although since your avatar includes a confederate flag, you probably hate blacks and dont think of them as people, ahh i understand now
If you think the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism, you must really think the US flag is racist, right?
Machiavelli wrote:
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
Yes, how practical. I'm sure people will just be lining up to clean up shit out of the goodness of their hearts.
Machiavelli wrote:
i agree, you cant sovle a probelm you dont know about. whats the problem?
You can't know in advance you moron, that's the point.
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
No, labor is still performed by individuals. And the interested parties decide on a rate of compensation in a mutually beneficial agreement.
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property, certainly the recipiant did no labour
At one point, someone did. Someone having more doesn't mean someone else has less, you know.
Machiavelli wrote:
or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
The act of organizing production and hiring employees to physically make things is itself exertion of labor.
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
Why indeed? If you have the capital and know-how to make product X by yourself, why wouldn't you? Of course, the thing is that most all wage earners lack the capital and/or know-how to do that. Which is why they're wage earners.
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
Straw man. Property is the result of mixing one's own labor with unowned natural resources.
A. It's impossible for some party not to own land. If you say private individuals can't own land, you're merely begging the question that the government can own it.
B. Land ownership is the result of homesteading, or the mixing of one's labor with unowned land to create something else, which is owned.
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations are opressive institutions
What ass did you pull that from? Corporations are entirely voluntary institutions. No one is forced to labor for, buy from, sell to, or invest in any corporation (excluding state monopolies, of course).
That doesn't answer the question. How do you know what specifically to produce among alternatives, and in what quantities?
Machiavelli wrote:
no, we have a gift economy
Without money, you have barter. There are no other alternatives, other than subsistence hunting/gathering.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
No, they're starving because of man-made, government-created famine.
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:08 am
Machiavelli wrote:
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Not possible. It would implode.
and your evidance for this is?
Machiavelli wrote:
i agree, you cant sovle a probelm you dont know about. whats the problem?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That IS the problem, moron! Your so-called "participation" cannot solve problems that haven't come up yet! So how the hell do you think that they can plan out an economy for a whole year when there will be problems that come up that they don't know about yet? Where do you get the absolute stupidity great enough to believe that such can be feasable?
a democratic structure allows us to ajust policy as problems arise
Machiavelli wrote:
Actually he did,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Actually, he didn't. Anarchism was around long before Proudhon.
it says he was the first SELF-PROCLAIMED anarchist, before it was an insult orginating in the french revolution
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And please--wikipedia is not a good source. In fact, most schools give "F"s for citing wikipedia. Please stop.
thats a poisoning the well facilcy , it kills your arguement in case you didn't know
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ummm....labor is done individually. While there may be groups, all the work is still done individually. Remuneration is decided between the employer and the employee.
it would take forever for one person to acomplish anything in the industrial ecomomy, see the assembly line
negotiation between one worker and the employer puts the employee in a weak position, considering you need money to eat. he employer effectivly has a club over the head of the worker
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Say, isn't inherited property merely a "gift"? And don't you want a "gift economy"?
we are talking about your interpretation of property
BTW being a dick does not help your case
Machiavelli wrote:
certainly the recipiant did no labour or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The inheritor doesn't have to, since it's a gift. And the owner did labor. Only if you're going to narrowly define labor as solely-and-only backbreaking manual labor can you make the claim that the owner didn't. Of course, that's what good socialists like yourself do--you redefine terms to suit your needs.
once again we are talking about your idea of property "rights"
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Because you may not have the material necessary to do it. What--do you think factories or shops grow on trees? Are they "just there"? Do they just magically spring up?
see quote bellow, we are talking about the origins of property rights here
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No.
very concise argument, so incredibly simple it cant possibly be incorrect
Machiavelli wrote:
further you cannot make the earth through your labour and therefore you cannot possibley own land
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That doesn't make sense at all.
if property implies labour then what you cannot make cannot be owned
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations are opressive institutions
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No.
think about it: you have to ask when to go to the bathroom, wear certain clothes, cannot leave or arrive when you want to, etc futher you cant choose your managers or exectutives
That's nice, but doesn't answer the question. How do you determine what each individual needs?
i dont, each council does individually
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, they are starving because the government has fucked things up.
way to preach to the quior
Machiavelli wrote:
no, because we depend on other for our survival therefore it is in our interest to enshure that they are heathly.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It is in our best interest to ensure our own health. The health of others is their responsibility.
how humane of you
Machiavelli Post Noob
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 57
Posted:
Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:32 am
offsprng46 wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
although since your avatar includes a confederate flag, you probably hate blacks and dont think of them as people, ahh i understand now
If you think the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism, you must really think the US flag is racist, right?
offsprng46 wrote:
Machiavelli wrote:
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
Yes, how practical. I'm sure people will just be lining up to clean up shit out of the goodness of their hearts.
they will do it because if nobody doesit will collect
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
offsprng46 wrote:
No, labor is still performed by individuals. And the interested parties decide on a rate of compensation in a mutually beneficial agreement.
hardly mutually benifical, it's an exploitive relationship
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property, certainly the recipiant did no labour
offsprng46 wrote:
At one point, someone did. Someone having more doesn't mean someone else has less, you know.
yes it does because there are a limited amount of resources
Machiavelli wrote:
or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
offsprng46 wrote:
The act of organizing production and hiring employees to physically make things is itself exertion of labor.
it is an act the employees are capable of carrying out with out the managers
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
offsprng46 wrote:
Why indeed? If you have the capital and know-how to make product X by yourself, why wouldn't you? Of course, the thing is that most all wage earners lack the capital and/or know-how to do that. Which is why they're wage earners.
see arguement below
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
offsprng46 wrote:
Straw man. Property is the result of mixing one's own labor with unowned natural resources.
that would seem to conflcit with the arguement above
offsprng46 wrote:
A. It's impossible for some party not to own land. If you say private individuals can't own land, you're merely begging the question that the government can own it.
B. Land ownership is the result of homesteading, or the mixing of one's labor with unowned land to create something else, which is owned.
a. the population can share it
b. land ownership is the result of forcing other people off of it
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations are opressive institutions
offsprng46 wrote:
What ass did you pull that from? Corporations are entirely voluntary institutions. No one is forced to labor for, buy from, sell to, or invest in any corporation (excluding state monopolies, of course).
its a cooercive relationship work to get money to survive.
corperations have effectively driven out most compatition so effectivley people have to deal with them
That doesn't answer the question. How do you know what specifically to produce among alternatives, and in what quantities?
that is decided by the workers councils.
Machiavelli wrote:
no, we have a gift economy
offsprng46 wrote:
Without money, you have barter. There are no other alternatives, other than subsistence hunting/gathering.
no, we have a gift economy
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
offsprng46 wrote:
No, they're starving because of man-made, government-created famine.
prove it
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 666
Posted:
Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:49 am
Someone is trying to equivocate unanimity and consensus.
If 10 guys consult 1 girl on whether or not to rape her, the consensus is in favor of it even though she is against it. On the other hand, if 10 guys vote with 1 girl on whether or not to rape her, the vote is in favor of it even though she is against it.
He's trying to use the word "consensus" to disguise the fact that he's using "democracy" to oppress.
i agree, you cant sovle a probelm you dont know about. whats the problem?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That IS the problem, moron! Your so-called "participation" cannot solve problems that haven't come up yet! So how the hell do you think that they can plan out an economy for a whole year when there will be problems that come up that they don't know about yet? Where do you get the absolute stupidity great enough to believe that such can be feasable?
Machiavelli wrote:
a democratic structure allows us to ajust policy as problems arise
Actually, no, since you have to wait until the next election, convince millions to support some asshole, and then hope said asshole actually follows through on his non-binding promises. Contrast that to the free market, in which prices constantly send signals to producers about what best satisfies consumer demand.
Machiavelli wrote:
Actually he did,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Actually, he didn't. Anarchism was around long before Proudhon.
Machiavelli wrote:
it says he was the first SELF-PROCLAIMED anarchist, before it was an insult orginating in the french revolution
So? He didn't invent it, which is what you claimed.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And please--wikipedia is not a good source. In fact, most schools give "F"s for citing wikipedia. Please stop.
Machiavelli wrote:
thats a poisoning the well facilcy , it kills your arguement in case you didn't know
You're an idiot. A poisoning the well fallacy is when you try to discredit the objective facts from a source purely based on the fact that he/she has an opinion you don't agree with. Citing wikipedia isn't a good idea, since anyone can change what's up there; thus, the facts are often flatly wrong (especially with regards to the "dismal science").
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ummm....labor is done individually. While there may be groups, all the work is still done individually. Remuneration is decided between the employer and the employee.
Machiavelli wrote:
it would take forever for one person to acomplish anything in the industrial ecomomy, see the assembly line
negotiation between one worker and the employer puts the employee in a weak position, considering you need money to eat. he employer effectivly has a club over the head of the worker
Actually, the employee is free to seek other employment anytime. Furthermore, if the employer didn't provide the capital necessary for the employee to work, the employee wouldn't have that job in the first place.
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Say, isn't inherited property merely a "gift"? And don't you want a "gift economy"?
Machiavelli wrote:
we are talking about your interpretation of property
Except that it's not a subjective definition.
Machiavelli wrote:
BTW being a dick does not help your case
Until you educate yourself on the topics you are discussing, we will continue to treat you like an idiot.
Machiavelli wrote:
certainly the recipiant did no labour or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The inheritor doesn't have to, since it's a gift. And the owner did labor. Only if you're going to narrowly define labor as solely-and-only backbreaking manual labor can you make the claim that the owner didn't. Of course, that's what good socialists like yourself do--you redefine terms to suit your needs.
Machiavelli wrote:
once again we are talking about your idea of property "rights"
Once again, these rights are objective in nature.
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Because you may not have the material necessary to do it. What--do you think factories or shops grow on trees? Are they "just there"? Do they just magically spring up?
Machiavelli wrote:
see quote bellow, we are talking about the origins of property rights here
The origin of said rights is quite simple - either you own yourself, or you don't.
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
very concise argument, so incredibly simple it cant possibly be incorrect
When you straw-man someone's argument, they don't owe you a rebuttal.
Machiavelli wrote:
further you cannot make the earth through your labour and therefore you cannot possibley own land
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That doesn't make sense at all.
Machiavelli wrote:
if property implies labour then what you cannot make cannot be owned
Undeveloped natural resources are unowned. When one mixes their labor with previously un-owned resources, the product is his.
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations are opressive institutions
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
think about it: you have to ask when to go to the bathroom, wear certain clothes, cannot leave or arrive when you want to, etc futher you cant choose your managers or exectutives
And you also choose to submit yourself to that authority and the company's regulations. Both you and your employer choose to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship. In contrast, government makes arbitrary decrees, and you you must either follow them or be thrown in prison.
That's nice, but doesn't answer the question. How do you determine what each individual needs?
Machiavelli wrote:
i dont, each council does individually
And how do they do that in a way that isn't completely and totally arbitrary? Hmm? How about you stop dodging the question and just give us a straight answer, k?
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, they are starving because the government has fucked things up.
Machiavelli wrote:
way to preach to the quior
Glad you're finally starting to make your way back to reality.
Machiavelli wrote:
no, because we depend on other for our survival therefore it is in our interest to enshure that they are heathly.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It is in our best interest to ensure our own health. The health of others is their responsibility.
Machiavelli wrote:
how humane of you
Why is it my responsibility to ensure a stranger's health? Why should I be forced to pay for health care for an overweight chain smoker? Yeah, that's real humane - "help" or go to prison.
although since your avatar includes a confederate flag, you probably hate blacks and dont think of them as people, ahh i understand now
offsprng46 wrote:
If you think the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism, you must really think the US flag is racist, right?
Profound response. Isn't it funny how reality has a way of demolishing fantasy - in this case, your fantasy that the Navy Jack is a symbol of racism?
Machiavelli wrote:
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
offsprng46 wrote:
Yes, how practical. I'm sure people will just be lining up to clean up shit out of the goodness of their hearts.
Machiavelli wrote:
they will do it because if nobody doesit will collect
Why would I exert all the effort when everyone else gets to reap the rewards? Ya know, the whole "tragedy of the commons" thing.
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
offsprng46 wrote:
No, labor is still performed by individuals. And the interested parties decide on a rate of compensation in a mutually beneficial agreement.
Machiavelli wrote:
hardly mutually benifical, it's an exploitive relationship
First, give me a concrete (read: not dictionary) definition of "exploitation." And by concrete, I mean something that can be tested and verified. Until you can do that, this is just a meaningless naked assertion.
Second, the relationship is voluntary on both sides. It's mutually beneficial by virtue of the fact that both parties undertake the voluntary agreement. If it wasn't mutually beneficial, it wouldn't occur in the first place.
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property, certainly the recipiant did no labour
offsprng46 wrote:
At one point, someone did. Someone having more doesn't mean someone else has less, you know.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes it does because there are a limited amount of resources
Natural resources
are scarce, but for all intents and purposes the amount of wealth (resources that are converted into useable products by human action) that can be created is unlimited. When someone creates a product or service that consumers desire that didn't already exist, or improves upon one that did, everyone else is better off, not worse. Besides, we haven't even used a trillionth of a percent of the total amount of natural resources in existence.
Machiavelli wrote:
or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
offsprng46 wrote:
The act of organizing production and hiring employees to physically make things is itself exertion of labor.
Machiavelli wrote:
it is an act the employees are capable of carrying out with out the managers
Then they are free to form their own company, that's the great thing about the free market. But my guess is that there aren't a lot of factory workers and clerks out there that have the know-how required to run a major company - as witnessed by the fact that worker-owned cooperatives make up a tiny fraction of the overall landscape of producers.
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
offsprng46 wrote:
Why indeed? If you have the capital and know-how to make product X by yourself, why wouldn't you? Of course, the thing is that most all wage earners lack the capital and/or know-how to do that. Which is why they're wage earners.
Machiavelli wrote:
see arguement below
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
offsprng46 wrote:
Straw man. Property is the result of mixing one's own labor with unowned natural resources.
Machiavelli wrote:
that would seem to conflcit with the arguement above
How so?
offsprng46 wrote:
A. It's impossible for some party not to own land. If you say private individuals can't own land, you're merely begging the question that the government can own it.
B. Land ownership is the result of homesteading, or the mixing of one's labor with unowned land to create something else, which is owned.
Machiavelli wrote:
a. the population can share it
Yes, they can, but most won't. Most want to improve it, and communal property is not conducive to such improvements, as the free-rider problem begins to appear.
Machiavelli wrote:
b. land ownership is the result of forcing other people off of it
Not necessarily. Besides, according to your argument, the first owners didn't own it either.
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations are opressive institutions
offsprng46 wrote:
What ass did you pull that from? Corporations are entirely voluntary institutions. No one is forced to labor for, buy from, sell to, or invest in any corporation (excluding state monopolies, of course).
Machiavelli wrote:
its a cooercive relationship work to get money to survive.
That's not coercive. Coercion means the exertion of force against an individual. Again, you're free to seek other employment, raise capital to start your own company, or even move out to the wilderness and gather berries and such.
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations have effectively driven out most compatition so effectivley people have to deal with them
So GM and Toyota don't compete? Even in a one-producer situation, the monopolist still faces the threat of competition from upstarts. I also take it you don't know what economies of scale are, and why a few very large producers in one industry is usually the best thing for consumers.
That doesn't answer the question. How do you know what specifically to produce among alternatives, and in what quantities?
Machiavelli wrote:
that is decided by the workers councils.
AND HOW DO THEY DECIDE?? Stop fucking around and answer the fucking question already.
Machiavelli wrote:
no, we have a gift economy
offsprng46 wrote:
Without money, you have barter. There are no other alternatives, other than subsistence hunting/gathering.
Machiavelli wrote:
no, we have a gift economy
Which is a form of barter.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
offsprng46 wrote:
No, they're starving because of man-made, government-created famine.
Machiavelli wrote:
prove it
Government intervention creates hunger in the following ways, just to name a few:
By increasing the cost of producing products through regulations.
By paying farmers not to produce.
By implementing tariffs that artificially raise the price of food and destroy comparative advantage.
By taxing income away from producers, removing the incentive to farm marginal lands.
By collectivizing agriculture, thereby eliminating any incentive to be efficient.
By collectivizing agriculture, thereby eliminating the ability to allocate capital to where it can best be used.
By forcibly implementing discredited junk science in agricultural policy (see "The Iron Rice Bowl").
By forcing farmers to over-produce under central planning schemes, thereby destroying the future productive capacity of land.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:36 am
Machiavelli wrote:
actually im talking about a gift ecomomy.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Not possible. It would implode.
Machiavelli wrote:
and your evidance for this is?
The very same economic calculation problem of above.
Machiavelli wrote:
i agree, you cant sovle a probelm you dont know about. whats the problem?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That IS the problem, moron! Your so-called "participation" cannot solve problems that haven't come up yet! So how the hell do you think that they can plan out an economy for a whole year when there will be problems that come up that they don't know about yet? Where do you get the absolute stupidity great enough to believe that such can be feasable?
Machiavelli wrote:
a democratic structure allows us to ajust policy as problems arise
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! You said there would be one meeting per year. Ergo, you have to revise your stance. Otherwise: policy cannot be adjusted. Once the policy is put into place, you have to wait A WHOLE YEAR for another meeting.
Machiavelli wrote:
Actually he did,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Actually, he didn't. Anarchism was around long before Proudhon.
Machiavelli wrote:
it says he was the first SELF-PROCLAIMED anarchist,
Which is wrong, too. However, given that you said anarchism originated with Proudhon, you're still wrong anyway.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
And please--wikipedia is not a good source. In fact, most schools give "F"s for citing wikipedia. Please stop.
Machiavelli wrote:
thats a poisoning the well facilcy ,
No, it's actually not. It's something to help you not use a source that has well-known accuracy problems.
Machiavelli wrote:
self ownership, a person owns himself and therefore his labour and it's products.
fine, but in modern industry labour is social (done by a group) how then to decide remuneration?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Ummm....labor is done individually. While there may be groups, all the work is still done individually. Remuneration is decided between the employer and the employee.
Machiavelli wrote:
it would take forever for one person to acomplish anything in the industrial ecomomy,
But we still have individuals doing the work. Sure, they may do it in a group, but THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GROUP OR SOCIETY WHICH IS NOT MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS. Unless, of course, you have some alternate definition of "group" or "society" of which I have not been made aware. Do you have such a definition of "group" or "society"?
Machiavelli wrote:
see the assembly line negotiation between one worker and the employer puts the employee in a weak position,
No it doesn't.
Machiavelli wrote:
considering you need money to eat. he employer effectivly has a club over the head of the worker
No he doesn't. Whatever gives you that idiotic Marxist notion, especially considering that without the worker, the employer doesn't eat?
Machiavelli wrote:
what about inherited property,
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Say, isn't inherited property merely a "gift"? And don't you want a "gift economy"?
Machiavelli wrote:
we are talking about your interpretation of property
No, we're talking about a "gift economy".
btw, not grasping your own argument means that you've really fucked yourself over.
Machiavelli wrote:
certainly the recipiant did no labour or the owner, who gets other people to labour for him.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The inheritor doesn't have to, since it's a gift. And the owner did labor. Only if you're going to narrowly define labor as solely-and-only backbreaking manual labor can you make the claim that the owner didn't. Of course, that's what good socialists like yourself do--you redefine terms to suit your needs.
Machiavelli wrote:
once again we are talking about your idea of property "rights"
IOW: you are redefining labor to suit your needs.
Machiavelli wrote:
further why worker for a boss when you have the collective skills to acomplish the task yourself.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Because you may not have the material necessary to do it. What--do you think factories or shops grow on trees? Are they "just there"? Do they just magically spring up?
Machiavelli wrote:
see quote bellow,
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
to say that property is the result of labour, then to say property gives labour material to work on is circular logic.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
very concise argument,
Given that your statement was nonsense, all I needed to say was "no".
Machiavelli wrote:
further you cannot make the earth through your labour and therefore you cannot possibley own land
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
That doesn't make sense at all.
Machiavelli wrote:
if property implies labour then what you cannot make cannot be owned
Ah, so you're narrowly defining terms again and creating a strawman.
Look: can you till the soil? Can you build something on the ground? Since the answer to both is "yes", you can own the land. QED.
Machiavelli wrote:
corperations are opressive institutions
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
think about it: you have to ask when to go to the bathroom,
No.
Machiavelli wrote:
wear certain clothes,
A dress code for a business is not oppressive any more than wanting your friend to fill up the gas tank after he uses your car is oppressive.
Machiavelli wrote:
cannot leave or arrive when you want to, etc futher you cant choose your managers or exectutives
boo-fucking-hoo. Now how does that make it oppressive?
That's nice, but doesn't answer the question. How do you determine what each individual needs?
Machiavelli wrote:
i dont, each council does individually
That still doesn't answer the question.
Machiavelli wrote:
yes, how will those poor starving people live with me forcing them to eat, i mean clearly they are starving because they want to be that way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, they are starving because the government has fucked things up.
Machiavelli wrote:
way to preach to the quior
<Inigo>You keep using that phrase; I do not think it means what you think it does.</Inigo>
Machiavelli wrote:
no, because we depend on other for our survival therefore it is in our interest to enshure that they are heathly.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It is in our best interest to ensure our own health. The health of others is their responsibility.
Machiavelli wrote:
how humane of you
It is.
What isn't humane is forcing one group to contribute to the health of another at the point of a gun.
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:19 am
This thread has been a fun read. It's too bad it had to degenerate to ad homs. I'll try and get my socialist buddy in here for some real debate. At least he knows what he's talking about and doesn't call it participatory economics.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:48 am
Feh--as if socialists know anything about economics in the first place.
Feh--as if socialists know anything about economics in the first place.
Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that if they did, they wouldn't be socialists.
Ivan_Ivanov Grand Poster
Joined: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 1250
Location: Poland
Posted:
Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:56 pm
offsprng46 wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Feh--as if socialists know anything about economics in the first place.
Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that if they did, they wouldn't be socialists.
Indeed, one of the things that made me wonder once I educated myself a bit was why the hell don't they teach this at school?
The basics are as simple as 2+2=4, and could be easily tought to first graders.
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:03 am
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
offsprng46 wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Feh--as if socialists know anything about economics in the first place.
Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that if they did, they wouldn't be socialists.
Indeed, one of the things that made me wonder once I educated myself a bit was why the hell don't they teach this at school?
The basics are as simple as 2+2=4, and could be easily tought to first graders.
They do at my school. I'm taking econ this semester. Unfortunately it's only an elective. (optional)
transientangent Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 1138
Posted:
Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:24 am
Here's Participatory economics.
Machiavelli wrote:
What is Participtory Economics?
Parecon is a unique alternative economic system. It is very different from "free" markets or central planning, or any variant of "socialism." Unlike other economic systems, parecon is designed to promote self-management, solidarity, diversity, and equity. This is done through true democracy in the workplace and a
unique democratic participatory allocation system.
Work: In a parecon, work life would be very different. Instead of throwing away democratic rights at work, every worker would be able to vote on workplace decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Not only would we be able to vote in workplace affairs, but all workers would also have a balanced job complex. A balanced job complex means that everyone would share empowering enjoyable tasks, as well as rote tasks that are not as empowering or enjoyable. For instance, a surgeon might spend part of their day sweeping up, or on some other rote task. This creates one class of workers. In addition, when hierarchy is needed, the task of being in charge is rotated. This ensures that a permanent hierarchy would not be able to take over the workplace. The fact that every worker is able to review and understand workplace issues means that every worker can contribute ideas on how to organize and proceed, helping to maintain the equality of power in the workplace. O
