Real World Event Discussions

Supreme Court ruling on money and free speech

POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:50
VIEWED: 10274
PAGE 17 of 20

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 25, 2010 11:31 PM

Did Sig or I say force?

I think the argument that is being made here is that co-ops could be a good alternative style system in some communities.

Like I've said before, this system is unstable and I think it could come crashing down at any time. So, when it does, why don't people who want to reestablish this system do that OVER THERE, and people who want to try something new, they do that in a different OVER THERE, and neither group overlaps, and can be content to do whatever system they want.

Also, I think you'll find that the idea of a co-op tends to be more along Anarchist lines then centrally governed Communist lines, so the analogy you gave isn't really a good one. The main problem with what the Soviets did is 1) they did it by force, 2) tried to involve too many people too soon to force a transition from agraral to industrial, and 3) got the balance of agraral to industrial wrong so they couldn't feed people.

Really, the better way to do it is to start off small, with a small consenting participating group. You begin establishing the community, and at the same time establishing the baseline. Once the baseline is established and everyone is fed and sheltered, THEN you can start looking into bigger production means. And because people have more time than basic subsistence, you can start branching out into other realms, such as the arts and research.

I think we can also safely say outright that anything someone makes in the sense of a hobby belongs to them, as are certain trades/purchases/ whatever that a person may make with whatever rewards they receive on top of their baseline also belong to them, and may not be distributed equally among the population. However, I do anticipate both a different definition of personal possessions and ideas about sharing and borrowing that will arise. If the community trusts each other, then things likely will be naturally, freely shared in good nature - though the community will recognize an original "owner" of the item, the item probably will become more communally owned than any sense of ownership we have in our current system.

The important thing is the baseline. Welfare is a good crack at it, but the system I'm proposing (and Sig might be too, unless she differs in opinion on me here) addresses the baseline issue better because to be established it must be built from the ground up, seeing to all member's needs first.

NIKI2

Monday, January 25, 2010 11:59 PM

Quote:
Some people (most people, I'd guess) want to be rewarded tangibly for their hard work, creativity, and dedication. They want a better house, better schools for their kids, luxuries above basic survival. They want recreation and travel. They want a new bass boat, or a Klimt painting, or a big TV with a sound system, or a Tiffany double old-fashioned glass to drink their scotch and soda from, good scotch to drink, etc.

Sounds to me like the kind of mentality OUR SOCIETY has created: "Things will make you happier". I'm not sure that would hold for "most" people if our society didn't create those desires, which propagate competition, propaganzises the workers, and has in my opinion brought about an UNHEALTHY society.

To answer your question for ME:

Quote:
What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

You presume from this that every worker believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker; I reject that aspect.

Taking that out, I would respond: The challenge of the work and satisfaction doing it well brings; recognition for my accomplishments; the friendship of co-workers; respect for working hard; a good enough living to provide for me and my family to live decently; the self-respect of knowing I do a good job.

I worked as one of two desktop publishers. The other woman hated her job, complained incessantly, took every "sick" day she could--including a month off for "depression" disability; I did my job better and increased my knowledge to the point where people snuk ME the work, rather than put it in the box and chance her picking it up. She'd been there longer than I; I didn't give a shit that she made more money.

I also worked with a bunch of people as word processors. We had two lazy people (one of whom actually left the office to give nail treatments to people in other parts of the buiding surreptitiously). These two people also took a couple of months off for "depression" disability, despite everyone knowing and they admitting to us that it was faked. The rest of us got along well, enjoyed each others' company, cooperated and collaborated, learned from one another and taught one another, were proud of our work, and nobody bitched about the fact that one of the lazy ones was supposedly our "supervisor", so made more than the rest of us. My husband worked there (different shift), and when we got a Mac in a merger, we and one other self-taught on the Macs, started the "desktop publishing" aspect of the job, and did all the desktop publishing from then on. We didn't get paid extra for it, we WANTED to do it and found it challenging and fulfilling. One of the illustrations I did hangs in the Corps of Engineers office in Hawaii. That made me proud of my work.

Our society has pushed competition to the point where many of the people you list have been brainwshed into thinking a higher position, more expendable income, more "things" is what they're SUPPOSED to want, and nothing else.

Byte, most of what you said, and especially the post about your argument with your dad: Marvelous.

Mike, add to your list "With God on our side", among so many others!

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, let's discuss YOUR preferred society, Geezer.

That's easy. It's one where you don't get to arrogate unto yourself the power to overturn the economic system and to require everyone to fit into your conception of what's 'right'.

That would do me fine.

BTW, I'll be out of town until Weds. P.M.

See you then.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 12:30 AM

Quote:
That's easy. It's one where you don't get to arrogate unto yourself the power to overturn the economic system and to require everyone to fit into your conception of what's 'right'.

That would do me fine.

That's definitely not what I'm proposing. That's what that whole "you can do your thing over here and we'll do our thing over there" that I was talking about was.

