NationStates Jolt Archive

There doesn't need to be a necessity for restraint, there isn't a reason to not be restrained; if you don't take it today, you can always take it tomorrow.

This statement is an economic faux pas of the first rate.

When there are peers, you always need to be wary that someone else will take it first.

Unless, of course, common discourse is to not label yourself as selfish.

Does this mean that the finalized agreement that the laborer and employer come to is the true value of the laborer's labor?

There will always be variations, but if the negotiations are free, this would be the "true" value (depending on what you mean by that).

I would say that dignity is respecting human rights; there is little dignity in starving to death. Our program guarantees than nobody will starve to death; yours does not.

I believe starvation will be as unlikely within our system as it is in yours.

Also you defined dignity with a verb and then segued into a bit of a non-sequitor.

This statement is an economic faux pas of the first rate.How so?

Unless, of course, common discourse is to not label yourself as selfish.Why should this be common discourse?

There will always be variations, but if the negotiations are free, this would be the "true" value (depending on what you mean by that).How do we ensure that the negotiations are free?

I believe starvation will be as unlikely within our system as it is in yours.I'm not convinced that there will be enough charity to cover those who are unable to sell their labor.

Also you defined dignity with a verb and then segued into a bit of a non-sequitor.Instead of putting the semicolon, I should have said 'additionally'; i.e. humans have the right to life, and the right to life implies the necessities of life. Your system doesn't guarantee the right to life.

How so?

It is a basic assumption of economics and finance that, if all else is equal, now is chosen over later.

That is the central reason we pay interest.

Why should this be common discourse?

I don't know why it should be (perhaps to gain favorable relations in the future), but I know that it tends to be the case within these types of situations.


How do we ensure that the negotiations are free?

The elimination of monopolistic intervention by the government.

Eliminate corporate personhood, cease legal protection of unused land (I don't think the Autonomist Party actually supports this), and end the money monopoly with the elimination of the central bank and legal tender laws.

Allow workers the means to work for themselves and they won't have to work for bosses.

I'm not convinced that there will be enough charity to cover those who are unable to sell their labor.

I don't believe it would be necessary. I believe the even the unskilled worker will be able to sufficiently support his own life if allowed the full value of his labor.

It is a basic assumption of economics and finance that, if all else is equal, now is chosen over later.

That is the central reason we pay interest.That doesn't seem to be a very good assumption; why don't people spend their paychecks the day they get them? Or are you saying that this tends to happen.
I was under the impression that people paid interest because moneylenders could get away with charging them interest.

I don't know why it should be (perhaps to gain favorable relations in the future), but I know that it tends to be the case within these types of situations.I'm not certain that social pressures themselves are enough to keep a Free-For-All situation from eventually developing; a few bad apples will spoil the barrel.

The elimination of monopolistic intervention by the government.

Eliminate corporate personhood, cease legal protection of unused land (I don't think the Autonomist Party actually supports this), and end the money monopoly with the elimination of the central bank and legal tender laws.

Allow workers the means to work for themselves and they won't have to work for bosses.I can agree with all of those things, but I don't know that there could still be a fair negotiation due to the imbalance of property between employer and potential employee.

I don't believe it would be necessary. I believe the even the unskilled worker will be able to sufficiently support his own life if allowed the full value of his labor.What about workers with physical problems that prevent them from laboring?

Someone in the debate thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500358) has asked what our views are on polygamy. That's a point I don't think we've ever discussed.

Have any party members got specific views on the matter?

That doesn't seem to be a very good assumption; why don't people spend their paychecks the day they get them? Or are you saying that this tends to happen.
I was under the impression that people paid interest because moneylenders could get away with charging them interest.

How many people suggest that their employer simply holds on to their paychecks for a couple weeks?

A great deal of interest is in great debt to the money and banking monopoly of the government. However, interest is, in large part, a result of time and time concerns.

I'm not certain that social pressures themselves are enough to keep a Free-For-All situation from eventually developing; a few bad apples will spoil the barrel.

I agree with you there to an extent, but that really is beside the point. The point being the lack of peers to provide any pressure.

I can agree with all of those things, but I don't know that there could still be a fair negotiation due to the imbalance of property between employer and potential employee.

The point of all of those measures is to remove those monopolistic obstacles government places in the way of the worker gaining property; an end to corporate personhood and monopolized banking opens investment dollars to everyone, the end of legal protection of unused land (I prefer to end protection of all abandoned property) opens up the flow of resources. Like I said, if the employee can work for himself, then he is an equal negotiator with any possible employer.

What about workers with physical problems that prevent them from laboring?

I had thought of that before and was unsure how that would be dealt with, with our party's denial of dependency. I imagine that there would be private insurance groups, where individuals freely pay into a policy that would protect other members of the group from some sort of economic disaster of this nature.

Come on, somebody better let me join.

Someone in the debate thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500358) has asked what our views are on polygamy. That's a point I don't think we've ever discussed.

Have any party members got specific views on the matter?I don't have an opinion on the matter.

Come on, somebody better let me join.I don't have an issue with the idea of you joining; perhaps the post where you said you wanted to join was overlooked?

How many people suggest that their employer simply holds on to their paychecks for a couple weeks?Well, no, I suppose that doesn't happen, but in the instance of harvesting resources, the resources are there, they're just being saved; the paycheck has already been given to the employee, it's just not being spent.

A great deal of interest is in great debt to the money and banking monopoly of the government. However, interest is, in large part, a result of time and time concerns.Well, I suppose that's the ex post facto justification of it, anyway.

I agree with you there to an extent, but that really is beside the point. The point being the lack of peers to provide any pressure.That's why I don't think that peers to provide pressure can be relied on to prevent such a situation from occurring.

The point of all of those measures is to remove those monopolistic obstacles government places in the way of the worker gaining property; an end to corporate personhood and monopolized banking opens investment dollars to everyone, the end of legal protection of unused land (I prefer to end protection of all abandoned property) opens up the flow of resources. Like I said, if the employee can work for himself, then he is an equal negotiator with any possible employer.Why not, instead of property, have things based upon rights of use instead?

I had thought of that before and was unsure how that would be dealt with, with our party's denial of dependency. I imagine that there would be private insurance groups, where individuals freely pay into a policy that would protect other members of the group from some sort of economic disaster of this nature.Naturally, but this presupposes the ability of someone to sell their labor at all; certain physical handicaps happen at birth or in the womb.

Well, no, I suppose that doesn't happen, but in the instance of harvesting resources, the resources are there, they're just being saved; the paycheck has already been given to the employee, it's just not being spent.

Harvested resources that are held are done so because of their seasonal nature. It is known that usage of these resources will mean a lack of resources in the future without chance of replenishment. This is not a situation where all things are equal. Resources that are replenishable and continuous will result in over consumption. (The market is extremely good at dealing with overconsumption without any government intervention)

Also, you need to realize that "spending" is not the same as using. Money has utility if it is sitting in your pocket or sitting in the bank.

Well, I suppose that's the ex post facto justification of it, anyway.

No, that is the reason for it. The lender puts off use today and thus requires that the money to be returned to him with the appropriate discount rate.

That's why I don't think that peers to provide pressure can be relied on to prevent such a situation from occurring.

I think that, on the smaller levels, where there is constant interaction between those that are "going to the well", so to speak, social pressures will suffice. But like I said, that is beside the point. When there is control by commons, there will be no peers to provide any pressure.

Why not, instead of property, have things based upon rights of use instead?


Right to usage and disposal is a property right.

Naturally, but this presupposes the ability of someone to sell their labor at all; certain physical handicaps happen at birth or in the womb.

It is certainly possible that these insurance plans will extend to the children of those who are members.

The point being that, if the society deems it necessary to provide for them (and I imagine that it is, since most take this issue very seriously), then the mechanisms for the provision will arise within the free mutual agreements.

Come on, somebody better let me join.

What was that about Bourgeoise politics?

What was that about Bourgeoise politics?

I've come to the conclusion that it was ultraleft to exclude myself from working within the labour movement, even if I feel that it is being led by bourgeoise principles. I feel that the UDCP is the true representation of labour so I should be attempting to put forth my ideas to the masses rather than exclude myself to a single revolutionary party when there is not yet a revolutionary base within the movement
.

I've come to the conclusion that it was ultraleft to exclude myself from working within the labour movement, even if I feel that it is being led by bourgeoise principles. I feel that the UDCP is the true representation of labour so I should be attempting to put forth my ideas to the masses rather than exclude myself to a single revolutionary party when there is not yet a revolutionary base within the movement
.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Edit: I'd like to join this party as well.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Edit: I'd like to join this party as well.

Hoozah!

Harvested resources that are held are done so because of their seasonal nature. It is known that usage of these resources will mean a lack of resources in the future without chance of replenishment. This is not a situation where all things are equal. Resources that are replenishable and continuous will result in over consumption. (The market is extremely good at dealing with overconsumption without any government intervention)There aren't very many resources that are replenishable and continuous; incidentally, these typically can't be overconsumed anyway (such as air).

Also, you need to realize that "spending" is not the same as using. Money has utility if it is sitting in your pocket or sitting in the bank.Well, canned food has its utility if it's in your pantry (the harvested resources that are held because of their seasonal nature). It is true that you can't collect interest on resources, though, in the system I propose.

No, that is the reason for it. The lender puts off use today and thus requires that the money to be returned to him with the appropriate discount rate.If you say so. :)

I think that, on the smaller levels, where there is constant interaction between those that are "going to the well", so to speak, social pressures will suffice. But like I said, that is beside the point. When there is control by commons, there will be no peers to provide any pressure.I agree with you that there will be no peers to provide any pressure; that wouldn't be the reason that the collective won't overuse resources. The reason would be that they would only have themselves to blame if they did.

Right to usage and disposal is a property right.I mean limit those rights to simply usage and disposal as opposed to including the pseudofreedom of ownership.

It is certainly possible that these insurance plans will extend to the children of those who are members.

The point being that, if the society deems it necessary to provide for them (and I imagine that it is, since most take this issue very seriously), then the mechanisms for the provision will arise within the free mutual agreements.Why would it be so easy for society to plan for the future by buying insurance policies but not plan for the future by not overusing resources?

I've come to the conclusion that it was ultraleft to exclude myself from working within the labour movement, even if I feel that it is being led by bourgeoise principles. I feel that the UDCP is the true representation of labour so I should be attempting to put forth my ideas to the masses rather than exclude myself to a single revolutionary party when there is not yet a revolutionary base within the movement
.


I'd like to join this party as well.

Welcome, Comrades!

(The market is extremely good at dealing with overconsumption without any government intervention)


How? By encouraging it? By creating far more produce than is needed or even wanted, so as to generate artificial wants and create more profit? Massive amounts of food surplus are constantly being destroyed in the West because of overproduction (and market failure at generating even more excessive overconsumption), which is a disgrace when so many around the world are going hungry. Therein lies one of the most perverse aspects of capitalism.

There aren't very many resources that are replenishable and continuous; incidentally, these typically can't be overconsumed anyway (such as air).

I mean that inventories can be maintained at a reasonable level, for at least the foreseeable future.

I apologize for the sloppy wording, but when I say replenishable in this sense, I mean resources whose inventories can be, without some known hiatus, be brought back up to meet demand.

And I wouldn't be so quick to say that air is not being overconsumed if we count clean air as more than an opportunity cost.

If you say so. :)

No, almost every modern economist says so. Outside of some who are still trying to cling to classical labor value and can't get the theory to match reality (and therefore ignore reality), it is accepted that time adds value.

I agree with you that there will be no peers to provide any pressure; that wouldn't be the reason that the collective won't overuse resources. The reason would be that they would only have themselves to blame if they did.

And I have heard that reason for inhibition used about zero times before. I have heard someone say that they had "noone to blame but themselves" after the fact, but who actually says, "I would do this, but I would have no one to blame but myself"?


I mean limit those rights to simply usage and disposal as opposed to including the pseudofreedom of ownership.

Because ownership is freedom, in many cases. It is a central belief of mine, that, if you don't own what you produce, then you are not free. (And before you get off on that tangent, and wage-laborer would gain wages that represent the full value of their product, as they wouldn't want to own 1/1000th of 20 cars.

Why would it be so easy for society to plan for the future by buying insurance policies but not plan for the future by not overusing resources?

Myopia. Democracies are extremely myopic as they inherently deal with the here and now wants of many different groups.

How? By encouraging it? By creating far more produce than is needed or even wanted, so as to generate artificial wants and create more profit? Massive amounts of food surplus are constantly being destroyed in the West because of overproduction (and market failure at generating even more excessive overconsumption), which is a disgrace when so many around the world are going hungry. Therein lies one of the most perverse aspects of capitalism.

I guess I have a monopoly on economics on this thread.

1. The market discourages overconsumption by placing prohibitive costs upon it. As the level of demand for a product goes up, the costs of supplying (and thus using) the good or resource rise as well.

