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

[edgray]

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

Interesting concept... which lead to this quote.

​

Nice quotes Tim, they sum it up perfectly. I came to be an anarchist myself through first discovering socialism. Anarchy would always have to be the goal of a socialist state.

 

[Tim]

I'll have to read up on Chomsky some. I have never equated socialism, libertarianism and anarchism before... very interesting tie ins involved. Not that they are the same, but steps in the process.

 

[edgray]

That's good to hear Tim, I hope it resonates with you

They are really the only concepts brought to the table that actually help deal with the problems of societies - crime, corruption, greed, oppression and so forth. Each step deals with problems before moving to the next step.

This is the problem I've always had with capitalist and conservative views, they don't attempt to solve problems they create, only assign blame.

At least with this path there is and end goal in sight.

 

[nova]

At least with this path there is and end goal in sight.

And end goal that you can never hope to reach. Congratulations. You subscribe to the ideology of futility. :24:

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.

That right there is the fundamental flaw. Take a representive cross section of 1000 people, put them in a room and get them ALL, 100% to agree to anything. I'd bet money you couldn't get them to agree to something as trivial as what to have for dinner much less important decisions.

Want proof? I don't agree with the principles of your socialism and refuse to cooperate. Now what are you gonna do about it?

But nevermind that, we'll just pretend that we can mind control everyone into cooperating 100%... :24:

 

[edgray]

And end goal that you can never hope to reach. Congratulations. You subscribe to the ideology of futility.

Not at all, if the human race wants to really progress, and more and more people do each day, there's nothing futile about it. It's a reachable goal.

That right there is the fundamental flaw. Take a representive cross section of 1000 people, put them in a room and get them ALL, 100% to agree to anything. I'd bet money you couldn't get them to agree to something as trivial as what to have for dinner much less important decisions.

Of course it would be impossible right now to do so. No one really thinks we could really dissolve all forms of government and bring in an anarchist utopia overnight. It has to be worked up to. And as more and more people see their lives improve with each incremental step, they understand the reasons and needs for progression.

Want proof? I don't agree with the principles of your socialism and refuse to cooperate. Now what are you gonna do about it?

well eventually you'll have no choice, there will be an anarchist society all around you - you'll be surrounded by a large society of people that want to live in cooperation and harmony. At which point you'll realise that you're alone in your selfish ideals. Then, the question will be, what are YOU going to do about it?

But nevermind that, we'll just pretend that we can mind control everyone into cooperating 100%...

who says anything about mind control? It's called enlightenment.

 

[nova]

Of course it would be impossible right now to do so. No one really thinks we could really dissolve all forms of government and bring in an anarchist utopia overnight. It has to be worked up to. And as more and more people see their lives improve with each incremental step, they understand the reasons and needs for progression.

Its going to be impossible forever by simple virtue of the fact that we as humans are all diferent. We have different ideas, feelings, likes, dislikes and values. 5000+ years on from the beginnings of civilization and we still have people carrying around the values, attitudes and lifestyles from that age.

WTF makes you think your ideas are so magical you're gonna convince everyone when NO OTHER IDEA EVER has done that?

well eventually you'll have no choice,

I'm sure loving the picture of a oh so free society you're painting here. :24:

there will be an anarchist society all around you - you'll be surrounded by a large society of people that want to live in cooperation and harmony. At which point you'll realise that you're alone in your selfish ideals. Then, the question will be, what are YOU going to do about it?

No the question still is, what will you do when I and the percentage like me who don't want any of your socialist bullshit, tell you to go screw yourself and resist in every manner possible?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your answer is "nothing" then your house of cards comes tumbling down as people go their own way, or somebody meaner and nastier comes along to put you all in chains.

If your answer is "I'm going to force you" well then you're not much of a free and open libertarian society now are you?

who says anything about mind control? It's called enlightenment.

Actually its called delusion but who's counting... :24:

 

[nova]

Not at all, if the human race wants to really progress, and more and more people do each day, there's nothing futile about it. It's a reachable goal.

Of course it would be impossible right now to do so. No one really thinks we could really dissolve all forms of government and bring in an anarchist utopia overnight. It has to be worked up to. And as more and more people see their lives improve with each incremental step, they understand the reasons and needs for progression.

well eventually you'll have no choice, there will be an anarchist society all around you - you'll be surrounded by a large society of people that want to live in cooperation and harmony. At which point you'll realise that you're alone in your selfish ideals. Then, the question will be, what are YOU going to do about it?

who says anything about mind control? It's called enlightenment.

The more I think about everything you wrote here, the more I think it parallels rational choice theory.

You're whole argument boils down to "When people see the benefits, they'll come around and we'll all live and joy and harmony, hold hands, sing Kumbaya and maybe drink a Coke together"

In other words, once you spread the news, people will make what you see as the rational choice and hop on board. The only problem with that is human beings are not always rational by a long shot and in lots of cases one persons rationality does not seem at all rational to outside observer.

That sorta stuff is indemic to humanity so I don't see how you can even begin to make the "rational choice" argument...

 

[Accountable]

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)."

But the situation you describe doesn't have absolute liberty. I'm not at liberty to make short-term deals to get my ideas off the ground; I'm forced to enter into permanent, open-ended partnerships with anyone I may need the smallest of services from.

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.

Of course greed is intrinsic to human nature. Watch any child. The fact that as we grow we learn to control our basest instincts in no way erase the fact of them.

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.

That's not remotely the "utopia" you've been describing.

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.

Well it should! Don't forget that that piece of plywood purchased from the local DIY makes it possible for Bob to have a stage, on which he makes his money. Therefore, the DIY (and all the millions of people directly and indirectly involved in the store's operation) deserve equal shares in Bob's enterprise .... and a say in what lyrics should go in the second verse of the newest song Bob's writing.

Not to mention poor Percy. As you describe the situation, he would never be able to strike the deal I described with Bob, because the needle he needs to sew Bob's hems obligates him to the fabric store from which he bought it, the casting company that made it, the mining company that smelted the ore, the tractor manufacturer that made the mining equipment, etc etc ad nauseum all the way back to the house that Jack built. He would never be able to get everyone's permission to give his service to Bob free of charge because his co-owners presumably would want their "share".

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.

And that's where communication stops. "Thanks for playing, Accountable, but you simply are incapable of understanding." Don't forget that to get to Point B, you must first start from Point A. To make a quantum leap there without a path is simply not logical.

We don't live in an anarchist society. In order to have an anarchist society (at least the incredibly oppressive one you've described with its endless web of obligations) you have to be able to convince a non-anarchist, a capitalist, to adapt the new ways.

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.

And this is where it would stop cold, with a mumbling Edison trying to get an unimaginative public to see what's in his head, when he himself can't describe it. We would still be reading books by candle light.

There's a reason inventors invent and salesmen sell. They are completely different skill-sets. There's a reason venture capitalists are extremely rare. Most people lack the combination of imagination, vision, and willingness to take a gamble that would be required to fund so outlandish an idea as electric light where none had existed before.

 

[Accountable]

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.:

Unfortunately the people who run the socialist control system are humans, which the writer has established are severely flawed. The result is one adult telling another "We're oppressing you for your own good, so that we may teach you to live in such a way that doesn't oppress other. Once we are satisfied that you are as wise as we, we will stop the oppression and all will be right with the world." That's as hypocritical as when President Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save free market principles.

 

[Tim]

Unfortunately the people who run the socialist control system are humans, which the writer has established are severely flawed. The result is one adult telling another "We're oppressing you for your own good, so that we may teach you to live in such a way that doesn't oppress other. Once we are satisfied that you are as wise as we, we will stop the oppression and all will be right with the world." That's as hypocritical as when President Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save free market principles.

I know that and I understand that people are flawed. And it is that little fact that will prevent ANY form of government complete success. I'm not sure what form of governance is the best, maybe it's a mixture of all of them.

I really love the concept of our own American government, but we have strayed so far from it's original intent that I think we will never see it as intended.

 

[nova]

I know that and I understand that people are flawed. And it is that little fact that will prevent ANY form of government complete success. I'm not sure what form of governance is the best, maybe it's a mixture of all of them.

I kinda agree with you here. I don't think any gov't can ever be a complete success for the simple fact that "success" is a such a relative term. Stalin probably thought the USSR was a raging success but the poor people getting shipped off to the gulag would probably disagree. Although thats an extreme example the same basic idea applies.

I really love the concept of our own American government, but we have strayed so far from it's original intent that I think we will never see it as intended.

I don't think anybody has ever seen it as intended. People started fighting and chipping away at it for their own purposes just as soon as it was put into effect. I mean, the Constitution was ratified in 1787 and less than 11 years later people were pushing through the USA Patriot of its day, the Alien and Sedition acts. The guys that wrote the Constitution and knew exactly what it meant were still hanging around and people managed to get that abomination enacted...

Far too many people either never understood the principles upon which our institutions are based or never cared if they did understand.

Thats how you get so many people roaming around thinking its just peachy to selectively enforce the law or force their morality on others or [name your abuse here].

 

[Accountable]

I know that and I understand that people are flawed. And it is that little fact that will prevent ANY form of government complete success. I'm not sure what form of governance is the best, maybe it's a mixture of all of them.

I really love the concept of our own American government, but we have strayed so far from it's original intent that I think we will never see it as intended.

:nod: Certainly not without pain. Lots of pain.

 

[Tim]

I kinda agree with you here. I don't think any gov't can ever be a complete success for the simple fact that "success" is a such a relative term. Stalin probably thought the USSR was a raging success but the poor people getting shipped off to the gulag would probably disagree. Although thats an extreme example the same basic idea applies.



I don't think anybody has ever seen it as intended. People started fighting and chipping away at it for their own purposes just as soon as it was put into effect. I mean, the Constitution was ratified in 1787 and less than 11 years later people were pushing through the USA Patriot of its day, the Alien and Sedition acts. The guys that wrote the Constitution and knew exactly what it meant were still hanging around and people managed to get that abomination enacted...

Far too many people either never understood the principles upon which our institutions are based or never cared if they did understand.

Thats how you get so many people roaming around thinking its just peachy to selectively enforce the law or force their morality on others or [name your abuse here].

And there is a very large list of abuses to pick from.

:nod: Certainly not without pain. Lots of pain.

Not even with pain. You couldn't fill a stadium with people that agree wholly agree on every point. Even if you said that you wanted the US exactly the way the founding fathers wanted it, you would get disagreements on what their intent was.

 

[Accountable]

Not even with pain. You couldn't fill a stadium with people that agree wholly agree on every point. Even if you said that you wanted the US exactly the way the founding fathers wanted it, you would get disagreements on what their intent was.

Like Nova said, the specifics were compromised from the git go, accepting slavery in a land where all men are created equal being the most glaring example, but the principles is sound: the minimum amount of government necessary to ensure maximum individual liberty.

:humm:

Of course, as spoiled as we are now, there are bound to be quite a lot of people who think that government are supposed to liberate us from responsibility and unpleasant situations.

Government is like kudzu vine (or bamboo): if you're not careful about keeping it within its limits it will spread and overtake everything.

Sometimes it's easier to plow it all under and start again.

 

[edgray]

Its going to be impossible forever by simple virtue of the fact that we as humans are all diferent. We have different ideas, feelings, likes, dislikes and values. 5000+ years on from the beginnings of civilization and we still have people carrying around the values, attitudes and lifestyles from that age.

WTF makes you think your ideas are so magical you're gonna convince everyone when NO OTHER IDEA EVER has done that?

At this moment in time, most people agree on a lot of things - democracy, various kind of capitalistic economic model, the rule of law, human rights etc etc. There are differences within those frameworks of course but the overall ideas remain the same and are agreed upon. So yeah, can you see that statement is very, very wrong?

I'm sure loving the picture of a oh so free society you're painting here.

Well you'll have plenty of choices, more so than in our current societies, but within a framework that runs on equality and freedom. And you'll of course have the choice to leave and go live elsewhere, start a capitalist commune (!!!) somewhere...

No the question still is, what will you do when I and the percentage like me who don't want any of your socialist bullshit, tell you to go screw yourself and resist in every manner possible?

The point is it couldn't happen until a very large majority of people want it to be that way. This has happened before (in the examples that you continue to refute) and can happen again. How do you think things EVER get changed? They change because people agree on things and then do something about it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your answer is "nothing" then your house of cards comes tumbling down as people go their own way, or somebody meaner and nastier comes along to put you all in chains.

If your answer is "I'm going to force you" well then you're not much of a free and open libertarian society now are you?

No one is going to be forced. As explained before, anarchist society would happen over time, at the choice of the populous.

Anyway, what about your world? What about your beliefs? I'm assuming, could be incorrect, that you're a libertarian in the "I begrudge paying taxes but I still want the govt to build me roads to drive on" sense of the word? Why don't you tell us how that would play out?

Actually its called delusion but who's counting...

And bringing it back to the high school level, nice work!

 

[edgray]

But the situation you describe doesn't have absolute liberty. I'm not at liberty to make short-term deals to get my ideas off the ground; I'm forced to enter into permanent, open-ended partnerships with anyone I may need the smallest of services from.

Well you'd be totally free to try whatever you like - you could go around your community and ask as many people as you'd like to exchange services or so forth. Why would anyone opt to take a single, one-off payment or be under your employ for a while when they would be able to become a partner with someone else and see much more in return?

As long as your proposals don't subjugate your fellow man, there really shouldn't be an issue.

Of course greed is intrinsic to human nature. Watch any child. The fact that as we grow we learn to control our basest instincts in no way erase the fact of them.

Not at all. And here's why:

Humans are fearful of pain and attracted to pleasure. Greed is an association with pleasure that is learned within our current society models. If it was human nature, we'd all be greedy, and by your example of looking at kids you should know this not to be true - not all kids are greedy, in the same way not all children are generous.

Basically, greed begets greed. Simple as that. Take humans out of a greed driven framework and the problem is gone.

That's not remotely the "utopia" you've been describing.

Can you expand on this because I think you've raised a very pertinent point.

Well it should! Don't forget that that piece of plywood purchased from the local DIY makes it possible for Bob to have a stage, on which he makes his money. Therefore, the DIY (and all the millions of people directly and indirectly involved in the store's operation) deserve equal shares in Bob's enterprise .... and a say in what lyrics should go in the second verse of the newest song Bob's writing.

Interesting point, but I think you got the wrong end of the stick there.

Bob buys his plywood from the DIY store, which is run as a cooperative. The amount Bob pays for his plywood would be spread between the workers at the cooperative, I don't see the need for them to share in Bob's enterprise. They aren't working for Bob. By that logic, the plywood should be entitled to a share of Bob's enterprise seeing as it technically would be working with him...

As I said, buying and selling of items is fine and would function as it always has.

Not to mention poor Percy. As you describe the situation, he would never be able to strike the deal I described with Bob, because the needle he needs to sew Bob's hems obligates him to the fabric store from which he bought it, the casting company that made it, the mining company that smelted the ore, the tractor manufacturer that made the mining equipment, etc etc ad nauseum all the way back to the house that Jack built. He would never be able to get everyone's permission to give his service to Bob free of charge because his co-owners presumably would want their "share".

Again, you're mistaking buying goods with the exploitation of employment. As long as no human is subjugated to another, equality is maintained. The needle, in your example, would have been purchased from a store. Just like today. No obligation for poor old Percy to share anything.

And that's where communication stops. "Thanks for playing, Accountable, but you simply are incapable of understanding." Don't forget that to get to Point B, you must first start from Point A. To make a quantum leap there without a path is simply not logical.

We don't live in an anarchist society. In order to have an anarchist society (at least the incredibly oppressive one you've described with its endless web of obligations) you have to be able to convince a non-anarchist, a capitalist, to adapt the new ways.

No, communication still open. Are you not enjoying picking around this philosophy?! And I think you're more than capable of understanding, I'm not trying to end-game the discourse here.

But I do have to ask you a question about where this oppression is coming from? As explained to Nova above, in an anarchist society people have much more freedom than they would do today, and have room to excel within what is a very basic framework compared to what we have these days. If their is no hierarchy, where exactly is this oppression coming from?

And this is where it would stop cold, with a mumbling Edison trying to get an unimaginative public to see what's in his head, when he himself can't describe it. We would still be reading books by candle light.

The lightbulb, for example, was invented by numerous people independent of each other, Edison being one of them. Society saw the need and value in it. There's no reason that would change.

There's a reason inventors invent and salesmen sell. They are completely different skill-sets. There's a reason venture capitalists are extremely rare. Most people lack the combination of imagination, vision, and willingness to take a gamble that would be required to fund so outlandish an idea as electric light where none had existed before.

I disagree on this point. We live in very different times right now, much more accepting and willing to look for different solutions for each problem society faces. There's absolutely no reason Edison couldn't get his work produced on a large scale. Provided the item had value. At that time, it wasn't just lightbulbs he was selling, it was also the importance and value of electricity, something quite intangible for the average person living in those days.

 

[nova]

At this moment in time, most people agree on a lot of things - democracy, various kind of capitalistic economic model, the rule of law, human rights etc etc. There are differences within those frameworks of course but the overall ideas remain the same and are agreed upon. So yeah, can you see that statement is very, very wrong?

No, most people don't agree on any of that. A lot of people in the US and Europe do but you go other places and thats not the case.

Some research was done recently that showed a disproportionate amount of Chinese (north of 60%) feel that political and personal freedom is too dangerous and the strong oppressive state is the way to go. On top of that they feel their semi-communist economic model is the way to go. So no, most people DON'T agree even with what you listed.

Well you'll have plenty of choices, more so than in our current societies, but within a framework that runs on equality and freedom. And you'll of course have the choice to leave and go live elsewhere, start a capitalist commune (!!!) somewhere...

I just won't have the choices you don't like. Thats the very definition of an oppressive society. Its not a matter of having "more" choices its a matter of having all choices available to you.

And no I couldn't go live elsewhere, commune or no, because you've already said that wouldn't be allowed. Again, you can't say "no capitalism allowed" and then turn around and say "well go start a commune somewhere."

I can say that to you because my open system allows any arrangements free people are willing to engage in.

The point is it couldn't happen until a very large majority of people want it to be that way. This has happened before (in the examples that you continue to refute) and can happen again. How do you think things EVER get changed? They change because people agree on things and then do something about it.

And I'm telling you that it doesn't matter how many people "want" it to be that way, until you have 100% agreement from everyone you can not have that combination. If you are forcing even a miniscule percentage of the people into an arrangement they don't want for any reason other than to protect the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property, then you are not a libertarian society.

No one is going to be forced. As explained before, anarchist society would happen over time, at the choice of the populous.

Except not everybody will make the same choices as as the population at large. When they deviate from that line it becomes a "change or else" situation ie force.

Again, what about the people who don't want your anarchism and your socialism. You keep neatly avoided answering the question but the fact remains, NOT EVERYBODY WILL MAKE THOSE SAME CHOICES. What do you do about those people who do not want to cooperate?

Anyway, what about your world? What about your beliefs? I'm assuming, could be incorrect, that you're a libertarian in the "I begrudge paying taxes but I still want the govt to build me roads to drive on" sense of the word? Why don't you tell us how that would play out?

#1: Good way to avoid actually answering the tough questions. Keep doing the politicians dance around the hard questions....

#2: I'm a gov't minimalist. The only legitimate role for gov't is to protect the life, liberty and property rights of the individual. If you can make a solid argument that some gov't action is to protect those fundamental rights, then its a legitimate use of gov't power, otherwise its not. That simple definition provides for a lot of the necessary functions of gov't but prohibits the horrible intrusions that oppress the individual.

You bring up roads, in some cases roads could fit that description if they're to be used for transporting defense forces to protect the overall liberty but otherwise they probably wouldn't be. Roads certainly weren't invented by the gov't. Somehow I think we might have a lot less redundant infrastructure if private individuals and corps had to put up the money to build it....

And bringing it back to the high school level, nice work!

If you quit talking fairy tails and come back to some semblance of reality, I'll quit thinking you delusional, until then, it is what it is....

 

[nova]

Well you'd be totally free to try whatever you like - you could go around your community and ask as many people as you'd like to exchange services or so forth. Why would anyone opt to take a single, one-off payment or be under your employ for a while when they would be able to become a partner with someone else and see much more in return?

You're totally free to make any choices you like, except the one's we don't like. Selling your labor to someone else is verboten you see...

Not at all. And here's why:

Humans are fearful of pain and attracted to pleasure. Greed is an association with pleasure that is learned within our current society models. If it was human nature, we'd all be greedy, and by your example of looking at kids you should know this not to be true - not all kids are greedy, in the same way not all children are generous.

Basically, greed begets greed. Simple as that. Take humans out of a greed driven framework and the problem is gone.

Generosity/cooperation and greed are two sides of the same coin, namely survival mechanisms. It has nothing to do with pleasure/pain response. Thinking back to when we first came out of trees, like any other animal, more resources meant a higher chance of survival, so in most cases we are programmed to want as many survival resources as possible. The only time thats overridden by an urge to cooperate, and hence the reason we became pack based animals, is when cooperation leads to more resources and a better chance of survival. 2 hunters can bring down a mammoth thats 2.5 times the size of a single hunter etc. That same instinct is also the same basis for trade. I give you some of my resource A for some of your resource B because I feel B gives me more of a survival chance than A and you feel vice versa.

Interesting point, but I think you got the wrong end of the stick there.

Bob buys his plywood from the DIY store, which is run as a cooperative. The amount Bob pays for his plywood would be spread between the workers at the cooperative, I don't see the need for them to share in Bob's enterprise. They aren't working for Bob. By that logic, the plywood should be entitled to a share of Bob's enterprise seeing as it technically would be working with him...

As I said, buying and selling of items is fine and would function as it always has.

Except you've said profit isn't allowed. If they're not selling the plywood for more than the materials, then there's no point, they're working for nothing.

If they're making a profit, then you're describing a situation that could (and does on occassion) happen now, namely a worker owned company. The workers at Charlies plywood factory can all pool their resources and go start their own plywood factory.

Your base assumption seems to be that the owner brings nothing to the party and takes everything of value. Except the owner is the guy who first put up the resources to build the factory and buy the machinery in the first place and organized the whole thing. Why is it wrong for him to something out of the deal?

Again, you're mistaking buying goods with the exploitation of employment. As long as no human is subjugated to another, equality is maintained. The needle, in your example, would have been purchased from a store. Just like today. No obligation for poor old Percy to share anything.

And you're mistaking people voluntarily selling their labor for exploitation.

But I do have to ask you a question about where this oppression is coming from? As explained to Nova above, in an anarchist society people have much more freedom than they would do today, and have room to excel within what is a very basic framework compared to what we have these days. If their is no hierarchy, where exactly is this oppression coming from?

Yes freedom, freedom to make the choices you like and only the choices you like. The oppression is coming from their fellow individuals. Individuals can and do opppress people just as surely as a gov't can.

The lightbulb, for example, was invented by numerous people independent of each other, Edison being one of them. Society saw the need and value in it. There's no reason that would change.

I disagree on this point. We live in very different times right now, much more accepting and willing to look for different solutions for each problem society faces. There's absolutely no reason Edison couldn't get his work produced on a large scale. Provided the item had value. At that time, it wasn't just lightbulbs he was selling, it was also the importance and value of electricity, something quite intangible for the average person living in those days.

No society didn't. It was a small group of people who did, culimating with Edison and his small group of investors. Many people were fearful of electric lightbulbs. If Edison had to go out to the community at large to get the resources to build his light bulb factory, it would have never happened. As it stands it took 50-60 years to see widespread acceptance.

People are still people even in this day and age. If Steve Jobs and the Woz had to go to "the community at large" in order to start producing Apple Computers, they'd have been laughed at we wouldn't be having this conversation. They were able to start because they only had to convince a small number of investors to take a risk...

 

[edgray]

No, most people don't agree on any of that. A lot of people in the US and Europe do but you go other places and thats not the case.

Some research was done recently that showed a disproportionate amount of Chinese (north of 60%) feel that political and personal freedom is too dangerous and the strong oppressive state is the way to go. On top of that they feel their semi-communist economic model is the way to go. So no, most people DON'T agree even with what you listed.

But they do agree. That's the point. It's up to each society to grow and progress in the way they want. If the chinese don't want freedom, they don't have to have it imposed.

Anarchy is a philosophy that people subscribe to or they don't. It will only be a viable option when we start on a path in that direction: ie, a path to actually change society for the better, progress, solve problems and so forth instead of conserving the status quo, which is all we're doing right now.

I just won't have the choices you don't like. Thats the very definition of an oppressive society. Its not a matter of having "more" choices its a matter of having all choices available to you.

Not me, but society. If you feel that you should have this particular choice or that, you would be able to actively campaign for it within the direct democracy you'd be living.

And no I couldn't go live elsewhere, commune or no, because you've already said that wouldn't be allowed. Again, you can't say "no capitalism allowed" and then turn around and say "well go start a commune somewhere."

it's not so much no capitalism, it's more about no exploitation. Equality is the drive behind anarchy, and the drive behind solving many of our problems. You would be free to move elsewhere, no one is going to be holding you to ransom saying you can't.

I can say that to you because my open system allows any arrangements free people are willing to engage in.

So can you explain your system to me?

And I'm telling you that it doesn't matter how many people "want" it to be that way, until you have 100% agreement from everyone you can not have that combination. If you are forcing even a miniscule percentage of the people into an arrangement they don't want for any reason other than to protect the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property, then you are not a libertarian society.

Again, no one is going to be forced into anything. Say, for example, you have 75% anarchists and 25% Faux Libertarians (of the Murray Rothbard variety). Life in a direct democracy means that everyone gets their say in how things should be. The 25% Faux Libertarians could chirp us as much as they want and try and change things. The idea that libertarianism is solely protecting "fundamental rights to life, liberty and property" is simply wrong and has nothing to do with libertarianism. It's simply a bandwagon jumped on by those not wishing to pay tax.

But I would actually be very interested to have a faux Libertarian world explained to me. As Chomsky pointed out, it would be a world of hatred and division, no unity or cooperation. A frightful existence if you ask me. How would, in your opinion, a society like that function?

Except not everybody will make the same choices as as the population at large. When they deviate from that line it becomes a "change or else" situation ie force.

Well, if someone comes to their townhall meeting and says they want to murder someone, for example, and thinks that should be allowed, obviously they would be voted against and that would be that. When it comes to capitalistic ideals, in an anarchist society do you honestly think someone would accept employment rather than partnering in a work endeavour?

Again, what about the people who don't want your anarchism and your socialism. You keep neatly avoided answering the question but the fact remains, NOT EVERYBODY WILL MAKE THOSE SAME CHOICES. What do you do about those people who do not want to cooperate?

Well, as with any system, there will always be a level of dissent. We live in free democracies because the majority want it that way. In a Libertarian world, there would most likely be dissent too and people could exercise this through their voting systems. Its really not a hard concept to grasp!

#1: Good way to avoid actually answering the tough questions. Keep doing the politicians dance around the hard questions....

I'm simply saying I don't have all the answers. There is plenty of material out there for you to read through, listen to the Chomsky youtube vids I posted, he answers pretty much everything in there.

#2: I'm a gov't minimalist. The only legitimate role for gov't is to protect the life, liberty and property rights of the individual. If you can make a solid argument that some gov't action is to protect those fundamental rights, then its a legitimate use of gov't power, otherwise its not. That simple definition provides for a lot of the necessary functions of gov't but prohibits the horrible intrusions that oppress the individual.

A govt minimalist. So you want govt where YOU consider them needed, but not where others might?

You bring up roads, in some cases roads could fit that description if they're to be used for transporting defense forces to protect the overall liberty but otherwise they probably wouldn't be. Roads certainly weren't invented by the gov't. Somehow I think we might have a lot less redundant infrastructure if private individuals and corps had to put up the money to build it....

Firstly, where is this redundant infrastructure? Over here, we're always in need of more and the govt provides. Secondly, of course roads weren't invented by the govt, but they do a good service of building more to allow us to travel around our countries freely. Who is in charge of building roads in your world? Private enterprise? What if the route you need isn't financially viable so therefore remains long pile of rubble that you cannot pass, would you build the road yourself?

Who makes sure people aren't exploited in the labour force? Who protects the environment from destruction by corporations? Who will take care of people who can't take care of themselves?

Would people be able to work in a cooperative manner? That is, would people be able to form unions and so forth to protect their working rights and such?

If you quit talking fairy tails and come back to some semblance of reality, I'll quit thinking you delusional, until then, it is what it is....

No fairy talk going here my friend. Just an interesting debate.

 

[edgray]

You're totally free to make any choices you like, except the one's we don't like. Selling your labor to someone else is verboten you see...

Actually, thinking about it, let's have a look at what might happen in an anarchist society if someone chooses to ignore their equality, and reduce their freedom and control over their working life and accept employment:

"I want to work for you. My name is Percy, I'm a carpenter."
"We don't employ people but you're more than welcome to come on board in our co-op."

Percy is free to sell their labour as much as they want. It's the employers that aren't allowed to turn people into wageslaves. What person in their right mind would choose to have the fruits of the labour taken from them and given only a small percentage back (capitalist) or get their fair share (socialist)?

