NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the requirements set forward for participation in the current NS General Elections (which can be accessed here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499225)), The Autonomist Party does hereby declare its manifesto, submitting the same for the approval of the people.

Manifesto of The Autonomist Party

Introduction

The goal of The Autonomist Party is, first and foremost, to maximize the liberty and sovereignty of the individual. There are many forces that exist to derail such a goal, and to the extent that they do so, The Autonomist Party stands in opposition to them. Such forces include political ideologies and agendas which exist on all sides of the political spectrum, including those of the "left" and those of the "right." The leftist conception of the state commune has often served as an excuse for destroying the liberty and sovereignty of the individual, forcing assimilation into the collective for the benefit of the collective only, at the expense of all else. Likewise, the right-wing conception of the corporation, and related political policy, has served no purpose other than to dissolve the individual into increasingly centralized and oppressive monoliths of economic and political power, not only at the expense of individual liberty and sovereignty, but also at that of the taxpayer in the form of increasingly large bailouts, subsidies, and other travesties of justice.

In the pursuit of our goals, The Autonomist Party proposes a third way, one which abandons the desire to trade liberty for security. One which abandons all cults of personality, ideology, and power. Our aim is the empowerment only of the individual, and the liberty of the individual to pursue his or her goals as he or she sees fit, so long as every other remains free to do the same; such is our greatest and most sacred principle.

Break the chains that bind your hands, left or right, and stand tall. Your liberty awaits you. Take it.

To the pursuit of these goals, the Manifesto of The Autonomist Party:

The Nature of Government

While we value the liberty and sovereignty of the individual as paramount, we also value order and peace. Because relationships between individuals are inevitable, conflict is also inevitable, and this conflict stands as a direct threat to the continuance of peace and order. Government is thus a necessity, however, it is a tool for those who desire peace and order, and it is a slave to those who desire peace and order. To the extent that government does exist, it should be as close to the people as possible; as such The Autonomist Party advocates the establishment and active practice of radical decentralization in all areas of governance. Government, because it is a slave to the People, should be accountable to the People in all aspects; as such The Autonomist Party advocates the establishment and active practice of direct democracy. That government which requires the institution of representatives moves the necessary control of power away from the People, and places it into the hands of rulers who become increasingly unaccountable the higher they go. Government ceases to become a slave, and instead becomes Master. Such a situation cannot be allowed to occur or persist.

The Nature of Economics

As government moves away from the People, becoming Master rather than slave, it begins to serve purposes and interests that are in direct opposition to the People. It becomes the tool of oppressors for gaining and maintaining unjustifiable control for the profit of only the few, at the cost of the many. One such example is that of centralized and collectivized economics. The state commune and the corporation both represent such perverse economic systems. In each, the individual is made to dissolve and disappear into increasingly centralized monoliths of power and control, which are in turn increasingly accountable only to those who possess power at the highest levels of the state. Those who possess such power can use it to shield themselves from the responsibility of their economic activities. The Autonomist Party calls thus:


For the abandonment of all state ownership and control of any commercial, industrial, or other business enterprise.
For the abandonment of the corporation, limited liability, intellectual property, and any other venture that derives its existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support, for the purpose of serving to further centralize power, remove responsibility for individual or group actions, or create scarcity and systems of control, overly liable to abuse, where none need exist.
For the continued existence and defense of individual private property rights in physical/tangible goods and land; such rights include the ability of individuals to voluntarily dispose of their property as they see fit, including entering into voluntary collective, cooperative, or other group based agreements which do not derive their existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support.
For replacement of state ownership and the corporation with employee owned and controlled entities taking any number of possible shapes, for profit or not for profit; mutuals, cooperatives, sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.
For an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.


The Nature of Social Welfare

To a similar end, The Autonomist Party also recognizes, and stands against, all statist monopolies and protectionist policies in the area of the provision of social welfare services. Do not be mistaken, it is not lending a helping hand to one's fellow man, standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity, which is opposed; rather, it is doing so via the barrel of a gun which should be subject to abolishment. For the attainment of such a goal The Autonomist Party recommends thus:


For the abolishment of all social welfare provided by the state; that is, for the abolishment of the "welfare state."
For rejection of the entire concept of "charity," as it creates a hierarchical relationship of "donor" and "recipient," where the individual is made dependent upon the donor for his or her well being. It is irrevelant that such a relationship might be considered "voluntary;" the dependent individual is still ultimately made less free because of the ultimate loss of self-reliance.
For the replacement of the previous statist and/or so-called "charitable" system with a new system, based again upon the mutual or cooperative model, of voluntary institutions of social welfare, directly owned and controlled by their individual members who choose to be so according to their own volition.
For funding of such voluntary mutual or cooperative associations to be derived from their own members. By standing shoulder to shoulder with his or her fellow human being, the burden upon each individual is relieved. However, by still being responsible for producing that which is necessary for rendering aid, the life affirming values of self-reliance, hard work, and responsibility are maintained and endorsed. No human should be made a slave to another, via forced "contribution" of the product of his labor, as occurs with the current statist systems. Neither should any human be made, or allow his or her self to become, completely dependent on another, on those who can demand control and domination as a requirement for the continued life, health, and liberty of those who depend.


The Nature of Revenue

Taxation often represents a means for overbearing government to seize control of the full product of the People labor, often to the benefit of the rich and well connected, in the form of subsidies, corporate welfare, and other wasteful and unjustified ends. Even so, the recognition that government is still necessary for the maintenance of peace and order requires recognition that some means are required for collecting the necessary revenue for funding that government. Even so, great effort should be placed in ensuring the most effective and efficient system possible, which in turn leaves as much of the People's wealth where it belongs, with the People. Toward those goals, The Autonomist Party calls:


For the agencies of tax collection to be constructed and to operate as close to the People as possible; this means the application of decentralization and democratic control as with any other government agency, in order to maximize accountability, minimize waste, and to keep collected and spent funds as close to those from whom it was collected.
For requiring that any and all efforts to raise tax rates, to implement a new tax, or to change the nature of an existing tax, must be approved by referendum, a direct vote of all the People who will be affected by such new policy.
For exploration, discussion, and education regarding implementation of alternative methods of tax collection, including sales taxes, flat taxes, negative income taxes, user fees, etc.
For continued exploration and development of new ways to enhance the role of voluntary, community, and cooperative organizations and institutions, as described under sections "The Nature of Economics" and "The Nature of Social Welfare," with the aim of making provision of public services to the People more efficient, less costly, and ultimately less dependent on taxation in the first place.


The Nature of Military and Peace

Violent force is possibly the most threatening tool used by those who would seek to destroy the liberty and sovereignty of the individual. As is commonly noted, war is the health of the state, and while nonetheless necessary for the maintenance of peace and order, an excessively healthy government constitutes an intolerable threat to the liberty and sovereignty of the individual; not only that of one's own citizens, but indeed even that of all the citizens of the world. In furtherance of the promotion of peace as well as order, The Autonomist Party calls:


For the replacement of currently existing models of military with that of the citizen militia. Such a replacement necessarily places the institutions of military force under direct observation, participation, and control of the People. As the People enjoy many pursuits other than warfare, such a replacement will also serve to promote peace, in that each citizen will have to consider much more carefully whether a given engagement is necessary or worthwhile.
For the establishment of the necessary infrastructure for training, equipping, and preparing each member of the citizen militia for defending his or her self and fellow citizen in the event that such action is necessary. Each member of the citizen militia should own and keep his or her own personal arms; this is necessary to ensure that every possbile man and woman is ready and able to defend his or her fellow citizen when ever necessary. This also assures that ultimately the use of force belongs to the People, and not the state, in the event that it is the state which the citizen must defend against.
For the establishment of military forces in as decentralized a manner as possible, as with any other government function. Doing so makes such military forces more responsive to needs other than warfare, such as disaster relief. Doing so also enhances accountability to the People. Decentralized units may only be called upon as one collective force, by the national, federal, or other highest levels of government, only where a direct external threat, such as invasion by a foreign enemy, exists.
For peaceful relationships with foreign governments, including the pursuit of free trade without tariff or other coercive measures, cultural exchange, educational pursuits, and other similar activities where ever possible. Such efforts will promote constructive partnerships built of peace; the citizens of the world should exchange ideas, cultures, cuisines, knowledge, and good and services, not bullets and bombs.


The Nature of Education

Again, The Autonomist Party rejects and opposes all attempts to build monopoly over, or protectionist policies governing, the provision of education of any kind. To this end, The Autonomist Party endorses an approach to education that mirrors the values of decentralization, as well as ownership and control by parents, teachers, and students, in order to maximize educational opportunity and success. In order to establish such, The Autonomist Party calls:


For the abandonment of educational institutions and services as provided by the state.
For replacement of the statist educational system with a decentralized, voluntary system, based upon the mutual or cooperative, for profit or not for profit, where ownership and control rests in the hands of parents, teachers, and their students.
For the abolishment of compulsory education; membership in any voluntary system must be exactly that, voluntary. This also helps ensure that students truly value their education, as well as to prevent insincere troublemakers who end up excessively capitalizing educators' time on disciplinary or academic underperformance issues.
For provisions for funding from the state to be abandoned and replaced with voluntary social welfare entities as described above in the sections "The Nature of Social Welfare" or "The Nature of Economics;" of course, this does not preclude individuals from supplying their own funding, or from accepting the voluntary assistance of other individuals or groups thereof.


The Nature of Environment

Government, it is often claimed, is necessary for the protection of the environment above and beyond all other possibilities or consideration. To a certain extent this is true, however, many environmental issues and challenges can be addressed in a powerful way via voluntary and cooperative measures. Government has also served to allow those who would dominate and control to have a free pass to damage and destroy the environment with a free hand. As such, The Autonomist Party calls:


For the establishment of government agencies, according to the principles described in the section "The Nature of Government," for the protection of the general atmosphere, oceans, and other similar areas of the ecosystem where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to partition or otherwise prevent the pollution of some or one from harming all.
For the use of property in land, as land is far more easily partitioned and containable than atmospheres or oceans, as a means of fighting pollution by treating the same as a form of trespass.
For encouraging the establishment of voluntary cooperative entities, again as constructed and funded as under the sections "The Nature of Social Welfare" or "The Nature of Economics," for examining and promoting ecological and environmental issues.
For the establishment of property rights over endangered and other species, with the aim of bringing otherwise illicit trade of species into the open air and away from the criminal element, where abuse and other vile forms of treatment are all too common. Such ownership will also encourage responsible care and maintenance, by taking advantage of individual's desire to not waste their hard earned investments, with the goal of encouraging the resurgence of populations of endangered and other species.


--------------------
Party Members:

Dissonant Cognition
You Dont Know Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11673851&postcount=26)
Delator (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11675359&postcount=35)

Now that's a well thought out manifesto...

Too bad I'm a bit of a Statist... Is it just me, or could you replace 'Autonomist' with 'Anarchist' in this case?

As an autonomist, I refuse to belong to any party.

I'm sympathetic, but will have to go with the UDCP, for two reasons:

1. Capitalist property rights, enforced as they are by the state and damaging as they are to genuine freedom and autonomy, are not worthy of respect.
2. A mutualist economic system (which you seem to be suggesting in the "Economics" section) will either be self-destructive (by permitting the worker-owners to hire workers who are not owners, and thus recreating the class system that it is supposed to abolish) or unworkable (because there would be no incentive to hire.)

Too bad I'm a bit of a Statist... Is it just me, or could you replace 'Autonomist' with 'Anarchist' in this case?


Perhaps, but then "anarchists" are not necessarily anti-government or anti-law or anti-order...


[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon] saw anarchy as 'a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune.'

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon )

Emphasis is mine; note how it says "minimum" and not "eliminated." Note also that Proudhon was opposed to communism, so the word "commune" is most likely used to refer to the "community" in general, and not necessarily some kind of political collectivism.

I typically refer to myself as a "minarchist." I still assert the necessity of government, police, militaries, law, and such (a position which I also hope is clear in The Autonomist Party manifesto itself). I would just reduce them to what I feel is the minimum necessary in order to maintain peace and order. After that, individual liberty reigns. And many things which people tend to associate with government do not really require government to begin with (social welfare, for instance).

Perhaps, but then "anarchists" are not necessarily anti-government or anti-law or anti-order...

I think a distinction should be made between "government" and "the state."

The state is a hierarchical mode of organization dominated by a class of politicians and bureaucrats, one that tends to be distant from the people and instead allied to the powerful classes best able to attain access to it. It has an extensive repressive apparatus to ensure that no forces, internal or external, threaten the status quo, and the privilege that relies on that status quo.

Mere "government," however, could theoretically be highly decentralized and democratic in nature, amounting more to the collective self-defense of freely associating individuals than a sort of transcendent power center that dominates society. Such a "government" would be more or less consistent with the principles of anarchism, and seems to be what you are advancing here.

1. Capitalist property rights, enforced as they are by the state and damaging as they are to genuine freedom and autonomy, are not worthy of respect.


Granted the virtue of individual property rights is endorsed, however, given the radical reformation of government and economics embodied by said platform, I would argue that many of the problems associated with "capitalist property rights" would no longer be the case. The purpose of property rights is to ensure the sovereignty of the individual against the state, or any other potentially coercive group (including private groups, which is the motovation for the rejection of typically capitalist economic structures, like corporations).

I have a difficult time seeing how an individual can truly be free if he cannot point at the product of his labor and say, "this is mine." Having sovereignty requires being sovereign somewhere and over something (including the self). I especially cannot understand how this can be the case in the event of ownership and control exclusively by the collective (which is just another form of highly centralized and monopolized property rights, similar to the corporate system which the Autonomist platform rejects.)


2. A mutualist economic system (which you seem to be suggesting in the "Economics" section) will either be self-destructive (by permitting the worker-owners to hire workers who are not owners, and thus recreating the class system that it is supposed to abolish) or unworkable (because there would be no incentive to hire.)


Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.


(Note that my quoting of Mutualist.org is not necessarily an endorsement of that site, its position, ideology, or anything else. It just simply provided an answer to a question [which itself questions mutualist ideology] that I was having trouble placing into words myself.)

In the absense of statist interventions that benefit some at the expense of the many, each individual is placed on a far more equal footing with others. In such a situation, where individuals approach each other as equals, it is no business of mine what kind of voluntary and peaceful agreement they come to. The only way one can put a stop to wage labor entirely is through statist intervention in peaceful relations between individuals; naturally, this would completely defeat the purpose of the principles of the Autonomist party platform. At any rate, if an individual does not wish to be an employee, then he or she is entirely free to start his or her own business, as an individual, partnership, or whatever other form of peaceful enterprise.

As an autonomist, I refuse to belong to any party.

I was afraid that someone would eventually point out the seeming contradiction between "autonomist" and "party." But then, apparent contradictions are somewhat of a hobby of mine (**points at nation name**), especially finding ways to make them work together and compliment each other. Which is actually part of the point of The Autonomist Party to begin with...to find that third way.

Granted the virtue of individual property rights is endorsed, however, given the radical reformation of government and economics embodied by said platform, I would argue that many of the problems associated with "capitalist property rights" would no longer be the case. The purpose of property rights is to ensure the sovereignty of the individual against the state, or any other potentially coercive group (including private groups, which is the motovation for the rejection of typically capitalist economic structures, like corporations).

The function (a far more useful term than "purpose") of private property rights is to enforce the rule of the few over the many. If the aim were radical autonomy, there are arrangements that work far better - for instance, the abolition of ownership, and its replacement by the rights of use. Property rights, on the other hand - private or public - make my use of a given resource dependent on the will of its owner, regardless of whether that ownership actually enhances her freedom.

Consider the fate of the worker under capitalism, state-subsidized or not. The distribution of property compels her to sell her labor to the capitalist, and then to use her wages to buy from others to satisfy her basic necessities. That is not "individual sovereignty," it is tyranny. It permits the owners of property to control every aspect of society, by making almost everyone dependent on them and subject to their will through their power to regulate the use of their property.

I have a difficult time seeing how an individual can truly be free if he cannot point at the product of his labor and say, "this is mine."

In all honesty, I do not see why people obsess so much over the "product of labor." We do not tolerate the "product of labor" in other circumstances when we deem it harmful - for instance, the product of a thief's labor (stolen property) is not regarded as legitimate by anyone. Why should we tolerate it when its function is to usurp the individual freedom of others?

Use of material goods is essential to individual sovereignty, yes - I need them to live, and to exercise most of my other meaningful freedoms as well. But as long as my labor remains voluntary, I have no "right" to the product of my labor - anything I produce, I choose freely to produce under whatever framework of property I live, and thus I cannot complain when it is denied to me.

Having sovereignty requires being sovereign somewhere and over something (including the self). I especially cannot understand how this can be the case in the event of ownership and control exclusively by the collective (which is just another form of highly centralized and monopolized property rights, similar to the corporate system which the Autonomist platform rejects.)

That's why they would be collectives based on free association, and why the rights of use of non-members would (ideally) not be violated.

It is true that under collective ownership I am subject to the will of the collective in the way that the worker is subject to the will of the capitalist, but the difference is that I - and everyone else - can meaningfully participate in the composition of this "will," and thus the terms under which we work are more freely chosen than under a framework of private ownership.

In the absense of statist interventions that benefit some at the expense of the many, each individual is placed on a far more equal footing with others. In such a situation, where individuals approach each other as equals, it is no business of mine what kind of voluntary and peaceful agreement they come to. They only way one can put a stop to wage labor entirely is through statist intervention in peaceful relations between individuals; naturally, this would completely defeat the purpose of the principles of the party platform. At any rate, if an individual does not wish to be an employee, then he or she is entirely free to start his or her own business, as an individual, partnership, or whatever other form of peaceful enterprise.

But this is illusory. You focus on some important aspects of the statist enforcement of capitalism - corporate entities, intellectual property rights, etc. - but you ignore the most crucial one, the enforcement of highly unnatural and exploitative systems of property. The corporation is just private ownership of the means of production carried to an extreme; eliminating it does not eliminate the exploitation embodied in such private ownership (though it does cause harm with its consequences for economies of scale.)

If the means of production are owned by others, I do not have a choice in whether or not to associate with them, nor do I have all that much bargaining power in deciding the terms of my association. After all, I am looking for employment, without which I will be incapable of satisfying my basic needs; my employers are merely looking for extra profit, without which they will merely lack some luxury. They have the upper hand, and the relationship between us, because of inequities in access to capital, will never be "equal" even without the state stacking the deck.

As long as I am held hostage by the owners of private property, I cannot be truly free of exploitation.

If the aim were radical autonomy, there are arrangements that work far better - for instance, the abolition of ownership, and its replacement by the rights of use.

This distinction is specious. Who regulates these "rights of use" in the event that more than one claim such over a given item? Whoever does so is the de facto "owner." Thus, this proposal has changed nothing (other than surrendering sovereignty from the individual to some other unseen authority).


Property rights, on the other hand - private or public - make my use of a given resource dependent on the will of its owner, regardless of whether that ownership actually enhances her freedom.


Just like this supposed system of "rights of use" does, since somekind of authority is still needed to figure out disputes over those very rights. At the very least, the proposed platform would decentralize this necessary authority to the lowest levels possible. Yes, it is true that abuse can happen, but it does not have to happen.


It permits the owners of property to control every aspect of society, by making almost everyone dependent on them and subject to their will through their power to regulate the use of their property.


Note, however, that the worker alone, or in solidarity with others, possesses a similar power through the use of his or her own property. And in the absense of statist interventionism and coercion, this coercive power is reduced or eliminated for all, regardless.


In all honesty, I do not see why people obsess so much over the "product of labor." We do not tolerate the "product of labor" in other circumstances when we deem it harmful - for instance, the product of a thief's labor (stolen property) is not regarded as legitimate by anyone.


But obviously in such a case, the means used to gain are illegitimate. In the case of free and voluntary exchange and labor, they are not.


Use of material goods is essential to individual sovereignty, yes - I need them to live, and to exercise most of my other meaningful freedoms as well.


But again, who regulates this society based on "use?" You still haven't solved the problem of property that you cite, to whatever extent it actually exists. Some authority is will still necessary to resolve disputes; I would prefer that this authority be decentralized as far as possible.



That's why they would be collectives based on free association, and why the rights of use of non-members would (ideally) not be violated.

It is true that under collective ownership I am subject to the will of the collective in the way that the worker is subject to the will of the capitalist, but the difference is that I - and everyone else - can meaningfully participate in the composition of this "will," and thus the terms under which we work are more freely chosen than under a framework of private ownership.


Exactly what aspect of the party platform proposed in this thread prevents a group of individuals from forming an enterprise according to these exact principles? True, not everyone on the face of the planet may choose to do so, but the goal is not to conquer the earth for a particular ideology. The goal is to leave people, and groups, free. Even if they choose to do things among themselves that I don't like.


If the means of production are owned by others, I do not have a choice in whether or not to associate with them, nor do I have all that much bargaining power in deciding the terms of my association. After all, I am looking for employment, without which I will be incapable of satisfying my basic needs; my employers are merely looking for extra profit, without which they will merely lack some luxury. They have the upper hand, and the relationship between us, because of inequities in access to capital, will never be "equal" even without the state stacking the deck.


What exactly is stopping you from associating with groups of people that think the same way you do?

(edit: Allow me to clarify somewhat...I see no rational reason why the communists can't go somewhere to do their thing, while the capitalists go somewhere else to do their thing. This notion that one must destroy or eliminate the other is old fashioned Cold-War era nonsense that serves only to further exemplify the truth of the statement that war is the health of the state. For fecks sake, who cares which side of the bread one prefers the butter on.... :headbang: :D )

This distinction is specious. Who regulates these "rights of use" in the event that more than one claim such over a given item? Whoever does so is the de facto "owner." Thus, this proposal has changed nothing (other than surrendering sovereignty from the individual to some other unseen authority).

I do not infringe on the right of use of another. If she is already using something, and she is not hoarding, I cannot use it.

Just like this supposed system of "rights of use" does, since somekind of authority is still needed to figure out disputes over those very rights.

And do we not have disputes over property rights, too?

At the very least, the proposed platform would decentralize this necessary authority to the lowest levels possible. Yes, it is true that abuse can happen, but it does not have to happen.

It will happen, unless you can magically make the owners more generous.

Note, however, that the worker alone, or in solidarity with others, possesses a similar power through the use of his or her own property.

No, she doesn't. She is far more dependent on the capitalist than the capitalist is on her - the capitalist has more property than she does, and is thus less dependent on others. The capitalist is out for a profit; she is out to meet her basic needs. The capitalist can refuse the bargain; she cannot.

And in the absense of statist interventionism and coercion, this coercive power is reduced or eliminated for all, regardless.

Statist coercion is the only thing that can maintain capitalist property rights in the first place.

But obviously in such a case, the means used to gain are illegitimate. In the case of free and voluntary exchange and labor, they are not.

Free and voluntary exchange of what? Property. Property based on unjust usurpation, sometimes so according to any sane framework (theft from indigenous populations) and other times according to a framework that recognizes rights of use (hoarding of land and other resources.) Property that concentrates itself in the hands of a few thanks to the exploitation resulting from such a distribution.

But again, who regulates this society based on "use?" You still haven't solved the problem of property that you cite, to whatever extent it actually exists.

It need not be regulated as much as any other framework of property; it is the natural arrangement. What gives me power over land that I do not use, but the coercive power of the state?

As for "solving the problem," of course it solves the problem; it ensures that I have meaningful autonomy by permitting me to work on my own terms for what I need and desire.

Some authority is will still necessary to resolve disputes; I would prefer that this authority be decentralized as far as possible.

I agree.

Exactly what aspect of the party platform proposed in this thread prevents a group of individuals from forming an enterprise according to these exact principles? True, not everyone on the face of the planet may choose to do so, but the goal is not to conquer the earth for a particular ideology. The goal is to leave people, and groups, free. Even if they choose to do things among themselves that I don't like.

You are preserving capitalist property rights. It is nearly impossible to create such a society in a world dominated by capitalist property rights, and to the extent that it is possible, it requires even more subservience in order to attain the necessary capital.

What exactly is stopping you from associating with groups of people that think the same way you do?

Property rights that make a mockery of "free association" and compel us all to be exploited at the hands of the capitalist.

(edit: Allow me to clarify somewhat...I see no rational reason why the communists can't go somewhere to do their thing, while the capitalists go somewhere else to do their thing. This notion that one must destroy or eliminate the other is old fashioned Cold-War era nonsense that serves only to further exemplify the truth of the statement that war is the health of the state. For fecks sake, who cares which side of the bread one prefers the butter on.... :headbang: :D )

It is the capitalists whose framework will not permit this, not the communists. Capitalism exists basically everywhere on the planet; its elimination requires the violation of the "property rights" before which we are supposed to kneel.

I do not infringe on the right of use of another. If she is already using something, and she is not hoarding, I cannot use it.


Are you simply trusted not to do so? How is it determined when something is already in use? Who determines what is or is not hoarding?


And do we not have disputes over property rights, too?


Of course.


It will happen, unless you can magically make the owners more generous.


That's the thing. I can't. Either with magic or with the state or with anything else. Even with the system you propose; what do you do when a group of people, for whatever reason, put their foot down and say "no?" I can't force them, or I am participating in the destruction of liberty. The best I can do is let them go over there, while I go somewhere else.

As I tried to add in an edit to my previous post, I see no rational reason why a communist or capitalist state cannot exist on the same planet without trying to drive each other into extinction. That basic conflict makes absolutely no sense to me. Honestly, I simply cannot comprehend it no matter how hard I try. The only conclusion I come to for why they do try to anihilate each other is simply ideological or religious zealotry that is the lifeblood of the state.

The best I can see that I can do is to expect the best of my fellow human, accepting the knowledge that it is still highly likely I'm going to get hurt. I can't see what I can do that won't make me an agent of that hurt in the process.


No, she doesn't. She is far more dependent on the capitalist than the capitalist is on her - the capitalist has more property than she does, and is thus less dependent on others. The capitalist is out for a profit; she is out to meet her basic needs. The capitalist can refuse the bargain; she cannot.


I think you're trying to apply characteristics to me that I do not deserve (and/or I am not being clear enough in explaining what I believe). I don't assert that economic associations must be for profit, or must take any other capitalist form. I only assert that they may do so. If a group of people somewhere don't want to behave so, then they don't have to. It is their choice.

One can claim that leaving this as an open choice means that eventually bad things must happen. But then, I can just as easily claim the same about whatever collectivist or communist society that happens to come about. Sure, at first it will work peachy keen. Until one day enough are born who will eventually decide they want to do something else.


You are preserving capitalist property rights. It is nearly impossible to create such a society in a world dominated by capitalist property rights...


Assuming the arangements concerning government and the power associated there to, I am failing to see how such "domination" is necessary or even possible.

Capitalism exists basically everywhere on the planet.

False. Statist domination tasked with promoting one economic system over another exists basically everywhere on the planet. This statist domination is not unique to capitalism; the Soviets strove to accomplish exactly the same situation, except for the benefit of communism. (edit: and I observe plenty of foaming-at-the-mouth even here on NationStates about destroying everything else save the almightly commune, many times even from supposed anarchists and such)

Remove the statist domination, whether promoting the butter side up or side down...

I think a distinction should be made between "government" and "the state."

The state is a hierarchical mode of organization dominated by a class of politicians and bureaucrats, one that tends to be distant from the people and instead allied to the powerful classes best able to attain access to it. It has an extensive repressive apparatus to ensure that no forces, internal or external, threaten the status quo, and the privilege that relies on that status quo.

Mere "government," however, could theoretically be highly decentralized and democratic in nature, amounting more to the collective self-defense of freely associating individuals than a sort of transcendent power center that dominates society. Such a "government" would be more or less consistent with the principles of anarchism, and seems to be what you are advancing here.

I believe there's a distinction, but I disagree with the way you've made the distinction. I think of 'state' as the collective trappings of a given society, i.e. laws, constitution, currency, institutions (be they military, economic or social) and so on. 'Government', is simply the organizing body of 'state'.

There's nothing wrong with the state per se, but rather the access of it by the 'common' person. Thus decentralization on some issues is a good idea. However, state apparatus can achieve results. Many anarchists who disaprove of capitalism for its 'competitive' nature will ignore the obvious benefits of centralized planning.

Perhaps, but then "anarchists" are not necessarily anti-government or anti-law or anti-order...


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon )

Emphasis is mine; note how it says "minimum" and not "eliminated." Note also that Proudhon was opposed to communism, so the word "commune" is most likely used to refer to the "community" in general, and not necessarily some kind of political collectivism.

I typically refer to myself as a "minarchist." I still assert the necessity of government, police, militaries, law, and such (a position which I also hope is clear in The Autonomist Party manifesto itself). I would just reduce them to what I feel is the minimum necessary in order to maintain peace and order. After that, individual liberty reigns. And many things which people tend to associate with government do not really require government to begin with (social welfare, for instance).

That's fair. My few discussions of Anarchism with a few posters on this forum painted a picture similar to your manifesto, thus my curiosity was aroused. From what I understad, Anarchists still assert the necesity of government, police, militaries (voluntary militias) law and such, just 'no rulers'.

Are you simply trusted not to do so? How is it determined when something is already in use? Who determines what is or is not hoarding?

Two alternatives:

1. The system of property such a system would advance is natural enough that "enforcement" can be left to individuals and free associations.
2. A fairly simple standard based on the principle of rights of use can be applied by decentralized government institutions.

I tend to side with (1), because (2) would necessitate a violation of free association through the forcible introduction of political rule. But it's conceivable that (2) would be necessary.

Of course.

Then what is your objection to rights of use?

That's the thing. I can't. Either with magic or with the state or with anything else. Even with the system you propose; what do you do when a group of people, for whatever reason, put their foot down and say "no?" I can't force them, or I am participating in the destruction of liberty. The best I can do is let them go over there, while I go somewhere else.

You don't force them. Who said anything about forcing? If a population disagrees with my assessment of capitalist property rights, fine. But you do not give the property owners an absolute veto power, either; if the population does agree with me, and wishes to get rid of them, they should have the right to do so irrelevantly of the opinion of those who own the property.

The difference between us is that we have different defaults. The default for me is the right of use; I can own property, but only if I enter a society in which such forms of property are willingly agreed to by all members, and only if that society does not violate the right of use of non-members (that is, the society claims no resources that it does not use, and does not attempt to monopolize them.) Within this framework, I am willing to tolerate all systems based on free association; both socialism and capitalism (neither of which protect the right of use of members) would be acceptable. And if the association democratically chooses to change its framework of property rights, I have no objection (again, as long as it permits free association to its members and does not violate the rights of non-members.)

The default for you is basically capitalist property rights, stripped of some of the statist excesses that have been added to them. Within this framework, you are willing to tolerate all systems - but this is, as I said before, illusory. Capitalist property rights will produce capitalism. There may be a few enclaves of non-capitalist systems that can work within such a framework - just as there are in our society, collectives and mutuals and so on - but they will never become large-scale and they will always be forced to make concessions to the prevailing system. They depend on capital; they thus depend on the owners, and are vulnerable to exploitation.

As I tried to add in an edit to my previous post, I see no rational reason why a communist or capitalist state cannot exist on the same planet without trying to drive each other into extinction. That basic conflict makes absolutely no sense to me. Honestly, I simply cannot comprehend it no matter how hard I try. The only conclusion I come to for why they do try to anihilate each other is simply ideological or religious zealotry that is the lifeblood of the state.

Statist-capitalist systems smash leftist variants because they present a bad example, and because they do not fit in well within the global system that statist-capitalist systems seek to foster. I don't think this is the inevitable result of capitalist systems, just of certain ones.

Stalinist formations are just as imperialist as the statist-capitalist powers, for basically the same reasons.

However, I think you are missing my point. It is not that capitalist and communist systems cannot coexist, because they can. It is that communist systems cannot exist within a capitalist framework.

I think you're trying to apply characteristics to me that I do not deserve (and/or I am not being clear enough in explaining what I believe). I don't assert that economic associations must be for profit, or must take any other capitalist form. I only assert that they may do so. If a group of people somewhere don't want to behave so, then they don't have to. It is their choice.

No, you are being perfectly clear. I think it is me who is not being clear.

The problem is that you are looking at profit and not at capital. You are seeing the symptom and missing the disease. We could ban profit tomorrow, and I would not be content; the result would not be a decent society but massive unemployment. The problem is the kind of ownership that results in profit (and exploitation); ownership that holds workers hostage to the owners of the means of production. Keeping that ownership will always result in profit and exploitation. You are saying that we should preserve that ownership, but that people would be free to form societies within that framework that abolish profit. That rests on the assumption that the owners of capital will generously donate to their own demise, which is highly unlikely.

One can claim that leaving this as an open choice means that eventually bad things must happen. But then, I can just as easily claim the same about whatever collectivist or communist society that happens to come about. Sure, at first it will work peachy keen. Until one day enough are born who will eventually decide they want to do something else.

No, it should be an open choice. But you are not making it an open choice; you are merely permitting non-capitalist forms of management within a capitalist framework of ownership. That does not solve the problem.

Assuming the arangements concerning government and the power associated there to, I am failing to see how such "domination" is necessary or even possible.

It is the inevitable result of preserving capitalist property rights. Or do you mean that you would stop enforcing the "right" of the capitalist to her factory?

Remove the statist domination, whether promoting the butter side up or side down...

I agree. The problem is that you are not removing the "statist domination." You are eliminating only the most egregious aspects of it - the corporation, intellectual property rights, etc. You are leaving the capitalist ownership of the means of production, and the statist enforcement of that ownership, untouched.

Two alternatives:
2. A fairly simple standard based on the principle of rights of use can be applied by decentralized government institutions. ...But it's conceivable that (2) would be necessary.


I would conclude that it is necessary, not simply conceivable.


You don't force them. Who said anything about forcing?


You did, right here:


if the population does agree with me, and wishes to get rid of them, they should have the right to do so irrelevantly of the opinion of those who own the property.



The difference between us is that we have different defaults. The default for me is the right of use; I can own property, but only if I enter a society in which such forms of property are willingly agreed to by all members, and only if that society does not violate the right of use of non-members (that is, the society claims no resources that it does not use, and does not attempt to monopolize them.) Within this framework, I am willing to tolerate all systems based on free association; both socialism and capitalism (neither of which protect the right of use of members) would be acceptable. And if the association democratically chooses to change its framework of property rights, I have no objection (again, as long as it permits free association to its members and does not violate the rights of non-members.)


I continue in my failure to see where any of this has been forbidden.


You are saying that we should preserve that ownership, but that people would be free to form societies within that framework that abolish profit. That rests on the assumption that the owners of capital will generously donate to their own demise, which is highly unlikely.


Why is that highly unlikely? I see what you claim is unlikely everyday, everytime I boot my computer. This very operating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) and even this very web browser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox) exist exactly because the owners of capital (in this specific case, intellectual property) have donated that capital to the free use of all and any. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) Each individual owner, legally, may control their bit of property with complete sovereignty, even to the exclusion of all others. Yet, they still choose not to.

Sure, they have yet to conquer the entire industry in righteous revolution, overthrowing intellectual property completely and what not, but that doesn't matter. For now, I am still free, and they are still free. (edit: In fact, to counter my own position on intellectual property in general, one could argue that those property rights contained in the copyright are the legal mechanism that serves to protect the owners' right to give away said property in the manner described; to make sure that once freed, it stays freed. This is why all free software licenses have those "(C)" marks in them. Property protecting the rights of use and the right to share.)

If I may quote a fictional character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_%28character%29): "There are no certainties, only opportunities."

Wait, we going to have another one of those elections?

Sweet. :cool:

From what I understad, Anarchists still assert the necesity of government, police, militaries (voluntary militias) law and such, just 'no rulers'.

"No rulers" in the sense of hierarchical or vertical relationships. Decentralization coupled with democratic processes is instead intended to create horizontal relationships, where each individual exerts power (via the cast ballot, for instance) but upon an equal basis vis-a-vis his or her fellow citizen.

I'm curious to know what your system would do to bring in revenue for any necessary purposes.

In other words...what's the tax plan, man?

I'm curious to know what your system would do to bring in revenue for any necessary purposes.

In other words...what's the tax plan, man?

The following section has been added to The Autonomist Party platform:

The Nature of Revenue

Taxation often represents a means for overbearing government to seize control of the full product of the People labor, often to the benefit of the rich and well connected, in the form of subsidies, corporate welfare, and other wasteful and unjustified ends. Even so, the recognition that government is still necessary for the maintenance of peace and order requires recognition that some means are required for collecting the necessary revenue for funding that government. Even so, great effort should be placed in ensuring the most effective and efficient system possible, which in turn leaves as much of the People's wealth where it belongs, with the People. Toward those goals, The Autonomist Party calls:


For the agencies of tax collection to be constructed and to operate as close to the People as possible; this means the application of decentralization and democratic control as with any other government agency, in order to maximize accountability, minimize waste, and to keep collected and spent funds as close to those from whom it was collected.
For requiring that any and all efforts to raise tax rates, to implement a new tax, or to change the nature of an existing tax, must be approved by referendum, a direct vote of all the People who will be affected by such new policy.
For exploration, discussion, and education regarding implementation of alternative methods of tax collection, including sales taxes, flat taxes, negative income taxes, user fees, etc.
For continued exploration and development of new ways to enhance the role of voluntary, community, and cooperative organizations and institutions, as described under sections "The Nature of Economics" and "The Nature of Social Welfare," with the aim of making provision of public services to the People more efficient, less costly, and ultimately less dependent on taxation in the first place.

I would conclude that it is necessary, not simply conceivable.

And I would argue that you overestimate the capability of human beings to wield power under truly free conditions.

You did, right here:

So doing something someone else doesn't like is "forcing" them? I'm not advocating forcing them to do anything, just transfering property the previous system put under their control into the hands of democratic institutions.

I continue in my failure to see where any of this has been forbidden.

You do not forbid it explicitly, but you need not do so. The policies you advocate - the enforcement of property rights far beyond use - will make it impossible.

Why is that highly unlikely? I see what you claim is unlikely everyday, everytime I boot my computer. This very operating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) and even this very web browser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox) exist exactly because the owners of capital (in this specific case, intellectual property) have donated that capital to the free use of all and any. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) Each individual owner, legally, may control their bit of property with complete sovereignty, even to the exclusion of all others. Yet, they still choose not to.

Sure, they have yet to conquer the entire industry in righteous revolution, overthrowing intellectual property completely and what not, but that doesn't matter. For now, I am still free, and they are still free.

And yet, despite these occasional displays of generosity, intellectual property rights are still being used to enforce monopolist control for profit, at the expense of millions of people who might otherwise (to take one example) be able to afford the drugs they need. What "freedom" is that - using statist enforcement of "property rights" to hold people hostage to the owner class?

(edit: In fact, to counter my own position on intellectual property in general, one could argue that those property rights contained in the copyright are the legal mechanism that serves to protect the owners' right to give away said property in the manner described; to make sure that once freed, it stays freed. This is why all free software licenses have those "(C)" marks in them. Property protecting the rights of use and the right to share.)

That wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have those kinds of property rights in the first place.

As an autonomist, I refuse to belong to any party.

As an autonomist, you have no choice but to join a party.

I'm in, although it isn't perfect, its better than the rest I presume.

Some topics for discussion:

How does the party plan to broker negotiation between the federalized democracies without negating their power?

What sort of monetary plan does this party plan to institute, and, guessing your answer, how does this party plan to deal with any natural monopolies that my arise?

How does the party deal with child labor? Does it allow full child labor, child labor if allowed by the parent, if forced by the parent, apprenticeships?

If she is already using something, and she is not hoarding, I cannot use it.
I think I need you to define "use".

How do you distinguish between use and hoarding? How do you deal with problems of scarcity?

I think I need you to define "use".

Using something directly.

How do you distinguish between use and hoarding?

"Hoarding" can involve use, but it is excessive use; it denies the opportunity of use to others.

How do you deal with problems of scarcity?

On a basis of equality.

Using something directly.

"Hoarding" can involve use, but it is excessive use; it denies the opportunity of use to others.
Those are horribly vague descriptions.

Could you maybe provide some sort of universal maxim I could apply to any situation? At what point does use become excessive? Who decides? The tyrannic majority?
On a basis of equality.
So everyone starves slowly?

What if the majority working class decides otherwise? Or are they not allowed to decide that? Who would stop them if they did?

Those are horribly vague descriptions.

Yes, they are. I think they are fairly easily applicable, though.

Could you maybe provide some sort of universal maxim I could apply to any situation?

Sure - equal right to equal use.

At what point does use become excessive?

When it prioritizes one person's use over another's.

Who decides? The tyrannic majority?

A standard that can be applied universally.

So everyone starves slowly?

No.

What if the majority working class decides otherwise? Or are they not allowed to decide that?

The majority whatever would be committing an injustice to deprive others of the right to use against their consent.

Who would stop them if they did?

Ideally, the egalitarian distribution of power would ensure that no one would be able to enforce such a thing; in practice, there would be abuses, but that is inevitable in any system.

And yet, despite these occasional displays of generosity, intellectual property rights are still being used to enforce monopolist control for profit, at the expense of millions of people who might otherwise (to take one example) be able to afford the drugs they need. What "freedom" is that - using statist enforcement of "property rights" to hold people hostage to the owner class?


Trust me, I fully recognize the travesties of justice that have been performed in the name of "intellectual property." But this ultimately misses the greater point.

I can also see a great deal of good, like that I have already described, that property can allow. And this is ultimately the issue. Property is capable of protecting a great deal of injustice, but at the same time, it is also capable of protecting a great deal of justice as well.

The situation is similar to that of firearms. Every day, firearms enable a great deal of injustice; they are used to rob, murder, steal, coerce, etc. Even so, firearms allow people to defend themselves, their families, their fellow citizens, and their belongings against aggression. Because I recognize that a firearm is simply a tool, morally neutral in and of itself, I also recognize the folly in trying to ban or otherwise prohibit their ownership and use. By trying to absolutely erradicate any potential misuse in such a manner, I also absolutely erradicate all of the potential for the protection of liberty and peace that a firearm also enables. The evil resides not in the firearm, but in he or she who wields it. Leaving the potential for evil intact means increasing the chances that I might get hurt, yes; but I do not desire safety. I desire liberty. And at any rate, the meaning of the choice for good is so much more when one could have chosen evil instead. This is the most powerful aspect of the exercise of free will, after all.

So ultimately my goal should be to change the hearts and minds of those who wield the tool. That is part of the purpose of the platform presented in this thread. To show people the potential locked up in the society, and its mechanisms and institutions which already exist. To show them that while these mechanisms and institutions are capable of great evil, they are also capable of great good. Directing my attention exclusively to an inanimate, and, in the case of property, an intangible idea is pointless folly. People are who need to hear the message. To that extent, the goal is evolution and not revolution (the difference, I suspect, being the even more basic conflict between the two of us, above and beyond any issue of property).


That wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have those kinds of property rights in the first place.

In the case of intellectual property, this is true, but still beside the point. As I explained above the point is that even while the tool in question presents great opportunity for evil, free individuals are nonetheless capable of finding, implimenting, and focusing on the equal potential for good and the liberation that follows.

How does the party plan to broker negotiation between the federalized democracies without negating their power?

What sort of monetary plan does this party plan to institute, and, guessing your answer, how does this party plan to deal with any natural monopolies that my arise?


What are your recommendations?


How does the party deal with child labor? Does it allow full child labor, child labor if allowed by the parent, if forced by the parent, apprenticeships?

I would recommend an approach that recognizes the right of any individual to seek employment, regardless of age, or even to seek emancipation from their parents completely. However, this recognition should not be intrepreted as an endorsement of dangerous or exploitative situations; nothing should be implied as to preclude the ability of government or the community in general to rescue minors from situations where the danger is extreme and/or immediate. In the case of minors, regulation is necessary in order to ensure the full assertion of their rights and liberties, although this regulation should still be implemented by agencies according to the general principles laid down in "The Nature of Government." Forced labor by the parent, or anyone else, is simply slavery and will not be tollerated (although I assume that "forced labor" does not include such things as simple household chores and such; although again the general community and government agencies retain the right to rescue children from situations of child abuse or other such events that might occur in the home).

Trust me, I fully recognize the travesties of justice that have been performed in the name of "intellectual property." But this ultimately misses the greater point.

I can also see a great deal of good, like that I have already described, that property can allow. And this is ultimately the issue. Property is capable of protecting a great deal of injustice, but at the same time, it is also capable of protecting a great deal of justice as well.

What "justice" does property protect?

The situation is similar to that of firearms. Every day, firearms enable a great deal of injustice; they are used to rob, murder, steal, coerce, etc. Even so, firearms allow people to defend themselves, their families, their fellow citizens, and their belongings against aggression. Because I recognize that a firearm is simply a tool, morally neutral in and of itself, I also recognize the folly in trying to ban or otherwise prohibit their ownership and use. By trying to absolutely erradicate any potential misuse in such a manner, I also absolutely erradicate all of the potential for the protection of liberty and peace that a firearm also enables. The evil resides not in the firearm, but in he or she who wields it. Leaving the potential for evil intact means increasing the chances that I might get hurt, yes; but I do not desire safety. I desire liberty. And at any rate, the meaning of the choice for good is so much more when one could have chosen evil instead. This is the most powerful aspect of the exercise of free will, after all.

And what happens if someone (or even a group of people) hoards all the firearms, and holds them for their exclusive use? They gain a near-monopoly on violence; they can tyrannize at will. What I am saying is that we should not be in the business of protecting such hoarding, whether by states or by capitalists. That does not mean we should ban guns, of course; it means that we should demand fair access to them, to ensure that the capability of self-defense, essential to individual sovereignty, is available to all.

Similarly, we should abolish capitalist property rights (exclusive control) and replace them with rights of use (fair access).

So ultimately my goal should be to change the hearts and minds of those who wield the tool. That is part of the purpose of the platform presented in this thread. To show people the potential locked up in the society, and its mechanisms and institutions which already exist. To show them that while these mechanisms and institutions are capable of great evil, they are also capable of great good. Directing my attention exclusively to an inanimate, and, in the case of property, an intangible idea is pointless folly. People are the one's who need to hear the message.

Freedom is not something that should be left to generosity, nor will any "freedom" such gained ever be genuine. It will always be "freedom as long as it is convenient for those with real power."

To that extent, the goal is evolution and not revolution (the difference, I suspect, being the even more basic conflict between the two of us, above and beyond any issue of property).

Maybe it is. I will not deny a revolutionary orientation. I very much doubt that the rulers will abandon their rule without resistance.

In the case of intellectual property, this is true, but still beside the point. As I explained above the point is that even while the tool in question presents great opportunity for evil, free individuals are nonetheless capable of finding, implimenting, and focusing on the equal potential for good and the liberation that follows.

The problem is that the nature of the institution is such that it is generally tyrannical; it does not permit us freedom, it denies it to us.

Surely there can be good things done by autocrats, too, but that does not mean that we should tolerate autocracies.

And what happens if someone (or even a group of people) hoards all the firearms, and holds them for their exclusive use? They gain a near-monopoly on violence; they can tyrannize at will.


My individual property rights, including my right to own firearms, makes this illegal. Note that the hording one describes is often accomplished via the theft of property, not simply by the existance of property rights alone.

Will the danger of such theft ever be made impossible? No; it is simply a matter of the aggressor having enough guns, of course. But then it is always the People who must stand against the aggressor and assert their rights. Simple ideology will not save them.


Similarly, we should abolish capitalist property rights (exclusive control) and replace them with rights of use (fair access).


Again, all I am seeing is argument over a name.

I have shared what I believe in. Accept or reject it; draw whatever conclusion one wishes, as is one's right. In the meantime, I am more interested in further development of The Autonomist Party platform, especially as concerns the issues raised by You Dont Know Me.

The following section has been added to The Autonomist Party platform:

The Nature of Revenue

*snip*

Sounds pretty good...I dig this party, it reminds me of Eutrusca's Party of Whatever Works.

I wasn't going to bother with this election, but I'd like to join your party... :)

Sounds pretty good...I dig this party, it reminds me of Eutrusca's Party of Whatever Works.

I wasn't going to bother with this election, but I'd like to join your party... :)

You're now added to the member list.

Check out this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11673851&postcount=26), by You Dont Know Me. Some very interesting issues are raised for discussion. I've given my opinion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11674665&postcount=32) on the issue of child labor, however, I'm waiting for other's comments on the first two.

What are your recommendations?

It is a difficult question.

The central problem with democracy is that it tends to replace dictatorship by an individual with dictatorship by a system. As the system grows, the avenues for political change grow increasingly narrow and the current legislation becomes so intertwined that true change is almost impossible. The people will inevitably find itself under a government that is extremely underresponsive.

The key is to make sure that government needs to be constantly rebuilt, rather than reloaded.

As for monetary monopolies, I am not sure of any real solution other than legal tender laws, but they replace one monopoly with a government monopoly.

The central problem with democracy is that it tends to replace dictatorship by an individual with dictatorship by a system. As the system grows, the avenues for political change grow increasingly narrow and the current legislation becomes so intertwined that true change is almost impossible. The people will inevitably find itself under a government that is extremely underresponsive.


This is part of the purpose of the focus on decentralization. Keeping government institutions and processes as partitioned and close to the community as possible will help contain and prevent the spread of the "damage," if you will. There must still be some level of central coordination, however.

What about my response on the issue of child labor? If there are no objections, I was thinking about writing a draft about labor in general, which we could add to the overall platform.

Yes, they are. I think they are fairly easily applicable, though.
I can't know how to apply them if they're vague.
Sure - equal right to equal use.

When it prioritizes one person's use over another's.
Again, so if goods are scarce, no one gets enough. You haven't provided any means to avoid that problem.
No.
Yes. Look, if there's not enough food for everyone there are three options:

1. Your option. Distribute the insufficient goods equally, and everyone starves slowly.
2. Your caricature of capitalism, where some people get enough at the expense of others.
3. Actual capitalism, where the shortage creates an incentive for some people to produce more food.

If there's a fourth option, please tell me what it is.
The majority whatever would be committing an injustice to deprive others of the right to use against their consent.
Yes they would. But you're handing the power to do so. It's like giving a monkey a gun. He's going to start shooting people.
in practice, there would be abuses, but that is inevitable in any system.
Don't give the monkey a gun. People can't abuse the system if no one has the power to abuse it.

Yes. Look, if there's not enough food for everyone there are three options:

1. Your option. Distribute the insufficient goods equally, and everyone starves slowly.
2. Your caricature of capitalism, where some people get enough at the expense of others.
3. Actual capitalism, where the shortage creates an incentive for some people to produce more food.

If there's a fourth option, please tell me what it is.

My "incentive" is my own welfare. If I have a shortage of food, I use my rights of use to grow more. All the rights of use ensure is that this opportunity is available to all.

Yes they would. But you're handing the power to do so. It's like giving a monkey a gun. He's going to start shooting people.

I am? How so?

Don't give the monkey a gun. People can't abuse the system if no one has the power to abuse it.

I agree, that is the idea. How would you ensure this?

how do you plan to "abandon" corporations?
how do you prevent them from rising from the mutual ventures?

how do you plan to "abandon" corporations?
how do you prevent them from rising from the mutual ventures?

Corporations are created and regulated by the governments in which they are registered. As such, corporations derive their entire existance via the action of the state. Laws need only be passed and/or repealed, bringing such action to a halt. This is what happens when one relies on the state to protect one's business ventures; eventually the people will no longer tolerate the abuse and say "no more." If those in business did not want to be subject to such a possibility, they should not have placed their investments under the direct regulatory control of the government to begin with.

Once governments are no longer capable of granting corporate charters, or recognizing limited liability or corporate personhood, there is no way for the mutual, cooperative, or other voluntary associations to become corporations, or to exploit the mechanisms thereof.

This is part of the purpose of the focus on decentralization. Keeping government institutions and processes as partitioned and close to the community as possible will help contain and prevent the spread of the "damage," if you will. There must still be some level of central coordination, however.

The centralization grows out of decentralization. There must be measures to keep the government decentralized, going down to the lowest level, in which the individual must be a free and willing participant in democracy.

What about my response on the issue of child labor? If there are no objections, I was thinking about writing a draft about labor in general, which we could add to the overall platform.

How about parents forcing education? This platform is naturally difficult concerning the relationship between children, parents, and government. For example, the question of forced labor seems to have been answered with an arbitrary line where on one side there is slavery, on the other side there is just simple chores.

Typically this revolves around the emancipation of the child as an individual: what the child must do to achieve it, what rights the parent would have, and what duties the government would have.

how do you plan to "abandon" corporations?
how do you prevent them from rising from the mutual ventures?

Corporations are simply legal entities with many rights that the government doesn't allow for a tangible individual. Those rights that the corporation doesn't have can usually be bought with the money they make from the profits they reap from their limited liability. If that liability were to be lost, easy enough from an abstract government standpoint (but a very difficult and time consuming policy to institute for a country so immersed in the policy as the US), the vast amount of money corporations are able to raise would dry up, as the investor pool would be much, much smaller, and the risk of investment would be much, much greater.

Another major bonus of current corporate personhood is an indefinite life period, where a corporation could continue to grow and accumulate wealth over many more years than a true individual could.

In short, take away the protections a corporation receives ("abandon the corporation") and the corporations will cease to exist on their own.

There must be measures to keep the government decentralized, going down to the lowest level, in which the individual must be a free and willing participant in democracy.


What form do such measures take?


How about parents forcing education? This platform is naturally difficult concerning the relationship between children, parents, and government. For example, the question of forced labor seems to have been answered with an arbitrary line where on one side there is slavery, on the other side there is just simple chores.


Reviewing the wording of the section "The Nature of Education" I can only conclude that if students are to be included with parents and teachers as the owners and controllers of a voluntary educational system, then no, parents cannot force their children to attend school.

I'm not sure that this is what I actually intended when I wrote the manifesto, but this is what it appears to say nonetheless. When I wrote "abolishment of compulsory education," I believe I intended to emphasize compulsion by the state or government, while the ultimate voluntary choice resided with parents who act as the legal representatives and guardians of their children/students. Even if parents could compel their children to attend school, students could still be provided with ownership and control over educational institutions, if for anything as a measure of recompense for being so compelled.

I am not personally inclined to consider parents "forcing" their children, over whom they are still legal guardians/representatives, to attend school as being abusive or slavery or whatever else. At the very least, this compulsion has still be decentralized even beyond government down to the family level.

What form do such measures take?

I don't know.

It is important that all policy must be constantly renewed rather than being continuous. If superfluous policy and jurisdiction must be maintained with constant political motion, government will naturally be kept to a minimum.

Reviewing the wording of the section "The Nature of Education" I can only conclude that if students are to be included with parents and teachers as the owners and controllers of a voluntary educational system, then no, parents cannot force their children to attend school.

I'm not sure that this is what I actually intended when I wrote the manifesto, but this is what it appears to say nonetheless. When I wrote "abolishment of compulsory education," I believe I intended to emphasize compulsion by the state or government, while the ultimate voluntary choice resided with parents who act as the legal representatives and guardians of their children/students. Even if parents could compel their children to attend school, students could still be provided with ownership and control over educational institutions, if for anything as a measure of recompense for being so compelled.

I am not personally inclined to consider parents "forcing" their children, over whom they are still legal guardians/representatives, to attend school as being abusive or slavery or whatever else. At the very least, this compulsion has still be decentralized even beyond government down to the family level.

This all sounds good, but how do we handle the emancipation issue?

I don't know.

It is important that all policy must be constantly renewed rather than being continuous.


Mandatory sunset provisions?


This all sounds good, but how do we handle the emancipation issue?

I'd imagine such legislation would be the responsibility of individual local governments, in a similar fashion to how minor emancipation requirements and law vary from state to state in the United States.

Mandatory sunset provisions?

That is what I had in mind, although it seems a very minor condition and would prefer to address the root cause rather than limiting policy with policy.

Not to mention it puts us in one of those paradoxical positions that you mentioned earlier.

Let us end the socialist idea with a Winston Churchill quote:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings, and the inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

Are the socialists out there actually saying they place the misery of all above the happiness of most? That everyone having no property is better than some having a lot? That everyone being poor is better than some being rich? Under capitalism, everyone has something, and some have a lot. Under socialism, nobody has anything. You tell me which appeals to the intelligent person more.

Another quote:
Capitalism is the system of individual rights; the intellectuals on all sides are for some form of collectivism. Capitalism is the system of individualism, self-interest and happiness; the intellectuals are for altruism, self-sacrifice, and misery. Capitalism is pro-reason; the intellectuals are steeped in mysticism and subjectivism. Capitalism is is a social system for living in reality; a reality which the intellectuals despise, or whose existence they deny.

No wonder the bulk of the intellectuals who infect today's universities are against Capitalism -- it represents the antithesis of everything they stand for. How could they not be?

Simply put, altruism is not a part of the basic human thought process, and most people will not accept socialism once it's actually in place. The few that will will be die-hards and utopians, neither of which is acceptable in a government.

Are the socialists out there actually saying they place the misery of all above the happiness of most? That everyone having no property is better than some having a lot? That everyone being poor is better than some being rich? Under capitalism, everyone has something, and some have a lot. Under socialism, nobody has anything. You tell me which appeals to the intelligent person more.

I would guess socialists would say that property is not everything and that the "misery" one thinks one experiences under socialism is a result of conditioning and cultural norms forced upon society by a capitalist system.

Simply put, altruism is not a part of the basic human thought process

That is hardly true, we have the most complex altruistic drives of any animal, they are only subverted by the rigorous pressures put on us by our present lives. When people are given the means to adequately provide for themselves, they will gladly provide for others.

I would guess socialists would say that property is not everything and that the "misery" one thinks one experiences under socialism is a result of conditioning and cultural norms forced upon society by a capitalist system.

Well, before saying any such thing I would ask him to clarify why exactly he thinks socialist society would lead to misery.

Or perhaps even better, just what, exactly, he thinks socialism constitutes, considering that several forms of socialism do not advocate the abolition of property and that he completely mischaracterized Marxism in one of his other posts on this subject.

Are the socialists out there actually saying they place the misery of all above the happiness of most? That everyone having no property is better than some having a lot?


Exactly who is this post addressed to? Review of this very thread will reveal that some have objected to The Autonomist Party's desire to maintain and defend individual property rights. I have argued for such maintenance and defense myself, even in this very thread. I fail to see where the party has called for "everyone having no property." Any claim that the party does call for such absurd policy constitutes nothing more than fear mongering and the spread of disinformation, common tactics of the rich and politically powerful.

If one's objection is based upon The Autonomist Party's rejection of the corporation, then I would submit that we reject nothing more than unnecessary and obtrustive statist collectivism masquerading as "capitalist" economics. As concerns the corporation, it is not The Autonomist Party who is socialist...

Simply put, altruism is not a part of the basic human thought process,


Which is why altruism is practiced, in many forms, throughout human society. Because it is completely unnatural and unhuman.

:rolleyes:

edit:

And at any rate, The Autonomist Party does not call for altruism exclusively:


[The Autonomist Party calls] for an endorsement of the virtue of competition and free enterprise, and the establishment of a genuine free market, where "free" represents the freedom from statist coercion, protection, or augmentation; an end to all subsidies, bailouts, corporate welfare, and other burglary of the full product of the People's labor for the sake of a few well connected tyrants.


In short, within the genuine free market, the choice is yours.

I had originally assumed that The Autonomist Party's position on property was clear, especially when it was pointed out that the party essentially endorses mutualist-like economics, which in turn endorses the continued existence of individual/private property rights. At any rate, I have attempted to clarify my original meaning:


[The Autonomist Party calls] for the continued existence and defense of individual private property rights in physical/tangible goods and land; such rights include the ability of individuals to voluntarily dispose of their property as they see fit, including entering into voluntary collective, cooperative, or other group based agreements which do not derive their existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support.


edit: And for those who will claim that the corporation is such a voluntary group based agreement, another attempt at clarification:


For the abandonment of the corporation, limited liability, intellectual property, and any other venture that derives its existence exclusively by explicit and direct government charter and support, for the purpose of serving to further centralize power, remove responsibility for individual or group actions, or create scarcity and systems of control, overly liable to abuse, where none need exist.


again, it is a matter of drawing a distinction between "state" and "community of free individuals."

Note also that I have changed references to the "commune" to "state commune." This is to make it more clear that the manifesto rejects attempts to force collectivist arangements via the state, while leaving individuals free to form such arangements on their own via voluntary efforts. Again, my original intent was not to reject collectivism, but rather to reject statist coercion pretending to be collectivism.

How do we feel about inheritance?

I don't like inheritance, but I also don't like the idea of the reversion of property to the government, either. Its just too feudalistic.

Perhaps it could revert to the government, with mandatory auctions and a 100% Death Tax. We could make exceptions, of course, for situations of early death and the provision of care and education for children.

And getting back to something, my earlier questions about forced education and forced labor are based in another idea of mine.

I think that education should be largely provided for, past the earliest levels, by increased levels of apprenticeships. Of course, this runs into problems with forced child labor on the part of the parents.

Perhaps it could revert to the government, with mandatory auctions and a 100% Death Tax.


I would have to be 100% against that. Such would be contrary to individual property rights and the voluntary disposal thereof, not to mention voluntary association in general. If an individual (or group) wills its property away as such voluntarily, then of course, I have no problem with it, one way or the other. But to (re)introduce mandatory state redistribution is far too dangerous.

I would have to be 100% against that. Such would be contrary to individual property rights and the voluntary disposal thereof, not to mention voluntary association in general. If an individual (or group) wills its property away as such voluntarily, then of course, I have no problem with it, one way or the other. But to (re)introduce mandatory state redistribution is far too dangerous.

What interest does the individual have in his/her property after he is dead?

And how does our stance on charity not fall into conflict with what you just said?

What interest does the individual have in his/her property after he is dead?


I would presume that the individual is capable of making his or her wishes clear while still alive, and while still capable of having and expressing interest. If I wish that my property be transfered to my children, or a particular social welfare organization, or auctioned off for the good of my community, then my wish must be respected or I am no longer a sovereign individual. This is the cornerstone of self-ownership.

At any rate, we have still dodged the greater issue: the increased danger posed by the state.


And how does our stance on charity not fall into conflict with what you just said?


Inheritance is a one shot deal. Charity is a state of perpetual dependence at the expense of self-sufficiency. An individual who is otherwise self-sufficient, however, is not suddenly engaged in charity by accepting a voluntary gift.

I would presume that the individual is capable of making his or her wishes clear while still alive, and while still capable of having and expressing interest. If I wish that my property be transfered to my children, or a particular social welfare organization, or auctioned off for the good of my community, then my wish must be respected or I am no longer a sovereign individual. This is the cornerstone of self-ownership.

A dead man is no longer a sovereign individual, his wishes die with him.

At any rate, we have still dodged the greater issue: the increased danger posed by the state.

Tax revenue is not a danger when the state is effectively restrained.

The accumulation of wealth over generations can be a danger, it is one of the same dangers the corporation poses.

Inheritance is a one shot deal. Charity is a state of perpetual dependence at the expense of self-sufficiency. An individual who is otherwise self-sufficient, however, is not precluded from accepting voluntary gifts.

Charity need not be a state of perpetual dependence nor does it always cost self-sufficiency, while inheritance can be a state of perpetual dependence on the work of someone else.

I do not have a problem with your notions on charity, by the way, I do see a slave-master relationship in charity, however, I do think charity will be a utilizable method for the transition towards these policies, and should be the last of the policy changes. It will be much more palatable to do away with charity when it appears to be less necessary.

A dead man is no longer a sovereign individual, his wishes die with him.


What greater right does anyone else have to the property than the previous owner's chosen heirs? Reversion back to the state, or mandatory auctions, or 100% death taxes do not eliminate inheritance. People other than the original owner are still benefiting from that which was not earned. At most, what is accomplished is the defense and (re)introduction of statist redistribution, the "state commune" which the party manifesto flatly rejects. Such measures are contrary to the values of decentralization, individual property, and voluntary association. It is as simple as that.


Tax revenue is not a danger when the state is effectively restrained.


Statist redistribution and 100% tax rates are not examples of "effective restraint."


The accumulation of wealth over generations can be a danger, it is one of the same dangers the corporation poses.


Except that the corporation is an entity that derives its existance explicitly from the state for the express purpose of protecting centralized and arbitrary power. A simple study of history will demonstrate a similar tendency and purpose behind most, if not all, attempts to redistribute wealth via the state.

What greater right does anyone else have to the property than the previous owner's chosen heirs? Reversion back to the state, or mandatory auctions, or 100% death taxes do not eliminate inheritance. People other than the original owner are still benefiting from that which was not earned. At most, what is accomplished is the defense and (re)introduction of statist redistribution, the "state commune" which the party manifesto flatly rejects. Such measures are contrary to the values of decentralization, individual property, and voluntary association. It is as simple as that.

What greater right does the previous owner's chosen heirs have than anyone else. It is certainly no less the result of good fortune to be the beneficiary of a wealthy relative than to win the lottery.

I do not see it as redistribution, I see it as the maintenance of the administration of government through funds abandoned upon death.

Statist redistribution and 100% tax rates are not examples of "effective restraint."

Restraint is indirectly measured by taxation, it is directly measured in action. If a 100% death tax is met with restrained government action and spending, it will only mean less tax placed upon those of us who are still alive (and infinitely more important).

Except that the corporation is an entity that derives its existance explicitly from the state for the express purpose of protecting centralized and arbitrary power. A simple study of history will demonstrate a similar tendency and purpose behind most, if not all, attempts to redistribute wealth via the state.

And inheritance is not also a policy designed explicitly to protect centralized power and ownership of wealth?

What greater right does the previous owner's chosen heirs have than anyone else.


Their recieving the property is not depending on the direct intervention of the state. Thus, their recieving the property does not require expansion of the powers of the state, and is therefore more conducive to the maintainance and defense of individual liberties.


It is certainly no less the result of good fortune to be the beneficiary of a wealthy relative than to win the lottery.


If we casually brush aside a lifetime spent laboring for the benefit of one's family or other heirs as simple "luck."


I do not see it as redistribution, I see it as the maintenance of the administration of government through funds abandoned upon death.


Again, this only works if we automatically assume that expressed wishes during life amount to nothing; removing inheritance necessarily removes sovereignty and the right to voluntary association while the individual is still alive. And I would prefer that government have to struggle for its existance, rather than have its citizens need to struggle to restrain the leviathan if and when it gets out of their control. At any rate, making the deaths of one's citizens an avenue of income strikes me as a bad idea.


Restraint is indirectly measured by taxation, it is directly measured in action. If a 100% death tax is met with restrained government action and spending, it will only mean less tax placed upon those of us who are still alive (and infinitely more important).


Ah, so the violation of individual property rights and voluntary association is to serve as nothing more than a subsidy. Again, I fail to see how forcing others via the state to cover one's own responsibility is compatable with the values set forth in the party manifesto. Talk about "charity..."


And inheritance is not also a policy designed explicitly to protect centralized power and ownership of wealth?

Property rights are a mechanism intended to protect the sovereignty of the individual. Allowing an individual to pass on his or her property does not require the direct intervention of the state, and as such does not require building up the power of the state as does forcible redistribution or the corporation. Nothing about such property rights prevents said individuals from sharing their wealth, or requires them to hoard wealth; that choice belongs to the individual. I believe in choice, even if it means some will choose differently than me. My desire is for liberty above security.

(edit: Indeed, what of the possibility that an individual deeds his personal belongings or wealth to a voluntary association or group for the express purpose of preventing the centralization of wealth you cite? Such voluntary efforts to pursue the goal you describe are destroyed by mandatory intervention by the state)

Their recieving the property is not depending on the direct intervention of the state. Thus, their recieving the property does not require expansion of the powers of the state, and is therefore more conducive to the maintainance and defense of individual liberties.

Their receiving of property is dependent upon the intervention of government, all legal obtaining of property is dependent on government, and the legal passage of abandoned property to a seperate person or group is even more dependant.

If we casually brush aside a lifetime spent laboring for the benefit of one's family or other heirs as simple "luck."

The work of the benefactor is irrelevant.

Again, this only works if we automatically assume that expressed wishes during life amount to nothing;

You will have to explain why the wishes a person had while living matter when they are dead, as it is not apparent to me.

Ah, so the violation of individual property rights and voluntary association is to serve as nothing more than a subsidy. Again, I fail to see how forcing others via the state to cover one's own responsibility is compatable with the values set forth in the party manifesto. Talk about "charity..."


Again, property rights are abandoned upon death, all rights are abandoned upon death.

Property rights are a mechanism intended to protect the sovereignty of the individual. Allowing an individual to pass on his or her property does not require the direct intervention of the state, and as such does not require building up the power of the state as does forcible redistribution or the corporation. Nothing about such property rights prevents said individuals from sharing their wealth, or requires them to hoard wealth; that choice belongs to the individual. I believe in choice, even if it means some will choose differently than me. My desire is for liberty above security.

Is this all rhetoric?

(edit: Indeed, what of the possibility that an individual deeds his personal belongings or wealth to a voluntary association or group for the express purpose of preventing the centralization of wealth you cite? Such voluntary efforts to pursue the goal you describe are destroyed by mandatory intervention by the state)

Why would he need to prevent the centralization of wealth, when we already have the policy in place to prevent it.

A dead man is no longer a sovereign individual, his wishes die with him.True, but if inheritance were banned, you would simply see a boom in lawyers producing "Pre-Death Property Transfer Agreements" where the transfer of property is said to take place a minute before the person transferring property dies.

Why would he need to prevent the centralization of wealth, when we already have the policy in place to prevent it.From my understanding, the Autonomist Party is not against centralization of wealth in and of itself, merely the Party is against state enforcement or creation of wealth centralization.

True, but if inheritance were banned, you would simply see a boom in lawyers producing "Pre-Death Property Transfer Agreements" where the transfer of property is said to take place a minute before the person transferring property dies.

And this is where I have difficulty with the original manifesto. It is firmly against charity, but has no problem with gifting, when, in all honesty, I see gifting as charity. It is one thing to exchange a good for good will, that is, as I said, an exchange, but giving simply for the sake of improving someone else's life is no different from charity. So a "Pre-Death Property Transfer" would be nothing more than the charity that the manifesto rejects.

I also don't buy the "one shot deal" argument as well, as that doesn't change that the recipients lifestyle might not be dependent on the gift of the other for time to come. I could give a homeless man a completely-paid-for house that shelters him for the rest of his life. It is a one-shot deal, but it doesn't change the fact that the man was dependent on my charity.

From my understanding, the Autonomist Party is not against centralization of wealth in and of itself, merely the Party is against state enforcement or creation of wealth centralization.

If said centralization was dangerous or harmful to the autonomy of other individuals, it would be, and I tend to see such a centralization of economic power as being dangerous and/or harmful. I think.

And this is where I have difficulty with the original manifesto. It is firmly against charity, but has no problem with gifting, when, in all honesty, I see gifting as charity. It is one thing to exchange a good for good will, that is, as I said, an exchange, but giving simply for the sake of improving someone else's life is no different from charity. So a "Pre-Death Property Transfer" would be nothing more than the charity that the manifesto rejects.The party doesn't reject gifts, simply the dependency that charity results in.

I also don't buy the "one shot deal" argument as well, as that doesn't change that the recipients lifestyle might not be dependent on the gift of the other for time to come. I could give a homeless man a completely-paid-for house that shelters him for the rest of his life. It is a one-shot deal, but it doesn't change the fact that the man was dependent on my charity.True, but someone who inherits something isn't necessarily dependent upon the inheritance, nor does receiving a gift every so often necessarily mean you're dependent upon it.

If said centralization was dangerous or harmful to the autonomy of other individuals, it would be, and I tend to see such a centralization of economic power as being dangerous and/or harmful. I think.I would agree that the centralization of wealth would fit this criteria, but the party, from my interpretation, doesn't agree. Certainly the party would be willing to say that harmful actions are bad, but indirect harm doesn't seem to be a particular concern of the party.

The party doesn't reject gifts, simply the dependency that charity results in.

And like I said, gifting is an exchange, even if it is for intangible assets. A "Pre-Death Property Transfer", would be charity.

True, but someone who inherits something isn't necessarily dependent upon the inheritance, nor does receiving a gift every so often necessarily mean you're dependent upon it.

If it is any meaningful amount of wealth, any increase in lifestyle would be dependent on the inheritance.

Dependency is not limited to dependency for survival.

I would agree that the centralization of wealth would fit this criteria, but the party, from my interpretation, doesn't agree. Certainly the party would be willing to say that harmful actions are bad, but indirect harm doesn't seem to be a particular concern of the party.

I think this party aims to counter the dangers of centralization of wealth by removing the power it holds. The free associative mutualism, combined with an elimination of the protections of the wealthy, would provide the measures of a free egalitarian society.

However, I will not deny that wealth is a self-perpetuating thing, and I believe that any of these avenues with which is perpetuates itself should be removed. Furthermore, I differ from DC in that I see inheritance as just as much a government action as the lack there of.

And like I said, gifting is an exchange, even if it is for intangible assets. A "Pre-Death Property Transfer", would be charity.Perhaps it's simply delayed payment for some service? Being someone's child or spouse could be considered a service, I suppose.

If it is any meaningful amount of wealth, any increase in lifestyle would be dependent on the inheritance.

Dependency is not limited to dependency for survival.Oh, I see what you mean. I think that Dissonant Cognition meant dependent upon for survival, or a great increase in comfort; in the same way that an addict is dependent upon a drug.

I think this party aims to counter the dangers of centralization of wealth by removing the power it holds. The free associative mutualism, combined with an elimination of the protections of the wealthy, would provide the measures of a free egalitarian society.

However, I will not deny that wealth is a self-perpetuating thing, and I believe that any of these avenues with which is perpetuates itself should be removed.I think the party tries to remove the power that wealth holds, but to remove too much of the power would also result in the removal of some amount of autonomy.

Furthermore, I differ from DC in that I see inheritance as just as much a government action as the lack there of.I can see how it is a government action with regard to the protection of property rights; DC has stated that the party will protect property rights, though. Is there an additional government action that you think this entails?

Perhaps it's simply delayed payment for some service? Being someone's child or spouse could be considered a service, I suppose.

That is a tremendous stretch, but I can see how legal issues to get around the death tax would be prominent. Look at any developed nation's tax code.

Oh, I see what you mean. I think that Dissonant Cognition meant dependent upon for survival, or a great increase in comfort; in the same way that an addict is dependent upon a drug.

I think he may be making a specious differentiation that should be reexamined.

I think the party tries to remove the power that wealth holds, but to remove too much of the power would also result in the removal of some amount of autonomy.

I agree to an extent, as I can see no way that one can be social while maintaining complete autonomy, outside primitivism maybe (but I don't consider that to be particularly social).

I can see how it is a government action with regard to the protection of property rights; DC has stated that the party will protect property rights, though. Is there an additional government action that you think this entails?

I don't see it as simply the holding of property. I see it as a rather illegitimate acquisition of property that entails a great deal of government protections.

That is a tremendous stretch, but I can see how legal issues to get around the death tax would be prominent. Look at any developed nation's tax code.Naturally; how would you propose the issue be dealt with without increasing the government too much?

I think he may be making a specious differentiation that should be reexamined.Perhaps, I'll let him clarify himself.

I agree to an extent, as I can see no way that one can be social while maintaining complete autonomy, outside primitivism maybe (but I don't consider that to be particularly social). I can agree with this.

I don't see it as simply the holding of property. I see it as a rather illegitimate acquisition of property that entails a great deal of government protections.If someone gave you a bunch of money that wasn't tied to their death, would that be an illegitimate acquisition of property, as well? If so, how do you propose to deal with the question of restricting transfers of property?

Naturally; how would you propose the issue be dealt with without increasing the government too much?

That question is far more broad than is our present topic.

As for the answer, I don't really know. It was a question I asked earlier, in how to keep legislation from forming a continuous system, which inevitably undermines the democratic principles upon which we are based.

I think, as with all governments, there must be a certain commitments to the ideas behind the legislation, rather than the legislation itself.

Personally, I see individual to individual gifting outlawed or punitively taxed if we are going to outlaw charity, as there is no good reason to allow one and outlaw the other.

I could see the allowance for donations if accounted for as an exchange for good will, and taxed as such.

If someone gave you a bunch of money that wasn't tied to their death, would that be an illegitimate acquisition of property, as well? If so, how do you propose to deal with the question of restricting transfers of property?

It depends on if there is equitable exchange in return for the money. If there isn't I can classify it as nothing more than charity, and by that notion it does not fit with our party platform.

Just to be clear, I don't think property rights in themselves are justified, only the dignity they allow us. So if a property right is a danger to that dignity, then I have no problem with disallowing it.

That question is far more broad than is our present topic.

As for the answer, I don't really know. It was a question I asked earlier, in how to keep legislation from forming a continuous system, which inevitably undermines the democratic principles upon which we are based.

I think, as with all governments, there must be a certain commitments to the ideas behind the legislation, rather than the legislation itself.

Personally, I see individual to individual gifting outlawed or punitively taxed if we are going to outlaw charity, as there is no good reason to allow one and outlaw the other.

I could see the allowance for donations if accounted for as an exchange for good will, and taxed as such.Would a redistribution of property every so often be an answer?

It depends on if there is equitable exchange in return for the money. If there isn't I can classify it as nothing more than charity, and by that notion it does not fit with our party platform.

Just to be clear, I don't think property rights in themselves are justified, only the dignity they allow us. So if a property right is a danger to that dignity, then I have no problem with disallowing it.Ah, I see. So if a person feels that stripping for a living is undignified, but does it anyway because it makes them the most money, that you'd be against that as well? (Just trying to find out to what extent your like of dignity goes.)
Certainly this is a different idea than most people have, that's for sure.

Would a redistribution of property every so often be an answer?

No, that simply perpetuates a system of dependency to the government.

The correct answer would allow for a system in which the people (all people to somewhat varying extent) were only dependent upon each other, which would in turn eliminate a dependency on the government. The government would annihilate itself, or most likely a sort of evolutionary equilibrium between government and annihilation of government, so that whatever government is necessary is the product of a rebuilding.

Even if that isn't the central goal of DC or this party, it is my goal, and think this party is closest to fulfilling it.

Ah, I see. So if a person feels that stripping for a living is undignified, but does it anyway because it makes them the most money, that you'd be against that as well? (Just trying to find out to what extent your like of dignity goes.)
Certainly this is a different idea than most people have, that's for sure.

Remember that I said property allows us dignity. She would not strip if she didn't gain some dignity from supporting herself with the added property stripping provided her.

I, of course, would not want to see, someone resort to something that they were ashamed of to support themselves, and I hope the system we are working on would provide ample opportunity to not give up her dignity.

I also want to point out that this is a culturally loaded situation with many factors not included within the realm of our discussion.

No, that simply perpetuates a system of dependency to the government.

The correct answer would allow for a system in which the people (all people to somewhat varying extent) were only dependent upon each other, which would in turn eliminate a dependency on the government. The government would annihilate itself, or most likely a sort of evolutionary equilibrium between government and annihilation of government, so that whatever government is necessary is the product of a rebuilding.

Even if that isn't the central goal of DC or this party, it is my goal, and think this party is closest to fulfilling it.Ah, I see. Would this dependency on each other require a group making decisions at some point, or would it be simply individuals trading with other individuals?

Remember that I said property allows us dignity. She would not strip if she didn't gain some dignity from supporting herself with the added property stripping provided her.

I, of course, would not want to see, someone resort to something that they were ashamed of to support themselves, and I hope the system we are working on would provide ample opportunity to not give up her dignity.

I also want to point out that this is a culturally loaded situation with many factors not included within the realm of our discussion.True, though I'm not certain that dignity isn't itself a culturally loaded concept.

The correct answer would allow for a system in which the people (all people to somewhat varying extent) were only dependent upon each other, which would in turn eliminate a dependency on the government. The government would annihilate itself, or most likely a sort of evolutionary equilibrium between government and annihilation of government, so that whatever government is necessary is the product of a rebuilding.

How do you ensure that this dependence is mutual and equal?

Ah, I see. Would this dependency on each other require a group making decisions at some point, or would it be simply individuals trading with other individuals?

Of course, I do not wish to do away with collective action. I probably support collective action more than my counterpart, DC.

I don't expect to do away with democracy altogether, only that democracy becomes seperate interweaving groups so to speak, so that no person is confined to one group.

True, though I'm not certain that dignity isn't itself a culturally loaded concept.

That is certainly true.

How do you ensure that this dependence is mutual and equal?

We needn't, we shouldn't.

We needn't, we shouldn't.

So you are fine with hierarchy and subordination, as long as the government is not involved?

Dependence implies power, unequal dependence implies unequal power, unequal power implies the suppression of autonomy and the maintenance of exclusive rule.

Of course, I do not wish to do away with collective action. I probably support collective action more than my counterpart, DC.

I don't expect to do away with democracy altogether, only that democracy becomes seperate interweaving groups so to speak, so that no person is confined to one group.Ah, I see. Sort of like a democracy where a person works, then when they go home have a separate democracy related to the neighborhood?

So you are fine with hierarchy and subordination, as long as the government is not involved?

Dependence implies power, unequal dependence implies unequal power, unequal power implies the suppression of autonomy and the maintenance of exclusive rule.

This is interdependence in a free society. A person provides for himself and improves his lifestyle through exchange.

As I said to Jello Biafra, I encourage independence from society, as it means freedom, but since that is entirely unlikely, people can decide on their level of dependence to society in order to fulfill greater or lesser needs.

Equal dependence is also equal lifestyle, and I wouldn't encourage that.

Ah, I see. Sort of like a democracy where a person works, then when they go home have a separate democracy related to the neighborhood?

Yes, a person could be freely associated with a hundred democratic groups, many of which could be completely unrelated.

This is interdependence in a free society. A person provides for himself and improves his lifestyle through exchange.

As I said to Jello Biafra, I encourage independence from society, as it means freedom, but since that is entirely unlikely, people can decide on their level of dependence to society in order to fulfill greater or lesser needs.

Equal dependence is also equal lifestyle, and I wouldn't encourage that.

Dependence precludes the choice of dependence. How would you ensure independence in a society based upon exchange, and thus dependence?

It seems to me that this is not a choice that can be left to the individual; human beings are enough social creatures that this choice is one their society will make for them.

Few human beings living in developed modern societies know how to engage in substinence farming or hunter-gathering, and most have been conditioned enough that they would never conceive of doing so, absent urgent need for survival. Even if they did possess the skills, they have lived such that they would never be able to stand the comparative lack of material wealth. Is this a situation they chose? Hardly. Would this situation be reversed simply if the state were eliminated? Probably not.

If you wish to maintain societies characterized by the division of labor, and thus by dependence on exchange, then in order to eliminate class and hierarchy the only solution is to somehow make levels of dependence more or less equal. Frankly, I'm not sure how this is possible; even with fully equal opportunity those talented in whatever the society values will swiftly rise to the top. The best possibility I can conceive of is some means of collective action to stem the power of the elite, but the efficacy of such methods is questionable.

Dependence precludes the choice of dependence. How would you ensure independence in a society based upon exchange, and thus dependence?

It seems to me that this is not a choice that can be left to the individual; human beings are enough social creatures that this choice is one their society will make for them.

Few human beings living in developed modern societies know how to engage in substinence farming or hunter-gathering, and most have been conditioned enough that they would never conceive of doing so, absent urgent need for survival. Even if they did possess the skills, they have lived such that they would never be able to stand the comparative lack of material wealth. Is this a situation they chose? Hardly. Would this situation be reversed simply if the state were eliminated? Probably not.

If you wish to maintain societies characterized by the division of labor, and thus by dependence on exchange, then in order to eliminate class and hierarchy the only solution is to somehow make levels of dependence more or less equal. Frankly, I'm not sure how this is possible; even with fully equal opportunity those talented in whatever the society values will swiftly rise to the top. The best possibility I can conceive of is some means of collective action to stem the power of the elite, but the efficacy of such methods is questionable.

"As society is only possible if everyone, while living his own life, at the same time helps others to live; if every individual is simultaneously means and end; if each individual's well-being is simultaneously the condition necessary to the well-being of others, it is evident that the contrast between I and thou, means and end, automatically is overcome."

-Mises

That is how society runs on the free individual. When each person exists as equals as made necessary by their need for each other, each can pursue and provide for their own wellbeing with their own labor and their own social ability of exchange. They do not free themselves from dependency upon society, but they become largely autonomous.

You make the statement that humans are "enough social creatures" so that society can make this choice for them. As I am refering to the choice of how much dependence they desire from society in order to support their lifestyle, I couldn't have felt anything but abhorrence towards any argument that followed that statement. Do you really feel that society-at-large should decide how dependent you are upon society, that society should, in effect, hold your choke chain? Do you wish for society to choose your lifestyle for you, as decided by democratic vote? Would you truly render your control over your life down to a thousandth of a percent, just to stop someone from offering more benefit to others and recieving just reward for his help?

This system only offers interdependence, which allows varying degrees of dependence based upon your wants and desires by allowing you fair standing within an exchange. It does not guarantee to you wealth, it doesn't guarantee you poverty, it guarantees that you get back what you put in. If you want the full product of your labor, while maintaining a desirable standard of living, this is your only choice.

"As society is only possible if everyone, while living his own life, at the same time helps others to live; if every individual is simultaneously means and end; if each individual's well-being is simultaneously the condition necessary to the well-being of others, it is evident that the contrast between I and thou, means and end, automatically is overcome."

-Mises

That is how society runs on the free individual. When each person exists as equals as made necessary by their need for each other, each can pursue and provide for their own wellbeing with their own labor and their own social ability of exchange. They do not free themselves from dependency upon society, but they become largely autonomous.

"Equals as made necessary by their need for each other"?

Does the capitalist need the worker? No. Does the worker need the capitalist? Absolutely. Are they "equals"? Certainly not.

Will socialism solve this? No. The specialists, the talented, the experts - everyone who produces more "value" - will be able to exploit the others as long as the dependence is unequal.

You have pointed out, quite accurately, that "needs" are relative to a given society's material capabilities. I am merely extending this principle to its logical conclusion. A society whose material capabilities rest upon the division of labor and specialization will depend upon those most successful in that structure for its "needs" to be met.

You make the statement that humans are "enough social creatures" so that society can make this choice for them.

Not "can" (and certainly not "should.") Does.

As I am refering to the choice of how much dependence they desire from society in order to support their lifestyle, I couldn't have felt anything but abhorrence towards any argument that followed that statement. Do you really feel that society-at-large should decide how dependent you are upon society, that society should, in effect, hold your choke chain? Do you wish for society to choose your lifestyle for you, as decided by democratic vote?

Absolutely not. I want to be autonomous. Autonomy implies one of two things - genuine independence, or equal levels of dependence. Anything else creates a power hierarchy that will always leave those on the bottom unfree.

In our present societies, we have neither. In most of the alternatives I have heard, we gain neither.

Would you truly render your control over your life down to a thousandth of a percent, just to stop someone from offering more benefit to others and recieving just reward for his help?

No. What does that have to do with anything?

What I am concerned with is dependence, because dependence implies power. Certain limited exchange is possible without dependence. A society characterized by exchange, however, and by differences in natural talent at creating what that society values, will be a society characterized also by dependence and hierarchy.

This system only offers interdependence, which allows varying degrees of dependence based upon your wants and desires by allowing you fair standing within an exchange.

Only if we start from genuine independence. If that were the case, any association would be truly free. We do not.

"Equals as made necessary by their need for each other"?

Does the capitalist need the worker? No. Does the worker need the capitalist? Absolutely. Are they "equals"? Certainly not.

Will socialism solve this? No. The specialists, the talented, the experts - everyone who produces more "value" - will be able to exploit the others as long as the dependence is unequal.

You have pointed out, quite accurately, that "needs" are relative to a given society's material capabilities. I am merely extending this principle to its logical conclusion. A society whose material capabilities rest upon the division of labor and specialization will depend upon those most successful in that structure for its "needs" to be met.

The capitalist needs the labor of the worker.

Not "can" (and certainly not "should.") Does.

As long as it is a natural compulsion to draw one's lifestyle from society in general (I imagine that is the case), I have no problem with it. If it is an unnatural maintenance of lifestyle, then it shouldn't be allowed.

Absolutely not. I want to be autonomous. Autonomy implies one of two things - genuine independence, or equal levels of dependence. Anything else creates a power hierarchy that will always leave those on the bottom unfree.

Absolute but equal dependence is not autonomy.

You are right, autonomy can be two things, geniune independence or the opportunity for genuine independence (with some other less autonomous lifestyle being preferable to the individual).

No. What does that have to do with anything?

The obvious conclusion of your statement is an all-pervasive democracy, in which you are an equal partner, that controls every iota of dependency you have, and as such every lifestyle decision that you would have had.

What I am concerned with is dependence, because dependence implies power. Certain limited exchange is possible without dependence. A society characterized by exchange, however, and by differences in natural talent at creating what that society values, will be a society characterized also by dependence and hierarchy.

As someone who was so keen on the advantages of primitivism, I cannot understand your need to suppress natural talent.

Only if we start from genuine independence. If that were the case, any association would be truly free. We do not.

There has never, nor will there ever be, geniune independence, but if all are allowed to create the labor utility required to sustain their life and lifestyle, while recieving full value of that labor, then what we will have will be interchangeable, if not preferable to geniune independence.

Yes, a person could be freely associated with a hundred democratic groups, many of which could be completely unrelated.Are you certain that there wouldn't need to be some overarching group, at least for some things, such as mass transit throughout a region?

Are you certain that there wouldn't need to be some overarching group, at least for some things, such as mass transit throughout a region?

I am sure there will be a need for this, and my biggest worry is that this overriding bureaucracy could undermine its more federalized counterpart.

I am sure there will be a need for this, and my biggest worry is that this overriding bureaucracy could undermine its more federalized counterpart.Would a confederacy type of thing work?

The capitalist needs the labor of the worker.

No, she doesn't. She wants the labor of the worker in order to make a profit. The worker needs the employment of the capitalist in order to live (live decently, at least). Any bargain between them will be an unequal one, in that the capitalist will be making a profit while the worker will merely be achieving employment. It is a recipe for economic inequality.

As long as it is a natural compulsion to draw one's lifestyle from society in general (I imagine that is the case), I have no problem with it. If it is an unnatural maintenance of lifestyle, then it shouldn't be allowed.

Of course it's natural. I'm not saying that it's possible to change the role of society in forming our lifestyles. What I'm saying is that a society characterized by the division of labor, and thus dependence, will not produce individuals who are capable of the genuine independence upon which truly free dependence can be based.

If I do not have a choice as to whether or not to be dependent, but rather my society chooses for me, then in order to be free I must have equal (at least approximately equal) bargaining power to everyone else. Otherwise, I am forced into a position of servility.

Absolute but equal dependence is not autonomy.

Perhaps. I do not support "absolute but equal dependence."

You are right, autonomy can be two things, geniune independence or the opportunity for genuine independence (with some other less autonomous lifestyle being preferable to the individual).

No, I think we can achieve at least some degree of autonomy with neither, as long as we have the bargaining power to make our preferences matter. That requires an equal level of dependence.

The obvious conclusion of your statement is an all-pervasive democracy, in which you are an equal partner, that controls every iota of dependency you have, and as such every lifestyle decision that you would have had.

It is? Really? That's not the conclusion I've been drawing from it.

The democracy you mention might solve the problem of economic dependency, but the repressive capabilities it would have to have would make me dependent on submitting to its will. I do not want that, either.

As someone who was so keen on the advantages of primitivism, I cannot understand your need to suppress natural talent.

I don't want to suppress natural talent. I want to abolish all class and hierarchy, including class and hierarchy based on natural talent.

That only means abolishing social systems that permit the naturally talented - or any of those who have had the opportunities to gain more skills than everyone else - to exploit their situation.

There has never, nor will there ever be, geniune independence,

But there are systems far closer than those we have now.

but if all are allowed to create the labor utility required to sustain their life and lifestyle, while recieving full value of that labor, then what we will have will be interchangeable, if not preferable to geniune independence.

Not if "creat[ing] the labor utility required to sustain their life and lifestyle" requires abandoning their autonomy.

No, she doesn't. She wants the labor of the worker in order to make a profit. The worker needs the employment of the capitalist in order to live (live decently, at least). Any bargain between them will be an unequal one, in that the capitalist will be making a profit while the worker will merely be achieving employment. It is a recipe for economic inequality.

Is the capitalist supposed to eat his gold?

If I do not have a choice as to whether or not to be dependent, but rather my society chooses for me, then in order to be free I must have equal (at least approximately equal) bargaining power to everyone else. Otherwise, I am forced into a position of servility.

Equal bargaining ability, not power. There is no such thing as equal bargaining power. Not in your system, not in any system.

One must be able to fully represent himself and his interests, but that doesn't mean everyone brings the same cards to the table.

Perhaps. I do not support "absolute but equal dependence."

No, I think we can achieve at least some degree of autonomy with neither, as long as we have the bargaining power to make our preferences matter. That requires an equal level of dependence.

As I have repeatedly said, our lifestyle is the key measure of our dependence, the more we need, the more we are dependent. If you wish to equalize our dependence, you also wish to equalize our lifestyles. I don't even know how you propose that any system with a labor division could have equal dependence as they require specialized training, distribution chains, and administration.


It is? Really? That's not the conclusion I've been drawing from it.

The democracy you mention might solve the problem of economic dependency, but the repressive capabilities it would have to have would make me dependent on submitting to its will. I do not want that, either.

Then you have walled yourself in. You want equal dependence, but you won't submit yourself to a completely collective system.

I don't want to suppress natural talent. I want to abolish all class and hierarchy, including class and hierarchy based on natural talent.

That only means abolishing social systems that permit the naturally talented - or any of those who have had the opportunities to gain more skills than everyone else - to exploit their situation.

By "exploit their situation", do you mean "become less independent from society?" Any one who is more productive will automatically be less dependent on society, as they are more likely to produce enough to support themselves.

But there are systems far closer than those we have now.

Certainly.

Not if "creat[ing] the labor utility required to sustain their life and lifestyle" requires abandoning their autonomy.

It does in all systems, save extreme forms of primitivism.

Is the capitalist supposed to eat his gold?

No, the capitalist is dependent on others - but not on the workers.

Most capitalists have jobs providing them an income independent of their profits, and even if they did not, the capital they possess would be enough to live on for a while.

Equal bargaining ability, not power. There is no such thing as equal bargaining power. Not in your system, not in any system.

One must be able to fully represent himself and his interests, but that doesn't mean everyone brings the same cards to the table.

By "equal bargaining ability," do you mean mere free exchange? (If not, please clarify.) But that need not have anything to do with equality; in some circumstances, it is a recipe for oppression.

A person starving in a pit can have full bargaining ability, as you seem to be using it, but it doesn't save her from one-sided dependence on those with the capability to save her.

As I have repeatedly said, our lifestyle is the key measure of our dependence, the more we need, the more we are dependent.

Absolutely.

If you wish to equalize our dependence,

I wish to eliminate it, or at the least minimize it greatly, to the point where we are only dependent on those we can expect to behave altruistically towards us.

Keeping in mind, however, that efficient cooperative labor has provided at least some absolute benefits, a society of equal dependence would be a decent alternative (if possible.)

you also wish to equalize our lifestyles.

I do not at all wish for people to have identical lifestyles. Not only that, but it would only worsen the problem; with different lifestyles, people value different things, and thus different talents can be rewarded. With identical lifestyles, the class of people benefitting from less dependence and more bargaining power - and such a class would exist, because some people would be better at providing that lifestyle for themselves and others - would be smaller and more powerful.

I don't even know how you propose that any system with a labor division could have equal dependence as they require specialized training, distribution chains, and administration.

Did I ever claim to have an answer? Indeed, I think I've been fairly skeptical of the possibility from the start.

Then you have walled yourself in. You want equal dependence, but you won't submit yourself to a completely collective system.

No, the option of genuine independence still remains.

By "exploit their situation", do you mean "become less independent from society?" Any one who is more productive will automatically be less dependent on society, as they are more likely to produce enough to support themselves.

Yes, exactly. This greater independence will permit them the capability to derive exploitative benefits from others.

It does in all systems, save extreme forms of primitivism.

Perhaps. And perhaps "extreme forms of primitivism" is the solution. I am not so sure, however; certainly, if it were so, the cause is hopeless, absent ecological catastrophe.

Members and Supporters of The Autonomist Party! Help demand Free, Fair, and Transparent Elections NOW! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764071&postcount=109)