Refer to Supply and Demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand) and corresponding curves.


2. Advertisements may create what you call "artificial wants" (although I think that term is ludicrous), but overproduction just creates waste. On a related note, does your party support the promotion of new goods with advertisement?

3. There is enormous market pressure to reduce waste and overproduction. Even the socialist economists who still bind themselves to the labor theory of value acknowledge this.



Unless you can show me that a)overconsumption is not also a problem when resources are democratically managed by the whole, b)waste will not be drastically worse, when managed by a centralized bureaucracy, c)that advertisements that create new wants and desires in the public are not necessary for the betterment of the aggregate lifestyle, I will consider all of these attacks completely hollow.

Bah! Capitalism works, get over it.

It might be "injust", but so is life itself. We are not born equal, genetics i sees to that, hence why must we forcibly render life "equal"?

I mean that inventories can be maintained at a reasonable level, for at least the foreseeable future.

I apologize for the sloppy wording, but when I say replenishable in this sense, I mean resources whose inventories can be, without some known hiatus, be brought back up to meet demand.

And I wouldn't be so quick to say that air is not being overconsumed if we count clean air as more than an opportunity cost.Ah, I see; I didn't realize that that was what you meant. If the resources are replenishable (your wording), why should it matter if they're overconsumed, as the supplies can simply be renewed? Or are you suggesting that the overconsumption would mean that the supplies would no longer be replenishable?

No, almost every modern economist says so. Outside of some who are still trying to cling to classical labor value and can't get the theory to match reality (and therefore ignore reality), it is accepted that time adds value.Naturally; the subjective nature of value means that time could add value. Another reason for charging interest could be to reduce the amount of loss if the loan is defaulted on in the future.

And I have heard that reason for inhibition used about zero times before. I have heard someone say that they had "noone to blame but themselves" after the fact, but who actually says, "I would do this, but I would have no one to blame but myself"?Did the person who said they had no one to blame but themselves learn their lesson and not repeat the same mistake?
Just out of curiousity, have you personally been a part of a direct democracy?

Because ownership is freedom, in many cases. It is a central belief of mine, that, if you don't own what you produce, then you are not free. (And before you get off on that tangent, and wage-laborer would gain wages that represent the full value of their product, as they wouldn't want to own 1/1000th of 20 cars.I'll avoid that tangent, as I do have a suggestion on this matter; however I must ask how come, if you feel that ownership is freedom, you don't mind the seizure of unoccupied land that might have been improved upon by its owner?

Myopia. Democracies are extremely myopic as they inherently deal with the here and now wants of many different groups.Don't many different groups also have future wants?

Bah! Capitalism works, get over it.

It might be "injust", but so is life itself. We are not born equal, genetics i sees to that, hence why must we forcibly render life "equal"?We don't suggest genetically modifying people to make them equal; we do, however, reject manmade forms of inequality.

Ah, I see; I didn't realize that that was what you meant. If the resources are replenishable (your wording), why should it matter if they're overconsumed, as the supplies can simply be renewed? Or are you suggesting that the overconsumption would mean that the supplies would no longer be replenishable?

There are two ramifications. There is the same problem that every socialist harps on about capitalism, that the resources will be consumed at too high of a rate, and that the society will monopolize all available resources, meaning that those living outside of society and those looking for resources for their own personal use are likely out of luck.

Naturally; the subjective nature of value means that time could add value. Another reason for charging interest could be to reduce the amount of loss if the loan is defaulted on in the future.

Very true, both of those are discount rates as attributed to time. The risk of default is a matter of time, as the farther in the future the maturity date is set, the greater variation in the possible financial standing of the borrower.

Neither of those are methods of exploitation in lending, they are just natural risks. That is one of the reasons I have my doubts that mutualist policies will actually lower interest rates enough.

I believe that the operation of credit unions as opposed to a central bank would help, but it still might be too exclusionary. The elimination of the corporate personhood will help far more.

Did the person who said they had no one to blame but themselves learn their lesson and not repeat the same mistake?

They may have learned, but it was the consequences of the actions that tought them, not the blame. My main point, however, was that, if you know you will have to blame yourself, you acknowledge that there are troublesome ramifications of your actions before acting and will not act in the first place not because of future blame, but because of future harm.

When harm is not percieved, there is no reason to think, "I'll only have myself to blame."

Just out of curiousity, have you personally been a part of a direct democracy?


That depends on what you mean. Direct democracy sprouts up in all sorts of situations, but I haven't been a part of an "official" direct democracy, at least not one that fits our working scenario.

I'll avoid that tangent, as I do have a suggestion on this matter; however I must ask how come, if you feel that ownership is freedom, you don't mind the seizure of unoccupied land that might have been improved upon by its owner?

Abandonment.

Don't many different groups also have future wants?

Yes, but democracy is obviously less responsive to those wants.

Bah! Capitalism works, get over it.

It might be "injust", but so is life itself. We are not born equal, genetics i sees to that, hence why must we forcibly render life "equal"?

We are not born the same.

It is only human social structures that turn those differences into inequality.

We are not born the same.

It is only human social structures that turn those differences into inequality.

Then everyone, left to their own devises free of society would live at the same standard of living, correct?

Then everyone, left to their own devises free of society would live at the same standard of living, correct?

No. Why does that follow?

The human being is naturally social, and to forcibly maintain separation between them would amount to a social institution in itself.

No. Why does that follow?

The human being is naturally social, and to forcibly maintain separation between them would amount to a social institution in itself.

Then what was the point of your statement?

Then what was the point of your statement?

Merely that the choice to treat people differently based on an assessment of the value of their contribution is itself a social choice, not a law of nature.

1. The market discourages overconsumption by placing prohibitive costs upon it. As the level of demand for a product goes up, the costs of supplying (and thus using) the good or resource rise as well.


Because that works so well...

We all know how supply and demand work, but the aim of the market is to maintain a "balance" conducive to maximum profits, not necessarily place prohibitive costs on overconsumption. If it were, then one would have to conclude that the market dismally fails in its attempt.


2. Advertisements may create what you call "artificial wants" (although I think that term is ludicrous), but overproduction just creates waste.

Thank you for conceding that point. I'm glad we agree on something.


On a related note, does your party support the promotion of new goods with advertisement?

Speaking purely for myself (since the party has not addressed this issue yet), it should not, unless the new product or service can be construed as a necessity (or near enough). In which case, it would be logical to make citizens aware of its existence. Not that they wouldn't quickly realise by themselves.


3. There is enormous market pressure to reduce waste and overproduction.

I refer you back to my earlier point.


Unless you can show me that a)overconsumption is not also a problem when resources are democratically managed by the whole, b)waste will not be drastically worse, when managed by a centralized bureaucracy, c)that advertisements that create new wants and desires in the public are not necessary for the betterment of the aggregate lifestyle, I will consider all of these attacks completely hollow.

a) If there is no production of useless goods for the sake of profit, accompanied by advertisement to generate artificial and needless wants, there will be no source for the massive production of unecessary goods. Remove capitalism from the equation, and you make a huge step towards drastically decreasing overproduction.

b) How could it be worse than under capitalism, where numerous capitalist producers are in competition, producing an overflow of similar (and equally needless) goods in parallel?

c) I fail to see how the creation of new, artificial wants increases the betterment of lifestyle. Your argument is based on a shallow view of well-being fed by capitalist advertisement, which has convinced you that you cannot live well without that which you do not need, and which you have always lived perfectly well without.

Merely that the choice to treat people differently based on an assessment of the value of their contribution is itself a social choice, not a law of nature.

That could be debateable, but since there is no point in debating it, I will refrain.

However, if that is truly what you meant, then you were attacking a strawman. BC never said that treating people differently based on contribution was not a social choice (who would?), he simply said that equality (or justice) is not something that is a natural occurrence.

However, if that is truly what you meant, then you were attacking a strawman. BC never said that treating people differently based on contribution was not a social choice (who would?), he simply said that equality (or justice) is not something that is a natural occurrence.

Nor is its counterpart. Which was my point.

Because that works so well...

We all know how supply and demand work, but the aim of the market is to maintain a "balance" conducive to maximum profits, not necessarily place prohibitive costs on overconsumption. If it were, then one would have to conclude that the market dismally fails in its attempt.

Maximum profit is not maximum consumption.

And there is no "aim of the market," there isn't some greater purpose to it.

it should not, unless the new product or service can be construed as a necessity (or near enough)

Now there's a practical idea. How do you suppose the decision will be made that the product is a necessity (or near enough)? What are your definitions of necessity. How do you know non-necessities would not prosper and improve the lifes of people without advertising.

a) If there is no production of useless goods for the sake of profit, accompanied by advertisement to generate artificial and needless wants, there will be no source for the massive production of unecessary goods. Remove capitalism from the equation, and you make a huge step towards drastically decreasing overproduction.

Have you ever considered that an economy may be supply driven? Perhaps the pervasiveness of "useless goods" is a result of a large, technologically wise, educated workforce, and not of the consumers.


b) How could it be worse than under capitalism, where numerous capitalist producers are in competition, producing an overflow of similar (and equally needless) goods in parallel?

Inventories respond quite well to consumer demand under capitalism, wasteful production is always marginalized.

c) I fail to see how the creation of new, artificial wants increases the betterment of lifestyle. Your argument is based on a shallow view of well-being fed by capitalist advertisement, which has convinced you that you cannot live well without that which you do not need, and which you have always lived perfectly well without.

Re-address without ad-hominem.

Nor is its counterpart. Which was my point.

No, inequality is natural.

No, inequality is natural.

Why do you say so?

Why do you say so?

You have heard of Charles Darwin?

You have heard of Charles Darwin?

Yes. So? What does that have to do with social inequality?

There are two ramifications. There is the same problem that every socialist harps on about capitalism, that the resources will be consumed at too high of a rate, and that the society will monopolize all available resources, meaning that those living outside of society and those looking for resources for their own personal use are likely out of luck.I can see this if it is the case that society owns the resources before they are used, however, even if the resources are overproduced and overconsumed, they wouldn't be wasted, whereas we established earlier that capitalist overproduction leads to waste.

Very true, both of those are discount rates as attributed to time. The risk of default is a matter of time, as the farther in the future the maturity date is set, the greater variation in the possible financial standing of the borrower.

Neither of those are methods of exploitation in lending, they are just natural risks. That is one of the reasons I have my doubts that mutualist policies will actually lower interest rates enough.It's not so much that lending is exploitative in and of itself; having resources that a person doesn't use is, however, and lending is a form of that.

I believe that the operation of credit unions as opposed to a central bank would help, but it still might be too exclusionary. The elimination of the corporate personhood will help far more.Why would corporate personhood help to lower interest rates? I'd think it would raise them, as the government typically will help corporations along that are defaulting upon loans, in the interest of maintaining employment rates.

They may have learned, but it was the consequences of the actions that tought them, not the blame. My main point, however, was that, if you know you will have to blame yourself, you acknowledge that there are troublesome ramifications of your actions before acting and will not act in the first place not because of future blame, but because of future harm.

When harm is not percieved, there is no reason to think, "I'll only have myself to blame."Would there not be harm if the society overconsumes the resources to the point that they aren't replenishable? Isn't there the possibility that the society will recognize this?

That depends on what you mean. Direct democracy sprouts up in all sorts of situations, but I haven't been a part of an "official" direct democracy, at least not one that fits our working scenario.I just wondered. I haven't had a lot of experience with direct democracy, but the experience I've had leads me to believe that direct democracies are cautious enough.

Abandonment.What's the difference between abandoned and unused land other than abandoned land is no longer being claimed? Why would someone who has a legitimate claim on land abandon it?

Yes, but democracy is obviously less responsive to those wants.Democracy in and of itself would be, yes, democracy and free association wouldn't be, as being unresponsive enough would lead certain groups to withdraw from the society and form their own. This would mean that the original society could monopolize fewer resources.

Yes. So? What does that have to do with social inequality?

I don't get what you are getting at.

I can see this if it is the case that society owns the resources before they are used, however, even if the resources are overproduced and overconsumed, they wouldn't be wasted, whereas we established earlier that capitalist overproduction leads to waste.

I do not remember establishing that resources wouldn't be wasted under your system, nor that capitalism leads to waste.

It's not so much that lending is exploitative in and of itself; having resources that a person doesn't use is, however, and lending is a form of that.

How is having resources that you don't use exploitative?

Why would corporate personhood help to lower interest rates? I'd think it would raise them, as the government typically will help corporations along that are defaulting upon loans, in the interest of maintaining employment rates.

I meant that it would help open up lending and investment money to a wider scope of the population.

Would there not be harm if the society overconsumes the resources to the point that they aren't replenishable? Isn't there the possibility that the society will recognize this?

Certainly, but I question the likelihood that they will be anymore responsive under a democratic system than they are under the present capitalistic system.

This also doesn't address the issue of the role of peers in providing inhibition.

What's the difference between abandoned and unused land other than abandoned land is no longer being claimed? Why would someone who has a legitimate claim on land abandon it?

Perhaps he finds more utility in other land.

I am having trouble sticking with what I originally said, as I cannot come up with a really could justification for the elimination of absentee landlordism.

Democracy in and of itself would be, yes, democracy and free association wouldn't be, as being unresponsive enough would lead certain groups to withdraw from the society and form their own. This would mean that the original society could monopolize fewer resources.

None of this provides the individual with resources he can use in his spare time. I think you will have to abandon that idea.

I don't get what you are getting at.

Social inequality can only be enforced by social institutions. Privilege must be protected in some manner.

What protects the wealth of the rich in our present society? Property rights, defended by the state. Such property may be acquired through natural talent, but if property were acquired on the basis of hair color instead, would that make differences in hair color "natural inequality"?

Social inequality can only be enforced by social institutions. Privilege must be protected in some manner.

It seems to me quite natural that those who produce more will be less dependent upon society without any sort of protection of privelege.

Such property may be acquired through natural talent, but if property were acquired on the basis of hair color instead, would that make differences in hair color "natural inequality"?

This is a stupid statement.

First off, you do not acknowledge that natural talent produces the goods that become property; that the basis for property acquisition should be who produced it and not physical characteristics. Secondly, you also seem to be denying that intelligence, physical ability, and ambition provides a natural advantage to the survival and living standard of the individual.

I would also point out that there are many cases in nature where hair/fur color is actually a natural social advantage, even though this line of argument completely fails to be relevant.

It seems to me quite natural that those who produce more will be less dependent upon society without any sort of protection of privelege.

"Less dependent," perhaps, but permitting them to exploit this lack of dependence requires social institutions that make others dependent on them. It also requires a desire and a capability to use the power they have to create inequality.

This is a stupid statement.

First off, you do not acknowledge that natural talent produces the goods that become property;

Like land?

that the basis for property acquisition should be who produced it and not physical characteristics.

It may be true that some societies institute property acquisition on that basis. So what?

Secondly, you also seem to be denying that intelligence, physical ability, and ambition provides a natural advantage to the survival and living standard of the individual.

Where did I deny that?

What I am arguing, rather, is that once the individual is in society - as almost every human is - turning certain natural differences into bases for social inequality is not any more "natural" than not doing so.

If we were talking about lone individuals wandering the world, sure, certain kinds of inequality are natural. But that is not social inequality; most obviously, at no point does it involve power and hierarchy.

I do not remember establishing that resources wouldn't be wasted under your system, nor that capitalism leads to waste.Now that I've gone back, it was when we were talking about overproduction in capitalism that we determined that it led to waste, which isn't the same thing. So I was wrong that we'd already established that.
So I'll try a different line of argument: is it not wasteful when companies go out of business?

How is having resources that you don't use exploitative?It isn't inherently exploitative, but typically it ends up being exploitative in the same way that monopolies are.

I meant that it would help open up lending and investment money to a wider scope of the population.Ah, okay. Do you think that the elimination of corporate personhood would bring enough lenders to make up for the loss of lenders that would happen if the government stopped protecting lenders?

Certainly, but I question the likelihood that they will be anymore responsive under a democratic system than they are under the present capitalistic system.Well, it's debatable, but a point in its favor is that a democracy has to represent everybody, whereas capitalism only has to represent property owners and potential consumers.

This also doesn't address the issue of the role of peers in providing inhibition.I'm saying that in this instance, peers have little to no role in providing inhibition.

Perhaps he finds more utility in other land.

I am having trouble sticking with what I originally said, as I cannot come up with a really could justification for the elimination of absentee landlordism.Ah, and just when we were about to come to an agreement on a major idea. :) May I ask what got you to move to a more mutualist mindframe in the first place?

None of this provides the individual with resources he can use in his spare time. I think you will have to abandon that idea.The problem here is that in this thread, I am supposed to be giving the party's position on this issue, and the party hasn't formulated an opinion on it. Therefore, I can only give my opinion. It is my opinion that if the only way to justly acquire resources is to use them, then the average group using an average amount of resources in an average area would not use all of the resources in that area, leaving enough resources for an individual to use in zir spare time. (Holy long sentence, Batman.)

Maximum profit is not maximum consumption.

Indeed, as I said.


And there is no "aim of the market," there isn't some greater purpose to it.


Obviously. What I meant (as you well know) is that the workings of the market tend in that direction. You claim the workings of the market work in a particular direction, do you not? That doesn't imply a unified will or "greater purpose" to it.


Now there's a practical idea. How do you suppose the decision will be made that the product is a necessity (or near enough)? What are your definitions of necessity.

I can't give you a general answer to what will necessarily have to be a case-by-case approach.


Have you ever considered that an economy may be supply driven?

I've not only considered it; I've been saying so from the start. Do you read what I write?


Perhaps the pervasiveness of "useless goods" is a result of a large, technologically wise, educated workforce, and not of the consumers.


It doesn't have to be solely one or the other; you should know it's more complex than that. It's also beside the point.


Inventories respond quite well to consumer demand under capitalism, wasteful production is always marginalized.


No, it is not. Wasteful production is a massive problem under capitalism, and if you're going to deny that I'm not sure how we can debate the issues that stem from it.


Re-address without ad-hominem.

There was no ad hominem. Please answer the point.

"Less dependent," perhaps, but permitting them to exploit this lack of dependence requires social institutions that make others dependent on them. It also requires a desire and a capability to use the power they have to create inequality.

And without social institutions the less productive would not be dependent upon the more productive? Even within the UDCP system, the less productive are dependent on the more productive, they just use government to control the more productive.

The inequality is a natural phenomenon of social interaction. I have said repeatedly that dependency is a direct result of an improved lifestyle. Therefore, anyone who is more productive will thereby improve their own lifestyle and will be less dependant, which quite naturally gives them more power (if you want to call it that).

Like land?

I specifically said goods because land is a trouble spot for myself. Yes, it is labor that can make land utilizable property, and yes, land is acquired through exchange for prior production, but you are correct in your ideas that land were originally unjustified claims.

That still doesn't change the fact that labor acquisition is tied to production and not physical attributes.


It may be true that some societies institute property acquisition on that basis. So what?

So, that is an entirely natural form of inequality, that is how it would work without societal institutions.

Where did I deny that?

What I am arguing, rather, is that once the individual is in society - as almost every human is - turning certain natural differences into bases for social inequality is not any more "natural" than not doing so.

If we were talking about lone individuals wandering the world, sure, certain kinds of inequality are natural. But that is not social inequality; most obviously, at no point does it involve power and hierarchy.

You are saying that inequality in the dependence on society to maintain a lifestyle is not natural, when it is perfectly natural. Unless you consider death a perfectly viable alternative.

So I'll try a different line of argument: is it not wasteful when companies go out of business?

Capitalists are excellent salvage artists. Typically when a company goes out of business, their trade fixtures are purchased and used by other companies.

It isn't inherently exploitative, but typically it ends up being exploitative in the same way that monopolies are.

I can agree with that.

Ah, okay. Do you think that the elimination of corporate personhood would bring enough lenders to make up for the loss of lenders that would happen if the government stopped protecting lenders?

Money never goes unused and without the mass protection of corporate borrowers, I think there will be a great decentralization of investment dollars. People will be much more likely to invest in their own business, invest in a business they can take a more direct approach with, or pool it and become a direct partner in decision making.

Ah, and just when we were about to come to an agreement on a major idea. :) May I ask what got you to move to a more mutualist mindframe in the first place?

I still believe that an end to absentee landlordism would provide practical benefits, but I cannot justify it considering my feelings on property.

My dislike of centralized money supply, my coming to terms that the worker in our present system has his/her side of the negotiation marginalized, and my preference for free collective action to work against these problems.

The problem here is that in this thread, I am supposed to be giving the party's position on this issue, and the party hasn't formulated an opinion on it. Therefore, I can only give my opinion. It is my opinion that if the only way to justly acquire resources is to use them, then the average group using an average amount of resources in an average area would not use all of the resources in that area, leaving enough resources for an individual to use in zir spare time. (Holy long sentence, Batman.)

I think that your party needs to address that issue very soon, and I think your opinion requires too many qualifiers. What happens when it is not average population using an average amount of resources?

Indeed, as I said.

You said that the market operated on free individuals trying to maximize their financial well being (all say that instead of profit, since profit is a loaded term around here), and that provides ample motive for not overconsuming.

As consumption of a good or resource goes up, the cost of producing and thus acquiring that resource goes up as well. Therefore, those participants of the market will begin to search for viable, cheaper (and thereby less consumed) replacements.

Obviously. What I meant (as you well know) is that the workings of the market tend in that direction. You claim the workings of the market work in a particular direction, do you not? That doesn't imply a unified will or "greater purpose" to it.

It implies a purpose to the actions of the participants. If the participants desired something other than what they do, the market would reflect that.

I can't give you a general answer to what will necessarily have to be a case-by-case approach.

There must be some general definition of necessity.

However, I don't think necessity will ever come into the picture, as it will be decided by voters, and voters are just as myopic as consumers.

I've not only considered it; I've been saying so from the start. Do you read what I write?

There is no way you consider that, as you consistently rail against "overproduction", "artificial wants", and useless goods, and your party ties production directly to a democratic vote of what people want.

If the economy were supply driven, then "artificial wants" would not be artificial, "overproduction" would just be production, "useless goods" would never stay in production, and what people want would be directly tied to what they could produce.

I have read a great deal of what this party has written, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

No, it is not. Wasteful production is a massive problem under capitalism, and if you're going to deny that I'm not sure how we can debate the issues that stem from it.

I know, how can one discuss political economy when the other doesn't accept basic economic principles.

There was no ad hominem. Please answer the point.

I am not sure which point I should address, so here are two:

1. My view is not skewed by brainwashing under a capitalistic system. I have already admitted to JB that I do accept that exploitation can be a problem under a capitalist system. I have stated that I prefer a sort of syndicalism/mutualism to fight these problems from within. I have consistently used well-established economic principles to support my statements.

2. I asked you to explain how advertisements are not necessary to improve the aggregate lifestyle, in otherwords, how products that better people's lives will reach the market without some form of advertising. You responded that my view is the product of capitalistic advertising which has fed me a sense of "well-being."

Not only did it not address my point, it distracted from my point by switching the focus on to what biases I may or may not have. That is an ad-hominem.

Capitalists are excellent salvage artists. Typically when a company goes out of business, their trade fixtures are purchased and used by other companies.True, however do these fixtures and products go for the same price when the company is being liquidated to pay off debts that they'd go for when the company is doing its general business?

I can agree with that.Right; simply having a mug or a coffeepot and not using it isn't exploitative, however having something that you don't use and someone else needs is exploitative, if you are having some type of transaction with them.

Money never goes unused and without the mass protection of corporate borrowers, I think there will be a great decentralization of investment dollars. People will be much more likely to invest in their own business, invest in a business they can take a more direct approach with, or pool it and become a direct partner in decision making.I don't doubt this, however I don't agree with it, either; do you know of some information on the internet on this topic that I could read to acquire further knowledge?

I still believe that an end to absentee landlordism would provide practical benefits, but I cannot justify it considering my feelings on property.

My dislike of centralized money supply, my coming to terms that the worker in our present system has his/her side of the negotiation marginalized, and my preference for free collective action to work against these problems.I'm not certain that you'll be able to reconcile your feelings on property with the fact that the worker in our present system has his/her side of the negotiation marginalized, it is mostly because of property that this is the case.

I think that your party needs to address that issue very soon, and I think your opinion requires too many qualifiers. What happens when it is not average population using an average amount of resources?I'll see what I can do about getting the party to address the issue.
If we are dealing with a case of scarce resources, there can't be exclusive use of resources by individuals. The only way I can see this being managed is a democratic system of sharing, so in that case I don't see there being any extra resources. (I don't view resources being scarce as being a common thing.)
I think that if we moved to this system, then part of the mindset (and the system will require a different mindset, because getting used any type of new system requires a change in thinking, however small) will be that people will have to curb their overconsumption. It is conceivable that they wouldn't
do so, but I don't think it would require a great sacrifice for it to happen. So, I think overconsumption would be curbed enough that there would still be resources available to the populace. (Remember that anarchists and communists are often in favor of moving to renewable resources even at the expense of production.)

If the economy were supply driven, then "artificial wants" would not be artificial, "overproduction" would just be production, "useless goods" would never stay in production, and what people want would be directly tied to what they could produce.Can a capitalist economy be supply driven? What would that entail?

True, however do these fixtures and products go for the same price when the company is being liquidated to pay off debts that they'd go for when the company is doing its general business?

No, but price doesn't determine waste, does it?

Right; simply having a mug or a coffeepot and not using it isn't exploitative, however having something that you don't use and someone else needs is exploitative, if you are having some type of transaction with them.

It all depends on whether the labor force has something to exchange for it, and whether there are ample opportunities to exchange.

I don't doubt this, however I don't agree with it, either; do you know of some information on the internet on this topic that I could read to acquire further knowledge?

I'll see what I can find.

I'm not certain that you'll be able to reconcile your feelings on property with the fact that the worker in our present system has his/her side of the negotiation marginalized, it is mostly because of property that this is the case.

No, it is almost entirely limitations placed on the worker towards gaining property, not property itself. Those with wealth have a great interest in making sure that they have the inside track to gaining more property.

Can a capitalist economy be supply driven? What would that entail?

It is very debatable, opinions have shifted, and I think it is possible.

Supply side economics revolve around Say's Law: "Supply creates its own demand", which, in a simplified explanation, just means that overproduction causes lower prices which causes greater demand and a cleared inventory.

No, but price doesn't determine waste, does it?When the full potential of a product or fixture is not met, and it's only bought because the price is unprofitably low, then the unmet potential is wasted.

It all depends on whether the labor force has something to exchange for it, and whether there are ample opportunities to exchange.Well, in order to be exploited, you have to have something that the exploiter wants, so naturally the first part would be met. As far as the second part goes, by 'ample opportunies', do you mean a negotiation? If so, is it not possible than the end result of a negotiation still leaves one party exploited?

I'll see what I can find.Thank you. Don't put too much effort into it; if you can recommend a book, that would be all right, too.

No, it is almost entirely limitations placed on the worker towards gaining property, not property itself. Those with wealth have a great interest in making sure that they have the inside track to gaining more property.How to we ensure that those with wealth do not use their wealth in dubious ways to gain more property?

It is very debatable, opinions have shifted, and I think it is possible.

Supply side economics revolve around Say's Law: "Supply creates its own demand", which, in a simplified explanation, just means that overproduction causes lower prices which causes greater demand and a cleared inventory.Hm, interesting. You did say that you wanted overproduction, so I can see how you would support this. I do have to wonder if this would truly be desireable. Is it a good idea to use resources to overproduce something, when the resources ordinarily wouldn't be used, if these resources are not replenishable?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/harlesburg/OzflyodmobraPst.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/harlesburg/OzflyodmobraPst.pngI had no idea that the MOBRAs were Friends of Dorothy.

I had no idea that the MOBRAs were Friends of Dorothy.
I hear that Kansas is a hole.:p
VOTE MOBRA!

When the full potential of a product or fixture is not met, and it's only bought because the price is unprofitably low, then the unmet potential is wasted.

I doubt that this makes up any significant portion of the economy.

Well, in order to be exploited, you have to have something that the exploiter wants, so naturally the first part would be met. As far as the second part goes, by 'ample opportunies', do you mean a negotiation? If so, is it not possible than the end result of a negotiation still leaves one party exploited?

Ample opportunities = ample sources for exchange.

Thank you. Don't put too much effort into it; if you can recommend a book, that would be all right, too.

I take back the opinion I expressed, I was completely wrong.

How to we ensure that those with wealth do not use their wealth in dubious ways to gain more property?

Limitation of government scope.

Hm, interesting. You did say that you wanted overproduction, so I can see how you would support this. I do have to wonder if this would truly be desireable. Is it a good idea to use resources to overproduce something, when the resources ordinarily wouldn't be used, if these resources are not replenishable?

I don't think massive overproduction is a good thing, only that producing over current demand will work to raise real wages. The problem is that there will be a fall in nominal wages, and that causes shit storms because nobody understands economics.

Your question is a little off, as it is not so much that the resources wouldn't ordinarily be used, it is just that the economy at the state of production would not demand them. It doesn't cause overconsumption, it just causes higher living wages in comparison to pricing indexes, and thereby makes the worker wealthier. If you want to call a wealthier worker an overconsuming worker, so be it.

I doubt that this makes up any significant portion of the economy.Perhaps not. I suppose then I'll have to drop the point, not because I don't think capitalism is wasteful, but because you don't. I mean, I consider the 8-tracks and unused LPs and Beta tapes sitting in people's attics to be wasteful, but you don't. (At least I'm assuming that you wouldn't, as people bought them.) I suppose we simply have different definitions of wasteful.

Ample opportunities = ample sources for exchange.Ah, so several different potential employers, then?

Limitation of government scope.I'm not certain how this would be accomplished, but barring the government getting involved, there are still dubious methods for the propertied to increase their wealth. The way the mob does things is one way.

I don't think massive overproduction is a good thing, only that producing over current demand will work to raise real wages. The problem is that there will be a fall in nominal wages, and that causes shit storms because nobody understands economics.

Your question is a little off, as it is not so much that the resources wouldn't ordinarily be used, it is just that the economy at the state of production would not demand them. It doesn't cause overconsumption, it just causes higher living wages in comparison to pricing indexes, and thereby makes the worker wealthier. If you want to call a wealthier worker an overconsuming worker, so be it.I get the first paragraph, but not the second. Where would the resources be used if not at the state of production?
Additionally, would this be the most profitable economy for businessmen? If not, how would you convince them to accept it?

Perhaps not. I suppose then I'll have to drop the point, not because I don't think capitalism is wasteful, but because you don't. I mean, I consider the 8-tracks and unused LPs and Beta tapes sitting in people's attics to be wasteful, but you don't. (At least I'm assuming that you wouldn't, as people bought them.) I suppose we simply have different definitions of wasteful.

I don't think that capitalism isn't wasteful, I just think that the market, when left to operate, contains forces that combat waste. Your system doesn't have those forces.

To use your example, what happens in cases where products are rendered obsolete within your system, would that not result in waste as well, would second-hand markets even be existent?

That is certainly an exception to capitalistic efficiency, but it has the potential of being even worse under your system.

Ah, so several different potential employers, then?

Employers, lenders, sellers, markets.

I'm not certain how this would be accomplished, but barring the government getting involved, there are still dubious methods for the propertied to increase their wealth. The way the mob does things is one way.

I am not opposed to government being involved, I am opposed to government intervention. I do not want government to back off until there is a centralization of property through bought violence. I simply want government to back off, as even the most heralded liberal policies have been backed by big business for the purposes of limiting competition and strengthening their own position.

Who benefits more from production regulations: the small flexible business who specifically batch produces goods, or the streamline "Taylorized" big business that maintains a strict protocol on mass production?

A good perspective of government "regulation" and its implications for big business can be found here:

http://www.mutualist.org/id81.html

I get the first paragraph, but not the second. Where would the resources be used if not at the state of production?
Additionally, would this be the most profitable economy for businessmen? If not, how would you convince them to accept it?

They wouldn't be used if the weren't thrown into production, however, your question seemed to be a red-herring that implied wasteful production for the sake of production, which it would certainly not be.

And yes, it would be good for the businessmen as well (at least a zero-sum game), as they would maintain the same margin as the lower price of goods would be rolled over into lower nominal wages.

However, the nominal wages will be stickier than the price index, and so there will be a slow rise in real wages, which is what we should be ultimately concerned with (but due to our myopic nature, are not).

I don't think that capitalism isn't wasteful, I just think that the market, when left to operate, contains forces that combat waste. Your system doesn't have those forces.

To use your example, what happens in cases where products are rendered obsolete within your system, would that not result in waste as well, would second-hand markets even be existent?

That is certainly an exception to capitalistic efficiency, but it has the potential of being even worse under your system.From the Manifesto: * Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.

I interpret this to mean that the unused 8-tracks, etc. would be recycled. The system would have the goal of reducing waste for the sake of reducing waste, and not reducing waste only when it's profitable to do so.

Employers, lenders, sellers, markets.I can see how this would reduce the chances of exploitation, but I don't see how it can eliminate it entirely.

I am not opposed to government being involved, I am opposed to government intervention. I do not want government to back off until there is a centralization of property through bought violence. I simply want government to back off, as even the most heralded liberal policies have been backed by big business for the purposes of limiting competition and strengthening their own position.

Who benefits more from production regulations: the small flexible business who specifically batch produces goods, or the streamline "Taylorized" big business that maintains a strict protocol on mass production?

A good perspective of government "regulation" and its implications for big business can be found here:

http://www.mutualist.org/id81.htmlAll the more reason to not allow big businesses to form in the first place by not having great inequality of wealth.
That's fine that you don't want the government to intervene, but how do you plan on preventing the wealthy from using dubious methods to increase their wealth?

They wouldn't be used if the weren't thrown into production, however, your question seemed to be a red-herring that implied wasteful production for the sake of production, which it would certainly not be.

And yes, it would be good for the businessmen as well (at least a zero-sum game), as they would maintain the same margin as the lower price of goods would be rolled over into lower nominal wages.

However, the nominal wages will be stickier than the price index, and so there will be a slow rise in real wages, which is what we should be ultimately concerned with (but due to our myopic nature, are not).Ah, I see; yes, we were talking about capitalism being wasteful, so I can see how it could be seen that I was implying that it would be in this case.
So you're in favor of deflation?

From the Manifesto: * Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.

I interpret this to mean that the unused 8-tracks, etc. would be recycled. The system would have the goal of reducing waste for the sake of reducing waste, and not reducing waste only when it's profitable to do so.

Surely the 8-tracks could be recycled within the capitalistic economy as well.

And I want to point out that you don't reduce waste for the sake of reducing waste, as nobody acts for the sake of acting. There is some motive, what is it?


I can see how this would reduce the chances of exploitation, but I don't see how it can eliminate it entirely.

No system can eliminate entirely. Your system exploits the greater producers.

All the more reason to not allow big businesses to form in the first place by not having great inequality of wealth.
That's fine that you don't want the government to intervene, but how do you plan on preventing the wealthy from using dubious methods to increase their wealth?

If it is dubious, you legislate against it. If they accumulate wealth through contractual agreements, in which they serve the needs of others, so be it.

Ah, I see; yes, we were talking about capitalism being wasteful, so I can see how it could be seen that I was implying that it would be in this case.
So you're in favor of deflation?

Not particularly.

I think deflation can be good if it is represented by an increase in supply, rather than a decrease in demand.

EDIT: You would also like the fact that deflation marginalizes debt and penalizes the owners of illiquid property.

Surely the 8-tracks could be recycled within the capitalistic economy as well.

And I want to point out that you don't reduce waste for the sake of reducing waste, as nobody acts for the sake of acting. There is some motive, what is it?Well, presumably the motive would be to use fewer new resources; a capitalist economy would only have this as its goal if it's more profitable to recycle than to use new resources.

No system can eliminate entirely. Your system exploits the greater producers.I disagree. All producers agree to produce a certain amount in exchange for a certain fraction of the profits. If they enjoy producing more, then so be it, but they aren't exploited.

If it is dubious, you legislate against it. If they accumulate wealth through contractual agreements, in which they serve the needs of others, so be it.How do you have a government large enough to legislate against and enforce the legislation against dubious means but small enough that it can't really be affected by bribes?

Not particularly.

I think deflation can be good if it is represented by an increase in supply, rather than a decrease in demand.

EDIT: You would also like the fact that deflation marginalizes debt and penalizes the owners of illiquid property.Oh, wait, you're viewing deflation as a manipulation of the money supply as opposed to an across-the-board decrease in prices. So let me rephrase: your system would cause an across-the-board decrease in prices, which would make previously held debt more difficult to pay off.

Greetings comrades!
Tired of seeing the UDCP falter and fall? Want to bring a bit of consistency to the party and its programme? Want to see the implementation of proper communist policy and a drawing away from the krypto-liberalism of current party leadership?

It's time for the UDCP to change. It's time for a stronger, better organised party. It's time to take a consistent socialist stance on all issues. It's time for a scientific approach to socialism and an end to the utopian centrist party programme.

I am proud to announce the creation of a tendency within the UDCP. The Marxist Tendency is here to give a voice to leftists who feel the current party is too rightwards facing and tailist. The MT's objective is not to take over the UDCP, but to convince the majority of the need for a truly scientific Marxist approach to studying society, history, economics, the state and politics as a whole. We will aim to put forth a list of demands- possible changes to the current manifesto, possible changes to party structure, etc, within the next week.

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2048/marxtendencyaz0.jpg

Onwards to Communism!

^ Haha. You have the Trot propaganda style down pat, Dhomme.

/snipIt is true that we need some changes to the manifesto, so it is with hestitation that I look forward to your proposals.

It is true that we need some changes to the manifesto, so it is with hestitation that I look forward to your proposals.

They'll be marvelous, believe me.

You said that the market operated on free individuals trying to maximize their financial well being (all say that instead of profit, since profit is a loaded term around here), and that provides ample motive for not overconsuming.

