The problem is that socialists get tired of getting their asses kicked all the time, Jason. So they run away for a while--be it a day or two or longer.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:40 am
thats not entirely fair condisering it is me answering all four of you.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:51 am
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
I don't do engineer work out of the goodness of my heart - I'd rather be an artist. Actually, I'd rather play video games and drink beer all day.
if you have ever been on vacation for a long time? what happens? personally i get bored and start working on something.
you will work because of socal pressures and because you know nothing will get done if you dont.
there is no reason why you cant both be an engineer and an artist, see balenced job complexes
Macchiavelli, would you care to point out the differences between the two? I've highlighted some similarities like ParEcon's "unique democratic allocation system." I don't see why one shouldn't just call it socialism.
well, the first major differance is that the socalist party wants to have a parlementary representative democracy(ownership by the state) wheras parecon is run by participtory democracy and self management(ownership having been abolished, except for possessions)
would any of you care to define socialism?
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:16 am
Machiavelli wrote:
thats not entirely fair condisering it is me answering all four of you.
Sucks to be you.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:20 am
transientangent wrote:
Macchiavelli, would you care to point out the differences between the two? I've highlighted some similarities like ParEcon's "unique democratic allocation system." I don't see why one shouldn't just call it socialism.
Machiavelli wrote:
well, the first major differance is that the socalist party wants to have a parlementary representative democracy(ownership by the state) wheras parecon is run by participtory democracy and self management(ownership having been abolished, except for possessions)
That's just a wallpaper difference--not a real structural difference--especially considering that the community would own the resources. Thus, ownership has not been abolished.
Machiavelli wrote:
would any of you care to define socialism?
"Socialism. A system of social organization that calls for the public ownership of the means of production. A policy which aims at constructing a society in which all the material means of production are under the exclusive control of the organized community, i.e., government, the social organism of coercion, compulsion and repression.
Under socialism,
the organized community would not only determine what is to be produced, how it is to be produced and who is to produce it, but also who is to receive the products and how they are to be used. Under such a monopolistic ownership and control of the factors of production, there would be no market for such factors and thus no place for a medium of exchange (money) or the use of economic calculation which must be based on market prices.
In the final analysis, all decisions would be centralized under one supreme authority. Accordingly, the principles of socialism, if carried to their logical conclusion, would inevitably lead to a one-man dictatorship."
I’m talking about participatory democracy here, distinguished from representative.
Proudhon was the first person to refer to himself as an anarchist, therefore he started the anarchist philosophy. I challenge you to find one person to before him who called themselves an anarchist.
The employee is not always free to seek another employer, because of external circumstances like having a family to support, or if there is a large pool of unemployed workers and no jobs available, or if they are low skilled, or if they are working under a contract which says you must work here for one year, or if they are blacklisted,
Please respond to my points, don’t analyze my debating method, since after all labeling something a logical fallacy could just be a way to dodge a point you don’t want to address. Also it is subjective whether something is or is not a fallacy.
When you say, “it’s all the fault of government” that doesn’t mean anything to me, you have to back it up with some kind of argument
Governments derive their power from the consent of the people, if the people don’t consent to be governed they revolt. You can at least choose your government officials, and change them by voting. whereas corporate executives are entirely unaccountable to the public
Basic needs are calculated like this (50 liters of water per day x Population x Number of days in the year) other items can be received through request
It is your responsibility to help other because what happen to them effects you, so if a cholera epidemic sweeps the Midwest where grain/meat are produced you don’t get your shit and because you refuse to help it takes longer to recover the productive capacity of the area
Yes, the US flag is also a symbol of jingoism
You exert effort because you also benefit
Exploitation- to take advantage of
Ex: underpaying a worker for his labour
Note that not all costs of a transaction are factored into the exchange, so if I sell you a car I price based on how much it cost to produce, what is not factored in is the effect on society cause by smog, noise pollution, destruction of natural habitats for roads/parking spaces, etc
Look, the reason we don’t see more cooperatives is that you cant function within a capitalist society if you give stuff away for free
Here is how your argument conflicts:
“the thing is that most all wage earners lack the capital to do that”
“Property is the result of mixing one's own labor with unowned natural resources.”
So where are these wage earners to find the unowned natural resources ?
Free riders are not a problem if you reward according to effort and sacrifice, however I think that food like speech is a right, further if you try to force people to work they become less efficient
The right of occupancy(homesteading) which you refer to is I think false since it gives the right of ownership to he who can seize it
How we distribute resources is by request, its not like we produce everything all at once and just have it sit around waiting to be shipped out.
Barter implies exchange, there is no exchange in a gift economy
ok, I’ll bite where do you claim anarchism originated
the owner has many workers and the unemployed/oppressed parts of the population to draw from for labor, all the workers would have to refuse to work for that to be any threat.
This is not physics, the terms are open to interpretation, it is open to argument as to weather the owners direction was necessary to achieve the end
If you till the soil or build you posses the product you planted or the building not the soil
Soil is like air you cant posses it legitimately
You do have to ask to go to the bathroom in some meat packing plants
A dress code is a violation of freedom of expression
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:04 am
Machiavelli wrote:
I’m talking about participatory democracy here, distinguished from representative.
And that falls in line with socialism. Do you have something that isn't just wallpaper-different from socialism?
Machiavelli wrote:
Proudhon was the first person to refer to himself as an anarchist, therefore he started the anarchist philosophy.
Non sequitur.
Machiavelli wrote:
The employee is not always free to seek another employer,
The employee is always free to seek another employer.
Machiavelli wrote:
Please respond to my points, don’t analyze my debating method, since after all labeling something a logical fallacy could just be a way to dodge a point you don’t want to address. Also it is subjective whether something is or is not a fallacy.
No it isn't. If you tried that line in college in Philosophy 101 or Logic 101, the professor would laugh at you.
Machiavelli wrote:
When you say, “it’s all the fault of government” that doesn’t mean anything to me, you have to back it up with some kind of argument
I should think that all of the government interventions and wars would suffice.
Machiavelli wrote:
Governments derive their power from the consent of the people, if the people don’t consent to be governed they revolt. You can at least choose your government officials, and change them by voting. whereas corporate executives are entirely unaccountable to the public
Oh really? So people MUST buy certain products because they are FORCED to by some corporation? People can't choose McDonalds or Burger King?
What sort of fucking nonsense are you expecting us to believe?
Machiavelli wrote:
Basic needs are calculated like this (50 liters of water per day x Population x Number of days in the year) other items can be received through request
But, if there is a problem it must wait until the next yearly meeting.
Machiavelli wrote:
It is your responsibility to help other
No it isn't.
Machiavelli wrote:
Exploitation- to take advantage of
Ex: underpaying a worker for his labour
Underpaying according to what standard? To YOUR sensibilities? That won't fly.
Machiavelli wrote:
Note that not all costs of a transaction are factored into the exchange, so if I sell you a car I price based on how much it cost to produce, what is not factored in is the effect on society cause by smog, noise pollution, destruction of natural habitats for roads/parking spaces, etc
There is no effect on society--there are only effects on individuals. And such costs can be dealt with via property rights.
Machiavelli wrote:
Look, the reason we don’t see more cooperatives is that you cant function within a capitalist society if you give stuff away for free
Sure you can--you just can't give away everything for free.
Machiavelli wrote:
Here is how your argument conflicts:
“the thing is that most all wage earners lack the capital to do that”
“Property is the result of mixing one's own labor with unowned natural resources.”
So where are these wage earners to find the unowned natural resources ?
How does the argument conflict?
Machiavelli wrote:
Free riders are not a problem if you reward according to effort and sacrifice,
Effort and sacrifice mean shit if you produce something no one wants.
Machiavelli wrote:
however I think that food like speech is a right, further if you try to force people to work they become less efficient
Precisely the problem of socialism.
Machiavelli wrote:
The right of occupancy(homesteading) which you refer to is I think false since it gives the right of ownership to he who can seize it
Seize what?
Machiavelli wrote:
How we distribute resources is by request, its not like we produce everything all at once and just have it sit around waiting to be shipped out.
No, you just produce everything based on the yearly meeting, remember? Did you forget what you said initially? Do I have to quote it for you?
Machiavelli wrote:
Barter implies exchange, there is no exchange in a gift economy
And there's no economy, either.
Machiavelli wrote:
Actually the US alone produces enough food to feed the world, it just doesn’t get shipped to the places that need it, the govt has silos full of grain that will never be used
So?
Machiavelli wrote:
BAAWA:
The thing about planning for one year was copy-pasted from here:
That's nice. So you admit that production isn't by request, but comes as a result of the yearly meeting.
Machiavelli wrote:
ok, I’ll bite where do you claim anarchism originated
In the minds of those who didn't want a government.
Machiavelli wrote:
the owner has many workers and the unemployed/oppressed parts of the population to draw from for labor, all the workers would have to refuse to work for that to be any threat.
It is a threat, since if an employer doesn't offer enough in the way of recompense, no one will work for said employer.
Machiavelli wrote:
This is not physics, the terms are open to interpretation,
No they aren't.
Machiavelli wrote:
If you till the soil or build you posses the product you planted or the building not the soil
Soil is like air you cant posses it legitimately
Yes you can. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that you can't?
Machiavelli wrote:
You do have to ask to go to the bathroom in some meat packing plants
That's probably because they need to rely on someone to cover while the person is in the bathroom.
Machiavelli wrote:
A dress code is a violation of freedom of expression
I’m talking about participatory democracy here, distinguished from representative.
In other words, there will be no barriers whatsoever to the majority oppressing the minority.
Machiavelli wrote:
The employee is not always free to seek another employer, because of external circumstances like having a family to support, or if there is a large pool of unemployed workers and no jobs available, or if they are low skilled, or if they are working under a contract which says you must work here for one year, or if they are blacklisted,
Are they forced to stay under threat of violence in a free market? No. Therefore, they're free to seek other employment. Also, involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in a free market.
Machiavelli wrote:
Please respond to my points, don’t analyze my debating method, since after all labeling something a logical fallacy could just be a way to dodge a point you don’t want to address. Also it is subjective whether something is or is not a fallacy.
Oh that's a good one - look, don't mind the logical fallacies, blanket assertions, etc., just respond as if my fantasies were true. Fuck that. And no, it is not subjective as to whether or not something is a fallacy. X=X whether you accept it or not.
Machiavelli wrote:
When you say, “it’s all the fault of government” that doesn’t mean anything to me, you have to back it up with some kind of argument
Gladly. Now where did I say something was all the fault of the government?
Machiavelli wrote:
Governments derive their power from the consent of the people, if the people don’t consent to be governed they revolt.
So the Jews in Germany consented to being slaughtered? For one thing, police states always disarm the populace so as to ensure that this doesn't happen. Are you really fucking telling me that the people in the Soviet gulags
consented
. Goddamn, you're one naive fool.
Machiavelli wrote:
You can at least choose your government officials, and change them by voting.
Oh really? I voted for Kerry in '04, and I'm still stuck with President dumbass. Guess I can't change them after all.
Machiavelli wrote:
whereas corporate executives are entirely unaccountable to the public
You're delusional. Corporations have to constantly answer to the public, otherwise no one buys their shit and they go bust.
Furthermore, if I don't like what a corporation is doing, I don't have to fund it. If I don't like what the state is doing, I'm shit out of luck.
Machiavelli wrote:
Basic needs are calculated like this (50 liters of water per day x Population x Number of days in the year) other items can be received through request
Oh, I can make requests! Well that answers everything. Again, you didn't answer the question. I'm not denying that a minimum objective standard required to maintain human life exists. I'm talking about all the other action that occurs once these basic needs are fulfilled. How does the planning committee know whether to expand production of product X in lieu of product Y without a market sending the signals as to what consumers want vs. what can be produced?
Machiavelli wrote:
It is your responsibility to help other
No, it's not. You made the claim, you prove that I have a responsibility to help others, or concede that no such obligation exists. Now, I would
want
to help them, but I don't have a
responsibility
to do so.
Machiavelli wrote:
because what happen to them effects you, so if a cholera epidemic sweeps the Midwest where grain/meat are produced you don’t get your shit
I could still get it, I'd just have to pay higher prices. And the higher prices mean increased profits, which sends the signal to producers to increase production of grain/meat....
Machiavelli wrote:
and because you refuse to help it takes longer to recover the productive capacity of the area
By paying higher prices for the products they produce I help to recover the productive capacity of that area. Now, if the government cracks down on this "price gouging," it removes the incentive to recover the lost productive capacity.
Machiavelli wrote:
Yes, the US flag is also a symbol of jingoism
Not necessarily.
Machiavelli wrote:
You exert effort because you also benefit
Exactly.
Machiavelli wrote:
Exploitation- to take advantage of
Ex: underpaying a worker for his labour
You still did not answer the question.
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT EXPLOITATION IS OCCURRING? HOW DO YOU ASSIGN A TRUTH VALUE? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IF A WORKER IS BEING UNDERPAID?
To say "exploitation" occurs when a worker is being "underpaid," while saying that the "underpaid" worker is being "exploited" is circular logic.
Machiavelli wrote:
Note that not all costs of a transaction are factored into the exchange, so if I sell you a car I price based on how much it cost to produce, what is not factored in is the effect on society cause by smog, noise pollution, destruction of natural habitats for roads/parking spaces, etc
In that case, it means that property rights are not adequately enforced.
Machiavelli wrote:
Look, the reason we don’t see more cooperatives is that you cant function within a capitalist society if you give stuff away for free
Because nothing can be produced for free, dumbass.
Machiavelli wrote:
Here is how your argument conflicts:
“the thing is that most all wage earners lack the capital to do that”
“Property is the result of mixing one's own labor with unowned natural resources.”
So where are these wage earners to find the unowned natural resources?
Wherever they occur. Where is the contradiction? I don't think you realize the difference between capital goods and unowned natural resources.
Machiavelli wrote:
Free riders are not a problem if you reward according to effort and sacrifice,
Exactly. Which is what the market does.
Machiavelli wrote:
however I think that food like speech is a right,
No, because positive rights necessarily entail a reduction in someone else's freedom.
Machiavelli wrote:
further if you try to force people to work they become less efficient
That's the first intelligent thing you've said. However, I fail to see how that helps your argument.
Machiavelli wrote:
The right of occupancy(homesteading) which you refer to is I think false since it gives the right of ownership to he who can seize it
If it is unowned, it is not being seized from anyone.
Machiavelli wrote:
How we distribute resources is by request,
Ok, I request a 300 foot yacht, a Lear Jet, and a blow job from Salma Hayek.
Machiavelli wrote:
its not like we produce everything all at once and just have it sit around waiting to be shipped out.
Obviously, as that would be impossible. Now what does that have to do with anything?
Machiavelli wrote:
Barter implies exchange, there is no exchange in a gift economy
Which necessarily means there is no division of labor, which means you're back to the stone age.
Because the government puts price floors on agricultural commodities, and buys the surplus that either sits in grain silos or is dumped into 3rd-world markets. Again, the fault of the government. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:00 am
Machiavelli wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
I don't do engineer work out of the goodness of my heart - I'd rather be an artist. Actually, I'd rather play video games and drink beer all day.
if you have ever been on vacation for a long time? what happens? personally i get bored and start working on something.
you will work because of socal pressures and because you know nothing will get done if you dont.
there is no reason why you cant both be an engineer and an artist, see balenced job complexes
Engineers are very good at ignoring social pressures. We are among the least fashionable people, nurds all. Plus many engineers are also libertarians (and apolitical ones at that so while they all agree with me I can't get them to show up to libertarian party meetings) and libertarians are pretty good at saying the social pressures are wrong in the first place. I might work on stuff for my own specific use, since I want power for my video games so will work on generating enough for me, and will switch to wine since it's easier to make than beer, and make enough for me.
As for vacations, I do get restless, but that is because my wife gets annoyed if I do nothing other than drink beer and play video games. What's your point?
thats not entirely fair condisering it is me answering all four of you.
sjc put us all on ignore, so your most verbose ally doesn't even know this debate is occuring. Send him a private message telling him you're outnumbered.
Really, sometimes I think we should go on a recruiting run over at IIDB, because they are as socialist there as we are not socialist here. Some of them even think the labor theory of value has been proven instead of disproven.
The problem is that once socialists realize that they can't get anywhere with their crap attempt at economics, they start screaming about how evil and heartless we are. There's no difference between their dogma and the dogma of the xer which gives them the idea that if atheists don't just accept god, they are evil heartless people who have no emotions.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:01 pm
as to incentives:
why would you work? because for us to survive work has to get done, you know this, i know this
because there is a certain satisfaction in doing a job and doing it well, for example you have studied economics, WHY? just because you don't get paid does not mean it is not work. what i personally find annoying about work is the bosses looking over my shoulder. i dont think that you really don't ever want to work.
even nerds have their trends, morover humans have certain universal expectations for how people relate.
ok, this is how the consensus i have experianced works- people vote on idea,after disscussion, they can abstain if they want to, one 'no' vote has a veto power, people can apoint a temporary reprentative for regional meetings. consensus is not unanimity because you can decide not to vote and because only those effected can participate.
im suprised you dont suport goverment considering it's only purpose is to defend property rights.
what does the free market put in place to prevent me from taking your property?
in theory you can leave at any point to seek other employment, often however there is simply no other work or the work pays less than the substandard wage you got at the old job. even if you seek other employment you are still in the free market.
you brought up nazi germany, failing to oppose a system is effectively consenting to it, notice that he did not have unlimited support amoung the population(i think he recived about 60% of the vote) what happened was a failure to resist.
look if i have too engage in a boycott to get you to listen, thats a totalitarian realationship. it is a use of force on my part. whearas with the state you have an institutionalized why of influance through voting.
people or other niegborhood councils or workplace collecitves place their requests with the factory, the factory produces the good to the best of their ability. see P2P as an example or freeganism
you are assuming that people in the affected area still have the capacity to produce, if an area that is a major producer of the item is shut down there is no way that other existing producers will be able to fill the gap instantly.
you determine exploitation by measuring the wage recived as compared to the value of the product
how can property protect the enviroment? air for example cant be owned
the contradiction lies in that wage slaves do not have the same opportunities to use the "unowned" natural resouces as the people who arrived first do.
if it is unowned and you seize it you are taking it from those who come afteryou
you cant own a yacht or plane becuase those things could be usedto benifit more than one person.
Salma Hayek is all mine.
"its not like we produce everything all at once and just have it sit around waiting to be shipped out."
it's important because it means we can raise or lower what we produce or change it all together
the failure to feed the world is is not a failure of goverment, becuase it is the responsibility of the market to distribute resources.
a vague wish in the minds of some people is not a theory, anarchism originated with Proudhon
most communists and socailists will tell you that the theory has never been brought to frutition and that the theory was not applied( what you say about the free market)
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:26 pm
Machiavelli wrote:
as to incentives:
why would you work? because for us to survive work has to get done, you know this, i know this
because there is a certain satisfaction in doing a job and doing it well, for example you have studied economics, WHY? just because you don't get paid does not mean it is not work. what i personally find annoying about work is the bosses looking over my shoulder. i dont think that you really don't ever want to work.
Perhaps the new socialist man will work for the sheer pleasure of it, but economists list work as a ... damn it I forgot the word ... something negative. There is an economic term for it, but I can't remember it. Basically it means something we would rather avoid, but indulge in for the sake of getting something we want out of it.
That's here in the real world, where work isn't done for kicks, but for kick-backs.
I wonder how your perfect society would function if all engineers decided they'd rather be artists.
Machiavelli wrote:
even nerds have their trends, morover humans have certain universal expectations for how people relate.
And engineers and libertarians excel at ignoring expectations.
Machiavelli wrote:
ok, this is how the consensus i have experianced works- people vote on idea,after disscussion, they can abstain if they want to, one 'no' vote has a veto power, people can apoint a temporary reprentative for regional meetings. consensus is not unanimity because you can decide not to vote and because only those effected can participate.
Abstentions don't count as vetoes - abstentions count as abstentions. Otherwise what you are seeking isn't consensus, it is unanimity. Get that one simple fact straight and half the argument will disappear. You aren't seeking consensus, but unanimity.
Unanimity means everyone has to buy in. That is what you are advocating, because it is the only way out of the 10 people want to rape 1 so they vote on it.
Machiavelli wrote:
im suprised you dont suport goverment considering it's only purpose is to defend property rights.
what does the free market put in place to prevent me from taking your property?
The government, in theory, is there to defend our rights. That means the majority must be restrained for the government to behave as it should.
The government, in practice, is a bigger violator of property rights than any criminal could ever hope to be.
In a real free market, what will prevent your thievery would be private security.
Machiavelli wrote:
how can property protect the enviroment? air for example cant be owned
you can't change the way people are, but you can change the enviroment, and how you react in a capitalist ecomomy will be differant than in an anarchist ecomomy. how ever suppose you refuse to work withthe commune or work bellow standards then you can be thrown out , it s too hard to get all the things you need if you work by yourself and so you have a strong incentive to work with others.
even you my friend conform to socal expectations
one objection(one no vote) has VETO power
so you may may vote yes, veto, or abstain
the free market you talk about sounds like Feudalism to me, where you have a private mercenary force defending the interests of the weathly, the poor cannot afford private security and so would be constantly having shit stolen
the goverment exists to maintain order, if goverment existed to defend our rights a dictatorship would be impossible.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file