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

[Accountable]

Well obviously I pay much more tax than average, so that's my contribution to the local community and govt. As for my lower-paid colleagues, it's actually something that I've thought about and will certainly try and do something to address the balance at some point in the future, however right now I'm still catching up from the debt I got into in 2008 thanks to a certain architecture company, mentioned above.

I'm not a believer in charity though, and my experience is valuable to my lower-paid colleagues. They're getting great training from me and not paying a penny for it, I don't mind this as it's also in my best interest for them to know more.

If I were in charge of the company however, I would change it to being a co-op.

:24::24::24::24::24:
It's a little different when it hits so close to home, eh?

Should I give up on a response to my post of a few days ago?

 

[edgray]

:24::24::24::24::24:
It's a little different when it hits so close to home, eh?

Should I give up on a response to my post of a few days ago?

No I'll get around to it!

 

[Accountable]

 

[edgray]

Really??? That's almost polar opposite of what I've been reading from you, but that's likely due to my own filters. So people are free to make deals without having to go into permanent partnerships? Man, that's a relief.
Because I was imagining some poor kid not long out of school, with a new wife and a baby on the way. He approaches an established businessman. "I'd like to work with you."
"Do you have any skills?"
"I'm a fast learner."
"But what can you contribute to the company now?"
"Well, I can start at the bottom and work my way up."
"We don't have a bottom. All are equal partners here. Go get some skills and experience and come back."
"Where can I get experience if no one will hire me?"
"Good luck, kid."

The guy finds a new startup business ready to take him on.
"We're glad to have you, kid! This company's really going places. I'm hoping you can contribute alot."
"I'll do what I can," says the kid. "I was wondering when payday is. You see, my wife is pregnant and ..."
"We all get paid when the company starts making money. We'll all make the same then."
"But can I get an advance to buy groceries?"
"I'd love to help you, kid, but that wouldn't be fair to the other owners."

But with this new information you've given me, I can now see the new guy in a new light. He can go to the established company. "I'd like to work with you."
"Do you have any skills?"
"I'm a fast learner."
"But what can you contribute to the company now?"
"Well, I can start at the bottom and work my way up. I can learn the business as I do the small things that take little skill, freeing the more experienced people to be even more productive. That engineer, for instance, won't have to waste his time taking out the trash and sweeping the floor if I'm here to do it for him."
"Hmm. I don't know, it seems a bit wasteful to hire a partner just for convenience."
"I'll tell you what. Let me work just today. If you like the job I do, only pay me for today. I need a little money for groceries. If it works out, you can pay me an hourly wage for as long as we both agree that my services are needed. If we both agree for me to take on more responsibility, we can renegotiate my pay."
"That sounds fair. How much would you like to be paid?"

That's fabulous! :clap Since both men are in agreement, no one is subjugated.

I've run through the scenarios dozens of times, but they create a problem because of their starting point. The biggest problem here, Accountable, is that you're using examples from our current societal model and playing them out in one possible scenario of how a truly libertarian society could function.

With a totally level playing field at the start, this situation simply wouldn't arise. Working life, as a follow on from education, would ideally be as seamless and efficient as possible. There simply wouldn't be any "poor kids" around and people scrabbling around for jobs. That's it really. I'd love to go in depth on it but there really isn't enough to go in depth with until the starting points are altered to represent the society they are happening in.

The scenario of kids leaving school in general and heading out to seek employment could go down in all number of ways.

Firstly, education as we know it is certainly a long way from being perfect, and for most, is a waste of time. It's highly likely that in a highly organised society like an anarchist one, students education would blend seamlessly into their joining the workforce. There would be no need for the separation there is nowadays between what comes out of university and what gets into the jobs.

It boils down to this - currently our system of organising ourselves is terrible because it's dictated by the few for their own interests. If a society was to be run by everyone, a far better solution would surely arise. This is the spirit of the enlightenment right there - logic and reason as the guide rather than tradition.

I know this probably isn't the answer you wanted, but it's the best I can give.

 

[Accountable]

With a totally level playing field at the start, this situation simply wouldn't arise. Working life, as a follow on from education, would ideally be as seamless and efficient as possible. There simply wouldn't be any "poor kids" around and people scrabbling around for jobs. That's it really. I'd love to go in depth on it but there really isn't enough to go in depth with until the starting points are altered to represent the society they are happening in.

You have to start from where you are. To try something any other way is to enter fantasyland. I feel like I've gotten the legendary answer from asking directions: "You can't get theah from heah."

 

[Accountable]

:24::24::24:
I'd completely missed this oxymoron.

... in a highly organised society like an anarchist one, ...

:24::24::24:

 

[edgray]

You have to start from where you are. To try something any other way is to enter fantasyland. I feel like I've gotten the legendary answer from asking directions: "You can't get theah from heah."

well no. you're assuming that we want to flip a switch and suddenly live in an anarchist society, which is most improbable and would most likely not work. A transitional period would be needed, the suggested route of course would be to move through various forms of socialism until the govt is no longer necessary. By that point, with the playing field level, your examples simply wouldn't occur.

 

[edgray]

:24::24::24:
I'd completely missed this oxymoron.:24::24::24:

this is the biggest misconception about anarchy. It's all about being organised, but society organising itself. The world as it stands right now is complete chaos, totally inefficient with masses of waste. Anarchy is about societies organising themselves to be the best they can, and has nothing to do with chaos.

 

[Accountable]

Not sure how I missed this, but sorry.

well no. you're assuming that we want to flip a switch and suddenly live in an anarchist society, which is most improbable and would most likely not work. A transitional period would be needed, the suggested route of course would be to move through various forms of socialism until the govt is no longer necessary. By that point, with the playing field level, your examples simply wouldn't occur.

My point is that in order to have this transition, you need to be able to put it in terms the average Joe can understand. Otherwise, how can the transition possibly occur?? Without being able to at least address the transition, your ideas will go nowhere. You may as well be advocating for a flying unicorn in every garage.

 

[Accountable]

this is the biggest misconception about anarchy. It's all about being organised, but society organising itself. The world as it stands right now is complete chaos, totally inefficient with masses of waste. Anarchy is about societies organising themselves to be the best they can, and has nothing to do with chaos.

That was tried. A small group tried to organize a nation. They figured that any resistance was obviously due to ignorance, because who could resist such a great idea? Long story short, Mr Gorbachev finally abandoned the idea.

 

[Minor Axis]

this is the biggest misconception about anarchy. It's all about being organised, but society organising itself. The world as it stands right now is complete chaos, totally inefficient with masses of waste. Anarchy is about societies organising themselves to be the best they can, and has nothing to do with chaos.

• "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
• "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
• "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)."[3]

Anarchy is the the absence of rule or authority. It is the oposite of organization, it's every person for themselves.

 

[edgray]

Anarchy is the the absence of rule or authority. It is the oposite of organization, it's every person for themselves.

not at all. it's about self-organisation rather than organisation coming down from the top. Which is more like chaos, as we stand, we're hardly what you'd call organised.

 

[edgray]

You have to start from where you are. To try something any other way is to enter fantasyland. I feel like I've gotten the legendary answer from asking directions: "You can't get theah from heah."

But you're assuming that a switch would be flipped and suddenly we'd be living in anarchy. I can't imagine that happening, it would be a massive leap from where we are now.

 

[edgray]

That was tried. A small group tried to organize a nation. They figured that any resistance was obviously due to ignorance, because who could resist such a great idea? Long story short, Mr Gorbachev finally abandoned the idea.

What you're talking about was a communist dictatorship. In an anarchist society, there would be no small group. The people would organise themselves as they need.

 

[edgray]

Not sure how I missed this, but sorry.

My point is that in order to have this transition, you need to be able to put it in terms the average Joe can understand. Otherwise, how can the transition possibly occur?? Without being able to at least address the transition, your ideas will go nowhere. You may as well be advocating for a flying unicorn in every garage.

Of course, and the transitions would have to be in steps that produce a benefit to society, which would then encourage the next steps towards anarchy.

 

[Accountable]

It appears to me that you've contradicted yourself several times along the way, but I'm going to assume I'm missing a critical detail and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you see your brand of anarchy as being pan-societal (if that's even a word) or organized in small communities?

 

[edgray]

It appears to me that you've contradicted yourself several times along the way, but I'm going to assume I'm missing a critical detail and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you see your brand of anarchy as being pan-societal (if that's even a word) or organized in small communities?

I imagine it would work as a large society consisting of smaller communities. And I'm not just talking about towns, villages etc, but each citizen would probably be a member of multiple communities - their physical location, their industry, their personal interests. Each of these things could be some kind of community that organises itself.

 

[Accountable]

I imagine it would work as a large society consisting of smaller communities. And I'm not just talking about towns, villages etc, but each citizen would probably be a member of multiple communities - their physical location, their industry, their personal interests. Each of these things could be some kind of community that organises itself.

Do you see your ideal society coexisting within a capitalist, socialist, or communist society (if the gov't allows it, that is).

 

[Minor Axis]

not at all. it's about self-organisation rather than organisation coming down from the top. Which is more like chaos, as we stand, we're hardly what you'd call organised.

It's your right to desire anarchy but societies in general do not form into productive groups for anarchy, they form for the law and order. Look around the world and see how many productive groups live by the rule of anarchy. By definition there is nothing orderly about it and very little if anything is desirable because of it, other than every person for themselves.

 

[edgray]

Do you see your ideal society coexisting within a capitalist, socialist, or communist society (if the gov't allows it, that is).

Ideally, the entire of society would be an anarchist one and not just be a community within a larger one.