"Financial well-being" and profit are not the same thing. The drive towards ever-increased profits goes beyond well-being and into the realm of useless wealth accumulated via exploitation of those who produce it; wealth for its own sake.

I disagree that the drive to profit discourages overconsumption. Unless your definition of overconsumption is very different to my own. There is no reason why being wasteful cannot generate a profit, and indeed it does; if it did not, there would be little or no wasteful overconsumption in capitalist societies.


As consumption of a good or resource goes up, the cost of producing and thus acquiring that resource goes up as well. Therefore, those participants of the market will begin to search for viable, cheaper (and thereby less consumed) replacements.


True, in theory at least. In practice, of course, it doesn't quite work that way. And this process in itself encourages competition, which inherently encourages overproduction.


There must be some general definition of necessity.

However, I don't think necessity will ever come into the picture, as it will be decided by voters, and voters are just as myopic as consumers.


Not if they possess necessary information, which consumers lack in a capitalist society flooding them with advertisements instead.


I asked you to explain how advertisements are not necessary to improve the aggregate lifestyle, in otherwords, how products that better people's lives will reach the market without some form of advertising. You responded that my view is the product of capitalistic advertising which has fed me a sense of "well-being."

I said that citizens would be informed of the appearance of new products which genuinely do improve people's lives (and are not senseless products designed to generate profits via the creation of artificial wants). I hesitate to call that "advertisements", since the latter term, to me, implies an attempt to generate interest rather than merely provide fact (i.e., inform people of the existence of the product or service).

Greetings comrades!
Tired of seeing the UDCP falter and fall? Want to bring a bit of consistency to the party and its programme? Want to see the implementation of proper communist policy and a drawing away from the krypto-liberalism of current party leadership?

It's time for the UDCP to change. It's time for a stronger, better organised party. It's time to take a consistent socialist stance on all issues. It's time for a scientific approach to socialism and an end to the utopian centrist party programme.

I am proud to announce the creation of a tendency within the UDCP. The Marxist Tendency is here to give a voice to leftists who feel the current party is too rightwards facing and tailist. The MT's objective is not to take over the UDCP, but to convince the majority of the need for a truly scientific Marxist approach to studying society, history, economics, the state and politics as a whole. We will aim to put forth a list of demands- possible changes to the current manifesto, possible changes to party structure, etc, within the next week.

Onwards to Communism!

Y'know, I do believe this is the first time we've been accused of being "crypto-liberalists", "centrists" and right-wing.

It's good to see a bit of internal debate within the party. We are a democracy, so what the party members want is what our manifesto will be.

I too look forward to your suggestions. ;)

Greetings comrades!
Tired of seeing the UDCP falter and fall? Want to bring a bit of consistency to the party and its programme? Want to see the implementation of proper communist policy and a drawing away from the krypto-liberalism of current party leadership?

It's time for the UDCP to change. It's time for a stronger, better organised party. It's time to take a consistent socialist stance on all issues. It's time for a scientific approach to socialism and an end to the utopian centrist party programme.

I am proud to announce the creation of a tendency within the UDCP. The Marxist Tendency is here to give a voice to leftists who feel the current party is too rightwards facing and tailist. The MT's objective is not to take over the UDCP, but to convince the majority of the need for a truly scientific Marxist approach to studying society, history, economics, the state and politics as a whole. We will aim to put forth a list of demands- possible changes to the current manifesto, possible changes to party structure, etc, within the next week.

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2048/marxtendencyaz0.jpg

Onwards to Communism!
Another vile creation?
One would expect for you to have fallen on your sword with your sub par performance.
VOTE MOBRA!

"Financial well-being" and profit are not the same thing. The drive towards ever-increased profits goes beyond well-being and into the realm of useless wealth accumulated via exploitation of those who produce it; wealth for its own sake.

That makes no sense.

I disagree that the drive to profit discourages overconsumption. Unless your definition of overconsumption is very different to my own. There is no reason why being wasteful cannot generate a profit, and indeed it does; if it did not, there would be little or no wasteful overconsumption in capitalist societies.

Being wasteful can generate a profit, but being less wasteful generates a greater profit, always.


True, in theory at least. In practice, of course, it doesn't quite work that way. And this process in itself encourages competition, which inherently encourages overproduction.


If you deny that these trends do not occur, you are dislodged from reality.

And how does competition inherently encourage overproduction?

Not if they possess necessary information, which consumers lack in a
capitalist society flooding them with advertisements instead.

http://www.consumerreports.org

I said that citizens would be informed of the appearance of new products which genuinely do improve people's lives (and are not senseless products designed to generate profits via the creation of artificial wants). I hesitate to call that "advertisements", since the latter term, to me, implies an attempt to generate interest rather than merely provide fact (i.e., inform people of the existence of the product or service).

I suppose your wonderful party is more than qualified to determine what products will improve people's lives?

That makes no sense.

I'm sorry you think that. I happen to believe it's fairly obvious.


Being wasteful can generate a profit, but being less wasteful generates a greater profit, always.

Undoubtedly. And if the market consisted in a single, unified producer, maybe it would limit waste, but, as I said, market competition prevents that, and de facto we see that the drive to profit does not prevent massive wastefulness.


If you deny that these trends do not occur, you are dislodged from reality.


They do not occur to a truly significant extent. If you believe the contrary, clearly you are not fully in touch with reality.


And how does competition inherently encourage overproduction?


Because producers offer a wide range of choice, and compete, within a same field. Granted, no producer will deliberately launch masses of produce onto the market with little hope of making a profit. That doesn't alter the fact that the very nature of competition encourages overproduction.


http://www.consumerreports.org


Sorry; poor wording on my part. They do not lack it fully, but I don't think you can deny the importance of advertisement.


I suppose your wonderful party is more than qualified to determine what products will improve people's lives?

Not by ourselves, no. We would of course consult with various experts, citizens themselves, and so forth. The detail of the process we haven't laid out yet; we may be the party with the most detailed manifesto, but we can't have everything organised down to the slightest detail yet. You've given us something to think about, and perhaps party members will want to contribute further ideas on this topic.

Undoubtedly. And if the market consisted in a single, unified producer, maybe it would limit waste, but, as I said, market competition prevents that, and de facto we see that the drive to profit does not prevent massive wastefulness.

Are you serious?

They do not occur to a truly significant extent. If you believe the contrary, clearly you are not fully in touch with reality.


How in the hell can scarcer products become cheaper? You are going to have to explain this to me, and perhaps provide examples.

Because producers offer a wide range of choice, and compete, within a same field. Granted, no producer will deliberately launch masses of produce onto the market with little hope of making a profit. That doesn't alter the fact that the very nature of competition encourages overproduction.

So producers "overproduce" to meet demand, or I guess I should call it "overdemand"?

Sorry; poor wording on my part. They do not lack it fully, but I don't think you can deny the importance of advertisement.

I do not deny the importance of advertisement, I am even stating that your system cannot do without advertisement.

I just don't understand how you think that the consumer does not have the ability to protect themselves.

Not by ourselves, no. We would of course consult with various experts, citizens themselves, and so forth. The detail of the process we haven't laid out yet; we may be the party with the most detailed manifesto, but we can't have everything organised down to the slightest detail yet. You've given us something to think about, and perhaps party members will want to contribute further ideas on this topic.

This party doesn't have everything laid out, but to follow precedent I assume this decision will be made democratically, to shrink the chances that one doesn't get a product that he/she truly needs.

Now, how do you suppose that a worker, inventor, or industry can go about the task of convincing the voting public that their product is desirable enough to gain the society's resources?

How do you wish to stop the voting public from choosing products that you deem to be "unnecessary"?

Hey Comrades, I haven't posted in a long while. Can anyone clue me in on what's been going on lately?

Hey Comrades, I haven't posted in a long while. Can anyone clue me in on what's been going on lately?

DHomme has joined in his own faction. In true British Entryist-Trotskyist style, I might add.

They'll be marvelous, believe me.Could you post one or two of your proposed changes now, in order to stir debate for the election? (And also to help bump the thread. :))

I suppose your wonderful party is more than qualified to determine what products will improve people's lives?
No, but the general public is...

Oh - please could we change a policy - I don't think that education should be compulsory up until university level, more up to sixth-form level (to the age of eighteen), the reason being that some people really aren't interested in education, and they could be helping us more by going into some fairly easy work at that age instead.

The option should always be open for free university education, but it shouldn't be compulsory.

Could you post one or two of your proposed changes now, in order to stir debate for the election? (And also to help bump the thread. :))

Okay. (please forgive me if I don't say much after this, I've starting going to a college in Oxford so dont have access to the internet for about half the week)

I'll make a couple of points now, just on various issues I've noticed. Next week I'll try and give a fuller critique.

Cannabis would be legalised, with regulation and high safety standards; also education on the risks of drugs would be implemented to enable people to make an informed choice.


Why aren't we pushing for the legalisation of all drugs? Why do we pick one for being less damaging to individuals and subsquently okay to legalise. The fact is, by only making cannabis legal, you leave the rest of the drugs' status at illegal. People are still gonna do them and because theres no government control or monitoring of this illegal market, you can bet your ass that there'll be overdoses, duds, poisons, blackmail, theft, murder, kidnappings, etc etc.

Identity cards would be introduced.

Any particular reason why?

* Decisions on some issues would be local or regional decisions (i.e. decentralization)

This really needs to be cleared up as at the moment its kinda vague. What sort of decisions should be taken at local level? Why should decisions be taken at local level?

* Direct democracy would mean there would be no parliament, as decisions would be made by the people, leading to a form of anarchy.

I have several issues with your government structure. (primarily because your flow-chart is confusing). There cannot be 100percent direct democracy as it is impractical. There are hundreds of day to day decisions to be made, and it would be ridiculous to try and sort it all out through voting as that would take huge amounts of time. The day to day running of the country should come from elected, accountable and open representatives' of the working class.
I also noticed in your flow chart that there are unelected civil servants in your government. So we're going to give some people authority without accountability then?

DHomme has joined in his own faction. In true British Entryist-Trotskyist style, I might add.

At least we haven't split yet. Or founded a newspaper.

Okay. (please forgive me if I don't say much after this, I've starting going to a college in Oxford so dont have access to the internet for about half the week)

I'll make a couple of points now, just on various issues I've noticed. Next week I'll try and give a fuller critique.Fair enough, thank you for these few.

Why aren't we pushing for the legalisation of all drugs? Why do we pick one for being less damaging to individuals and subsquently okay to legalise. The fact is, by only making cannabis legal, you leave the rest of the drugs' status at illegal. People are still gonna do them and because theres no government control or monitoring of this illegal market, you can bet your ass that there'll be overdoses, duds, poisons, blackmail, theft, murder, kidnappings, etc etc.It could conceivably be argued that if people are educated about the dangers of drugs, nobody would do them.

Any particular reason why?I'm not entirely certain, but I can see a use for it by ensuring that someone who is getting the resources of the society is a working member of the society and not someone just passing through.


This really needs to be cleared up as at the moment its kinda vague. What sort of decisions should be taken at local level? Why should decisions be taken at local level?I think the decisions that should be taken at the local level are the ones that involve only the locality. The reason for this is that it's more democratic.

I have several issues with your government structure. (primarily because your flow-chart is confusing). There cannot be 100percent direct democracy as it is impractical. There are hundreds of day to day decisions to be made, and it would be ridiculous to try and sort it all out through voting as that would take huge amounts of time. The day to day running of the country should come from elected, accountable and open representatives' of the working class.
I also noticed in your flow chart that there are unelected civil servants in your government. So we're going to give some people authority without accountability then?Delegates could conceivably be elected.
I'm not certain that civil servants have authority; presumably they'd be making copies and running errands and the like. No authority there.

lol this closest to communists here?? :confused:

this got any conenction to a rl communist ideology like marxist lenninsm maosim etc?

I almost voted for you guys.

No, but the general public is...

Which, of course, requires advertisements on the part of the producers in order to make the general public aware of products that could enter the market.

this got any conenction to a rl communist ideology like marxist lenninsm maosim etc?

Yeah. Mao. What a leg.

this got any conenction to a rl communist ideology like marxist lenninsm maosim etc?It seems to be an amalgam of Marxism and Bakuninist thought.

We've won 3 seats in Parliament. The results can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772706&postcount=140).

We now need to decide upon 3 MPs, and announce them here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502218) as soon as possible.

For the benefit of our newest members, perhaps it would be easier to do that here than in the Party forum.

Also, I'll get round to addressing suggestions and comments in this thread... as soon as I have time. It just seems to fly these days; sorry.

I have several issues with your government structure. (primarily because your flow-chart is confusing). There cannot be 100percent direct democracy as it is impractical. There are hundreds of day to day decisions to be made, and it would be ridiculous to try and sort it all out through voting as that would take huge amounts of time. The day to day running of the country should come from elected, accountable and open representatives' of the working class.
Quite so. I'd like to take the time to clarify this in a traditional three-branch way:

Legislative:
This is the 'direct democracy' you were talking about. Laws would be drafted by the people in a forum system, like in NS, and passed by an absolute majority of votes at a similar online referendum.

I would also support a non-partisan elected 'upper house' of the legislature (with the people directly as the 'lower' to pass the budget and review bills, with no legislative initative. Just as a 'safety' precaution.

Executive:
This is what we haven't really touched upon. I would support an executive council, again elected by a nonpartisan vote to distribute executive posts amomng themselves, and be responsible for the civil service.

Judicial:
Possibly elected, as in some US States, but possibly with some restrictions and with staggered electoral cycle.

I also noticed in your flow chart that there are unelected civil servants in your government. So we're going to give some people authority without accountability then?
All civil servants are unelected. Would you really elect all the tens thousands of individuals, from managers to receptionists, or have them accountable to elected bodies?

I agree with DHomme on the administration issue, although these petty administrators would be locally elected. This seems just as feasible as our system of direct democracy. All administrators should be popularlly elected and subject to recall.

We've won 3 seats in Parliament. The results can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772706&postcount=140).

We now need to decide upon 3 MPs, and announce them here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502218) as soon as possible.


A quick BUMP to ask who'd be interested in taking a seat in Parliament.

A quick BUMP to ask who'd be interested in taking a seat in Parliament.
*Puts on moustache and silly hat, waves a red flag*

I say, old chap, I'll take that seat off your hands for you if you like!

A quick BUMP to ask who'd be interested in taking a seat in Parliament.Naturally, you're the first choice. Are you interested, and will you have time to do it?

Naturally, you're the first choice. Are you interested, and will you have time to do it?

I can't say with absolute confidence that I will. If we can't find three people willing and able to be active MPs, I'll take a seat and make this as much a priority as I can, but I'm not going to stand in the way of more active candidates.

BUMPing before going to get some sleep. I'll check back on this tomorrow.

Could I join this? I'm a Socialist in RL, and would like to take part..

I'm willing to offer myself up to the slaughter again. :)

I'll have a go. I've got time on my hands between classes :D

Could I join this? I'm a Socialist in RL, and would like to take part..

Welcome! Please feel free to suggest any new ideas or modifications to the manifesto. :)


I'm willing to offer myself up to the slaughter again. :)


I'll have a go. I've got time on my hands between classes :D

That's great! Unless there are any objections (which I don't imagine there will be), you're both in.

Have we got a volunteer for the third seat? I'll give it another day or two, and if there's no-one I'll step in.

Have we got a volunteer for the third seat? I'll give it another day or two, and if there's no-one I'll step in.


If you wouldn't mind a new addition, I'll volunteer for the seat. I know I just joined, so if thats a problem, I'm cool with that. I'm just stating my interest :)

If you wouldn't mind a new addition, I'll volunteer for the seat. I know I just joined, so if thats a problem, I'm cool with that. I'm just stating my interest :)

Thank you for volunteering. :)

How does everyone feel about this?

Thank you for volunteering. :)

How does everyone feel about this?

Nothing wrong with new blood, I'm sure.:D

Nothing wrong with new blood, I'm sure.:D

Thank you!

Thank you for volunteering. :)

How does everyone feel about this?

If I do recieve a seat, what would my "job" be?

If I do recieve a seat, what would my "job" be?

To vote on proposals made by MPs. Also, you can write your own proposals for Parliament to vote on. Your task would be to represent UDCP voters, who elected you on the basis of the Party's manifesto.

To vote on proposals made by MPs. Also, you can write your own proposals for Parliament to vote on. Your task would be to represent UDCP voters, who elected you on the basis of the Party's manifesto.

Basically like a UN Regional Delegate then. Awsome.

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg

The MANIFESTO is now complete! see below.

NS political parties main thread: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8861158#post8861158)


the UDCP micronation, The People's Democratic Republic of Novus Aequalitas, can be found at www.udcp.org (http://www.udcp.org)


please, no right-wingers gatecrashing, flamebaiting or generally causing trouble:)

check out the UDCP dedicated discussion forum here (http://udcp.11.forumer.com/index.php)
our NSWiki page can be found here (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Democratic_Communist_Party)

come join our Region (http://www.nationstates.net/85429/page=display_region/region=democratic_communist_states)if you're interested in the party




Comrades:

Ariddia (http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/new%20folder/nlmeboat3mm%202.jpg) - MP
PM (http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/HuwChe/huwche.jpg)
Kanabia (http://img45.echo.cx/img45/7504/commie8gw.jpg)
Rus024
Ramur
Jello Biafra
Macatia
Sonho Real
Glitziness - babe
Jello Biafra
Warta Endor
Cafetopia
New Burmesia - MP
Revionia
Constantinopolis
Potaria
Eurocountry
(Druidvale)
Pyromanstahn
Tograna
Hallad
Bloodthirsty squirrels
Londonburg
Diamond Realms/Tiger Diamond
Pyro Kittens
Branin
Zrrylarg
Human Divinity
Lamorkand
Thekalu
Michaelic France
Tremerica
China3

(if i've left you off the list don't hesitate to TG me)

Party supporters/friends:
Kirol
Cool Dynasty 42

just post if you want to join and feel free to discuss the issues and our proposals

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

UDCP MANIFESTO

The United Democratic Communist Party, affirming that capitalism is degrading to humankind, contrary to the most basic rights of individual, and is not conducive to a coherent society in which the well-being of all would be upheld and ensured, presents the following to all NS General voters as its manifesto.


THE ECONOMY:
* The economy would be fully nationalised.
* Money would be abolished, in favour of a system based on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. All members of society would produce, and in return take what they need for free. Various types of contribution to society would be accepted.
* Needs would be met via an assessment of what people require, so that production of any given item may be diminished or increased in due relation.
* A transitional system would accompany the abolishment of money, during which guidelines would be issued to help people assess what they should take, and enable them not to worry about taking too much or too little.
* A central distribution network would be established, supplying information to all as to available products. Distribution centres will eventually become largely automated. This network would enable the people to have direct control over the means of production and distribution, as they could discuss production of various goods and decide on the necessity to produce greater or lesser quantities of any given good. There would be several layers to this network, from international to almost local, with local products being outside the network.
* During the transitional period, taxes on wealth being hoarded and gradual elimination of money will be instituted along with gradually publicised services, gradual government control over distribution of goods and encouraged communal sharing.
* Ensuring that all basic needs such as housing, warmth, water and food are met for all would be a priority.
* All those contributing to society to the best of their ability would be able to obtain whatever they may need, including recreational means.
* For “undesirable” and unskilled jobs, a large-scale rota system would be instituted, functioning on a local level so that everyone is involved. This rota system would work on a short-term basis, with citizens being required only to do a particular job for a couple of days out of every fortnight, dependent on local government decision and requirement. Groups of people in demand would be exempt - i.e., if there is a shortage in doctors, they would be exempt from the rota system. Any person unwilling to assist would have their rights limited, and persistent offenders would have their citizenship revoked. People would be encouraged to participate willingly, as a means of contributing to the well-being of the community. The rota would serve to fill gaps, as people would be encouraged to voluntarily contribute to the workload. Those who have rights limited or citizenship revoked will never be denied basic rights to life, such as food, water, shelter.
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)


HEALTH CARE
* Free healthcare would be provided to all.
* Increased effort would be invested into information and research regarding cancer and Aids.
* Family planning programmes, and contraception techniques, would be taught and encouraged.
* Contraception would be made widely available to all.


EDUCATION
* Education, including university education, would be made free for all.
* Education would be compulsory for all, from the age of four to university level (with flexible years).
* Education would be a high priority.
* Lessons in philosophy and critical thinking would be compulsory.
* Training and apprenticeship schemes would be introduced and encouraged on top of existing learning methods with vocational courses.
* Individuals would be nurtured and encouraged, their varied skills and abilities being taken into account.
* Sex education would be highly prioritised along with general health and safety.


GOVERNANCE:
* See our graphical flowchart of government. (http://www.hlj.me.uk/government%203.jpg)
* There would be a written constitution.
* All residents in the country would have the right to vote.
* There would be a strict separation between the state, police and judiciary systems.
* The voting age would be set at 16.
* Direct democracy would be implemented through the means of a tech system with various levels of forums to discuss issues. There would be trained personnel to organise and run this system, writing proposals, putting the laws into effect and organising local meetings at least on an annual basis. Voting would eventually be done through a tech system once a developed, reliable system is formed.
* Voting would be done in special buildings with an electronic system rather than at home for security reasons.
* Decisions on some issues would be local or regional decisions (i.e. decentralization).
* The education (and health) system(s) in particular would be granted more autonomy at local level, with greater involvement of parents to be encouraged, with respect to Governance (decentralisation).
* Direct democracy would mean there would be no parliament, as decisions would be made by the people, leading to a form of anarchy.


THE ENVIRONMENT:
* A more extensive public transport would be gradually set up, and a limit placed upon the use of private cars (or, at least, they would be discouraged).
* Efforts would be made to strongly cut back on the wastage of over-production.
* Fossil fuels would be abandoned in favour of clean, renewable forms of energy: wind, solar, tidal…
* Efforts would be put into discovering ways to make nuclear power safer, as a supplement.
* Recycling and sustainable production methods would be encouraged.
* The Kyoto agreement would be adhered to.


FREEDOM:
* All forms of discrimination would be strongly opposed, be they based on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, age, religion or any other aspect.
* Freedom of speech and religion would be upheld. (Note: inciting riots and threats are crimes and not protected under freedom of speech)
* Euthanasia would be permitted (and legalised through Living Wills).
* The right to life would be upheld, and there would thus be no capital punishment.
* Abortion would be allowed within 19 weeks of pregnancy, if the pregnancy is a result of rape, would endanger the mothers life, would cause serious mental harm or if the mother is in full-time education with at least one compulsory counselling session, a five week wait to prevent rash decisions, and would be coupled with improved childcare and adoption services. (Note: whether abortion would be allowed in a wider range of situations is still under debate)


SCIENCE:
* Human cloning would be prohibited.
* Embryonic stem-cell research would be permitted.
* Cosmetic animal testing would be abolished, and research into alternatives for scientific animal testing instigated.


ANIMAL CRUELTY:
* Measures would be implemented to ensure the prevention of cruelty to animals.


CRIME:
* Rehabilitation would be favoured over punishment.


MILITARY:
* Voting would become a minor part in military decisions, with strong guidance from trained military personnel in order to ensure consistency within a given campaign.
* There would be no participation in war except in extreme cases.
* A small military unit only would be retained, based exclusively on self-defence.

DRUGS:
* Cannabis would be legalised, with regulation and high safety standards; also education on the risks of drugs would be implemented to enable people to make an informed choice.
* The legal age for cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis would be set at 16.


TRAFFIC CONTROL:
* Tighter traffic controls would be implemented, including lower speed limits, especially in the vicinity of schools, residential districts and inner-city areas; these laws would be flexible so that exceeding the limit by just a few miles would not be punished, or would incur a smaller punishment or fine.


OTHER ISSUES:
* The age of consent would be flexible and examined on a case by case basis, a rough age being 15 years and age differences being taken into account.
* Arts and culture would be encouraged.
* Identity cards would be introduced.
* Marriage would be redefined as a free union with separate religious additions if wanted.
* All genuine asylum seekers and skilled/qualified immigrants would be welcomed.

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

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif workers of the world unite! http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/html/emoticons/hammersickle.gif
http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP%202.jpg

Come on people! How many communist countrys are there in the world?Five. Five out of 191. Communism is dead. It has never worked and never will. It looks perfect on paper but put it in practice and all you have is a Totalitarian Dictatorship Monarchy.:rolleyes: Is THIS what the world is coming to?

COMMUNISM :mp5:

Come on people! How many communist countrys are there in the world?Five. Five out of 191. Communism is dead. It has never worked and never will. It looks perfect on paper but put it in practice and all you have is a Totalitarian Dictatorship Monarchy.:rolleyes: Is THIS what the world is coming to?

COMMUNISM :mp5:

We are entitled to our opinions. We believe that a true democratic Communist Society can work.

We are entitled to our opinions. We believe that a true democratic Communist Society can work.

Not with no money. How would we buy goods from OTHER countrys?

Trolls are yummie. Can you get them in communism?!?

Come on people! How many communist countrys are there in the world?Five. Five out of 191. Communism is dead. It has never worked and never will. It looks perfect on paper but put it in practice and all you have is a Totalitarian Dictatorship Monarchy.:rolleyes: Is THIS what the world is coming to?

COMMUNISM :mp5:

Himleret, you obviously would be more receptive to the platform of the NSCL.

We are supporters of capitalism and freedom and we do confront the UDCP on many issues.

However, if you do decide to participate in our discussions, I would ask you to listen very closely to our arguments. While they will strengthen your support for capitalism, they will provide you with an understanding of communism and political economy in general. With that understanding you can counter the ideology of communism on their level, using their terms.

Come on people! How many communist countrys are there in the world?Zero.

Not with no money. How would we buy goods from OTHER countrys?From the Manifesto:
* For use in trading internationally through governments, a “barter” system would be implemented aimed at exchanging imports for exports, value depending on quantity and demand; all efforts would nonetheless be made towards self-reliance. Intergovernmental international trade would focus on importing raw materials rather than finished goods. Trade with any trading partners who are reluctant to barter would be based on the money already in the country, as well as efforts to ensure that the quantity and value of exports constantly supersede those of imports. (Note: in ideological communism this would not be necessary as communism would be international but assuming this is not the case, this system would come into effect.)

COMMUNISM :mp5:

Why do people feel the need to portray themselves as idiots by using gun smilies?

As for your "arguments", Jello Biafra has countered them nicely. But then, they were easy. You questioned the manifesto without reading it, and you don't even know what communism means.

Now, regarding MPs... Shall we give it another 24 hours, then, if there are no further candidates, make Jello Biafra, New Burmesia and Wanderjar our MPs?

Now, regarding MPs... Shall we give it another 24 hours, then, if there are no further candidates, make Jello Biafra, New Burmesia and Wanderjar our MPs?


I am perfectly fine with that :)


If noone has any problem with me as an MP, then I will be honored to take a seat.

Since there are no objections, I've officially announced our MPs. Congratulations to the three of you!

Now you'll have to be active in Parliament. ;)

Since there are no objections, I've officially announced our MPs. Congratulations to the three of you!

Now you'll have to be active in Parliament. ;)Why thank you. It will be an honor to serve the party in Parliament.

Since there are no objections, I've officially announced our MPs. Congratulations to the three of you!

Now you'll have to be active in Parliament. ;)

Thank you for the opportunity. I will serve well.


Is there a Parliment thread?

Speaking of Parliament, what's the plan of action? Will the UDCP be forming any coalitions with other parties, possibly for majority control?

Congratulations to JB, New Burmesia, and Wanderjar from myself and the NS Classic Liberals.

Speaking of Parliament, what's the plan of action? Will the UDCP be forming any coalitions with other parties, possibly for majority control?Personally, I'm thinking of having Parliament alter the number of MPs, as well as a couple of other alterations, and then disbanding itself, with a specific plan for how the next election is to be conducted and when.
What are your ideas?

Congratulations to JB, New Burmesia, and Wanderjar from myself and the NS Classic Liberals.Why thank you. I see you're campaigning early. :) Good, it's never too early.

Congratulations to JB, New Burmesia, and Wanderjar from myself and the NS Classic Liberals.

Thank you!

Personally, I'm thinking of having Parliament alter the number of MPs, as well as a couple of other alterations, and then disbanding itself, with a specific plan for how the next election is to be conducted and when.
What are your ideas?

Sounds like a plan. I think the number of joke parties was rather rediculous last election. More MPs, but higher member requirement to participate in the elections. I think that would be a good idea. Next election should be ASAP.

Sounds like a plan. I think the number of joke parties was rather rediculous last election. More MPs, but higher member requirement to participate in the elections. I think that would be a good idea. Next election should be ASAP.

I'm assuming theres a Parliment thread? or if not, where is it held?

I'm assuming theres a Parliment thread? or if not, where is it held?There will be once all parties have named their MPs. In the meantime, you should familiarize yourself with the UDCP Platform.

Is there a Parliment thread?

There will be as soon as- Oh. JB's beaten me to it. ;)


Speaking of Parliament, what's the plan of action? Will the UDCP be forming any coalitions with other parties, possibly for majority control?

Possibly, although I'm not too sure how we could obtain a majority. Rather than seeking a formal coalition, I would suggest trying to put forward elements of our manifesto which a majority of MPs may be persuaded to vote in favour of.

Personally, I'm thinking of having Parliament alter the number of MPs, as well as a couple of other alterations, and then disbanding itself, with a specific plan for how the next election is to be conducted and when.
I am opposed to the idea of disbanding the Parliament (sounds like a policy of the losers to me, wotwot!), but I hope you will support our Constitutional reform plans. If you have any comments or suggested alterations to it, I would be happy to consider them for inclusion in the final Bill.

It's my desire to get the arguments about electoral reform done as soon as possible, preferably before Parliament sits, so that the proposals can be introduced and passed as soon as the session begins. That way, Parliament might actually do something beyond argue about the election itself this time.

Parliament might actually do something

I'm afraid that this is physically impossible, according to Newton's lesser known Law Of Ineffective Internet Governments.

I'm afraid that this is physically impossible, according to Newton's lesser known Law Of Ineffective Internet Governments.
:rolleyes:

Parliament might actually create some threads and vote on things that don't actually change anything anywhere.

Better?

There will be as soon as- Oh. JB's beaten me to it. ;)



Possibly, although I'm not too sure how we could obtain a majority. Rather than seeking a formal coalition, I would suggest trying to put forward elements of our manifesto which a majority of MPs may be persuaded to vote in favour of.

Thanks JB, and Ariddia, thanks anyway.

And in response to Trotskylvania, I personally wouldn't be opposed to the Socialists Aligning with the Communists at all. Of course, thats for Ariddia to decide.

Seeing as you guys are weighing in on the chances of electoral reform, I would like to make an important point. I think the expansion of parliament should be considered secondary to a new system of seat distribution. I prefer to the St. Laugue (sp?) method that New Burmesia posted, with a high value in the denominator.

While this would somewhat undermine a truly proportional allotment of seats, it would allow in the smaller parties. Under the system it is likely that small parties would only recieve one seat, which would most likely be filled by the party leader. Party leaders, by virtue of starting a party, can be assumed to be active and enthusiastic, which is a trait the past parliaments have not had an abundance of.

Also, I think it is wrong (and a little hypocritical) to try and keep joke parties out.

Finally, there needs to be a secondary forum set up for the action of parliament, so that posting can be controlled.

Thanks JB, and Ariddia, thanks anyway.

And in response to Trotskylvania, I personally wouldn't be opposed to the Socialists Aligning with the Communists at all. Of course, thats for Ariddia to decide.Oh no, we as a party would decide it, not just Ariddia.

Seeing as you guys are weighing in on the chances of electoral reform, I would like to make an important point. I think the expansion of parliament should be considered secondary to a new system of seat distribution. I prefer to the St. Laugue (sp?) method that New Burmesia posted, with a high value in the denominator.

While this would somewhat undermine a truly proportional allotment of seats, it would allow in the smaller parties. Under the system it is likely that small parties would only recieve one seat, which would most likely be filled by the party leader. Party leaders, by virtue of starting a party, can be assumed to be active and enthusiastic, which is a trait the past parliaments have not had an abundance of.

Also, I think it is wrong (and a little hypocritical) to try and keep joke parties out.

Finally, there needs to be a secondary forum set up for the action of parliament, so that posting can be controlled.Do you mean a separate forum set up as part of the NationStates site, or a separate forum entirely?

Oh no, we as a party would decide it, not just Ariddia.

Do you mean a separate forum set up as part of the NationStates site, or a separate forum entirely?

We need control of those who are posting and what they are posting to maintain a parliamentary debate. Those picked by our electorate are far more likely to ruin threads talking about cheese.

Oh no, we as a party would decide it, not just Ariddia.

Do you mean a separate forum set up as part of the NationStates site, or a separate forum entirely?

I suggested a spearate forum in Sound & Fury, as I noticed it was completely impossible to to do any productive work in General without bumping every five minutes, since only 25 MPs were working on it and never at the same time.

Oh no, we as a party would decide it, not just Ariddia.



I stand corrected!

*Inserts foot into mouth*

;)

bump

So what does the party think about the idea of electoral reform?

So what does the party think about the idea of electoral reform?

I supported it, although when posting in support I did so in a personal capacity, not as a representative of the UDCP.

Oh no, we as a party would decide it, not just Ariddia.


Indeed. This is a democracy.

Don't put all the pressure on me! :p

More seriously, I'm open to more or less anything in terms of Parliamentary reforms. As long as it remains basically logical and fair in terms of representing the electorate.

Which parties does everyone think we should attempt to form a coalition with?

Which parties does everyone think we should attempt to form a coalition with?

Possibly the Socialists, though most of them are firmly pro-capitalist, and socialist in name only. I can't see Neo Undelia and the HRP allying with us either. And other than that, there are 14 MPs (a majority!) representing joke parties.

A coalition seems virtually impossible. Not that I'm convinced it's needed. I think it would be better to target MPs for support on a case by case basis.

Possibly the Socialists, though most of them are firmly pro-capitalist, and socialist in name only. I can't see Neo Undelia and the HRP allying with us either. And other than that, there are 14 MPs (a majority!) representing joke parties.

A coalition seems virtually impossible. Not that I'm convinced it's needed. I think it would be better to target MPs for support on a case by case basis.All right; if the case was electoral reform, who do you think would support it?

All right; if the case was electoral reform, who do you think would support it?

The parties that have the post to gain from it :rolleyes: ...

The parties that have the post to gain from it :rolleyes: ...True; I suppose I meant electoral reform of the type that you proposed in the Parliament thread.

I take it that we're opposed to the Bill For Proper English?
It can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504391

I take it that we're opposed to the Bill For Proper English?
It can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=504391

I object to it personally, since it is an intrusion into individual liberty and freedom of speech and expression.

I object to it personally, since it is an intrusion into individual liberty and freedom of speech and expression.I agree. Should be consider this to be nay, on all counts?

Also, what do you (and everyone else) think of the nudity bill?

Greetings comrades!

This is an official statement produced by the Tendency on the latest developing situation:

The UDCP has been unable to capitalise on the weakness of other leftist parties during this election. The lack of the MLP (ex-RTP), the weakness of the DSP, the ridiculousness of the PUNKS AND PIRATES and the poor support for PM's split all gave the UDCP a firm chance to establish itself as the voice of the working class on NSG, and yet it failed.

The opportunity was squandered due to poor organisation and inability to drive out left-wing voters in support against "novelty parties". Was an effective campaign drive to have been organised (regional advertising, advertising/agitating in other parties' threads, pushing UDCP party line during general political debates, etc) then it would have been entirely possible for the UDCP to have moved forwards to the position of being the largest party in parliament, but now we are a minority, forced to work with former enemies just to hold off the attacks of the right.

The UDCP is unable to do this (and to a certain extent, has been unable to do this in the past) due to a lack of a scientific understanding of the role of the party, how a party should work, and of politics in general. Without addressing these key questions the UDCP will not be able to strengthen it's position as confusion over tactics, issues and programme will characterise our party.

With this in mind the Tendency will now put forth our answers to some of the key questions our party must come to terms with.

1) How should our party operate? We currently appear to have de facto bureaucratic leaders who decide and change policy based on the smattering of debate coming from often less than half-a-dozen individuals on these pages. For a democratic party this is highly undemocratic. We must establish an accurate database of all active members, who can be telegrammed or contacted by other means to vote on issues of policy. If the party proves to be large enough then it may be worth electing an International Council/ Secreteriate to produce statements and do some day to day running. We propose this group be held accuntable and recallable at all times.

2) How do we pick MP's? At the minute it's simply a case of "first person with their hand up gets it". Once again this Communist party is acting very undemocratically. A slate system should be used to allow the members of the party to pick who represents us. Those MP's should be recallable at any time, as with anyone in a position of power in the party. They should be held to argue the party line on all issues in parliament and never deviate from the party line in way of voting. MP's are elected as representatives of our party and they must remember that.

3) What is the role of our party? We must establish now that our aim is not to be a socialist party attempting to establish socialism using the existing powers of the bourgeoise state. We are focused on the establishment of rival sources of power based on the working class, with the eventual aim of abolishing capitalism and ensuring the survival of the workers' state. We must be prepared to use violence as a means of defending the gains of the working class, and not allow ourselves to be put in the noose of capital by accepting pacifism as being right in every situation.

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2048/marxtendencyaz0.jpg

For a Marxist UDCP.

1) How should our party operate? We currently appear to have de facto bureaucratic leaders who decide and change policy based on the smattering of debate coming from often less than half-a-dozen individuals on these pages. For a democratic party this is highly undemocratic. We must establish an accurate database of all active members, who can be telegrammed or contacted by other means to vote on issues of policy. If the party proves to be large enough then it may be worth electing an International Council/ Secreteriate to produce statements and do some day to day running. We propose this group be held accuntable and recallable at all times.

2) How do we pick MP's? At the minute it's simply a case of "first person with their hand up get's it". Once again this Communist party is acting very undemocratically. A slate system should be used to allow the members of the party to pick who represents us. Those MP's should be recallable at any time, as with anyone in a position of power in the party.

The functioning of the Party is democratic in the sense that any member can have a say, but many simply choose not to. Any ideas to make members more active are certainly worth discussing, though.


They should be held to argue the party line on all issues in parliament and never deviate from the party line in way of voting. MP's are elected as representatives of our party and they must remember that.


A contentious issue but, again, one worth discussing.


3) What is the role of our party? We must establish now that our aim is not to be a socialist party attempting to establish socialism using the existing powers of the bourgeoise state. We are focused on the establishment of rival sources of power based on the working class, with the eventual aim of abolishing capitalism and ensuring the survival of the workers' state. We must be prepared to use violence as a means of defending the gains of the working class, and not allow ourselves to be put in the noose of capital by accepting pacifism as being right in every situation.


I believe that a violent revolution is inherently self-defeating, and that we should not be advocating it. Our aim should be to educate voters and help them understand communism, not try to force socialism upon them. Using violence when the people are not ready for socialism, when they have not been educated for it, will simply lead to them resisting it. Communism can, by definition, only be reached by consensus, given that a communist society cannot be anything but democratic.

The functioning of the Party is democratic in the sense that any member can have a say, but many simply choose not to. Any ideas to make members more active are certainly worth discussing, though.I agree. Posting in this thread is no more taxing than responding to a telegram; I see no particular reason why people would do the latter but not the former.

A contentious issue but, again, one worth discussing.Well, MPs are required to poll the party members before voting; the members would decide when to stick to the party line or deviate in a particular instance. Of course, this has the problem mentioned above.

I believe that a violent revolution is inherently self-defeating, and that we should not be advocating it. Our aim should be to educate voters and help them understand communism, not try to force socialism upon them. Using violence when the people are not ready for socialism, when they have not been educated for it, will simply lead to them resisting it. Communism can, by definition, only be reached by consensus, given that a communist society cannot be anything but democratic.Agreed.

I believe that a violent revolution is inherently self-defeating, and that we should not be advocating it. Our aim should be to educate voters and help them understand communism, not try to force socialism upon them. Using violence when the people are not ready for socialism, when they have not been educated for it, will simply lead to them resisting it. Communism can, by definition, only be reached by consensus, given that a communist society cannot be anything but democratic.

You're kidding yourself. You honestly think there will be a day when the billionaires and their lackeys decide to support the rule of the working class, despite the fact that it will materially disadvantage them? You honestly think that without changing the power structure and economic base of society we can alleviate every man woman and child to a level of socialist consciousness?

If you honestly think that communism will be reached without reactionaries' attempts to destroy it and the ensuing bloodshed then you are living in a utopian world. We must be willing to defend the tools of the workers' state against everything the crumbling elements of national capitalism and the contrinued powerhouse of imperialism will be willing to throw at us.

You overlook the fact that there are people out there who know what they are doing, and the system that they support, is inherently wrong. They are willing to use violence to crush dissent and alternative ways of thinking. We must not allow ourselves to become yet another group of martyrs, remembered for their bloody deaths and not the society they helped establish.

I agree. Posting in this thread is no more taxing than responding to a telegram; I see no particular reason why people would do the latter but not the former.Actually, I want to alter this. I think it's a good idea to get an updated list of current members. If, after that has been done, DHomme is willing to telegram each member to vote on each issue, then I am perfectly willing to agree to it.

Actually, I want to alter this. I think it's a good idea to get an updated list of current members. If, after that has been done, DHomme is willing to telegram each member to vote on each issue, then I am perfectly willing to agree to it.

I may not be the best choice seeing as i don't have access to the internet from sundays til thursdays. As I said, if the active membership is large enough then perhaps an accountable leadership body could be established to do day to day running of the party.

I can't get 'em up
I can't get 'em up
I can't get 'em up this morning
I can't get 'em up
I can't get 'em up
I can't get 'em up at all!

BUMP

Do I have to do all the work round here?

Nope:

Parliamentary Procedures (Quorum) Bill
The section of the Procedures "Debate paragraph 2" shall read as follows:

"2. If the proposal receives indication of interest from at least one fifth (6) of the parliament it is to be debated."

SUPPORTERS

1. New Burmesia
2. Gravlen
3. Kinda Sensible People
4. Fleckenstein
5. Ifreann
6. Philosophy
7. The Friesland colony


Although the debate on parliamentary reform has stalled, being unable to reach a consensus with the larger parties, I don't think that it is still impossible to have some reform to the way Parliament works with a bill to reduce the amount of MPs needed to support a bill to get a full vote.

This bill reduces it from 9 to 6. What do you think?

I apologize for being absent, as I know I have a responsibility to this organization. I've been extremely busy with school, and have had little time to my self. If you need me to vote on anything, or request my opinion on a matter, as I asked Arriddia, please TG me anytime. I will respond as soon as I am able.

Thank you.


Chris "Wanderjar" Baker

You're kidding yourself. You honestly think there will be a day when the billionaires and their lackeys decide to support the rule of the working class, despite the fact that it will materially disadvantage them? You honestly think that without changing the power structure and economic base of society we can alleviate every man woman and child to a level of socialist consciousness?

If you honestly think that communism will be reached without reactionaries' attempts to destroy it and the ensuing bloodshed then you are living in a utopian world. We must be willing to defend the tools of the workers' state against everything the crumbling elements of national capitalism and the contrinued powerhouse of imperialism will be willing to throw at us.

You overlook the fact that there are people out there who know what they are doing, and the system that they support, is inherently wrong. They are willing to use violence to crush dissent and alternative ways of thinking. We must not allow ourselves to become yet another group of martyrs, remembered for their bloody deaths and not the society they helped establish.


I do not support violent revolution. I believe in peaceful protest. (regardless of my pro-military views.....lol :p )

Why no cloning? And where are your gulags?

Why no cloning? And where are your gulags?We haven't formed an opinion on cloning.
Why would we have gulags? We're talking about communism here.

We haven't formed an opinion on cloning.

SCIENCE:
* Human cloning would be prohibited.

Why would we have gulags? We're talking about communism here.

I'll take that as a no. How unfortunate :(

I'll take that as a no. How unfortunate :(

Its to keep the evil capitalists from cloning babies to harvest organs.

Now: On to the real reason I dug this up.

Does anyone know when the next Parli election is. I've seen a couple party manifestos dragged up recently. Did I miss the memo?

I don't think there's been an official date decided on, no.

iirc, they're supposed to be 4 months apart, but i can't remember when the last one was :(

*bumps thread*

PM, I'm still not on the member's list. :(

The Democratic Communists! :D

A bit too extremist for me, so I'll be giving it a pass. However, if you need some poetic propaganda, let me know.

Its to keep the evil capitalists from cloning babies to harvest organs.

What about after all the capitalist are gone or whatever? Then would cloning be cool with you guys?

A bit too extremist for me, so I'll be giving it a pass. However, if you need some poetic propaganda, let me know.

If this platform is too much for you, you will not be a good propagandist.

What about after all the capitalist are gone or whatever? Then would cloning be cool with you guys?

Since their platform precludes capitalists, I don't think that is the real reason.

If this platform is too much for you, you will not be a good propagandist.

Eh? Plenty of people have been very good, albeit insincere propagandists. All it takes is a certain amount of intelligence, an empathetic mind and no principles.

Eh? Plenty of people have been very good, albeit insincere propagandists. All it takes is a certain amount of intelligence, an empathetic mind and no principles.

And an understanding of one's audience, and that is where the problem lies.

And an understanding of one's audience, and that is where the problem lies.

That's where the empathy comes in. Besides, what's the point of propaganda if it's just preaching to the choir?

That's where the empathy comes in. Besides, what's the point of propaganda if it's just preaching to the choir?

You are correct.

I am a puppet in both fact and name
And in said circumstances, feel no shame
Exaggerating beliefs to proclaim
Them. After all, isn't it just a game?

What about after all the capitalist are gone or whatever? Then would cloning be cool with you guys?

For reproduction? I don't see any reason why not. I'm pretty sure that the rest of the group wouldn't have any problem with a family that is unable to conceive children naturally using cloning as an alternative, such as a lesbian couple.

For reproduction? I don't see any reason why not. I'm pretty sure that the rest of the group wouldn't have any problem with a family that is unable to conceive children naturally using cloning as an alternative, such as a lesbian couple.

What if we can create clones of people who are completely incapable of consciousness? Can we harvest their organs?

I say that since you are removing all individual economic action in favor of nationalization, you should have no problem with cloning.

What if we can create clones of people who are completely incapable of consciousness? Can we harvest their organs?

I say that since you are removing all individual economic action in favor of nationalization, you should have no problem with cloning.

Why don't you just clone organs instead? It is not only ethically less troubling to everyone, but also soon within the realm of scientific possibility.

The nationalization tenet of the platform is one of the tenets I disagree with, since I don't think that communism can be decreed by the government. If a new election is called, I will argue that the economic structure of the manifesto be changed, since nationalization to me means state capitalism, not a precondition for socialism. Ethically, I'm against the cloning of whole people for any reason besides reproduction. I have no problem with the cloning of organs, or with stem cell "therapeutic cloning", since the zygote is never larger than a few hundred cells, and by medical science is technically not a living organism yet.

Why don't you just clone organs instead? It is not only ethically less troubling to everyone, but also soon within the realm of scientific possibility.

I would imagine that it would be a long process to clone an organ, and I don't think we will have the foresight to predict which organs we will need, in the future, so why not clone them all.

I was going to ask this over on the election thread, but it might be more appropriate for here. My party, the NSDSP, is in a bit of disarry. There seems to be only me and Fleckenstein left. I might need a new party. To that end, I have a question concerning labor. What does your party feel about jobs that are not, strictly speaking, "necessary" for the well being of a community? For example, I am an actor. What would be my place in this community?

I was going to ask this over on the election thread, but it might be more appropriate for here. My party, the NSDSP, is in a bit of disarry. There seems to be only me and Fleckenstein left. I might need a new party. To that end, I have a question concerning labor. What does your party feel about jobs that are not, strictly speaking, "necessary" for the well being of a community? For example, I am an actor. What would be my place in this community?You could say that entertainment isn't a biological necessity, and that's true, but I think entertainment is necessary for a community to function properly. There are few things more dangerous than bored people. So there would be some need for entertainment, and this need would likely take the form of actors, at least in part.

You could say that entertainment isn't a biological necessity, and that's true, but I think entertainment is necessary for a community to function properly. There are few things more dangerous than bored people. So there would be some need for entertainment, and this need would likely take the form of actors, at least in part.

Of course that leads one to engage in the sisyphean task of determining which forms of entertainment are acceptable and should be funded.

Of course that leads one to engage in the sisyphean task of determining which forms of entertainment are acceptable and should be funded.Meh. It's not that hard to ask people what they want.
And of course, you can have entertainers entertaining in their spare time who might be able to build up an audience that way.

Meh. It's not that hard to ask people what they want.
And of course, you can have entertainers entertaining in their spare time who might be able to build up an audience that way.

I will let you perform that census.

I will let you perform that census.Done.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530207

I should've worded it better, but it's sufficient.

Done.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530207

I should've worded it better, but it's sufficient.

Now you can take those who said no out of the pool and present the rest with a list of all of the possible actors and have the yes votes rank the actors. And remember that economies of scale make films a rather national industry, so we will have to consider all national voters and all possible actors.

I don't think that Jolt's polls will handle that.

I want to join, I really do.

My country, the Armed Republic of Communated Countries is located in Europe. I started just today.

Now you can take those who said no out of the pool and present the rest with a list of all of the possible actors and have the yes votes rank the actors. And remember that economies of scale make films a rather national industry, so we will have to consider all national voters and all possible actors.

I don't think that Jolt's polls will handle that.Jolt itself couldn't, no, but I don't think it would take too much more of a complicated voting program to handle it.
Nonetheless, as I demonstrated, it is easy enough to get votes without much work. There'd be even more if everyone habitually checked the voting area for things to vote on.

I am a puppet in both fact and name
And in said circumstances, feel no shame
Exaggerating beliefs to proclaim
Them. After all, isn't it just a game?

What a clever way to admit to puppet trolling.:rolleyes:

Jolt itself couldn't, no, but I don't think it would take too much more of a complicated voting program to handle it.
Nonetheless, as I demonstrated, it is easy enough to get votes without much work. There'd be even more if everyone habitually checked the voting area for things to vote on.

Yes, our presidential elections have shown that quite well.

Yes, our presidential elections have shown that quite well.The majority of people aren't in the habit of voting for president. ;)

I would imagine that it would be a long process to clone an organ, and I don't think we will have the foresight to predict which organs we will need, in the future, so why not clone them all.

It takes less time to clone a fully developed organ than it does to clone a full human being and let it age to a sufficient level of maturity.