Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S.

[edgray]

:24: :24: :24: Anarchy, the simultaneous existence of perfect freedom and complete oppression all rolled into one. Keep believing the myth that socialism and anarchism can exist together at the same time. Keep believing that you could get everyone to play nice together without some governing order.

Please read:

Historical Examples of Anarchy without Chaos
List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep believing the lies you are told, by all means, or actually drop all of your preconceived notions of anarchy and socialism and the philosophies and realities behind them and read up on the ACTUAL EXAMPLES, and ORIGINS of these philosophies.

Heck, there's even lots of anarcho-capitalists out there, and examples of those systems working, you might like what they have to say.

 

[nova]

How do you know my skillset? How can you presume to know what I can or can't do?

Just a hunch. It tends to only be the people that can't do as well that bitch and moan about the people that can...

And they're not expendable by your definition of value. You'd be surprised at how many people share my views.

Everybody is ultimately expendable no matter what you do, its just some are moreso than others. I really don't give a shit how many people share your ideas. A lot of people used to think eugenics was just great but it still wasn't.

Yeah so the poor cop has to financially struggle and live a meagre (by comparison) life. You really don't see the problem with that, do you?

Everybody makes choices in life, especially when it comes to what is important to them. If you wanna be rich, police officer is probably not where you wanna take your life. The fact that some people make choices that trade off monetary wealth for other benefits is no one elses concern.

By having a system that allows her to take so much more is THE ONLY reason the poor cop will never make that much. Why should she get her reward in such grotesque monetary amounts whilst the cop gets a little pat on the back?

For that matter, why should anybody get anything? As long as we're arbitrarily defining who should get what, I think farmers should get the most. Without them we all starve right?

Until you realize that all that your core issue is that other people don't share your same value judgements, this conversation track is really going nowhere...

I started out as a software engineer, I also love solving technical problems. Why should that mean that some arsehole who can sing or something should make millions?

You ask why should, I say why shouldn't? Are they or are they not providing a service that large numbers of people find valuable? Entertainment provides enjoyment and happiness to many people and if you can provide it to people you should be able to benefit from that as much as possible. You may refuse to see it, but by providing entertainment they are making people's lives better. For some strange reason I highly doubt you go through life bored to tears sans any form of entertainment....

No, not at all. Socialism isn't about simply the amount of work. You can't sum philosophies like socialism so simplistically. Quality and value are incredibly important. There are as many different schools of thought on work and work environment within socialist philosophy as there are elsewhere. It cannot simply be summed up in such simple terms.

If what you say is true, without a capitalistic market system where individuals make choices about value and quality, who makes the absolutely abitrary decision as to who's work is worth what? Does everybody get the same for an hours work? If thats the case, what reason do I have to put the effort into being a skilled professional? Does a skilled professional get more than the janitor? If thats the case, then we're back to inequality of outcome, just with someone dictating decisions rather than it just being the way life is.

And the resources it takes to create all that is consumed? Does that have no value? Could that not be better spent elsewhere? Serving a community? Rather than just a fat cat?

Yet again, your issue is simply that you value some application more than other people do. Ultimately your argument is that you know better how to allocate resources than the collective thought processes of everyone else. Its the technocrats fallacy. Even the bestest and brightest can't be perfect and perfectly know every single piece of information in order to make the best decision.

 

[nova]

Please read:

Historical Examples of Anarchy without Chaos
List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep believing the lies you are told, by all means, or actually drop all of your preconceived notions of anarchy and socialism and the philosophies and realities behind them and read up on the ACTUAL EXAMPLES, and ORIGINS of these philosophies.

Heck, there's even lots of anarcho-capitalists out there, and examples of those systems working, you might like what they have to say.

The further you go the more comical the shit you post. :24::24: It might help if half the links worked :thumbdown

Every single example has some form of enforceable social order, if by no other mechanism than your neighbors putting a knife in your belly should you step out of line, which is a de facto gov't.

Its exactly as I said, anarchy is absolute freedom and absolute oppression all rolled into one. In that system, your liberty rights extend only so far as your neighbor is willing to tolerate before he puts an end to you.

So you band together to protect each other and ensure your liberty, which works great till a bigger, meaner band of people comes along and suddenly what you end up with is the equivalent of early human tribalism which oddly enough again, has a de facto gov't if not one in name.

Take your wiki example from the Spanish Revolution...