I don't know if Sig wants to create government mandates for having such a system, but I advocate individual choice to opt out of what we have.

Really, the widespread nature of the current system creates forced compliance with the system for people who DON'T want to be a part of it. I plan to cut off from this system as soon as I can afford it, but really, I shouldn't have to PLAY THE GAME to get out. That makes it not quite a choice anymore.

But then, when someone wants the status quo, it's likely they're not going to see or understand how intrusive it can seem to those that don't.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:34 AM

So Geezers idea of utopia is the society in the movie Equilibrium ?

Damn, man that's pretty sad...

-F

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:20 PM

Quote:
What's the motivation for the dedicated, innovative worker (who believes he should benefit more from his work than the average or below-average worker) if, no matter how he excels, he can't get any more compensation than they do?

Because s/he wants to.

Believe it or not, people have a psychological need to work, to produce, to learn, and to innovate. Its in our genes. It give us a sense of control over our environment, and that zing! of dopamine when we discover something new. Have you ever heard of the Skunk Works? Sure you have! It wasn't motivated by money!

In YOUR world, the only thing people work for is money, and everyone who isn't a money-grubbing greedy bastard is a lazy schlub. YOUR world: A world of alienated workers who have no sense of control over their working lives, or their product, who mindlessly and resentfully put in their time, chained to the assembly line or cubicle. But in reality, there are three things that motivate work, and- past the point of security -money ISN'T one of them.

And for these who desire a greater sense of control, there'a always management. Because yes, indeed, there ARE managers in co-ops (managment is as much of a job as accounting or production). Not everyone want to be a manager, but the job is open for those who do.

Quote:
Yes, I have. Constantly, because {putting words in people's mouths is} something you've done repeatedly to me over the past... years, by now.-Signy
Okay. If you say so.-Geezer

yes, I say so, and I HAVE been saying so for years... everyone knows that, and you're just pounding the point home that you're a weasly liar. So thanks for that, ya shit-dipped moron!

BTW- you haven't answered MY question:

Quote:
Geezer, we already live in YOUR utopia, of "lazy schlubs" who reward themselves billions of dollars in bonuses, dividends and stock options at the end of the year for... what, exactly? If you're so dead set against rewarding do-nothings, how do you justify THAT? (I'm gonna hound you on this one until you either answer or leave, bc you're a pretty famous black pot.)

ALSO

Quote:
It's one where you don't get to arrogate unto yourself the power to overturn the economic system and to require everyone to fit into your conception of what's 'right'.

But everyone has to fit into YOUR concept of what's right? Which, in your case, means unbridled corporatism? Screwing Jane and John Middleclass to the floor? Drowning out the voice of real Americans with pay-to-play? Rich schlubs getting richer because they play golf with Congresspeople? Captains of finance risking everyone's retirement on Ponzi schemes and then extorting our tax $$ to bail them out? Poor people sharing what little they have in charity so the rich can remain uber-wealthy???

Oh, goody. Just what we all want! HOORAY FOR GEEZER'S WORLD!

NIKI2

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 5:40 PM

Quote:
A world of alienated workers who have no sense of control over their working lives, or their product, who mindlessly and resentfully put in their time, chained to the assembly line or cubicle.

Gee, Sig, I think that subculture already exists in THIS world...sounds like a lot of what I saw in the corporate world...and there, the attitude WAS exactly like Geezers! Huh; he's got his utopia right here, maybe that's where he belongs? Doesn't it follow that, given that subculture and his mentality, he'd rise right to the top?

There you go...problem solved.

KWICKO

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:30 AM

Oooh - Just had a bit of an idea. It's not earth-shattering, but it might at least make a bit of headway in a fucked situation. While Representative Grayson is authoring all these new bills, let's add one to the mix:

If you, as a corporation, want to give money to any political campaign in this country, you must be HEADQUARTERED here in the United States. Not in the Cayman Islands, not in the one house in the Caymans where more than 15,000 corporations have their "headquarters" so they can avoid the U.S. corporate taxes. You have to actually have your headquarters for your corporation located at a physical address here in the U.S.

Hey, if they're willing to do it, and they're subject to the corporate taxes we never get to collect otherwise, they'll have considerably less money to spend on buying politicians, and they'll actually HAVE an active interest in American politics.

Just a thought.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 12:33 AM

Mmm. Still a problem. We might get tax money (assuming they're not hiding billions in Swiss banks, which they are), but they still benefit fair more to make this an even trade.

KWICKO

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mmm. Still a problem. We might get tax money (assuming they're not hiding billions in Swiss banks, which they are), but they still benefit fair more to make this an even trade.

Oh, it's not an even trade. It's a "chip" - just one more instance of chipping away at them. Remember, a bunch of tiny solutions that each solve a *little* of the problem, versus one large solution that solves the whole damn thing (but which isn't very likely to occur).

I doubt we'll end the influence of Big Money Inc. any time soon, but we can chip away at them, bit by bit, piece by piece. And ideally, without them ever quite seeing what we're doing until it's too late.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde