The fact you think you don't just reflects how jobs and employment function in our society - it also tells me that your working experience was shit, regardless of you boasting of (presumably) being in a high income bracket. Besides, you wouldn't be choosing "work over play". You would be getting enough time for both, which is a good thing, given that people actually want both. You couldn't live that hypothetical life of playing games, watching tv, watching streams and doing nothing work-related for longer than a month without starting to feel miserable. its amazing how you know me better than i know myself.
It is, isn't it? It's also amazing how little you understand people in general and what motivates them.
On May 05 2012 05:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
edit: i took a month off work so that i could travel. and when i was done travelling, i was ready to take a vacation from travelling, but i sure as hell didnt want to go to work.
So why be smug when I say that's because your experience at work was shit? If your experience was fulfilling, enjoyable and you were surrounded by friendly people working with you, why would you NOT want to go to work?
|
On May 05 2012 05:40 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:36 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play? Everyone. The fact you think you don't just reflects how jobs and employment function in our society - it also tells me that your working experience was shit, regardless of you boasting of (presumably) being in a high income bracket. Besides, you wouldn't be choosing "work over play". You would be getting enough time for both, which is a good thing, given that people actually want both. You couldn't live that hypothetical life of playing games, watching tv, watching streams and doing nothing work-related for longer than a month without starting to feel miserable. its amazing how you know me better than i know myself. It is, isn't it? It's also amazing how little you understand people in general and what motivates them.
i have only been speaking on behalf of myself. you, on the other hand, are speaking on behalf of everyone. maybe you should stick to talking about yourself and not feel the need to generalize your own apparent feelings to everyone else.
|
On May 05 2012 05:39 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. lol. i dont think you understand how amusing your statement is considering my income bracket. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play? People who feel enjoyment from achieving something? Well obviously I don't like working at Quiznos, but when I'm doing something that takes intellectual effort, I have a unique feeling at the end of the project that "playing" will never satisfy.
let me clarify my original statement because i think you make a fair point:
sounds good to me. i want to "do whatever i feel like" all day "and not work," and have others provide my basic necessities."
|
...and the generation growing up today thinks it's the smartest ? Wow.
|
On May 05 2012 05:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:39 Whole wrote:On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. lol. i dont think you understand how amusing your statement is considering my income bracket. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play? People who feel enjoyment from achieving something? Well obviously I don't like working at Quiznos, but when I'm doing something that takes intellectual effort, I have a unique feeling at the end of the project that "playing" will never satisfy. let me clarify my original statement because i think you make a fair point: sounds good to me. i want to "do whatever i feel like" all day "and not work," and have others provide my basic necessities."
This is the reason I think a communist society needs a "slackers prison" and maybe a few tiers to standard of living, to be awarded for greater contributions.
|
i like having a drive to be more wealthy than others.
i would have no incentive to try and do anything if i was going to be average.
|
Brilliant.
As a Communist, I find this interesting and relevant.
|
On May 05 2012 03:35 Hertzy wrote:
The fair distribution problem is the major issue for Communism. To be fair, with capitalism you have the question of how can you know companies holding most of the cards will be reasonable with the individual employee or client.
The fair distribution problem has nothing to do with Communism, just Leninism is Stalinism. In true Marxism you couldn't have the distribution problem because the revolution would not occur until its proper point in the dialectical materialist history, that is when scarcity is no longer a problem. With no scarcity, there is no distribution problem. Of course, this is taking a "pure" Marxist without the Lenin and later additions. Also, unless you believe we are at a point where we can end scarcity, then this kind of talk doesn't even matter.
However, I will agree that the fair distribution problem will be one that is a major issue in the growing Socialism that a mechanized world will have. We keep destroying jobs with machines and computation. Sure, these create jobs for people that have to maintain the systems, but really it does not add up to the same amount of jobs you destroy. Whole factories of thousands of workers are replaced by small businesses of hundreds who create and sell machines to multiple factories that once had these workers. Same in true in agribusiness and now computation is taking over in many white collar areas. Sure, this is a good move as the economy will be more efficient, but what do we do with misplaced workers?
To really understand the problem, take it to a non-actualizable extreme: say it becomes efficient enough that only 10% of the population is needed to really run the bulk of the economy at the current state. The rest are struggling to find the simple jobs and are crowding schools to be competitive with the 10%. Are we to penalize them? Remember that while 90% of the population was working (now), we have this distribution of wealth, should we try to keep it? How is a fair way to do this?
Of course, it won't be this extreme (I think), but the question still comes that if the unemployment rate keeps rising because companies get more efficient and just destroy jobs with computation and machinery, should we keep on this capitalist "if you don't have a job well f*** you" or should be set up some kind of job rotation system or just have higher unemployment benefits?
Of course, you could say this won't happen since there will always be jobs, but if you look at how much time people spend on facebook at work these days, I'd be willing to be that at least 10% people already have are already dead.
|
On May 05 2012 05:46 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:39 Whole wrote:On May 05 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:26 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. lol. i dont think you understand how amusing your statement is considering my income bracket. i dont want to go to work because who the fuck wants to work? i want to be lazy and play all day long, not work. video games may get boring, but then ill watch tv, watch some streams, etc. who chooses work over play? People who feel enjoyment from achieving something? Well obviously I don't like working at Quiznos, but when I'm doing something that takes intellectual effort, I have a unique feeling at the end of the project that "playing" will never satisfy. let me clarify my original statement because i think you make a fair point: sounds good to me. i want to "do whatever i feel like" all day "and not work," and have others provide my basic necessities." This is the reason I think a communist society needs a "slackers prison" and maybe a few tiers to standard of living, to be awarded for greater contributions.
you mean make it so that its no longer communism? communism's purpose is to eliminate classes.
|
On May 05 2012 05:35 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On May 05 2012 05:12 Hertzy wrote:On May 05 2012 04:58 how wrote:On May 05 2012 03:47 Hertzy wrote:On May 05 2012 03:43 Hertzy wrote:I read through the charter, and the beginning struck me as a bit too hardline environmental. However, my main objection is to section six: Our community provides for all its members the necessities of a healthy, fulfilling and sustainable life, freely and without obligation. This is the sort of ambiguity they said they were trying to avoid. Also, this would enable cydial's counterexample. I'd like to elaborate on this; There should be an obligation to do your share of the work. Yes, there should be some accounting for disabilities and such, but if you declare a policy of giving everyone a basic living stipend, to borrow a term, you risk ending up with a community of deadbeats with a few bitter dutiful members carrying the load. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunantly, we do not live in a society that would allow something like to work even for a day. All philosophical arguments of human nature and what not aside, do you honestly see this working? It is a nice theory, but not, in my eyes, a realistic one. The real problem would be that you'd need the seed society to consist of people who earnestly agree with the system. Essentially, if you got a bunch of people together and loaded them into cryopods and loaded those pods to a colony ship headed into another star system, you could start this model of society up. Point of fact, it would probably work better than capitalism in a fresh coldship colony. I think the main problem with past experiments is building a cult around the leadership or being forced into totalitarianism because you had the old bourgeoise pining for the good old days. Here again, history says otherwise. http://mises.org/daily/5947/The-Fall-of-Communism-in-Massachusettshttp://mises.org/daily/5908/There are also a lot more examples from early America and 19th Century America if you want to read about them. I'll let the Governor of Plymouth tell you why: All this while no supply was heard of.… So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length … the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves.… And so assigned to every family a parcel of land … for that end, only for present use.… This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing.… For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.… Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so … did … work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men.… Let none object this is men's corruption … all men have this corruption in them.… No one wants to work for others without any improvement of their own lot above others for their work. I tend to call that slavery as the value of your work is enjoyed by those who had no contribution, in other words, they receive benefit while you receive toil. People don't mind giving a part of their earnings to charity because of the way marginal utility works. The more you have of something the less you value it. The less you value something the more apt you are to give it away, or waste it. You want to bet that you would see charity dry up if people were less wealthy. I don't see African countries leading the way in giving away their property to others. Thus, if you really want to help others you want to make society as prosperous and free as possible. This the market accomplishes, and communism destroys. Also, let's be clear here because folks whose opinion differs from my liberalism always strawman that what we have today constitutes a market society, but it doesn't. It's Corporatist or Fascist, not liberal or market-society. As bad as Fascism or Corporatism is, at least there is some quasi-private property and even if prices are heinously distorted, at least there are prices. You think it bad now....I don't think people realize how intolerable it is to live in a Communistic society. If you were to plot happiness and prosperity it would go something like: Liberalism >>>>>>>> Fascism >>>>>>>>>>.Communism. The third answer no one talks about: Liberalism (Liberty) far superior to the so-called only two choices we have around today. Funny, I made a very similar argument against capitalism in a post some way above. Also, as I mentioned, members of the society should be rewarded for a greater contribution, and the problem is that a company can buy your contribution at a pre-agreed rate and keep whatever worth they derive from your contribution to themselves even if your contribution is greater than the pre-agreed rate.
This probably has to do because I am a proponent of the subjective theory of value, and value is whatever someone else is willing to pay you, and you probably believe in some 'objective' or LTV. Hence, you being communistic, and me being a liberal (for other Americans this means libertarian, since our etymology word usage has been so fucked up I thought I'd clear that up for future reference).
As I said your value is whatever someone else agrees to pay you, and there is always competition from both sides -- one wanting a higher (receiving payment) and one wanting lower (giving payment). Price is the equilibrium between the two sides wants. Price being the economic value, thus the price of your labor cannot be what someone is not willing to give you, thus by logic and definition there can be no exploitation because no such higher value exists because they are not willing to pay it. It's illusory. Only someone who believe in the non-sense LTV thinks value is derived by 'labor hours'. You can work 15 hard laborious hours out in the sun digging a ditch, and think you are entitled to just as much value as any other 15 or more 'intellectual' hours that produce value to others, but alas, the world doesn't work that way. This is why you see paintings and other works going for 100+ million, and why diamonds are more expensive than water, even though no one would argue against water being infinitely more needed.
|
communism doesn't work.
go read some books.
|
On May 05 2012 05:45 Kaitlin wrote:
...and the generation growing up today thinks it's the smartest ? Wow.
Part of me wants to blame the terrible educational system, and another part of me wants to say that the youth have always been naively idealistic and misguided. Then a third part of me says that this brand of simplistic tribalism is just ingrained human nature and will never go away. I really don't know what to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