The newly liberated zones worked on entirely egalitarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy.

If you have a council of people making decisions that everyone else abides by, thats gov't...

Another good example is that of Somalia. Yeah after their corrupt, oppressive gov't was gone they increased their standard of living. Thats because they reverted to tribal law, as judged and enforced by their elders that focused on life, liberty and property rights. Thats gov't just not in the form we're used too.

Its also quite funny how those examples are generally small populations that didn't last very long. That might tell you something about how well it works out.

And thats all not to mention the fact that in all those examples, people are typically left to their own devices. In your anarcho socialist utopia, explain to me exactly HOW you get EVERYONE to voluntarily equally share the pie of resources? What do you do when that one person or group of people says no? Do all the neighbors gang up on them and force them at gunpoint? If so congratulations, you've managed to create oppression without formal gov't....

 

[Accountable]

On a level playing field that would be true. It's not level though, is it? And besides, why should someone born with a talent to be on TV be rewarded so much more than someone born with a talent for being a cop or nurse? Is that fair that one person can get rewarded so much more? You haven't actually tried to answer that.

Of course it's not fair. What is? People aren't born equal, physically or intellectually speaking. It's stupid to pretend we can manipulate politics to make it so.

I'd respond further, but you & Nova have written a tome between you & I'd probably just say something redundant.

 

[Accountable]

The point that I'm trying to make here is, if rewards were justified, people like Oprah, or CEOs of top companies WOULD NOT be getting such a large share.

What do you mean when you type "justified"? A price is justified when I agree to pay it, full stop.

This is one of the massive flaws in capitalism: people who are essentially the most expendable get the larger piece of the pie.

That's not capitalism, that's opulence. Capitalism is alive and well in black markets all over the world, and I'm guessing no one is paying millions for a talk show host there.

Why should Oprah get a fortune just because her chosen profession allows it? Asked and answered yourself.
How can a cop, who's importance to society is far greater, "make it" like Oprah? He can't, because the wealth heads towards irrelevance and his industry has limited rewards. Sure, you can say it's his choice to be a cop and this is true, but what if we all wanted to "make it" and not actually get a job that contributes? Nothing would get done, nothing would get made, there would be no food, no clothes no nothing because we would all be doing jobs that aren't important and don't contribute directly to the needs of society. That's the beauty of humanity. Not everyone has the same talents. Not everyone craves the same ends. Why begrudge someone for earning (loose definition) more than you, doing something you're not willing or unable to do? But you're wrong about not contributing. If Oprah et al weren't contributing something that someone perceives as being of value, they wouldn't be able to make any money at all. Whinge about waste & sloth if you want to, but that's part of liberty.

TV and media is not a need, its almost an addiction, or at least a time-waster, that is used as a tool by corporations and govts to stop people realising these injustices and do something about them. Agreed.

I'm not saying Oprah should be jailed, I just cannot see what exactly she does that justifies her enormous rewards. Or a CEO, or some entrepreneur, or a banker, or whoever. WHAT THEY DO DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MASSIVE DRAIN THEY ARE ON SOCIETY. What massive drain?? You've not mentioned a massive drain before. There is no way that a CEO, with a salary of say 2million a year does MORE WORK to justify that salary than the people that do the actual WORK in his company. I've seen CEOs, I know their workload and I know they do less than the people generating their wealth, ie, the workers. You're just whinging now. I've already addressed your use of "justify".

Like it or not, in a world of finite resources, if someone takes more than their share, they are essentially taking it off their fellow man. Someone owning that big mansion you mentioned means that all that space, bricks, mortar, everything in side, are taken off someone else. Many people in fact, because you could put an entire housing estate on the plots of a large mansion. Entire communities could live in them. But no, just because Oprah pursued a selfish career in the media, she gets to take up the space of a town of people. Fuck that, she's no better or worse than the rest of us and does not deserve that, she has no more right to be such a big drain than any of us.

So go do the work like she did and get it for yourself! Stop your jealous bitching.

You still haven't answered me. What's your share? How much are you owed?

 

[Tim]

This thread is actually quite interesting, to be able to read both sides of such opposing views.

 

[edgray]

Nova, there is no point whatsoever trying to debate you on this.*

Firstly, you didn't believe that Libertarian Socialism existed, and, after proving it not only exists as a well thought out philosophical and political idea, and showed there are many examples of the system and it's concepts having been applied and worked successfully in real life, completely independent of each other, with some instances still in existence, proving the system is not only viable, but a system that humans by our very nature are drawn to, yet you still come back with completely ridiculous arguments based on a complete misunderstanding of what you've read and a total inability to accept the fact that something that a couple of days ago you believed was "a myth" has actually turned out to be something completely real.*

As an engineer you are of a technical mindset, you work in definites and certainties with precision and care. You view the world in black and white. Your mistake is applying this same mindset to the human race. The human race behaves in the grey areas you cannot see. A case in point is this:*

If you have a council of people making decisions that everyone else abides by, thats gov't...

sure, if you look at it in a very "black and white, one or off, binary logic" way then sure, with one group of people making decisions you can rightly point out that there is a form of govt, however detatched it may be from what we have now. But that isn't at all how the system works or is played out. The people making the decisions are everyone, with no rank, no power given to any one individual or any group. People choose their level of involvement in what is important to them. The system shows people can function and excel in finding their places within a free society. This is direct democracy, complete involvement for every individual. *

Another good example is that of Somalia. Yeah after their corrupt, oppressive gov't was gone they increased their standard of living. Thats because they reverted to tribal law, as judged and enforced by their elders that focused on life, liberty and property rights. Thats gov't just not in the form we're used too.

From this you deduce that humans cannot live without a govt framework, and therefore anarchy isn't a viable system.

What you're missing here is that in Somalia, people didn't choose to be anarchists, people didn't choose to live in an equal society and the circumstances which have caused their plight bear no relation to the examples of anarchy that have existed. What happened is Somalia was removal of a leader and an inability to come to a decision on a suitable replacement, coupled with religious stigmas, not to mention famine, and a whole host of other factors.

So you should be able to see that there is absolutely no point debating you on this subject because of your inability to accept when you are wrong about something so large as believing that an entire philosophy and actual documented occurrance is real.

 

[edgray]

I'd respond further, but you & Nova have written a tome between you & I'd probably just say something redundant.

Actually far from being redundant the post you made after this raised some very intersting points which I will attemp to respond to as soon as I get behind a computer, the response to nova above was written on my phone which is exhausting to say the least.

 

[nova]

Nova, there is no point whatsoever trying to debate you on this.*

Firstly, you didn't believe that Libertarian Socialism existed, and, after proving it not only exists as a well thought out philosophical and political idea, and showed there are many examples of the system and it's concepts having been applied and worked successfully in real life, completely independent of each other, with some instances still in existence, proving the system is not only viable, but a system that humans by our very nature are drawn to, yet you still come back with completely ridiculous arguments based on a complete misunderstanding of what you've read and a total inability to accept the fact that something that a couple of days ago you believed was "a myth" has actually turned out to be something completely real.*

As an engineer you are of a technical mindset, you work in definites and certainties with precision and care. You view the world in black and white. Your mistake is applying this same mindset to the human race. The human race behaves in the grey areas you cannot see. A case in point is this:*

Sorry but thats abject bullshit. Nothing that you have posted is an example of a "libertarian socialist" society. There were examples of both but neither was combined no matter what you wish to believe.

sure, if you look at it in a very "black and white, one or off, binary logic" way then sure, with one group of people making decisions you can rightly point out that there is a form of govt, however detatched it may be from what we have now. But that isn't at all how the system works or is played out.

As much as you wish to dance around it, a form of gov't completely EXCLUDES anarchy because anarchy is defined as the absence of any governance. Gov't and anarchy CAN NOT exist in the same place at the same time.

The people making the decisions are everyone, with no rank, no power given to any one individual or any group. People choose their level of involvement in what is important to them. The system shows people can function and excel in finding their places within a free society. This is direct democracy, complete involvement for every individual. *

Uhh, no thats not what they were doing at all. No power to any individual or group? Then WTF exactly were those decision making councils? Were the decisions those councils made just suggestions? Were they completely impotent or did they have some means of forcing people to comply? They were making decisions and had the power whether you want to admit it or not...

From this you deduce that humans cannot live without a govt framework, and therefore anarchy isn't a viable system.

People are more than capable of living without a gov't framework and anarchy is completely viable, as long as people are willing to tolerate the fact their natural rights extend only so far as they themselves are personally willing and able to defend them.

What you're missing here is that in Somalia, people didn't choose to be anarchists, people didn't choose to live in an equal society and the circumstances which have caused their plight bear no relation to the examples of anarchy that have existed. What happened is Somalia was removal of a leader and an inability to come to a decision on a suitable replacement, coupled with religious stigmas, not to mention famine, and a whole host of other factors.

What you're missing is that in the areas where there was anarchy, there was chaos. Where there wasn't chaos, there was no anarchy, when the central gov't collapsed, they simply went back to their tribal gov't and tribal law.

So you should be able to see that there is absolutely no point debating you on this subject because of your inability to accept when you are wrong about something so large as believing that an entire philosophy and actual documented occurrance is real.

There's no point in debating you because basic logic escapes you coupled with ignorance of the basic definitions of certain concepts.

For just a second quit repeating "I'm right because I'm right regardless of the details" and answer my question that I asked.

In your large scale, libertarian socialist utopia, what do you do when whatever X% of people decide they don't want to be socialists, that they want to keep the fruits of their labor?

Will you force them or will you let them go and do as they please?

I don't want bullshit theory or excuses, I want an actual answer as to what you (or your lib socialist society) would do?

 

[edgray]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about:

In your large scale, libertarian socialist utopia, what do you do when whatever X% of people decide they don't want to be socialists, that they want to keep the fruits of their labor?

This shows you have a complete misunderstanding of the most basic concepts of both anarchist and socialist beliefs. Come on man, kids understand this kind of thing.

The whole point of socialism was to ensure the working man got the fruits of their labour. In capitalism, the fruits of their labour are taken off them and shared between themselves, their bosses, the investors and share holders and the govt and those not wishing to work and of course to horde as profit. Socialist beliefs are that no one should be able to benefit or profit from your work.

I don't know how I can spell that out in more basic terms.*

Sorry but thats abject bullshit. Nothing that you have posted is an example of a "libertarian socialist" society. There were examples of both but neither was combined no matter what you wish to believe.

You proved my point perfectly. Read some Chomsky for christ's sake and actually try and learn something. Just because your brain clearly cannot cope with what you believe are two opposing ideals, doesn't mean they can't co-exist. Which they have, many times, and are recognized as such by historians, professors and scholars. But of course, you must be right and everyone else must be wrong.

 

[Accountable]

The two of you have spiraled into smacking each other over the head with your notes and neither are addressing anything cogent.

*waits for the fingerpointing to stop*

Maybe if we take this one question at a time we can make some headway.

Ed, in your socialist anarchy (which, in full disclosure, I see as an oxymoron) does personal ownership exist?

 

[edgray]

The two of you have spiraled into smacking each other over the head with your notes and neither are addressing anything cogent.

*waits for the fingerpointing to stop*

Maybe if we take this one question at a time we can make some headway.

Ed, in your socialist anarchy (which, in full disclosure, I see as an oxymoron) does personal ownership exist?

You're right, it has slipped into a slagging match more than anything else... I accept half the blame for that.

In answer to your question, yes personal ownership exists. Neither anarchist nor socialist principles have any problem with that at all.

 

[Accountable]

You're right, it has slipped into a slagging match more than anything else... I accept half the blame for that.

In answer to your question, yes personal ownership exists. Neither anarchist nor socialist principles have any problem with that at all.

So I assume that buying and selling of personal property is permitted, including ideas, inventions, or entertainment?

• If Bob - illiterate and otherwise bumbling social outcast - shows a talent as a dynamic singer & showman, should he not be allowed to sell tickets for people to see his concerts?
• If people perceive the entertainment to be of great value, should they not be allowed to pay as much as they deem fair? And shouldn't Bob be allowed to charge that much?
• If Percy - a local tailor - seeing the opportunity to show his own talent to the public, approaches Bob and offers to make all his clothes for free in exchange for advertising at his concerts,shouldn't they be allowed to strike such a deal?
• Shouldn't Percy be allowed to profit from such a deal?
• Assuming that Both Bob's and Percy's notoriety soar: If Bob wants a portion of Percy's profits gleaned from concert advertisement, and Percy is in agreement so long as he becomes Bob's exclusive designer, shouldn't such a contract be legal? Shouldn't they both be allowed to profit from such a deal?
• As both make millions from their celebrity, at what point does this deal between two consenting businessmen become unfair?

I didn't mean for this to be so long, but the questions just flowed one from another.

 

[nova]

And this is exactly what I'm talking about:

This shows you have a complete misunderstanding of the most basic concepts of both anarchist and socialist beliefs. Come on man, kids understand this kind of thing.

If kids can understand it, then please, explain anarchism and socialism to my ignorant ass. Because whatever the fuck you're talking about, it doesn't mesh with any definition of either I've ever seen...

The whole point of socialism was to ensure the working man got the fruits of their labour. In capitalism, the fruits of their labour are taken off them and shared between themselves, their bosses, the investors and share holders and the govt and those not wishing to work and of course to horde as profit. Socialist beliefs are that no one should be able to benefit or profit from your work.

I don't know how I can spell that out in more basic terms.*

Uhh, no again, put your Marxist bullshit away.

In the real world, labor is no different than any other good. When you agree to work for a wage, you are selling your labor and the "fruits of your labor" is your wages. Nothing is "taken" from you, you freely give it in an a mutual exchange. Just so you know, this is what people who are having their labour REALLY taken from them looks like so that maybe you won't denigrate that reality any further with your ridiculous ideas...

Now as far as the owners and investors, they bring lots of things to the equation. They bring the ideas, the knowhow, the capital and the willingness to take risk to the table. The provide the worker with design of whatever it is they will produce with their labor and most importantly they provide the place and equipment to do it. For providing that, along with the wages for the labor, they get the finished product, whatever that may be as their property to do with as they wish.

You see how that works, you freely sell your labor to them to produce something for them, which then becomes their property, which they can sell to whomever they wish.

If you don't wish for the "fruits of your labor" to be wages, then you can build your own workshop and make goods for yourself to sell as you please.

Its pretty damn funny how you can sit there and on one hand claim socialism is all about freedom, then on the other hand say "well socialism says you can't sell your labor to whoever you want because somebody might profit from it." Thats called a contradiction son.

You proved my point perfectly. Read some Chomsky for christ's sake and actually try and learn something. Just because your brain clearly cannot cope with what you believe are two opposing ideals, doesn't mean they can't co-exist. Which they have, many times, and are recognized as such by historians, professors and scholars. But of course, you must be right and everyone else must be wrong.

And you say I'm insulting? Please. Go learn fundamental logic and what a contradiction is and get back to me....

And yet you havn't as of yet answered my question and explained HOW they coexist. You can keep claiming they do all you want but until you explain how the contradictions are reconciled you can't legitimately say they're coexisting, no matter what you want to believe.

How does a system intent on respecting the 3 fundamental human rights of life, liberty and property (libertarianism) coexist with a system that requires large scale cooperation among people "for the greater good" (socialism) when in any large population, guaranteed, not everybody will agree to participate in said cooperation?

I guess you could say that you'll just use large scale social pressure and endemic ostracism to make people toe the line but thats replacing tyranny of the state with tyranny of the mob and is no better. With only slight paraphrasing, the old Trotsky quote applies amazingly well...

Where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat

 

[nova]

So I assume that buying and selling of personal property is permitted, including ideas, inventions, or entertainment?

• If Bob - illiterate and otherwise bumbling social outcast - shows a talent as a dynamic singer & showman, should he not be allowed to sell tickets for people to see his concerts?
• If people perceive the entertainment to be of great value, should they not be allowed to pay as much as they deem fair? And shouldn't Bob be allowed to charge that much?
• If Percy - a local tailor - seeing the opportunity to show his own talent to the public, approaches Bob and offers to make all his clothes for free in exchange for advertising at his concerts,shouldn't they be allowed to strike such a deal?
• Shouldn't Percy be allowed to profit from such a deal?
• Assuming that Both Bob's and Percy's notoriety soar: If Bob wants a portion of Percy's profits gleaned from concert advertisement, and Percy is in agreement so long as he becomes Bob's exclusive designer, shouldn't such a contract be legal? Shouldn't they both be allowed to profit from such a deal?
• As both make millions from their celebrity, at what point does this deal between two consenting businessmen become unfair?

I didn't mean for this to be so long, but the questions just flowed one from another.

Now there you go asking difficult questions. Quit asking questions that point out the logical contradiction between the ability of free people to sell their labor to who the wish for what the wish and socialisms "nobody can profit off your labor but you." :24:

 

[edgray]

So I assume that buying and selling of personal property is permitted, including ideas, inventions, or entertainment?

[*]If Bob - illiterate and otherwise bumbling social outcast - shows a talent as a dynamic singer & showman, should he not be allowed to sell tickets for people to see his concerts?

Of course he can. But he will have to partner with those who's services he needs to make the concerts happen.

This actually raises an interesting point that Nova brought up regarding an invention or something. In capitalist society, an inventor comes up with, say, SuperWidget. He designs it, gets investment, then employs people to build, package and market the new device.

In both Socialism and Anarchism, employment is seen as removing equality as the employee is subjugated to their employer, loses power over their work life and of course has a part of the fruits of their labour taken and horded as profit.

What would happen in that instance is that rather than employing people to build, package and market the SuperWidget, the inventor would partner with builders, packagers and marketers. Their role is no less important than his in getting SuperWidget to the marketplace, so they get an equal share for their labour. They would have input on the way the business would run and most importantly would obviously now have a vested interest in the project - if it fails, they get nothing just like the inventor, so they assume an equal portion of the risk. This way equality is maintained. And by doing so, freedom is maintained too.

[*]If people perceive the entertainment to be of great value, should they not be allowed to pay as much as they deem fair? And shouldn't Bob be allowed to charge that much?

There are many different schools of thought within socialist philosophy. Considering entertainment isn't "necessary work" (which always takes priority), some believe that it shouldn't have a monetary value. Others believe it should. Personally, I have no problem people charging for entertainment as a job, as I see things like music as being essential to a happy and cultured society. The difference would be that the entertainer has to partner with all the people necessary to make it happen.

At the end of the day, this is just my idea, there are many solutions that could be found, and the one that works best for each society would be chosen by that society.

[*]If Percy - a local tailor - seeing the opportunity to show his own talent to the public, approaches Bob and offers to make all his clothes for free in exchange for advertising at his concerts,shouldn't they be allowed to strike such a deal?

Labour exchanges, as long as they don't interfere with equality or freedom, would be fine I imagine. Again, it would probably play out slightly differently depending on each society.

[*]Shouldn't Percy be allowed to profit from such a deal?

As long as he isn't profiting off the back of his fellow man, then sure.

[*]Assuming that Both Bob's and Percy's notoriety soar: If Bob wants a portion of Percy's profits gleaned from concert advertisement, and Percy is in agreement so long as he becomes Bob's exclusive designer, shouldn't such a contract be legal? Shouldn't they both be allowed to profit from such a deal?

Again, as long as everyone involved in the process has their share of the profits.

[*]As both make millions from their celebrity, at what point does this deal between two consenting businessmen become unfair?

The deal between the two becomes unfair when they are profiting off the work that other people have done to contribute to their success. So, the people that designed and printed the posters, the owners of the music venue etc etc all get their share.

I didn't mean for this to be so long, but the questions just flowed one from another.

Don't apologise, good questions!

 

[Accountable]

In both Socialism and Anarchism, employment is seen as removing equality as the employee is subjugated to their employer, loses power over their work life and of course has a part of the fruits of their labour taken and horded as profit.

Your version of anarchy sure has alot of rules.

But he will have to partner with those who's services he needs to make the concerts happen.

What about goods? Bob's gonna need lumber to build his stage props. Percy's gonna need fabric.

Partners don't get paid until the show's over. As a carpenter, I don't care if your idea is a good one or not. You want a platform; I'll build a platform. I don't want to wait until the concert is over to see how much my share is. I'd rather get paid and move on. If my paycheck is dependent on whether Bob's songs appeal to the average teenager, why would I even entertain such a job?

if it fails, they get nothing just like the inventor, so they assume an equal portion of the risk. This way equality is maintained. And by doing so, freedom is maintained too.

I'd think Thomas Edison would never be able to find a glassblower to provide hundreds of bulbs if his paycheck depended on this crazy inventor guy actually succeeding.

I can't see any innovation getting off the ground if the guy with the idea had to convince everyone involved to agree to the same amount of risk as he himself would be willing to take.

... as long as they don't interfere with equality or freedom...
... As long as he isn't profiting off the back of his fellow man ...
... as long as everyone involved in the process has their share of the profits.

Who decides disputes in your well-ordered anarchy?

 

[nova]

Your version of anarchy sure has alot of rules.

Thats kinda been my argument all along. :24:

 

[Tim]

Looking into the theme of socialism/anarchism I came across this

The goal of socialism should be to iterate itself out of existence. Its purpose is to keep negative aspects of human behavior in check for the common good, but only temporarily.
Socialism is a control system necessitated by the presence of severe human flaws. This is to say, if any semblance of equality is to be attained given these primal vices, some sort of socialism will be required.
But it is not an ideal. In fact it’s the opposite, and every responsible proponent of the ideology should realize that the goal of socialism should be to allow its beneficiaries to grow to the point that it’s no longer needed.
You can’t reach the ultimate goal of anarchy (self rule) or its younger brother, libertarianism, without the highest levels of individual responsibility and underlying concepts of mutual respect and connectedness. These are precisely the characteristics that immature and primal societies lack, hence the need for intervention.
So socialism is an intermediary phase between young, primal societies (which need the most controls) and those that require no interference from the state.
The goal of socialism should ultimately be anarchy.:

Interesting concept... which lead to this quote.

The American version of “libertarianism” is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: “No, I’m a libertarian, I’m against that tax”—but of course, I’m still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.
Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it’s a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don’t have roads because you don’t see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you’re not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don’t like the pollution from somebody’s automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It’s a world built on hatred.

 

[edgray]

Your version of anarchy sure has alot of rules.

lol! True, it does seem that way. The original meaning of the word, dating from 1650 or something, means "No rulership or enforced authority." over time it changed and since the mid 1800s it's come to mean "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

Libertarian Socialism can only exist when everyone within the society understands and agrees with the principles behind it, or at least understands the importance of equality and freedom. Anarchy is considered a healthy state to be in, without oppression or control, and living in such a society would bring out the best in people, in terms of not only behaviour but also in creativity and brotherhood. In that sense, many of the current issues we see so much of (crime, corruption, greed etc) would no longer exist. These are not intrinsic parts of "human nature," as is often claimed, and would not be created within an anarchist society.

To come back to the idea of rules, remember, anarchy is the removal of the power to impose rules on others. There's no police to enforce any rules, but the people as a whole. In that sense it should appeal to American notions of libertarianism - it puts total responsibility with the individual.

What about goods? Bob's gonna need lumber to build his stage props. Percy's gonna need fabric.

Both Bob and Percy would be able to purchase their goods in the way we do now. There's no reason for that to change, purchasing goods isn't encroaching on anyone's freedom or swaying the balance of equality.

Partners don't get paid until the show's over. As a carpenter, I don't care if your idea is a good one or not. You want a platform; I'll build a platform. I don't want to wait until the concert is over to see how much my share is. I'd rather get paid and move on. If my paycheck is dependent on whether Bob's songs appeal to the average teenager, why would I even entertain such a job?

Well this is because you're looking at it in your capitalist mindset. Remember, we are who we because of the environment we've lived in. Someone who's living in an anarchist society wouldn't look at things in the same way. It's not about "I" anymore. It's about "us". In that sense, these kind of things probably wouldn't crop up, but if they did, the point is that the people as a whole would solve the problem, not have it dictated to them by a small elite.

I'd think Thomas Edison would never be able to find a glassblower to provide hundreds of bulbs if his paycheck depended on this crazy inventor guy actually succeeding.

Again, it's not about a single person anymore, so it's not just Edison trying to get a bunch of glass blown, it's a society finding the resources to produce the lightbulbs.. One possibility could play out like this:

Edison takes his new invention and pitches it to his community. His community sees the benefit of the idea and agreements are made to give time and resources to the project.

How this would play out in a large-scale anarchy is really up for debate, but I would see a large scale anarchy being made up of smaller communities that would function as independent units when needed, and with other communities when that's needed.

This is just one idea how something like that could play out. In practice, situations could vary massively within the anarchistic framework of equality and freedom.

I can't see any innovation getting off the ground if the guy with the idea had to convince everyone involved to agree to the same amount of risk as he himself would be willing to take.

This would certainly weed out shit and pointless ideas, that's for sure! These kind of risks do happen in today's societies though, but instead of labour, what is risked is money for financing.

Who decides disputes in your well-ordered anarchy?

As always, the people decide through direct democracy. Disputes would be resolved by the community as a whole.

Phew, very good questions and I do confess to not to being able to answer all of the satisfactorily, for which I apologise. I've only been an anarchist for a couple of years, so am still discovering much about the philosophy.

Tim's quotes above are really good starting places if you want to find out more and I strongly recommend checking out Chomsky on YouTube. In this series (five parts), he explains all of the principles in his usual eloquent manner:

YouTube - Chomsky explains anarchism (1 of 5)