Generosity/cooperation and greed are two sides of the same coin, namely survival mechanisms. It has nothing to do with pleasure/pain response. Thinking back to when we first came out of trees, like any other animal, more resources meant a higher chance of survival, so in most cases we are programmed to want as many survival resources as possible. The only time thats overridden by an urge to cooperate, and hence the reason we became pack based animals, is when cooperation leads to more resources and a better chance of survival. 2 hunters can bring down a mammoth thats 2.5 times the size of a single hunter etc. That same instinct is also the same basis for trade. I give you some of my resource A for some of your resource B because I feel B gives me more of a survival chance than A and you feel vice versa.

Greed has nothing to do with what you've just said though. There's much debate over this subject in psychology and the community is quite divided on it. Neither of us can possibly know the answer, but I know more people who aren't greedy than I do those that are, thats for sure. That would immediately tell me that it is not an instinctive trait of humans, but a learned behaviour. In your examples you point out about resources. Very true, more resources equals better survival chance. That's not greed though, is it? Greed is taking MORE than you would need. Back in those days, people needed everything they could get their hands on. Greed these days has nothing to do with survival.

Except you've said profit isn't allowed. If they're not selling the plywood for more than the materials, then there's no point, they're working for nothing.

Profit is essentially what's left after your operating costs (which would include wages) so of course they're not working for nothing!! The co-op sells a product at a price to include operating costs sufficient to share within itself. The co-op is allowed to profit, but the system means that profit is given to all those involved in the work, not horded by bosses and shareholders as in our current systems and your minimalist govt one.

If they're making a profit, then you're describing a situation that could (and does on occassion) happen now, namely a worker owned company. The workers at Charlies plywood factory can all pool their resources and go start their own plywood factory.

Yes, their are many examples of co-ops in existence today.

Your base assumption seems to be that the owner brings nothing to the party and takes everything of value. Except the owner is the guy who first put up the resources to build the factory and buy the machinery in the first place and organized the whole thing. Why is it wrong for him to something out of the deal?

No, the owner doesn't bring nothing to the table, but he needs his employees as much as they need him and that is what our systems don't recognise.

The problem is that we start on such an uneven playing field. Take this example:

Tom was born into money. With money he hasn't earned, he can build a factory and employ people. He can then sit back and let people work for him and he takes all the profit and gives them a wage.

Ben was born into poverty. Because he had to take care of his mum he missed school and has no money. He gets a job at the factory on minimum wage.

This is how capitalism works - Tom is exploiting Ben's misfortune. Ben's misfortune is no one's fault but at the end of the day it needs to be addressed nonetheless. Tom is also wasting potential too but subjugating Ben. Ben could be a great inventor if he had more input into his work environment.

And you're mistaking people voluntarily selling their labor for exploitation.

Voluntary?! You really think that people take employment voluntarily??!!! Or maybe you think it's because for most people there is simply no alternative?

Yes freedom, freedom to make the choices you like and only the choices you like. The oppression is coming from their fellow individuals. Individuals can and do opppress people just as surely as a gov't can.

So, if you have three people on a desert island. They have enough food to last for 2 days but one of them wants a second helping, which would reduce their survival time to a day and a half. A vote is taken and a 2 to 1 majority decide the second helping shouldn't be eaten.

Now, by your reasoning you could call that oppression. The 2 in the majority are oppressing the third person's right to be a selfish cunt and eat more than he needs. Even though a vote had taken place and the original request was utter lunacy. That's not oppression, that's a bloody disagreement. Tell you what, you head on over to Cuba and speak to someone who isn't allowed to talk about their political beliefs for fear of imprisonment or even execution and then come back and tell me again that being able to have your say in an issue and place a vote is oppression. If you can vote on an issue, as in a direct democracy, it is not oppression if the outcome isn't what you wanted.

No society didn't. It was a small group of people who did, culimating with Edison and his small group of investors. Many people were fearful of electric lightbulbs. If Edison had to go out to the community at large to get the resources to build his light bulb factory, it would have never happened. As it stands it took 50-60 years to see widespread acceptance.

People are still people even in this day and age. If Steve Jobs and the Woz had to go to "the community at large" in order to start producing Apple Computers, they'd have been laughed at we wouldn't be having this conversation. They were able to start because they only had to convince a small number of investors to take a risk...

I still don't see why this kind of thing could not happen in an anarchist world. Invention, creative working would be thoroughly encouraged.

Those people found investors to put money in, in an anarchist society they would find people to put labour in.