Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part IV

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, February 15, 2008 07:54
VIEWED: 11374
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:31 PM

Anybody want to join me here?

Geezer thinks that "intellectual property" should be gotten rid of. (Glad to have you aboard! Please give to the Free Software Foundation www.fsf.org/ and the Electronic Frontier Foundation www.eff.org/ ).

Personally, I think we should get rid of "the police". (Too bad there's no foundation for THAT one!)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:39 PM

Does this mean like music, and art and photography?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:40 PM

I was also in the middle of saying that capitalism is inconsistent with anarchism, and that you need a structure of procedures (like direct-vote democracy) and laws (like only recognizing a cooperative-type business model) to preserve individual freedoms. Which I recognize is a contradiction, just like anarchism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:45 PM

Quote:
Does this mean like music, and art and photography?

And software, books, scientific discoveries, the human genome (which was placed firmly into the public domain when a consortium of universities outraced Venter, who was going to lock all of the info in his company). And if a company wants to keep a "trade secret" but you can reverse engineer it or reformulate it... it's yours.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:53 PM

"If a system needs everyone to always behave well, it just ain't gonna fly."

SignyM - once again you've put into a very few words what I've been trying to say all along.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:21 PM

Hi HKC

To reply - I hope you don't think I'm individually affluent except on the global scale and as compared to abject poverty. I was not personally born into privilege, was beyond poor as I supported myself and worked my way through school, and it's only been in the last 20 years that I'm scheduled to work just 40 hours/ week (and at my age it's about time). Before that I always had a FT job and at least two per-diem jobs for a normal 7+shifts workweek. So I hope you don't confuse me with someone who really is personally 'privileged'.

As for your social definition of privilege - with technological societies as invariantly exploitative - I'm wondering if you count Sweden and the Swedes as exploitative. I bring it up b/c as a society it seems non-exploitative, very humane, and they get to keep the benefits of modern technology.

I know you disagree with the idea of a born sociopath. But it makes sense on a biological and statistical model. We are all at least a little sociopathic at least some of the time (I want what I want) and our countervailing mechanisms are at least a little attenuated in some circumstances (I don't 'feel' about you when that 'you' is a billion faceless strangers on the other side of the world).

Where these neurological mechanisms exist they are on a statistical distribution - and somewhere along the line you'll get a person with more of one and less of the other.

And personally I have seen too many instances of biologically-driven 'personality'. *

Finally, to say there's NO biological basis for sociopathy implies there's no biological basis for schizophrenia, autism or Tourette's either. And that's simply beyond belief. Which is not to say that some, or even most sociopaths aren't created - the human mind is a modeling mechanism after all. But not all sociopaths can be explained that way. Some are the unfortunate result of bad biology. (BTW, sociopathy, like schizophrenia, seems to confer a survival advantage. Only while schizophrenic traits lead to increased reproductive success of related individuals, 'cheaters' in a society of 'cooperators' lead to increased overall stability of the group.)

I've read some of Alice Miller, and I intend to read more. But I will read it in the light of my medical knowledge and personal experience.

* Some of my experiences which inform me personality is biologically driven:
1) SignyM's child who is the sweetest (and bravest) child possible who at 2.5 yrs old became intentionally, adroitly and delightedly sadistic on phenobarbital (to control seizures). She would be all smiles and heartwarming behavior to deliberately entice you closer - so she could try to poke your eye out. At which she'd giggle. And it was like a switch - off the medication, a sweet child. On the medication she was a different personality. They tried on and off the medication a few times to check and the result was always the same. SignyM later found out that 30% of all children on that AED (anti-epileptic drug) have to be withdrawn to another drug for exactly that medication-driven 'personality' problem.
2) A neighbor's child with bipolar disorder who would be fine for weeks or even months, then episodically have violent and potentially deadly rages. And since I've been a close observer of the family for over 20 years I can categorically state that there was never any abuse or neglect. Mostly the parents were worried, actively sought help from a very early age from counselors, neurologists and the like - and eventually gave up - overwhelmed - as their daughter spiraled into drug dealing, prostitution, theft and other serious problems, and grew old enough to legally be out of their reach.
3) Personal experience as someone with ADHD and a visual processing deficit - it was just something I was born with, which led to a lot of internal and external frustration, as the normal stuff of life - perceiving - was difficult. (One positive outcome - I will never be susceptible to subliminal messages.)
4) Watching my father develop a different

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:38 PM

Quote:
She would be all smiles and heartwarming behavior to deliberately entice you closer - so she could try to poke your eye out.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

PERFECT description! Fortunately for me, I wear glasses. So I still have both my eyes.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB

How do you explain Win/tel dominance in the face of determined anarchists like the FSF and AMD ?

Our capitalistic society and corporate person-hood? Excessive protection of IP, where with various 'tricks of the trade' copyrights seem to extend indefinitely and marginal modifications make for 'new' patents. I despise software patents. I can't tell you how many times I've seen bits of patented code and thought 'gads, they did the obvious thing to do'. I understand brief periods of protection. I have no problems with someone's book being just there's to sell for... 15 years? But at some point, it needs to just be cut off.

Personally, I'm pretty impressed at the progress Linux and FSF have made. I don't know about you folks, but I don't buy micro soft office any more. I almost had my wife cut over to Linux, but she didn't like the way the browser worked (and I didn't have the patience to figure out if it was a configuration issue or what). Linux is close. And as frustrated as I am getting with my wife's new Vista platform, my next home pc is very likely to go pure Linux.

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:38 AM

Hi LeadB

My next will be dual boot, provided by someone much more adept that I.

My question was in the mode of Geezer's scenario - and the answer you provided pretty much supports my point. In full capitalist mode - which Geezer supports, I believe - monopolies/ consortia have a natural positive feedback. And they then influence the society that engenders them. (Didn't you know ? Bill Gates is a god b/c he figured out a way to get all that money !)

It takes a determined effort by a lot of people who are working for something other than profit to counter the inherent effects of capitalism. That was the point I was trying to make.

I understand Linux is doing much better in Europe and South America where the pernicious grip of 'capitalism first, last, and in between' isn't so pronounced.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:53 AM

So, can we get rid of the police-with-guns? I think we can. I know a few police, and I only know of one who collared a criminal more-or-less "in the act".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:01 AM

For on-scene work I think I'd replace them with generic 'first responders' - all around fire/ rescue/ EMT. And first on the scene calls in other equipment and people as needed.

Though what we would do for black humor I don't know. I'm still giggling over the buncha' policemen who surrounded an SUV, emptied their guns (can you say 'Polish firing squad' ?) and hit nobody. THANK GOD ! Or maybe - oh my god ! They were a friggin' 10 feet away - or less. But still ... the only thing that would've been funnier is if they had shot each other.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"most of those potential investors would morally balk at ripping people off."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ...... SA gold and diamond mines. Need I say more ?

You really don't get it at all do you? If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer thinks that "intellectual property" should be gotten rid of.

Where in the world did you get that idea? I suggested that IP is just like any other property, and cannot be forced or coerced from the owner.

Pretty pointless to go on with this when you're so locked into your own little mindset that you can't concieve of anything else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:15 AM

"You really don't get it at all do you? If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off."

You fool. I've never been talking about the 80 % being 'bad'. I've always been talking about the 20 % - or 2 % - who will break any system that depends on voluntary good behavior.

BTW the other 20% who have no such compunctions will get even fatter and richer for being fewer.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Personally, I think we should get rid of "the police".

But then who enforces the laws against the pathological corporations and monopolies?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:22 AM

"But then who enforces the laws against the pathological corporations and monopolies?"

auditors and CPAs ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You fool. I've never been talking about the 80 % being 'bad'. I've always been talking about the 20 % - or 2 % - who will break any system that depends on voluntary good behavior.

BTW the other 20% who have no such compunctions will get even fatter and richer for being fewer.

And they'll also morally balk at being ripped off, or letting other people be ripped off. People being ripped off violates Rule 1, and allows Rule 2 to come into play.

Currently the folk with no compunctions get away with it because they have the government to protect them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:28 AM

Silly goose.

People shop at Wal-Mart all the time - despite it being one of the biggest rip-off artists around. u-soft still makes an obscene profit. People still buy gasoline.

Every now and again someone gets up a boycott - against Nestle - which was the last semi-effective one I remember about 30 years back. But moral outrage fizzles in the face of cheap products, convenience, and lack of choice.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:37 AM

Quote:
Where in the world did you get that idea? I suggested that IP is just like any other property, and cannot be forced or coerced from the owner.

Ummm... OK. Maybe I misinterpreted.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:51 AM

Hey Rue,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I was using the word "affluent" in the global sense. We Americans stand on the shoulders of the global underclass. We're working on outsourcing poverty entirely--out of sight, out of mind.

I don't know much about Sweden, really--not in the nuts and bolts way I understand the American system. Don't they still get a lot of their goods form China and Korea?

I gotta interject here. I started posting in this thread because I thought I understood some of the issues Geezer was asking about and then all the hysterical crap started erupting and I thought for while that I could help to stem the tide. I never would have identified myself as an anarchist before this thread started, frankly. I'm not a big fan of utopia or "solving the world's problems," but in terms of a social system that isn't at least 50% b.s. and self-delusion I gotta say anarchism makes a lot of sense to me. And, upon reflection, it is more or less the way I live as far as I am able within the system as it exists.

I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said. When this kind of thing passes for a summation of all that's been said by those of us speaking for anarchism, I hesitate to make any comment at all. But okay, though I may very well regret it: what about a system that demands that one third of the population be mentally healthy and committed to the community as a whole? Is that too outrageous to contemplate? What percentage of the population, in your view, behaves well all the time in our current system? Is there any possibility, in your view, that that percentage could improve? What would do it?

Okay, as far as the born sociopath thing goes, I want to talk about your examples for a sec. NONE OF THEM present any kind of explanation for organized criminal exploitation. Your examples are too chaotic, too low-functioning, too self-destructive. Psychotic behavior is not the reason for the power structures strangling liberty in this world.

No one is born with a taste for revenge. No one is born ashamed of feeling. No boy is born ashamed of crying or showing affection. No child is born feeling her emotions are dirty, disgusting or animalistic. No child is born believing that weaker creatures deserve less than strong. But this poisonous training begins at birth and will, in most cases, solidify even before the child has said his first word. It's the violation of a child's natural self that turns children into vengeful alienated criminals.

Of course, healthy non-adversarial child rearing would not end all anti-social behavior--no one has said it would. But would it reduce it to a problem that could be handled as a medical, rather than criminal issue? That, I can see.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finally, to say there's NO biological basis for sociopathy implies there's no biological basis for schizophrenia, autism or Tourette's either.

What the heck? I mean, WHAT THE HECK?

Quote:
5) Scientists who have noticed that primates are born with personalities - timid, laid back, confident, calm etc. And pediatricians who've noticed the same about human children (Brazelton).

Rue, being "born with personalities" does not in any way suggest that sociopathic personalities are inborn. You can say "But not all sociopaths can be explained that way. Some are the unfortunate result of bad biology" but it's just an assertion and a pretty sweeping assertion at that.

Quote:
The vast amount of our mental processes - probably 95% - are out of reach of our consciousness. And I believe our personalities are formed there. We think we're in control - but we're not. We're just riding the wave.

And 95% of what we learn about what's allowed and what must be denied and who gets what they want and who must suffer we learn in the first years of life and is likewise out of reach of our consciousness without t

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was also in the middle of saying that capitalism is inconsistent with anarchism.

Interesting take, considering that all libertarian/anarchist economists and philosophers consider free-market capitalism one of the keystones of their system.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Silly goose.

People shop at Wal-Mart all the time - despite it being one of the biggest rip-off artists around. u-soft still makes an obscene profit. People still buy gasoline."

"If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off."

Try to remember we're takling a different mindset here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:28 PM

Quote:
Interesting take, considering that all libertarian/anarchist economists and philosophers consider free-market capitalism one of the keystones of their system.

I like a lot of anarchist's ideas. But from what I read here, they seem to think that without government, capitalism will turn into some kind of Adam-Smith free market. That's just not going to happen. The forces that concentrate power and wealth are ECONOMIC forces, relating to efficiency and economies of scale, not governmental or "emotional" forces.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:41 PM

Quote:
I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said. When this kind of thing passes for a summation of all that's been said by those of us speaking for anarchism, I hesitate to make any comment at all. But okay, though I may very well regret it: what about a system that demands that one third of the population be mentally healthy and committed to the community as a whole? Is that too outrageous to contemplate? What percentage of the population, in your view, behaves well all the time in our current system? Is there any possibility, in your view, that that percentage could improve? What would do it?

HK, I'd like to interject if I may... The problem, as I see it, is that 99% of our current problems (barring tsunamis, volcanoes and other natural catastrophes) are caused by .000001% of the population who happen to own 50% of the world's resources. And this is in a milieu where 80% + of "the people" just want to get along. Anarchism has to be able to control the behavior of a vanishingly small percentage. If it's true that anarchism is a form of capitalism, all you'll get is the same problem over again because anarchists will have no morally compelling reasons to do anything about acquisitive behavior and sharp business practices. 'Cause it's all "allowed".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:46 PM

Hi HKC

"I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said."

We are talking at cross purposes here. I think SignyM and I are thinking in terms of systems and how they behave over time. It's like talking about entropy or crystal growth - it's about an impersonal process.

Capitalism is a positive feedback SYSTEM - it WILL concentrate money and power over time - if only for the reason SignyM already outlined - economies of scale.

HKC, I think you really need to read Le Guin again. The reason why I mention that is b/c she has already figured out that there are 'power structures' (her exact phrase) in society - whether laws, money, goods, religion or other organization, or even custom. And she understands that some people will use any 'power structure' for their benefit. And further, to preserve anarchy you have to eliminate power structures. Capitalism is only one of many power structures that will break anarchism.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:52 PM

"If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off."

Ahem. But the other 20 % will still do what they want to do. And they will benefit di$proportionately and use those benenfitS to springboard further economic accumulation.

It's not the mindset that drives this - it's the impersonal economic process.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:57 PM

Quote:
to preserve anarchy you have to eliminate power structures.

Oh thank you. What I was spending many many paragraphs on, in a just a few words! Not just "government". Big media. Big religion. Big business. Anything that allows the consolidation of power. That's why I keep saying that anarchism as proposed is not wrong! Just incomplete.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahem. But the other 20 % will still do what they want to do. And they will benefit di$proportionately and use those benenfitS to springboard further economic accumulation.

It's not the mindset that drives this - it's the impersonal economic process.

So child labor and slavery are still in play in the US? 12 hour workdays 7 days a week? Sorry, but if a large majority of folks think something is immoral, it'll end.

You may not like WallyWorld, but most folk see it as a place to get stuff cheap. If that changes it'll go away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahem. But the other 20 % will still do what they want to do. And they will benefit di$proportionately and use those benenfitS to springboard further economic accumulation.

It's not the mindset that drives this - it's the impersonal economic process.

So child labor and slavery are still in play in the US? 12 hour workdays 7 days a week? Sorry, but if a large majority of folks think something is immoral, it'll end.

I don't know about your country but in mine it was ended by laws enforced by the state. Yes some activists lobbied against it and had that law enacted but it wasn't that the majority of people thought it wrong, just those with enough political clout to have the change made.

Quote:

You may not like WallyWorld, but most folk see it as a place to get stuff cheap. If that changes it'll go away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Cheap stuff made by child labour and 12/7 workdays. So it seems that people's moral sense only extends to people in their monkey sphere, otherwise people would be boycotting Walmart in order to enforce their "moral stand" on child labour and excessive hours.

Which comes back to those questions that you never seem to answer about who decides abuses have taken place, who decides what action is taken and why the 80% hard core individualists will slavishly follow though on that opinion and take collective action?

GEEZER

Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Cheap stuff made by child labour and 12/7 workdays.

The few times I've ventured into Wal-mart most of the product seems to be the same stuff you can buy anywhere else, just a bit cheaper. Cites on the child labor bit, as opposed to any other business, and opposed to what those kids would be doing otherwise, would be appreciated.

Quote:
Which comes back to those questions that you never seem to answer about who decides abuses have taken place, who decides what action is taken and why the 80% hard core individualists will slavishly follow though on that opinion and take collective action?

Individuals take action based on whether or not they think Rule 1 has been violated and Rule 2 applies. If they want to take collective action they will. If they want to take individual action they will.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:02 AM

Withdrawn, with apologies.

***************************************************************
I'm working on it.

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Cheap stuff made by child labour and 12/7 workdays.

The few times I've ventured into Wal-mart most of the product seems to be the same stuff you can buy anywhere else, just a bit cheaper. Cites on the child labor bit, as opposed to any other business, and opposed to what those kids would be doing otherwise, would be appreciated.

Not the point. What the kids would be doing or whether they would do the same thing for a different business is not the issue.

Your argument is that in the anarchist society rule 1 is so deeply ingrained that people will always act on it (actually it sounds kind of frightening, like a cult or collective brain washing or the 1970's version of "invasion of the body snatchers")

You then say that this acceptance of rule 1 is the same kind of gut feeling that prevents exploitation of child labour or excessive hours. However, people largely turn a blind eye to exploitation of children and excessive hours if it happens someplace else. So how "universal" the application of rule 1 would be is open to doubt. If it doesn't effect the anarchist or someone he knows directly will he really take action? Unless it is a cult I'd say not. People who professed to be Christian have done some terribly unchristian things in the past. Unless you are going to have some kind of anarchistic "purity police" I do wonder how many folks with be "Sunday Anarchists."

Quote:

Quote:
Which comes back to those questions that you never seem to answer about who decides abuses have taken place, who decides what action is taken and why the 80% hard core individualists will slavishly follow though on that opinion and take collective action?

Individuals take action based on whether or not they think Rule 1 has been violated and Rule 2 applies. If they want to take collective action they will. If they want to take individual action they will.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

So I sack Frank because he's an incompetent jerk. He refuses to leave my premises and starts damaging my property. I decide he's violating rule 1 and use rule 2 to have security eject him. Frank goes to his friends shows them the bruises caused by my legitimate use of rule 2 and claims I broke rule 1. They are his friends not mine. They decide that rule 1 was broken so they invoke rule 2 to tit-for-tat damage my car... because someone has to teach me not to treat poor Frank that way. I see the damage to my property that breaks rule 1, send rentacop over to execute rule 2.

Like I said, northern Pakistan runs on that same principle and tit for tat gets out of control.

Or another case. Bill breaks Dave's window, but Dave is a jerk and Bill is everybody's friend. Nobody believes Dave and no action is taken against Bill. When Dave retaliates (to get some justice for Bills action) the locals go ape on Dave for "starting" on Bill.

Great system.

GEEZER

Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not the point. What the kids would be doing or whether they would do the same thing for a different business is not the issue.

Sure it is. Folks keep saying WalMart is a monopoly and horrible exploiter of children and use this as an example of the failure of capitalism. Proof of this would be nice.

Quote:
So I sack Frank because he's an incompetent jerk. He refuses to leave my premises and starts damaging my property. I decide he's violating rule 1 and use rule 2 to have security eject him. Frank goes to his friends shows them the bruises caused by my legitimate use of rule 2 and claims I broke rule 1. They are his friends not mine. They decide that rule 1 was broken so they invoke rule 2 to tit-for-tat damage my car... because someone has to teach me not to treat poor Frank that way. I see the damage to my property that breaks rule 1, send rentacop over to execute rule 2.

And once again you apply present day ethics to the situation and blame the result on Anarchist philosophy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:47 PM

Quote:
Folks keep saying WalMart is a monopoly and horrible exploiter of children and use this as an example of the failure of capitalism. Proof of this would be nice.- Geezer

Walmart is a horrible exploiter of everyone who works for them.

Quote:
Wal-Mart was removed from KLD & Co.’s Domini 400 Social Index because of what it called ‘sweatshop conditions’ at its overseas vendors’ factories.... KLD also cited charges that the company hasn’t been forthright about its involvement with a Chinese handbag manufacturer alleged to have subjected workers to 90-hour weeks, exceptionally low wages, and prison-like conditions. ... Some of the abuses in foreign factories that produce goods for Wal-Mart include:

Forced overtime
Locked bathrooms
Starvation wages
Pregnancy tests
Denial of access to health care
Workers fired and blacklisted if they try to defend their rights

.. the Kathie Lee clothing label (made for Wal-Mart by Caribbean Apparel, Santa Ana, El Salvador) conducted sweatshop conditions of forced overtime. ... It is common for the cutting and packing departments to work 20-hour shifts from 6:50 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Anyone unable or refusing to work the overtime hours will be suspended and fined, and upon repeat "offenses" they will be fired. This factory is in an American Free Trade Zone. Wal-Mart regularly says it does not tolerate child labor or forced or prison labor but when it comes to walking the walk the company refuses to reveal its Chinese contractors and will not allow independent, unannounced inspections of its contractors’ facilities.

Clothing sewn in China is usually done by young women, 17 to 25 year old (at 25 they are fired as ‘too old’) forced to work seven days a week, often past midnight for 12 to 28 cents an hour, with no benefits. Or that the women are housed in crowded, dirty dormitories, 15 to a room, and fed a thin rice gruel. The workers are kept under 24-hour-a-day surveillance and can be fired for even discussing factory conditions. The factories in China operate under a veil of secrecy, behind locked metal gates, with no factory names posted and no visitors allowed. China’s authorities do not allow independent human rights, religious or women’s groups to exist, and all attempts to form independent unions have been crushed.

In October 10, 2002, the National Organization for Women (NOW) reported that the Maine Department of Labor ordered Wal-Mart to pay the largest fine in state history for violating child labor laws. The Department of Labor discovered 1,436 child labor law infractions at 20 Wal-Mart chains in the state.

www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/sweat_sho
ps.cfm

Quote:
... Much of the clothing purchased by Wal-Mart is made in poor countries like Bangladesh.... It specifically says the company will not deal with any supplier that employs children under age 14... {BUT} Pictures were taken by hidden cameras in Bangladesh factories as part of Radio-Canada's investigation. Radio-Canada journalists posed as buyers in the Canadian garment industry so they could videotape inside factories in Bangladesh with hidden cameras. In one factory, typical of many in the country, children were busy with lower-skill tasks. In badly lit, dirty and overheated workshops, young boys were everywhere. A label reading Simply Basic, one of Wal-Mart's in-house brand names along with the number CA 28885, the corporate ID of Wal-Mart Canada, was seen in the factory

www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/11/30/walmartbangladesh051130.html

Quote:
Despite its claim that it slashes profits to the bone in order to deliver "Always Low Prices," Wal-Mart banks about $7 billion a year in profits, ranking it among the most profitable entities on the planet. Of the 10 richest people in the world, five are Waltons-the ruling family of the Wal-Mart empire. S. Robson Walton is ranked by London’s "Rich List 2001" as the wealthiest human on the planet, having sacked up more than $65 billion (£45.3 bill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

And once again you apply present day ethics to the situation and blame the result on Anarchist philosophy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

So what part of it doesn't apply does Anarchism mean that there will be no "Franks" does it mean I won't have property to protect. Please tell me exactly how anarchism makes this impossible?

I have asked specific questions about who decides rule 1 have been violated and how rule 2 is applied. You have refused to deal with specifics in favour of "well folks will do stuff" kinds of answers. So I give you an example expecting you to correct it and instead you just say "oh that would never happen" and let it slide.

How the rules are applied makes a huge difference to wether you end up living in a peaceful society or a hinterland of tribal groups and gangs so it's not a small question.

The point about the rule of law is that we all get together and decide what is a reasonable action and then we later audit that decision in a court. So If a guy pushes me and I shoot him dead that is likely to be considered inappropriate use of force where as if he attacks me with a knife and I shoot him dead then it's likely to be seen as self defense. In Geezerland both of his actions could be interpreted as the use of force which i would be allowed to react to however I see fit.

Similar systems to what you are proposing do exist in some places in the world but the cycle of mark and reprisal can get seriously out of hand. Other than saying that we brainwash our children to "think different" is there anything in the Geezer system that can counter this kind of escalation?

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not the point. What the kids would be doing or whether they would do the same thing for a different business is not the issue.

Sure it is. Folks keep saying WalMart is a monopoly and horrible exploiter of children and use this as an example of the failure of capitalism. Proof of this would be nice.

I was making neither point and so it's irrelevant. Your contention was that anarchists respect for rule 1 was so religiously ingrained that they would always act on it, just as folks today would always act against child exploitation and excessive work hours.

There is a reason that cheap foreign goods are so cheap and that is because they use child labour and long work hours. People still buy the goods produced in that way even when they have a reasonable (but more expensive) alternative.

So it seems that despite these deeply ingrained principles they take no action even slightly detrimental to their self interest if the conditions don't effect them personally. Which means if Rule 1 is as deeply ingrained as you claim these principles are then most anarchists won't do anything about any act outside their monkey sphere either. It will simply not be their problem.

This leaves "bad people" able to do what they like because unlike your vision that 80% of the populous deals with the bad actors in reality most folks will be indifferent, which is how bad things happen right now.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:26 PM

Geezer, it seems to me that your world is just like capitalism, but without government. All of the same forces are in place: One the one hand you posit money, big business, stocks, banks, profit, intellectual property, and greed on the part of a few.

On the other hand there is... "people" who will do "something" about abuse, despite the fact that there is no moral foundation for it. For example

Rule No 1
The first rule of this philosophy is that every person owns himself and his property, and no one has the right to initiate force against any person or their property.

Okay, let's say that I have an offer: work for starvation wages or don't work at all. The company that's making me the offer has another option: Hire me for starvation wages or hire someone else for less. I sign the contract and the deal is done. What "force" has been applied to me except maybe "market forces"? Did anarchy outlaw market forces? I don't think so!

Your corporate Anarchist mind-set doesn't allow you to price-fix, which causes a forced transaction with your customer. It doesn't allow you to defraud the customers or stockholders or employees. It doesn't allow you to use strongarm tactics on workers to keep wages low. It doesn't allow you to stifle competition.

MY anarchist mindset won't allow me to do that, but George doesn't share my mindset. And his company gets bigger and bigger until it swallows mine. What does anarchism do about that?

Rule No 2.
If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

That depends once again on your definition of "force". You seem to think it involves "sharp business practices" like price-fixing and low wages, but I don't see how you derive that from Rule No 1. Let's say that I'm honest about my product and prices, I don't kneecap people if they form unions, but I'm just so terribly efficient that I dominate the marketplace and I can therefore have a higher than-usual-profit margin by driving wages down a bit and prices higher a bit. And eventiually I take over everything. Is that "force"?

BTW- I'm curious- since you allow stockholders and so forth in Geezerworld, how do you feel about workers unions, consumers unions, cooperatives, and other economic forms?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HK, I'd like to interject if I may... The problem, as I see it, is that 99% of our current problems (barring tsunamis, volcanoes and other natural catastrophes) are caused by .000001% of the population who happen to own 50% of the world's resources. And this is in a milieu where 80% + of "the people" just want to get along. Anarchism has to be able to control the behavior of a vanishingly small percentage. If it's true that anarchism is a form of capitalism, all you'll get is the same problem over again because anarchists will have no morally compelling reasons to do anything about acquisitive behavior and sharp business practices. 'Cause it's all "allowed".

First of all, there are plenty of anarchists that are thoroughly disenchanted with capitalism--I am certainly no friend of this addiction driven economic model, and have said so in this thread and throughout my stay at FFF.net. I haven't turned into Geezer overnight(except in that dream I had a couple years back..."Ooh-hoo, Dream Geezer...I believe we can reach the morning li-hight...")!

Meanwhile, the anarchists I have known in RL have all been what ya'd call "anarcho-communists," though they'd mostly just call themselves "anarchists." I believe (and wikipedia coroborates, so maybe I'm wrong

) Peter Kropotkin is considered an "anarcho-communist" so I didn't just make it all up.

Secondly, this stuff about 99% of our problems being caused by .000001% of the world population, well, I can hardly believe you buy into that. I mean, not seriously. Do you really think anyone has that level of godlike power? No one has that much control, no one has that much influence. Is that how it is in your personal life? 99% of the problems on your mind are caused by these people?

Where were these .000001 percenters when slavery was abolished in this country, or when segregation was brought to an end, or when Great Britain quit India? Were they trying to stop these developments or were they championing them? Hitler didn't just force all Germans to bend to his twisted will. Enough Germans shared enough of his twists to let him get as far as he did. Otherwise he would have been an out of work artist standing on a soapbox spouting nonsense to people with better things to do.

You can blame Bush for the war in Iraq, but the fact remains that every soldier in our military is there by choice.

Signy, you're playing the totalitarian's song when you grant them so much power. Totalitarians don't need you to love them, only for you to believe there is no way to fight them or to escape their influence.

I'm really sorry, Signy, I'm still pretty confused by what you're saying to me. You say, "Anarchism has to be able to control the behavior of a vanishingly small percentage," but why pick on Anarchism? What system in the known universe has that kind of control?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hi HKC

"I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said."

We are talking at cross purposes here. I think SignyM and I are thinking in terms of systems and how they behave over time. It's like talking about entropy or crystal growth - it's about an impersonal process.

Yes! This is, I think, where our central disagreement lies (if it's not just a big misunderstanding). Somehow you get from individual humans working together to an impersonal "system" like entropy. On the most fundamental level you seem to remove human will and agency from the human sphere; our actions are determined by impersonal forces locked away from our conscious awareness never to be apprehended. In that light, I cannot imagine how you can conceive of political action or the value of democracy. And yet, I know that you do. I know that you are very active in pursuing and promoting your values. I know that I share many of them. So, I'm really, really stuck here.

I haven't failed to notice, btw, that you've said on more than one occasion in this thread that some form of anarchy is an ideal of your own, yet all we've seen from you in this thread is disparagement. I wonder what your idea of anarchy looks like, and upon what you rest your hopes for such a community.

Quote:
HKC, I think you really need to read Le Guin again. The reason why I mention that is b/c she has already figured out that there are 'power structures' (her exact phrase) in society - whether laws, money, goods, religion or other organization, or even custom. And she understands that some people will use any 'power structure' for their benefit. And further, to preserve anarchy you have to eliminate power structures. Capitalism is only one of many power structures that will break anarchism.

I'm sorry, this may seem like a cop-out, but I recommended Geezer read The Dispossessed, not because it was my anarchist bible, but because it was the best example of a living breathing anarchist system I've read. I thought it would help Geezer get a feel for what an anarchist system might look like. You know he was asking.

I don't think Le Guin's is the final word on Anarchism. I think her anarchy without an Internet and her starkly unconvincing use of a "famine" to create dramatic tension artificially interfered with her description of a successful anarchist system. It's a complex book, and she presents a complex understanding of human psychology which I greatly respect. I can see the need in humans for both belonging to something bigger than the self, and also wanting something for one's self that the collective can never have. It's a real human tension and might make sustained political anarchism impossible.

But it may be possible to find a balance between anarchy and some more structured form of governance. Y'know, something like the political pendulum swing in America from left to right and back to left again; Anarchism, until it starts to degrade (perhaps there's a schedule of some 8 or 16 years arrived at democratically), then a constitutional congress, some laws enacted with very specific sunset provisions, then back to "anarchy as usual." It would only work if anarchy were a value the majority of people believed in.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FLETCH2

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:55 AM

Reminds me of the saying that people are smart but "the people" can be dumb. I think the reason that Rue is talking systems is that the moment your groups get bigger than a hundred people (maybe even less than that) any chance of maintaining cohesion by personal relationships alone starts to break down. At that point you create a system even if you avoid calling it that just to cope with the complexity of interactions --- it's Frem's monkey sphere idea.

I have no evidence but it's my guess that the complexity of these systems increases with the size of community, which causes problems when you have to do complex stuff that involves a lot of people, which is essentially what the modern world is. I suspect Frem understands that too, which is why his description of Fremworld is a few hundred people with limited technical and medical means.

And that's really the point where you all loose me because I want to go back to the moon and beyond I don't want to be trading ammunition for fuel oil.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 2:25 PM

Quote:
Signy, you're playing the totalitarian's song when you grant them so much power. Totalitarians don't need you to love them, only for you to believe there is no way to fight them or to escape their influence.

Just because a small group of people wield a huge amount of power doesn't mean there isn't any way to end it. The Pharaohs of yesteryear are pharaohs no more. I think we both agree that the means to ending a reign and never having it arise again is not the sword, but the idea.

We're just discussing which idea will do that best. Now, in the thread about anarchism there seem to be as many ideas about anarchism as there are anarchists. (So maybe Frem was right: 100 anarchists, 125 ideas!) I was reacting mainly towards Geezer since he seems to be the biggest proponent of capitalo-anarchism, especially since I didn't hear any countering arguments from Frem or 6ix. I wonder what THEIR stance in in the comatibility of capitalism and anarchism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 2:34 PM

Quote:
I have no evidence but it's my guess that the complexity of these systems increases with the size of community, which causes problems when you have to do complex stuff that involves a lot of people, which is essentially what the modern world is. I suspect Frem understands that too, which is why his description of Fremworld is a few hundred people with limited technical and medical means.

One of those German philosophers (Hegel?) said that quantitive change leads to qualitative change, a point which is hard to understand but seems to be a fundamental operational law of the universe. For example: When do a bunch of golf balls turn into something else? When you have a quadrillion of them and they turn into a planet.

"Big" anything - big government, big business, big churches, big media - IMHO are antithetical to anarchism. There's no way that "big" anything can be controlled from an individual level. The only way to control "big" is to either make it a construct that everyone rejects, or create other "big" countervailing entities.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, February 1, 2008 3:31 PM

Well there's a process of compound agrigation. In the center of a snowflake is a spec of dust, in the center of a pearl is a grain of sand, once some kind of nucleus exists bigger things have a tendency to form around it.

I think my problem with this thread stems from three of the 125 positions that have been posited.

1) Those that think that in any large enough congrigation of people a power vacuum won't be filled by someone. The idea that these enlightened individuals won't end up being puppeted by corporate interests, religion or the few structures they allow themselves is naive.

The argument seems to be that that the problem will be self correcting because unlike the government these new entities won't have a "monopoly on force." The present government doesnt have a monopoly on force, it can just apply more force than anyone else much of which is overkill.

I'm sure an outfit like Blackwater could field enough forces to overwhelm a decent sized American town even if you handed the residents guns like they were candy and that's assuming that the "bad guys" take Frem up on the idea of fighting on the streets. You can think of all kinds of forms of control that don't require a shot being fired (economic or religious for example.)

2) Those that think the wild west makes a good model for human existance. Their attitudes remind me of "disgusted in Surrey" a kind of joke about a type of person who used to write to UK newspapers. These were folks that had been minor colonial officials back in "the good old days" who with the Empire gone live in retirement in Surrey, dream of the Raj and find everything about modern life "disgusting." Like the wild west crowd they basically don't fit with the modern world, they have no usable skills and resent that fact. They want to go back to a time and place where the skills they have would be relevent and they would be considered "important." I'm sorry but misery and death for thousands is not a good rate of exchange for some folks to feel like big men again.

3)Finally there are those that seem to miss the point that the human animal is just that, an animal driven by base instincts and desires many of which express themselves below conscious level. Yes you can socialise them, you can train them to play nice like you might a feral dog, but the underlying nature is still there. I've seen the idea that some miracle will happen and we'll all somehow become more enlightened souls. Who wouldn't want that? But if you read the private correspondance of people from 2000 years ago their drives and concerns are much the same as they are today. There are probably a few more layers of laquer covering the beat these days but the underlying beast is the same. Could you indoctrinate an entire population to play nice? Maybe. But at what point is someone doing something because they believe it and at what point are they doing it because you coersively imposed your belief structure on them? This is the same problem I have with the idea that vast numbers of truly independent individuals would see any situation the same such that 80% of them would follow the same course of action in lock step.

I served on a jury once. I sat with 11 other people that all heard the same evidence that I did and we ended up coming to 3 different conclusions that we eventually condensed down to one compromise that we could all agree on. The defendant probably got off lightly as a result because to get to any kind of consensus means settling for the course of action everyone can agree on. I'm not sure that a true society of individuals could ever achieve a concensus that has enough teeth to stop a "bad actor" which amy actually be a good thing unless you like the idea of mob rule.

Anyway...

SIGNYM

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:01 PM

So, speaking of bigness leading to biggerness...

Microsoft bids $45 billion for Yahoo
Software giant offers $31 a share - a 62% premium - in deal that could reorder online ad market. Microsoft's ballmer: 'Major milestone'

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/technology/microsoft_yahoo/index.htm?c
nn=yes
The end state of capitalism is monopolism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:10 PM

HKC

I have time for just a quick post -
once people develop 'systems' and live by them - capitalism or christianity or other system by whatever name you chose - then indeed the individual doesn't count in terms of how 'the system' operates.

I'll give you an example - you can have the nicest, most concerned, friendliest person in the world running a business in a capitalist system. AS LONG AS HE IS MAKING AND KEEPING A PROFIT HE IS CONCENTRATING WEALTH. Not b/c he's a bad guy, but b/c that's how the system works. And if he accumulates a large fraction of all available wealth then he has a large amount of power over others.

If he is the nicest, most concerned, friendliest person in the world then you might not have a problem (unless you are concerned with that concentrated power per se). But what if he is not ? What if he is a Bill Gates ? Can YOU guarantee there will NEVER be a Bill Gates running an abusive show through a bad combination of accumulated power and personal pathology ? Let me answer for you - no you can't. I OTOH can guarantee there WILL be a Bill Gates in that position - b/c statistically, it will come up. As long as you have a system of accumulation of power then all you are missing is the element of personal pathology. And it will happen. Maybe not in a year, but in 100, or 1,000. And unless your system either prevents that situation in the first place by eliminating power structures (Le Guin) or it has social control mechanisms for it (Sweden) then ultimately you are in a dead end, guaranteed.

I refer to The Dispossessed often b/c it is a thought out scenario. And, apologies to Frem, his linked piece (which I read through to the end) is a joke. We're just supposed to accept that in his vision of anarchy all political, social, personal, medical, economic and environmental ills will just automatically be cured. The sky is blue, the grass is green and everyone is attractive just b/c the anarchy fairy boinked the world with the anarchy wand. And it ignores the overwhelming historical facts that those ills were nearly always caused by the very forces he childishly believes in - the first and most central being accumulation of wealth.

BTW I want to comment on Iceland as the historical Shangri-La of anarchy.

" ... the Thorness king in 981 outlawed Eric (the Red) in Iceland and Norway for 3 years." So Iceland wasn't the land of pure personal freedom. There were at least local kings with international authority to impose punishment. And from Iceland we also get the word 'thrall' who is a slave whose very life is not his own. For example, by law a thrall wasn't permitted to defend himself against deadly force - b/c his life was not his own property. Again, not the picture of individual liberty and freedom. There may not have been central government but it doesn't mean there wasn't any government at all; or that there weren't coercive and harshly enforced laws and customs in which some people were definitely NOT free at the most basic animal level.

Finally, I DO support anarchy - but it isn't going to happen in Wintel/Exxon-land which is where Geezer wants to go right off the bat, and where Frem will end up over time.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Sunday, February 3, 2008 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So what part of it doesn't apply does Anarchism mean that there will be no "Franks" does it mean I won't have property to protect. Please tell me exactly how anarchism makes this impossible?

Impossible? So you're asking for a perfect world now? Kind'a hard to provide, I'm afraid.

I'm suggesting it would be less likely. In a world where initiating force is the big no-no, don't you think that most folk would be pretty careful about going directly to force at all, rather than trying to come to an amicable solution to problems?

Quote:
I have asked specific questions about who decides rule 1 have been violated and how rule 2 is applied. You have refused to deal with specifics in favour of "well folks will do stuff" kinds of answers.

And the answer pretty much is, "Who knows, but it'll be on the principle of Rule 1." I can't predict how a civilization that doesn't yet exist would deal with every individual situation any better than the Founding Fathers could. They set a few rules in place, based on their philosophy of government, and trusted that people would figure out how to apply them on down the road. Nothing in the Constitution about the EPA or OSHA, for example.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 3, 2008 4:05 AM

Geezer, in other words, your system has no answers to known, demonstrated systems problems.

Forgive me if I don't buy into it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Sunday, February 3, 2008 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, in other words, your system has no answers to known, demonstrated systems problems.

Forgive me if I don't buy into it.

First of all, it's not MY system. I'm just having an interesting time studying and debating it.

Second, I'm not proposing a system, just a philosophy. Then again, any system, or philosophy, or code of conduct isn't going to work 100% of the time in an imperfect world. All the things you bring up as "known, demonstrated systems problems" have been known, demonstrated systems problems since forever. Civilization won't do away with them, but tends to reduce them. Would a body of people who think it's wrong to take another's stuff by force be less likely to cause your systems problems than a body of 'get it any way you can' people? I suspect so.

Lost in the discussion of monopolies and who'll put out the fire is the concept of individual liberty, which is, after all, what the libertarian/anarchist philosophies are all about. It's interesting that you're so upset about losing a bit of liberty to the possibility that some computer somewhere might listen to your phone calls, but are willing to give up to government your more basic freedoms of self-determination, self-defense, control of your property, etc.

Do I think an anarchist system could work? Not at present. I go along with Fremd's idea that folks just arent ready for it yet. There are too many people who won't buy into the moral philosophy now, just as there were too many people not buying into abolition of slavery 200 years ago.

Will we ever get to an anarchist system? Who knows? I find the Non-Aggression Principle worthwhile. I like the concept of communities and voluntary associations taking over government functions. I'd like to see the idea of personal responsiblity spread. Less government would be nice. A lot of the detail stuff is gonna require more study.

Before I get asked how many anarchists can dance on the head of a pin, I think I'll go back to reading the new books I got and see if I can come up with answers to some of those "known, demonstrated systems problems".

Thanks for your thoughtful questions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 3, 2008 5:28 PM

Quote:
Lost in the discussion of monopolies ... is the concept of individual liberty

I view monopolies as THE major destroyer of individual freedom. I don't believe individual liberty is lost in that discussion, individual liberty is the essence. The difference between you and I is that you view capitalism as a beneficent entity. I see blood on its feet from trampling the poor and the unorganized.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Sunday, February 3, 2008 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The difference between you and I is that you view capitalism as a beneficent entity. I see blood on its feet from trampling the poor and the unorganized.

I see capitalism as an economic system. If the people who use it want to trample the poor and unorganized, they will. Socialism is also an economic system. If the people who use it want to trample the poor and unorganized, they will. I can build homes or break heads with the same hammer. I have trouble with the concept that any economic system will inevitibly lead to a certain outcome regardless of the moral and philosophical will of the people.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Sunday, February 3, 2008 8:14 PM

I'm not sure that's even the point. Capitalist systems leverage wealth, that's what they are designed to do, it's set up to allow you to make money from money. Unless you regulate and tax money will accumulate in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals.

If money == power then those people will have power even in the absence of other formal power structures. So irrespective of intent there will be those more able to bring force than others.

The question has never been is the society ethical, the question has been IF someone uses force in a system with no power structures to moderate the outcome isn't there a risk of blatant escalation? I believe it to be a reasonable question. You said the FF had no idea how their society would turn out based on it's principles. That may be true but they kept 800 years of the English common law in place, they maintained courts, Habeus Corpus and other principles necessary for their society to mediate disputes and a mechanism to enforce compliance. They didnt say "well we'll kind of have a justice thing we'll work out later."

Federalist is interesting because there were opponents that brought up issues that the proponents of the constitution had to have at least some answers for. They knew they couldn't really say "we'll work on that latter" or "who knows" and still win the vote, especially in New York.

You're simply not selling this very well. The people that voted on the constitution had a reasonably good idea the general shape of the world they were going into. In the case of Geezerworld it's too abstract for anyone to accept it. "Trust me" doesn't work. If you can't even imagine methods of dealing with this in the abstract then it strikes me as being a fairly shallow philosophy.

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 3, 2008 9:32 PM

Well, knock me over with a feather Fletch2! For all that we've tangled on what happens to "profit", I see we're in amazing agreement on this topic. Wow. *shakes head* I'll by ya a couple rounds (Not ammo! This isn't 6ixworld!) of whatever you want, should you ever get to LA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ERIC

Monday, February 4, 2008 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But still ... the only thing that would've been funnier is if they had shot each other.

I know this is a bit slow on the draw...so to speak...but, ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/02/cops.shootout.ap/index.html?eref=rss_
topstories

Quote:

BUFORD, Georgia (AP) -- Two off-duty officers from different police departments wounded each other in a gunfight in the middle of a road in an Atlanta suburb, authorities said.

Neither officer's wounds were life-threatening, police said. Their conditions were not immediately known on Saturday.

Officer Jay Daily, a five-year veteran of the Duluth Police Department, exchanged multiple gunshots Friday afternoon with Fulton County Officer Paul Phillips, police said.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 4, 2008 7:00 AM

OOOOOH. Ouch.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, February 4, 2008 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, knock me over with a feather Fletch2! For all that we've tangled on what happens to "profit", I see we're in amazing agreement on this topic. Wow. *shakes head* I'll by ya a couple rounds (Not ammo! This isn't 6ixworld!) of whatever you want, should you ever get to LA.
.

Actually I think we have several fundamental points of disagreement. I think for example that you see capitalism as being inherently evil, where as I see it as being intrinsically amoral.

I think as an individual you view fairness as an important concept I think that's why the inherent unfairness of the capitalist system upsets you so. My view is that capitalism is about the creation of wealth and not it's fair distribution. It makes no sense to me to criticize the system for lacking a feature it was never supposed to have.

I think capitalism is to modern societies what mitochondria is to a cell, it provides the energy necessary for the society to live and grow, but just as some of the byproducts of metabolism can damage the cell unless action is taken to mitigate the effects, capitalism cant be used "raw" ---society needs some controls to stop it working outside the common interest.

The problem I have with Geezerworld is not the idea that the world would be better if people behaved in responsible and moral ways -- who wouldn't want that? It's that there doesn't seem to be any mechanisms for dealing with the situations where that doesn't happen. For every Enron, there are probably 100,000 companies that play by the rules, report earnings correctly, don't strongarm the markets for their own benefit and generally behave as reasonable institutions. However, an Enron scale event can be devastating to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I can believe Geezer when he says that most people will play by the rules, my problem is that there seems no way to deal with the ones that don't.

I have more thoughts but it's late...

SIGNYM

Monday, February 4, 2008 4:17 PM

Fairly stated Fletch2. The one thing the capitalism is absolutely fantastic at (aside from concentrating wealth) is its inherent increasing productivity.

Now, I LIKE enhanced productivity. I have absolutely no interest in old-fashioned handwork and backbreaking production. Automation is a GOOD thing. The issue that I have with capitalism is the subsequent distribution of wealth. We're far beyond the point of productivity where everyone in the world could have a decent (if basic) life, but capitalism cuts too many people out of the system. In addition, the concentration of wealth (in my view) leads to economic collapse, and thus the inevitable boom-bust cycle. I suspect we see much the same, the only difference between you and I is that you think capitalism can be controlled while I think that capitalism must be destroyed because it will inevitably slip its leash.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, February 4, 2008 7:41 PM

The problem is what do you replace it with? It's maybe not the best system --- in fact to paraphrase Churchill, it's the worse system except for all the others we've tried --- but it does work and it does efficiently marshal the resources you need to run a technological civilization.

As a species we've always traded so it takes what we normally do anyway and just added the trading of wealth as a level of abstraction.

Perhaps there could be a shift, but it would require technology like the Star Trek replicator or Neil Stevenson's matter compiler to bring it about. If things could be made with very little up front manufacturing costs then the importance of capital would be reduced, because you wouldn't need to "buy" capital in the market place to set up in business.

RUE

Monday, February 4, 2008 10:26 PM

If I may chime in - there are a few things I find vexing about capitalism.

One is the inevitable concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. And given the particularly pernicious form of capitalism the US teaches (people who are rich are rich b/c they are victors and deserve the spoils, and people who are poor deserve nothing), that means a lot of political power is also concentrated in the hands of very few.

Another is that the decision for production is based on profit, not need. So you'll find all sorts of goodies for people with money, but nothing for those with no money. That's why companies will develop cholesterol-lowering drugs for 'first world' people but not anti-sleeping sickness drugs for Africans.

Overall, capitalism is great at creating the very wealthy (and powerful) and making goodies for them, but not at meeting the needs of anyone else.

***************************************************************
And then there is the problem of the commons, for which there is no accounting - literally - in capitalism. Which is why we have widespread persistant toxics pollution, overfished oceans, stripped landscapes, and ... global warming ...

"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, February 4, 2008 11:17 PM

Like I said, capitalism is amoral it doesn't make value judgments, it's not part of it's remit. If making anti sleeping sickness drugs brought in a significant profit then people would probably do that rather than making 1st world "lifestyle enhancers." The market just reflects the truth on the ground which is that African children are "worth less" in our modern world than overweight middle class businessmen.

I don't know that capitalism created that distinction, I think that has to do with the values of the society at large and I think those values vary by society rather than economic system. My co-worker's father in law was a millionaire that worked as a cop because he liked being a policeman and because in Sweden nobody really believes a millionaire is somehow massively superior to anyone else. Sweden is still a capitalist nation, it has businesses, a stock market, people with money still have an easier time making money. The difference is that that society makes different value judgments than yours does.

American culture is very competitive, which means that American business does very well in a competitive marketplace, which is why the US pushes free trade as hard as it does. Businesses elsewhere are far more collaborative especially in societies which value cooperation. Twenty odd years ago I attended a tradeshow in London that had a lot of Japanese companies showing off electronics (this was back when Japan completely dominated consumer electronics.) One of the things that was interesting to a westerner was that often to make a new product several rival Japanese companies would pool R&D resources to get the initial high cost development completed. Individually they wouldn't have afforded it but together..... I can't imagine Google and Yahoo teaming up for any other reason than perhaps to freeze out a third competitor because competition here is that intense yet that kind of cooperation was common in Japan. Japan is a capitalist nation.

Perhaps if the US had the concept of "enough" if politicos and businessmen were seen as folks with a job no more important (and possibly even less important) than nurses, firemen and teachers then the underlying economic system wouldn't matter so much.

RUE

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 12:29 AM

Hi Fletch

I don't mean that capitalism has no metaphorical or ethical acccounting for the commons, I mean no literal accounting. So even though the idea has been around for quite a while that the commons has some kind of value, it took Amartya Sen - who developed the analysis (and won the Nobel prize for economics) - to 'account' for it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:19 AM

Which essentially means the same thing. Big pharma doesn't make sleeping sickness pills because ultimately as a civilization we don't value african children enough. If Warren Buffett put $1B into healthcare for African kids, or the US did, or the EU did there would be plenty of incentive for companies to make those pills. The market just reflects the reality on the ground.

The problem is that to develop most things costs money, which means that at the very least you have to make that money back (some charities do fund research I know but looking at a "pure" capitalist methodology.) Ultimately the R&D costs pays for facilities, equipment and personnel all of which you will need to develop a useful product and all of which are sizable costs. So in the absence of someone bankrolling the R&D these breakthroughs in orphan diseases don't happen.

You could imagine any number of ways around this, we've already mentioned charities, there is blue sky government research, perhaps an R&D tax where a percentage of profits from sales of non generic drugs is fed beck into R&D for orphan diseases? Or we could give every african child an annual "drug allowance" and thereby create a market?

RUE

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 6:36 PM

"ultimately as a civilization we don't value african children enough. If Warren Buffett put $1B into healthcare for African kids, or the US did, or the EU did there would be plenty of incentive for companies to make those pills. The market just reflects the reality on the ground."

Uhhm - no. I'm talking about capitalism in and of itself, not extra-capitalistic factors. You're talking about charity, which is not a function of capitalism. What I'm saying is that capitalism in and of itself causes the problem - aggregation of money into few hands and focusing on making products for those few with money. And that the system has no corrective mechanism within itself to address the problems it itself causes.

Unless you don't see it as a problem. But since, very generally, I think people should set up systems and run them to their aggragate benefit, and not the other way around, I see capitalism as problematic for the vast majority of people on the globe. And therefore it's something that should be replaced.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 6:55 PM

Rue are you an admitted socialist? im not labeling, i only ask out of curiousity... that would explain to me your position global warming

RUE

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 7:12 PM

Do you mean communist ? No.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 7:28 PM

Capitalism creates wealth from wealth (ie capital) so yes, once you have some it's easier to make more and yes that means agrigation. That's the nature of the beast it is amoral and never intended to be fair.

As I see it you get 3 options.

1) leave it as it is, accept that it's unfair and realy on the fact that even with an uneven distribution the compounded effect is that most folks get a lil richer (the American way)

2) Put social mechanisms in place outside of capitalism to try to redistribute wealth in a "fairer" way (the European system.)

3) Scrap the whole thing and go for something else, even though few other systems have the efficiency and raw organisational advantages of the capitalist system.

Now 3) would make for an interesting discussion because I'm not at all clear how you could pull that off within the current technological paradyne. Capitalism exists because businesses need to borrow money to finance expansion and development. People with excess capital are encouraged to invest it in business with the promise of profiting from that business. They invest that money in the context of a market place where various businesses offer various rates of return in exchange for the use of the capital. It is in the lender's best interest to secure the best rate.

The reason those sleeping sickness drugs are not made is because the company can make no profit from them, so when they look for investment they are saying "give me your capital for no return" while the guy down the street is offering five or ten percent. The investor as a rational actor invests in the business that gives him the best return which isn't the guy's making the pills.

What I'd like to know is how you would plan to deal with that? How can you replace it while still giving people the right to enjoy their own property?

RUE

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 3:30 PM

Fletch

Those are the options as I see them as well. Perhaps someone else can come up with others.

If the choice is between
(1) US-style capitalism
(2) Swedish-style 'socially constrained' capitalism
(3) Le Guin style anarchy, or
(4) Geezer/CTS 'anarcho'capitalism (which is US-style rapacious capitalism without pesky government regulation)
I would go with Swedish-style 'socially constrained' capitalism. Although I like the idea of Le Guin style anarchy, in my particular situation I like the idea of modern medicine a little bit more. If it was just about me, I'd go with Le Guin-style anarchy. But as the saying goes you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. So while that's all well and philosophical, it's only good until one of those 'eggs' happens to be a member of your family. And the promise of a miracle cure just wouldn't be there in that world.

In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no need to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same. And the few people who want to break that philosophy - who want to prey on greed and insecurity - are carriers of a deadly contagion. Because once the grabbing starts you will have NO security and you will have to start grabbing too, and treating everyone like an enemy.

Now how that translates into a modern technological economy I don't know, or even if it does. But I do know it breaks capitalism b/c the idea of profit as the greatest good is anathema, as is the churning of markets to increase sales of junk for sales sake, as are the endless rounds of insecurity and greed propagated to keep the system lurching forward.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 3:52 PM

Well Fletch2 you've asked an interesting question (What do we put in its place?) which deserves an answer. I've thought for a long time about how to create a system that has all the advantages of capitalism with none of the disadvantages. To be clear, let me list (IMHO) capitalism's advantages:

Improved productivity. Now, productivity has been improving all along, with or without capitalism. The invention of fire, farming, the alphabet, printing press, roadways, and many of our most recent discoveries and advances- including the internet, polymerase chain reaction which was used to further our understanding of genes and make them available for sequencing- were made on the non-capitalist system. So that's not to say that capitalism is the ONLY source of innovation, but under capitalism these innovations are applied to production much faster.

Response to changing conditions. The Soviets tried a planned economy, and it sucked. There's no way a central system can plan and dictate everything from the number of street-corner vendors to the electrical grid system. The market has to lead the way for most things. (Some things require planning and forethought.)

The disadvantages of capitalism are myriad

Concentration of wealth. It's an internal contradiction which inevitably leads to boom and bust.

Monopolism, and it's many-tentacled reach into politics, technology, and ethics. Capitalism, at its heart, promotes the destruction of even the very CONCEPT of "society".

Failure to account for "the commons". In previous centuries, when there was more than enough of everything to go around it was easy to move on when the old space was used up. At population capacity we'll have to recognize and manage "the commons" (air, fresh water, the oceans, forests, biodiversity etc.) to maintain productivity. We fail to do that at our peril.

-----------------

I've already eliminated totally planned economies as an option. We COULD follow the European system, but IMHO as long as dog-eat-dog capitalism maintains a healthy base elsewhere the European system is vulnerable to being out-competed.

I think the answer lies in the laws that we've adopted which allow various business forms. The most pernicious is the publicly-traded corporation, which creates a theoretical "body" which can own both assets and liabilities. The way these corporation seems to work, the top echelon sucks in the assets and shirks the responsibilities. The other pernicious idea is corporate "personhood", which granted corporations such "rights" as privacy and freedom of speech.

So, looking at the various forms of production, I think we could solve most of our problems by simply limiting the types of businesses which can be formed. My first thought would be simply allow the creation of several versions of only one kind of business, which is the cooperative: Every person who works is an equal part-owner of the cooperative, and nobody else can be a part-owner. Each cooperative can create business plans, assess the market, make investments, etc. and each individual owner shares in the profits and liabilities. (I know that Geezer got really weird with this whole idea.) There ARE successful cooperatives, the largest is Mondragon (in Spain).

I DO think there needs to be a central bank and a central government. A central government is the only entity that can handle certain-sized problems such as large sized infrastructure: roadways, bridges, and transportation; power distribution (the current "deregulated" capitalist system is falling apart as owners try to squeeze the last nickel out of a decrepit infrastructure), and manage "the commons".

I know this isn't an "economic" system' but I would also like to see direct democracy on a lot of issue, and eliminate "politicians" as much as possible.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Rue, I like your philosophy. I think you're a misplaced Swede.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So there's no need to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same.

(italics are mine)

So, having more than two kids essentially constitutes a selfish act? What about accidents? What about people who love being in a big family?

I get the inherently harmless concept of limiting one's needs and all, not taking more from nature or one another..

But the limitation of children - while it makes sense as a form of preventing overpopulation, would constitute a form of extreme restraint and should be aknowledged as that. I wouldn't class the number of children in the same category as "taking from another person", something that is in itself ethically questionable. This image kind of disturbs to me what seems otherwise a fairly idyllic vision.

MOLOTOV

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Personally, I think we should get rid of "the police". (Too bad there's no foundation for THAT one!)

Well in the mean time there's always Communities United Against Police Brutality, they can be found at www.cuapb.org/
I'm sure there are local organizations like it in your major cities as well.

Hi I'm Molotov by the way! Just registered yesterday.

Anyways, I'm off to bed, but I'm sure I'll be back later to check this thread out more thoroughly.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, looking at the various forms of production, I think we could solve most of our problems by simply limiting the types of businesses which can be formed. My first thought would be simply allow the creation of several versions of only one kind of business, which is the cooperative: Every person who works is an equal part-owner of the cooperative, and nobody else can be a part-owner. Each cooperative can create business plans, assess the market, make investments, etc. and each individual owner shares in the profits and liabilities. (I know that Geezer got really weird with this whole idea.) There ARE successful cooperatives, the largest is Mondragon (in Spain). .

Cooperatives were one of the first industrial business forms and as such have the dubious distinction of being both proto-capitalist and proto-socialist. There are a few problems with them though (and some of these problems also exist in real cooperatives.)

1) Young Jack joins the cooperative as an apprentice. He comes in with nothing and presumably will contribute his labour. Does he get equal rights and equal shares as Arthur who has been there 30 years?

2) When Arthur retires what happens to his share? Does it form his pension? Does he return the capital it represents to the cooperative. Can he sell his stake back to the co-op as a whole or to an individual within it. Since this is Arthur's life's work and the bulk of the capital he's amassed in a lifetime can he will it to his heirs?

3) When the co-op is successfull how do they borrow money and with what assets can they secure a loan?

4) If there is a downturn which would normally require a cut back in production how do you manage that? You can't lay off part owners but on the other hand you cant afford to pay people for doing nothing.

5) What happens to a stakeholder when they leave to work somewhere else? Do they lose the capital they built up in the business? Are they bought out?

6) Businesses have to be started somehow and often the folks that start them take considerable risks with assets that they could lose if the business fails, on the other hand people joining later have fewer risks. Does being a founder and having taken the risk infer any benefit to that person? Do they get some kind of "golden share" or "captains share" of the enterprise? Fred morgages his home to open Fred's sandwich shop. It is so successfull that he hires Dave to work there. Did Dave just become Fred's full partner for the cost of answering a "help wanted" ad?

The only thought I have is that you'd have to create some form of transferable "share" which has a real asset value and distribute them amongst your employees in the same way a company might pay a dividend to investors. However for them to have any real value you would need a mechanism to freely trade them.

RUE

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:10 PM

"(limiting children) would constitute a form of extreme restraint and should be acknowledged as that"

Back in the day when children died early and often people had as many as they could as a form of insurance. In my society there's no need for that since you will always have what you need. In addition, in today's real world there isn't going to be 'enough' for more people. And even in an ideal world, 'more than replacement' means you still end up with too many people for the resources. It would take longer, but it would get there. And the world once again would become a deadly competition for mere survival.

Having human technology changes the very condition of survival from iffy to guaranteed - as long as you don't have more children than the environment can support. So 'number of children' needs to be understood as a central idea to fulfill security - of your children, their children, and in fact everyone.

If you had a choice between a world where your children and their children and so on would thrive, or a deadly and mean world, which would you choose ?

That's all I'm saying - people would understand that to be the choice.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, February 7, 2008 12:50 AM

"In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no reason to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same. And the few people who might want to break that philosophy in my world - who want to prey on greed and insecurity - are seen as carriers of a deadly contagion. Because once the grabbing starts you will have NO security and you will have to start grabbing too, and treating everyone like an enemy."

"a fairly idyllic vision"

On further thought, I'd like to reply to this as well.

Rather than being an 'ideal world' it is the real world today. Because of technology our survival is guaranteed. It's something everyone could have without fail.

***************************************************************
Which makes me wonder why we put up with anything less.

FLETCH2

Thursday, February 7, 2008 1:42 AM

Humm well I come from a family with 4 kids but 2 of us are adopted, so are we being irrisponsable? I know if my mother could have afforded to keep all the kids she wanted there would have been 8 of us.

RUE

Thursday, February 7, 2008 6:40 PM

Some posts are such pristine examples they deserve to shine solo in the spotlight for a while.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, February 7, 2008 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Some posts are such pristine examples they deserve to shine solo in the spotlight for a while.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Ok?

RUE

Thursday, February 7, 2008 10:28 PM

Well ...

Personally I try to not talk about family members or other people unless I think it could have RW value at some point - for example, how to interpret the behavior of a loved family member who has developed neurological issues. Or, what are some of the more problematic end-of-life circumstances one may face with a family member or friend.

I'm guessing your mother was a product of her times and education level, and from when the world only had 1.8 billion people - not that anyone cared how many there were, back then. But younger and better educated people in a world of 6.6 billion might find her dreams of having 8 children to not be sweet - but rather provincial. I wouldn't want to virtually expose a family member to that judgment, even anonymously.

There was the 'picking a small detail and not discussing the idea' problem. The idea is that there is in fact no rational reason for poverty. Not even in today's world of 6.6 billion. We - you, me, and everyone else - could all be guaranteed the essentials of life and even a level of comfort. So why do we do accept poverty ? Why do YOU accept it ?

And then there was the whole 'people unclear on the concept' thing. It would be a world where people evaluate their choices not based on what they can afford but what keeps their lives in balance with freedom from fear and anxiety, real life security, and actual long-term potential.

And then your post was incoherent. What exactly was I supposed to reply to ? That your mother couldn't afford what she wanted ? That she realized she couldn't afford what she wanted and decided accordingly ? That she wanted 8 children of 'her own' ? That she settled on raising 4 ? Or that she only birthed two ?

You might have had something in mind - maybe it was - my mother who is a sweet lady wanted 8 children, so does that make her evil ?

But it didn’t come across. I still don’t know what your post was about.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Thursday, February 7, 2008 11:37 PM

I was trying to clarify what your point was since it seemed to lace a certain utopianism with what seems to be a huge personal bias. I was trying to determine if that bias was actual or just an unfortunate choice of words.

I don't view having kids as being in some way a selfish act or that if you have more than two you're having more than your fair share. Children are more than just a biological process to replace yourself no matter what "The Selfish Gene" may say. They are whole people who's company you get to share, who's jokes make you laugh and whose joys you get to be part of.

While I agree that in the modern world there is no need to have huge families to offset child mortality or to provide breadwinners to support you in your dotage there are other reasons people have large families and those reasons make them neither selfish nor simple and uneducated.

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 12:16 AM

"personal bias"

Not a personal bias - a statement of fact. Even under the very best circumstances more than replacement children leads to starvation for somebody. That puts the ethics of more than replacement children into doubt.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, February 8, 2008 1:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Even under the very best circumstances more than replacement children leads to starvation for somebody. That puts the ethics of more than replacement children into doubt.

Purplebelly.

GEEZER

Friday, February 8, 2008 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no need to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely.

Compared to this vision, I think that establishing a functional world of anarchists who follow the Non-Aggression Principle would be a piece of cake.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 2:57 AM

Not really, b/c your world is ultimately self-destructive.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Friday, February 8, 2008 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not really, b/c your world is ultimately self-destructive.

I tend to disagree. Your's, on the other hand, is ultimately impossible.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 3:38 AM

No, mine just requires that people adopt basic reality into their lives. Some posters (you perhaps ?) have a vested interest in having people believe that the only way to survive is to compete against each other for scraps. And that is a lie.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Friday, February 8, 2008 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, mine just requires that people adopt basic reality into their lives. Some posters (you perhaps ?) have a vested interest in having people believe that the only way to survive is to compete against each other for scraps. And that is a lie.

Your vision just requires that everyone adapt their lives to your concept of reality. The average worldwide per capita income is around $7,000.00, depending on source. Are you giving away your surplus?

And then we get the good old "anyone who diesn't agree with me must have a 'hidden agenda' or a 'vested interest'" riff. Yawn.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:55 PM

I think you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misrepresenting) my argument. So let me try to put to rest some of your errors.

I'm all for private property. I don't require that people give away anything to the state or anyone else. I'm not talking about a free-ride - this isn't a society which 'provides' for anyone.

What I'm proposing is that everyone has free and equal access to the means of survival - work and resources. That they can and do work for their survival and for their security and some comfort. That they get to keep all the proceeds and benefits of their own labor. But that they stop at that.

And BTW I noticed that while I have explained at length the problems with your system you haven't actually come up with an argument against mine. The reason, I suspect, is b/c you are basing yours on an unstated assumption about human nature (greedy rat-bastards), which is an argument you can't make since it conflicts with your earlier posts.

Also, the differences between your position and mine are:

1) Mine is a fact. There is enough productivity on the planet for everyone to survive and have a level of comfort. The average wage demonstrates this. There is no rational reason for any poverty or starvation.

2) Mine doesn't need everyone to follow it - just enough people to make the current system unattractive.

3) Mine has a system to deal with those who won't follow it, unlike yours which needs everyone to behave. And yours at best will lead to an oligarchy where very few have most of the wealth and power.

4) Yours is based on a faulty if unstated 'human nature' argument - that people are greedy rat-bastards and they won't work unless it's a competition to beat out someone else.

5) And finally, since you are making this personal, I've already stated many times (which I've notice you've chosen to conveniently forget or misrepresent) that I would give away everything if it would guarantee a fair world. But since making a fair world is out of my hands it's also not my 'fault' for not doing so. And, unlike you, in the RW I'm not looking after my privileges, I'm looking after the future of a disabled family member.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, February 8, 2008 5:10 PM

Molotov- that's a waste of good vodka!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, February 8, 2008 5:14 PM

BigDamnKnownothing- I know people who have decided to limit their number of children to 0,1, or 2 for ethical reasons, including me. (And even under Chinese law, since my child is brain damaged I'd have a shot at a second child.)

When I look at these people and listen to their reasons they seem far more ethical than the average person.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 5:23 PM

Well, as usual he chose to take a cheap and inaccurate personal shot rather than address any actual issues.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, February 8, 2008 5:31 PM

Fletch2- you asked some good questions about cooperatives which deserve answers.

Quote:
[Young Jack joins the cooperative as an apprentice. He comes in with nothing and presumably will contribute his labour. Does he get equal rights and equal shares as Arthur who has been there 30 years?

Yes. But not necessarily an equal salary.

Quote:
When Arthur retires what happens to his share?

He leaves it behind when he leaves the cooperative.

Quote:
Does it form his pension?

No, that's taken care of by a different mechanism

Quote:
Does he return the capital it represents to the cooperative.

Yes

Quote:
Can he sell his stake back to the co-op as a whole or to an individual within it. Since this is Arthur's life's work and the bulk of the capital he's amassed in a lifetime can he will it to his heirs?

No and no.

Quote:
3) When the co-op is successfull how do they borrow money and with what assets can they secure a loan?

Needs some thought on the assets and liabilites of a cooperative.

Quote:
4) If there is a downturn which would normally require a cut back in production how do you manage that? You can't lay off part owners but on the other hand you cant afford to pay people for doing nothing.

Both increases and reductions in workforce are accomplished by vote (including hiring, firing, and layoffs) as well as pay structure and workweek. There are many possible options to a downturn including layoffs, shortened workweek, or general salary reduction.

Quote:
5) What happens to a stakeholder when they leave to work somewhere else? Do they lose the capital they built up in the business? Are they bought out?

Yes and no.

Quote:
6) Businesses have to be started somehow and often the folks that start them take considerable risks with assets that they could lose if the business fails, on the other hand people joining later have fewer risks. Does being a founder and having taken the risk infer any benefit to that person? Do they get some kind of "golden share" or "captains share" of the enterprise? Fred morgages his home to open Fred's sandwich shop. It is so successfull that he hires Dave to work there. Did Dave just become Fred's full partner for the cost of answering a "help wanted" ad?

One of the big reasons why Mondragon is so successful is that it operates its own bank. Loans and bonds are good mechanisms to raise capital... I know several small business owners (including a successful restaurant owner) who started with small business loans. So sinking your life's assets into a business venture isn't necessary. However, there IS an "out" for people who want to retain total control of their business: They can contract with other cooperatives (even a single-person cooperative)for services, and maintain an arm's-length relationship with their various service providers.

Quote:

The only thought I have is that you'd have to create some form of transferable "share" which has a real asset value and distribute them amongst your employees in the same way a company might pay a dividend to investors. However for them to have any real value you would need a mechanism to freely trade them.

I've thought of that. But without the mechanism of transferable shares you'd have to do "book value" accounting, and that just seems too complex and open to manipulation.

There are other things to consider also: tax structures, retirement (which you touched on), investment capital, liability, the dissolution of cooperatives etc. It would require rethinking of a lot of things, including the nature of ownership, etc.

However, IMHO this seems to follow the goals of anrachism more concretely, in that while there is still government the purpose of government is to aggressively place ownership and responsibility at the individual level.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BigDamnKnownothing- I know people who have decided to limit their number of children to 0,1, or 2 for ethical reasons, including me. (And even under Chinese law, since my child is brain damaged I'd have a shot at a second child.)

When I look at these people and listen to their reasons they seem far more ethical than the average person.

Signy,
I thought my comment was quite apropos given the nature of Rue's comment placed in context with the show Firefly. Rue would like to 'meddle' with the Independants who simply want to live 'their' lives.
Has Rue considered that some religions do not believe in birth control? Are people to stop having sex after two kids?
What about those who practice safe-sex and a pregnancy still occurs? What happens to those kids?
What about couples who do not or cannot have kids? Does this demographic allow others to go over the kid limit?
What is the average number of kids per North American family? Awhile ago I believe it was 2.3, would the world really be better off without the .3?
However you look at it, Rue feels she knows best what others are to do based on her own driving philosophy. In other words, Purplebelly, Fed, Member of the Alliance, etc.

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:19 PM

"Rue would like to 'meddle' with the Independents who simply want to live 'their' lives. Purplebelly, Fed, Member of the Alliance, etc."

And now you've just displayed your complete irrelevance to the discussion AND your lack of knowledge of Firefly - in one short sentence.

Did I mention anywhere that this would be a government law, or program, or even suggestion ? My entire point was that this would be a personal decision about ethics.

DUH.

Man, you are so incredibly personally biased and full of hate you can't even read the simple word on a page without seeing it wrong.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And now you've just displayed your complete irrelevance to the discussion AND your lack of knowledge of Firefly - in one short sentence.

Did I mention anywhere that this would be a government law, or program, or even suggestion ? My entire point was that this would be a personal decision about ethics.

So in other words, keep things as they are? (minus China of course)

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:34 PM

Go back and actually read my posts this time. There is a post where I address this very point, in detail.

***************************************************************
BTW I noticed you failed to apologize for making baseless personal accusations against me.

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:54 PM

mmmmm - dbl good

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:55 PM

So anyway, to repost my reply to Geezer so it doesn't get lost in the clutter

I think you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misrepresenting) my argument. So let me try to put to rest some of your errors.

I'm all for private property. I don't require that people give away anything to the state or anyone else. I'm not talking about a free-ride - this isn't a society which 'provides' for anyone.

What I'm proposing is that everyone has free and equal access to the means of survival - work and resources. That they can and do work for their survival and for their security and some comfort. That they get to keep all the proceeds and benefits of their own labor. But that they stop at that.

And BTW I noticed that while I have explained at length the problems with your system you haven't actually come up with an argument against mine. The reason, I suspect, is b/c you are basing yours on an unstated assumption about human nature (greedy rat-bastards), which is an argument you can't make since it conflicts with your earlier posts.

Also, the differences between your position and mine are:

1) Mine is a fact. There is enough productivity on the planet for everyone to survive and have a level of comfort. The average wage demonstrates this. There is no rational reason for any poverty or starvation.

2) Mine doesn't need everyone to follow it - just enough people to make the current system unattractive.

3) Mine has a system to deal with those who won't follow it, unlike yours which needs everyone to behave. And yours at best will lead to an oligarchy where very few have most of the wealth and power.

4) Yours is based on a faulty if unstated 'human nature' argument - that people are greedy rat-bastards and they won't work unless it's a competition to beat out someone else.

5) And finally, since you are making this personal, I've already stated many times (which I've notice you've chosen to conveniently forget or misrepresent) that I would give away everything if it would guarantee a fair world. But since making a fair world is out of my hands it's also not my 'fault' for not doing so. And, unlike you, in the RW I'm not looking after my privileges, I'm looking after the future of a disabled family member.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:04 PM

I was going to answer things point by point but formating was starting to be complex so I'll just take the bits as they come.

Re: Pensions

I know you said you'd have to think about it more but there is something that needs to be considered. Part of the reason we keep getting into the whole profit/income thing is that for a surprising amount of investment this is literally true. In the UK most shares in successfull companies are owned by pension companies and these investments ultimately pay pensions. I have no idea what the proportion is in the US but I suspect all of the capital placed into 401K's and other retirement plans represent a huge amount of investment capital. Now if the only economic form is a cooperative and it can only be owned by workers how can retirement investment work? Especially if as you suggest you lose any capital you have built in your home company when you retire.

Re: Organisation and management

We have had cooperatives similar to the ones you mention that have failed in the UK. However it's hard to come to conclusions since

1) They tended to be worker buyouts of already troubled businesses, it could be that the businesses would have failed anyway no matter what anyone did.

2) They obviously operated against regular companies in the same marketplace and there may be disadvantages in operatins and credit that wouldn't exist if their competitors were of the same type.

That being said though the general consensus of the English examples is that the "direct democracy" model of business management doesnt actually work that well, because it delays decisions, makes it more likely that tough choices won't be made and doesnt actually make it likely that good decisions are made.

I suspect the better solution is to have the workers exclusively own the company (and therefore elect the equivalent of a board to represent their interests) but then have professional management hired by the board.

Re: Finacing

While I agree that there are other sources of capital it's extremely unlikely that any small business would get an unsecured loan. In addition to hard assets the founder probably has hours of unpaid work, personal reputation and good will invested in the concern. If the only way to grow the business is for him to give that up and in effect "give" this capital he's built up to others that have not put in the same efforts or taken the same risks --- well that seems unfair.

RUE

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:09 PM

Oh, BTW Fletch - I find yours and SignyM's discussion quite interesting.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm all for private property. I don't require that people give away anything to the state or anyone else. I'm not talking about a free-ride - this isn't a society which 'provides' for anyone.

What I'm proposing is that everyone has free and equal access to the means of survival - work and resources. That they can and do work for their survival and for their security and some comfort. That they get to keep all the proceeds and benefits of their own labor. But that they stop at that.

And if their opinion of what they need for their survival and security is greater than what you think fair?

Quote:
1) Mine is a fact. There is enough productivity on the planet for everyone to survive and have a level of comfort. The average wage demonstrates this. There is no rational reason for any poverty or starvation.

I'm not sure that $7,000 a year per person would be that comfortable.

Quote:
2) Mine doesn't need everyone to follow it - just enough people to make the current system unattractive.

Why would the current system become unattractive? If a lot of folk are happy with mere survival, A lot more stuff is available for folk who want to actually enjoy themselves.

Quote:
3) Mine has a system to deal with those who won't follow it...

How so? Confiscate what the government thinks you have over the prescribed survival level?

Quote:
4) Yours is based on a faulty if unstated 'human nature' argument - that people are greedy rat-bastards and they won't work unless it's a competition to beat out someone else.

Hardly, but if you don't get it by now, you never will.

Quote:
And, unlike you...I'm looking after the future of a disabled family member.

True, since my disabled family member died and I don't look after her any more.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AGENTROUKA

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no reason to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same. And the few people who might want to break that philosophy in my world - who want to prey on greed and insecurity - are seen as carriers of a deadly contagion. Because once the grabbing starts you will have NO security and you will have to start grabbing too, and treating everyone like an enemy."

"a fairly idyllic vision"

On further thought, I'd like to reply to this as well.

Rather than being an 'ideal world' it is the real world today. Because of technology our survival is guaranteed. It's something everyone could have without fail.

***************************************************************
Which makes me wonder why we put up with anything less.

It wasn't the very true fact that theoretically we could all be doing well that I considered idyllic, but more the fact that you mentioned us not needing those aggressive, greedy instincts anymore. The very painful thing about humanity is that it wasn't designed for a fair world. Our instincts will never leave us, which is why we tend to become destructive when bored.

In order for a fair society like that to work, we need to account for our instincts and leave room for development. Humans do not stagnate well. So, a society where we do not take more than needed is idyllic in the sense that it discounts that our greed is a part of us we cannot shut off. It'd need a greater, common focus, in order for us to keep the everyday harmonious and "ungreedy". Is my theory.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE