NationStates Jolt Archive

A poll on political views. I'm sort of socialist/anarcho-communist.

I'm like.. cool.. and I like.. don't conform to labels.

I made this same thread about 2 weeks ago. Oh well, yours will probably be better.

Edit: I picked liberal, but I am a very moderate one.

I voted anarcho-capitalist, but I'm actually not quite. I do see a place for governance, just a very very small one... police, military, roads, and (I'm almost ashamed to admit this one) education.

Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation... the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
Libertarian Socialists see humankind divided in a struggle between different social classes: the property-owning class, and the working class. Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and capitalist, and do not seek to regulate human behaviors by way of the state, including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexual conduct between consenting individuals, and related issues.

Libertarian Socialists see such things as gun control, "speech codes", drug, alcohol, pornography and prostitution prohibition as a waste of time, and an unnecessary violation of individual choice. Most of humanities woes arise from the inherently coercive, undemocratic and un-libertine capitalist and state systems which human society is currently forced to follow. The answer is not regulation or limitation, but organisation and education with a working-class emphasis. Libertarian Socialists reject the "social democratic" solution of keeping the state & military apparatus around but raising taxes to support social programs. These are merely "band-aids" for problems which under capitalism will never go away, and always threaten to get worse. World problems will not be solved by "professionals", free-market entrepreneurs, the ruling capitalist class, politicians or stateist bureaucrats. Only the people, organised and educated, can solve their own problems.

Libertarian socialists believe in a form of the free market - but a truly free "market" (of ideas and aspirations, not money and wealth), not the capitalist construct that exists today which is based on a minority controlling the world's resources and the rest forced to work for them or pay them rent. A free market where workers are free to organise unions without fear of repression, and where exploitation of workers through profits does not exist. People who run their own individual businesses (or trades) without exploiting anyone would be left alone.. but large projects would be based on mutual free associations, which would last for the duration of the project - where each member affected would have an equal say in how the project is carried out and what wages are paid. Instead of huge government or corporate structures, individuals would truly have control over their lives when working together, or alone. In a true free market, production facilities would be owned and controlled by the workers themselves, not capitalist bosses or government bureaucrats. Libertarian communists specificly wish to abolish money, the basis for the concentration of power (wealth).

I voted anarcho-capitalist, but I'm actually not quite. I do see a place for governance, just a very very small one... police, military, roads, and (I'm almost ashamed to admit this one) education.
Then you're a minarchist, ergo a Libertarian-liberal.

As for moi, anarcho-capitalist (ignore my sig).

I refuse to vote in a poll so limiting in its scope...you could have least made it possible to pick more then one option.

I'm a fascist because most people won't get off their lazy asses and do anything productive. Besides, without us the trains would not run on time.

I'm sort of socialist/anarcho-communist.

Me too, but the extent to which I actually refer to myself as an anarchist tends to vary a bit, and isn't all that common in public. (I grow tired of explaining myself ;))

I'm a fascist because most people won't get off their lazy asses and do anything productive. Besides, without us the trains would not run on time.
You mean productive like you spending time on NS?

You mean productive like you spending time on NS?

zing! :D

Another thing - this poll is somewhat flawed. A person might be both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, ergo a neocon, or socially conservative and economically left-wing, ergo one of these so-called "compassionate" conservatives, or maybe even some breed of Stalinist. This among other things.

i will not categorise myself.

Another thing - this poll is somewhat flawed. A person might be both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, ergo a neocon, or socially conservative and economically left-wing, ergo one of these so-called "compassionate" conservatives, or maybe even some breed of Stalinist. This among other things.

Well sorry. You can only have 10 options.

(ignore my sig).

Kind of hard to do when it's so huge. Kindly reduce it to the maximum 8 allowed lines.

Kind of hard to do when it's so huge. Kindly reduce it to the maximum 8 allowed lines.
Good point. I suppose now would be a good time to do so.

id like to think of myself as a modern yippie but all they do anymore is going on legalisation marches in new york....

Well sorry. You can only have 10 options.
I suppose so. My point is merely that some of the options could've been conflated (for instance, theocracy is a species of authoritarianism). It's better than most of the other homonymous polls here at any rate.

Good point. I suppose now would be a good time to do so.

Much better, even if the superfluous spacing inflates it needlessly.

I want to become a centrist. I'm slowly working my way there.

Another thing - this poll is somewhat flawed. A person might be both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, ergo a neocon
You think that people who are social and fiscal conservatives began with the PNAC crowd? Not true. In Victorian Britain, social and fiscal conservatism was the dominant ideology.

There's a disturbingly high number of socialists in here o_O

I am libetarian/anarcho-communist

A Libertarian and somewhat of a Jeffersonian.

Wow, not 1 vote for theocracy.

Wow, not 1 vote for theocracy.

And that's a GOOD thing!

I'm mostly a Marxist, only a pacifist Marxist.

I'm a conservative.

I'm ParEcon Libertarian Socialist with a quite a bit of Left-Marxist and Council Communist mixed in with a touch of Anarcho-Syndicalist. I think world-wide humanistic solidarity should be the ultimate goal of all socialists, and I believe that the best way to organize society is based on worker-consumer consensus, with workers controlling the means of production and consumers deciding what must be produced in an organized, non-market system. So I put Anarcho-communist. :)

You think that people who are social and fiscal conservatives began with the PNAC crowd? Not true. In Victorian Britain, social and fiscal conservatism was the dominant ideology.
Erm, I am aware of this. Your point?

this is a crap poll. i'm a libertarian socialist with significant anarchist leanings. i waver between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism (need more research) and i'm occasionaly unsure if people can really deal with not being governed.

First of all. This poll doesn't include all existing political views. I mean, socialist. I think it's more a category then a political view itself.
Second, it doesn't include my political views. Green politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics) (Yes I know wikipedia "can't be trusted" but why can anything said by any person be trusted?)
Thirdly, for bitching people like me, there should be an "other" option. Just to help combat the above problematics.

this is a crap poll. i'm a libertarian socialist with significant anarchist leanings. i waver between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism (need more research) and i'm occasionaly unsure if people can really deal with not being governed.

This may help in your quest for further knowledge:

http://flag.blackened.net/index.shtml

http://anarchism.ws/platform.html

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/8970/

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288

(I've been characterized here in General as a moderate free-market libertarian socialist, any by various quizes as a smal government internationalist free-trade socialist)

Anarcho-communist. I think we should abolish private property over everything but personal possessions, and even those should be distributed along highly egalitarian lines. I believe in abolishing all forms of economic compulsion, holding that as long as the basic structure of people's lives are determined by unfree, hierarchical arrangements and artificial economic necessity (and "free contract" in a society with economic inequality and private ownership of the means of production is worth little), society is essentially unfree and unjust.

I am against market exchange, not because I reject exchange in and of itself, but because I see it as leading to inequality and relationships of exploitative dependency.

I don't really care about economic efficiency and productivity; I see no convincing reason to think that absolute wealth (as opposed to sufficient individual wealth so as not to be marginalized in comparison to those wealthier) is necessary for human welfare. My concerns are meeting basic human needs (sustenance) and guaranteeing human freedom.

I believe adamantly in genuinely free association - association uncoerced by the state and uncoerced by property relations.

I am seriously considering anarcho-primitivism, but at the moment I am not convinced that unfreedom is necessary for technology, and I strongly doubt that a transition is at all feasible or morally acceptable.

*snip*

What's with those Political Compass scores?

Not sure where I fall.

Sometimes I go as far right as Social Democrat. Other times Socialist. At the moment I'm toying with anarcho-communism but am probably more likely to be an anarcho-feminist.

Classic Liberal/Libertarian myself.

I don't believe "economic compulsion" is something we should worry about. Much like we need not worry about being forced to first have to climb up the palm tree to get the coconut.

The whole idea of worker exploitation is insulting to workers, I think. Since there are about a billion options for what to do with our lives, even if we are indeed poor (like me), there's a sickening amount of determinism involved when it is claimed that "These poor people never had a choice!"

I'm perhaps something of an optimist in character these days. That's why I tend towards private property, because it is a notion that believes in the good in people (ie everyone can and should make something of themselves). Socialism on the other hand focusses on the bad in people (ie workers have no choice, capitalists exploit them etc). The former believes in letting people roam free (and indeed includes the option of devoting one's life to other people), the latter believes in restricting people (no private property for you lot!).

And then there's another big argument against socialist types, and that's economic efficiency. Absolute wealth does matter, even if some people prefer to think about relative wealth. I for one would not for a second consider giving up all my fancy stuff in exchange for living in a world where Bill Gates isn't any richer than me.

Bill Gates being rich just doesn't take anything away from me, nor does anyone else's wealth. It's not a zero-sum game. But giving up my computer certainly does take something away from me. NS General for example.

I don't believe "economic compulsion" is something we should worry about. Much like we need not worry about being forced to first have to climb up the palm tree to get the coconut.

Hence "artificial."

I'm perhaps something of an optimist in character these days. That's why I tend towards private property, because it is a notion that believes in the good in people (ie everyone can and should make something of themselves). Socialism on the other hand focusses on the bad in people (ie workers have no choice, capitalists exploit them etc). The former believes in letting people roam free (and indeed includes the option of devoting one's life to other people), the latter believes in restricting people (no private property for you lot!).

How is the denial of private property a "restriction"? Private property is pretty clearly a restriction in and of itself; "this is mine, you can't have it."

Absolute wealth does matter, even if some people prefer to think about relative wealth. I for one would not for a second consider giving up all my fancy stuff in exchange for living in a world where Bill Gates isn't any richer than me.

Of course you wouldn't. So?

The better question is, would you retain that preference if you didn't have the wealth in the first place?

Erm, I am aware of this. Your point?
There's nothing "neo" about these cons.

The whole idea of worker exploitation is insulting to workers, I think. Since there are about a billion options for what to do with our lives, even if we are indeed poor (like me), there's a sickening amount of determinism involved when it is claimed that "These poor people never had a choice!"
List some of these options.

Explain why so many workers, especially in the more free-market past, worked at jobs that had veritably terrible conditions and that they openly hated. Why did many of these same workers vote for the political parties that created the welfare states?

Explain how you are poor if you also have lots of fancy stuff.

Anarcho-communist.

I thought you were anarcho-syndicalist?

(Although, admittedly, the two are quite similar...)

I thought you were anarcho-syndicalist?

I leaned anarcho-syndicalist once. Not anymore.

I didn't think I could radicalize any further. I was wrong.

None of the options.

I'm an actual communist.

As in I believe we're gonna need guns at some point.

Hence "artificial."
All you'd do is change the nature of the compulsion. Unless you somehow manage to eliminate scarcity Star Trek style, people will still have to work, and as long as people have different skills, they'll still have to work with each other, and as long as some skills are more difficult to acquire and fewer people have them, it will always look like one is working "for" the other person.

It's a matter of how you look at it. If I go to Pizza Hut and deliver pizzas for them, I could say "Oh, I'm working for them so they can get money out of me." But I actually say "I'm working with them and we both get some benefit out of it."

You can tell me I'm being exploited all you want, but to be honest, I couldn't really give a shit how much money Pizza Hut is making from my work. All that matters is how much I get, and whether that's worth my time.

How is the denial of private property a "restriction"? Private property is pretty clearly a restriction in and of itself; "this is mine, you can't have it."
I think the word "denial" gives it away. You "deny" someone something. You say they can't have it.

The nature of private property is another matter entirely, and probably for another thread. But you're creating a strawman by making it look as if it was simply an arbitrary declaration to exclude others.

The better question is, would you retain that preference if you didn't have the wealth in the first place?
Does it matter? We're not working with a blank sheet here. Even if you forced society to go back to the Bronze Ages to make sure everyone is equally poor, we'd still remember what it was like to have a TV. And we'd still tell our children about a TV.

And guess what happens if someone then comes along and offers a TV for sale.

We're not working with a blank sheet here.


This is a stumbling block to any ideological argument: how can one conduct an argument based on ideology if you ground everything in the "you can't change what already exists" argument...thats how I think anyway.

It's why I say I can consider myself an anarcho-feminist and a social democrat in the same breath: so that I can adapt my arguments against privatisation and low taxes enough to avoid this "stop being unrealistic" argument...

I leaned anarcho-syndicalist once. Not anymore.

I didn't think I could radicalize any further. I was wrong.

How have you changed?

List some of these options.
Putting in some work at school.

Have a good idea for a new product.

Not get oneself into ridiculous credit card debt (one reason poor people are poor is usually because they've got heaps of debt to pay off).

Get in contact with charity organisations to gain extra skills for the job market. Alternatively, save a few hundred bucks and pay for the courses yourself.

If you are good at something, try becoming an independent contractor.

But the first is probably the most important one. Poor people are not poor because their parents were poor, they are poor because they didn't get the education one needs to acquire marketable skills. And once one gets half-decent marks at school, one can go on to uni without too much trouble. Even in the US I don't think many people miss out on uni because they don't have the money...there's scholarships, loans and support programs available.

Explain why so many workers, especially in the more free-market past, worked at jobs that had veritably terrible conditions and that they openly hated.
The "free market" past was a class society in which government and big business were virtually the same thing. There was no adequate legal protection against actual coercion.
It doesn't apply here.

Why did many of these same workers vote for the political parties that created the welfare states?
Because they promise them money. And, admittedly to a smaller extent, ignorance about "neoliberal policies" comes into it too.

Explain how you are poor if you also have lots of fancy stuff.
I have a TV, I have a computer and I even have a car (though I'm still paying that off).

Compared to having to live in a world in which economic efficiency was drastically reduced to bring about economic equality, I'm rich.

Compared to most people in our actual society, I'm poor.

In other words: being poor in our world is still better than being equal in a much crappier world.

This is a stumbling block to any ideological argument: how can one conduct an argument based on ideology if you ground everything in the "you can't change what already exists" argument...thats how I think anyway.
Of course you can change many things.

But a world in which equality is achieved by reducing the aggregate wealth in society would have to contend with the fact that people do remember if they used to have more and better stuff. And even though envy is a powerful emotion, I don't think it would be enough to make people happy to give up their stuff just so rich people have to give up even more stuff.

And besides, remembering the way to get there is always the anchor that keeps an ideological argument sensible. Reality does matter.

Unless you somehow manage to eliminate scarcity Star Trek style,

Resource scarcity will always be with us, most likely. Relevant scarcity, scarcity that actually affects our lives, is not necessary at all. It is dependent on a culture that would have more than what is easily available.

people will still have to work,

Produce things, maybe. Work, I don't see why that's a necessity at all.

and as long as people have different skills, they'll still have to work with each other,

Perhaps, but the level of specialization and division of labor - and more importantly, the degree to which these encompass economic compulsion - is perfectly adjustable.

and as long as some skills are more difficult to acquire and fewer people have them, it will always look like one is working "for" the other person.

Not if those skills are not necessary.

It's a matter of how you look at it. If I go to Pizza Hut and deliver pizzas for them, I could say "Oh, I'm working for them so they can get money out of me." But I actually say "I'm working with them and we both get some benefit out of it."

No, it really isn't. You can say "I'm working with them" all you want, but the nature of the relationship remains a hierarchical one. Others command; you obey.

You can tell me I'm being exploited all you want, but to be honest, I couldn't really give a shit how much money Pizza Hut is making from my work. All that matters is how much I get, and whether that's worth my time.

But the whole point of exploitation is that "how much [you] get" and "how much you should get" are different. "How much you should get" is indeed influenced by the amount of profit Pizza Hut makes from your labor.

I think the word "denial" gives it away. You "deny" someone something. You say they can't have it.

Yeah, but "deny[ing]" someone private property (beyond basic personal possessions, which falls under non-aggression and respecting other people's privacy) is not restricting them so much as it is preventing them from restricting others.

But you're creating a strawman by making it look as if it was simply an arbitrary declaration to exclude others.

Most of the traditional bases (non-utilitarian ones anyway) are pretty arbitrary morally, and even more arbitrary practically. Is there anyone who seriously believes that the basis for property in our present society is purely the claiming of unused resources through labor combined with free exchange?

Does it matter? We're not working with a blank sheet here. Even if you forced society to go back to the Bronze Ages to make sure everyone is equally poor, we'd still remember what it was like to have a TV. And we'd still tell our children about a TV.

So? There's no reason they would care overmuch.

I can imagine being able to teleport, but I'm hardly deprived by not being capable of it.

And guess what happens if someone then comes along and offers a TV for sale.

"Here, I'll sell you this TV, and this fancy house, and this nice car. The condition? You work forty hours a week in this office cubicle, at the beck and call of somebody else and after spending sixteen years in classrooms forcing yourself to learn things you don't care about and do work you don't care about, also in hierarchical conditions."

They would laugh in his face.

A poll on political views. I'm sort of socialist/anarcho-communist.
I can't think of right wing derogatory comments on your socio-political views fast enough...ah....Pinkocommiepunkstonerhippiegaywadpotatosucker! There!

But really I'm a socialist.

How have you changed?

I decided to choose freedom over efficiency, and as a consequence rejected socialist market mechanisms and economic inequality.

I added domestication and the excessive division of labor to the list of things to be abolished.

I began thinking seriously about abolishing the institution of work itself.

I decided to choose freedom over efficiency, and as a consequence rejected socialist market mechanisms and economic inequality.

I added domestication and the excessive division of labor to the list of things to be abolished.

I began thinking seriously about abolishing the institution of work itself.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. :)

Of course you can change many things.

But a world in which equality is achieved by reducing the aggregate wealth in society would have to contend with the fact that people do remember if they used to have more and better stuff. And even though envy is a powerful emotion, I don't think it would be enough to make people happy to give up their stuff just so rich people have to give up even more stuff.

And besides, remembering the way to get there is always the anchor that keeps an ideological argument sensible. Reality does matter.

I don't think anyone who is ideologically left of Social Democracy is advocating making the poor poorer; rather reducing, if not obliterating, the scaryass wealth gap between rich and poor in Western Liberal Democracies...Anarcho-communism doesn't want you to be rid of your wealth but to create a society where wealth is not a concept - feel free to destroy this sentence....

Yes reality matters; I hate the reality of the world as I see it and want it to change...the problem that I have is that I want the world to change through reform and social change and not through revolutionary overhaul. As such the egoistical qualities exhibited by the wealthy and the comfortable screw my politics right up.

And even though envy is a powerful emotion, I don't think it would be enough to make people happy to give up their stuff just so rich people have to give up even more stuff.

The question is not one of envy. It is one of power, and of the way the perception of "want" is socially determined.

scaryass

Quite a technical socio-political analysis term.

Quite a technical socio-political analysis term.

Sorry.

*looks up scaryass in the dictionary*

Scaryass: Adjective used when poster on NSG can't think of a more analytical/appropriate word to demonstrate the horrific gap between rich and poor in this scaryass world of ours.

Damn I did it again...

I voted anarcho-capitalist, but I'm actually not quite. I do see a place for governance, just a very very small one... police, military, roads, and (I'm almost ashamed to admit this one) education.

Well you should have selected libertarian then... According to what you say you are definitely NOT an anarcho-capitalist.

But how come do you think a state would be more efficient than the market in providing those services ?

Well you should have selected libertarian then... According to what you say you are definitely NOT an anarcho-capitalist.
He would be minarchist, I presume. A species of Libertarian.

Quite a technical socio-political analysis term.

Why the hell should anyone use technical language on NSG?

I don't see why "scaryass" is any more illegitimate a term than, say, "egregious."

Resource scarcity will always be with us, most likely. Relevant scarcity, scarcity that actually affects our lives, is not necessary at all. It is dependent on a culture that would have more than what is easily available.
There's no difference between the two. Resources (and indeed labour) are the inputs required to produce the outputs. If there's scarcity of inputs, there's scarcity of outputs.

Produce things, maybe. Work, I don't see why that's a necessity at all.
Hey, we can call it whatever you want. I don't really mind.

Perhaps, but the level of specialization and division of labor - and more importantly, the degree to which these encompass economic compulsion - is perfectly adjustable.
But there is an optimal level, given by the intersections between curves that denote alternatives. Things will tend towards that optimal level.

Setting an arbitrary alternative can only work either through forcing agents to adhere to it, or by somehow convincing everyone that it makes sense to collectively have less by individually having less.

Not if those skills are not necessary.
Well, telepathy doesn't really exist just yet, so someone will have to coordinate.

And besides, if one guy is a doctor and there's a hundred bricklayers, the doctor will be able to demand however much bricklaying the most sick bricklayer will offer.

Eliminating all doctors isn't the answer to that problem (if you see it as being one).

No, it really isn't. You can say "I'm working with them" all you want, but the nature of the relationship remains a hierarchical one. Others command; you obey.
And if I don't feel like it, I leave them and go to Domino's. Which my particular store can't afford, seeing as they don't have enough drivers anyways.
Not that big a deal...I'm a good enough delivery driver to have that sort of bargaining power.

Particularly since I'm classified as casual labour, I am more of an independent contractor than an employee anyways. I rent my services out to them, and they pay me for it. What do I care how much they are making for it?

But the whole point of exploitation is that "how much [you] get" and "how much you should get" are different. "How much you should get" is indeed influenced by the amount of profit Pizza Hut makes from your labor.
How much I should get is influenced only by what I think I should get. That's one thing we'll have to agree to disagree on.

Yeah, but "deny[ing]" someone private property (beyond basic personal possessions, which falls under non-aggression and respecting other people's privacy) is not restricting them so much as it is preventing them from restricting others.
It doesn't really matter what your ultimate goal is. Firstly you're restricting someone from doing something. So it is a restriction.

Now, whether it is a justifiable restriction is another matter.

Most of the traditional bases (non-utilitarian ones anyway) are pretty arbitrary morally, and even more arbitrary practically. Is there anyone who seriously believes that the basis for property in our present society is purely the claiming of unused resources through labor combined with free exchange?
Probably as many as believe the basis for property is the evil state forcing it on people.

The basis for property as I see it personally is the farmer growing a whole lot of fruit. It's his fruit, it's not mine. I can't go and eat his fruit, I didn't do anything for it. Arbitrary, perhaps, but it still seems right.

So? There's no reason they would care overmuch.

I can imagine being able to teleport, but I'm hardly deprived by not being capable of it.
Then let's leave the TV, and instead think about a polio vaccination.

They would laugh in his face.
Some might. Others wouldn't.

The difference between the living standards in the Kibbutzim and the rest of Israel weren't as great, and the Kibbutzim are still dying because people prefer to spend time in an office.

I don't think anyone who is ideologically left of Social Democracy is advocating making the poor poorer; rather reducing, if not obliterating, the scaryass wealth gap between rich and poor in Western Liberal Democracies...
Soheran is.

The question is not one of envy. It is one of power, and of the way the perception of "want" is socially determined.
I believe you if you say you're not be motivated by envy. But the same doesn't go for the voters and Joe Everyman.

have gone for socialist, as i'm not quite an anarcho-communist. i'm socialy liberal and believe in property and private enterprise - to a certain extent.

The state should control a countries resources for the people to benefitas a whole and not just sareholders, and water, gas electric should be state controlled too.
As should metro-and national mass transit - the systems are so vast they are almost impossible to run profitably.
Education and state healthcare go without saying.

Soheran is.

No he is not. (Correct me if I'm wrong Soheran) He is saying that he believes there should be no rich and no poor and the solution to the problem as he sees it is through the eradication of wealth...at least thats how I read it, I may be wrong...

No he is not. (Correct me if I'm wrong Soheran) He is saying that he believes there should be no rich and no poor and the solution to the problem as he sees it is through the eradication of wealth...at least thats how I read it, I may be wrong...
And the eradication of work.

And the eradication of work.

The eradication of work for wealth; work for the community would still exist. Syndicalisation does not rid the world of work.

The eradication of work for wealth; work for the community would still exist. Syndicalisation does not rid the world of work.
I'll let Soheran answer your questions instead. Note that he disavowed anarcho-syndicalism though.

I picked anarcho-communist but im actually anarcho-primitivist. :/

There's no difference between the two. Resources (and indeed labour) are the inputs required to produce the outputs. If there's scarcity of inputs, there's scarcity of outputs.

You're missing the point.

There's only meaningful scarcity if the outputs desired require more inputs than are easily available. The fact that the resources of the Earth are finite is irrelevant if the needs we wish to satisfy are even more finite.

But there is an optimal level, given by the intersections between curves that denote alternatives. Things will tend towards that optimal level.

There is a level that will maximize production. Whether or not this is "optimal" is another question entirely.

Setting an arbitrary alternative

"Arbitrary" is subjective. I have other social goals than efficiency.

can only work either through forcing agents to adhere to it, or by somehow convincing everyone that it makes sense to collectively have less by individually having less.

I don't think it amounts to "having less" at all. Less wealth, yes. Less goods, no.

Well, telepathy doesn't really exist just yet, so someone will have to coordinate.

Questionable. Why participate, if I can't make myself useful?

And besides, if one guy is a doctor and there's a hundred bricklayers, the doctor will be able to demand however much bricklaying the most sick bricklayer will offer.

This is indeed a problem, and one strongest in health care, where simply abolishing the need for it is impossible.

Health care is also one of the areas where altruism would be a strong motive, however. The solution would probably encompass having doctors who would not be working so as to make others serve them.

And if I don't feel like it, I leave them and go to Domino's.

Another master.

Which my particular store can't afford, seeing as they don't have enough drivers anyways.
Not that big a deal...I'm a good enough delivery driver to have that sort of bargaining power.

And if Domino's is no better, and they know it?

How much I should get is influenced only by what I think I should get. That's one thing we'll have to agree to disagree on.

Let's leave it aside for the moment, then.

It doesn't really matter what your ultimate goal is. Firstly you're restricting someone from doing something. So it is a restriction.

Now, whether it is a justifiable restriction is another matter.

Yes, but you were trying to construct a comparison between capitalism and socialism. Supposedly socialism focuses on the bad; thus it restricts freedom. I argue the opposite. Capitalism asserts that human beings are best off when they are chained; this is the fundamental principle of property relations, perhaps the greatest restriction of modern society and the foundation of all class inequality. I own, I control, I treat others as means to my ends - and this is a good thing.

This is the whole basis of the "incentive." I am prevented from receiving some good unless I do something I don't want to do.

If socialism is to be genuine, if socialism intends to truly liberate the human being from the tyrannies of property relations and the abominations of class inequality, it must flat-out reject this framework. Otherwise it is merely an enlightened form of propertarian tyranny; much like free market capitalism, it gives us junk to distract us as it steals from us our natural freedom.

Probably as many as believe the basis for property is the evil state forcing it on people.

That is exactly what it is. Virtually all property in land is the consequence of statist theft, even according to a right-libertarian conception of property rights. That's ignoring the countless other ways statist tyranny has interfered with the market, and also the fact that the right-wing interpretation of "property by labor" is pretty arbitrary and irrelevant without statist intervention anyway.

The basis for property as I see it personally is the farmer growing a whole lot of fruit. It's his fruit, it's not mine. I can't go and eat his fruit, I didn't do anything for it. Arbitrary, perhaps, but it still seems right.

Did he make the land? Did he make the plants? Did he will himself the skills necessary for growing? Are you even capable of doing what he did? If you are not, how is this arrangement fair?

Then let's leave the TV, and instead think about a polio vaccination.

Keep them. Medicine and health care might be one place where a sort of compromise is necessary.

Some might. Others wouldn't.

I doubt it.

The difference between the living standards in the Kibbutzim and the rest of Israel weren't as great

Indeed. That is why the analogy is illegitimate.

I'll let Soheran answer your questions instead. Note that he disavowed anarcho-syndicalism though.

Yes. But I didn't say anarcho-syndicalisation - I said syndicalisation which is linked to syndicalism not anarch-syndicalism...syndicalism is to do with labour exchange over wage labour and (although Soheran may say I'm wrong and he knows a lot more about it than me) I had thought that labour exchange rather than wage labour was favoured by anarcho-communists...

No he is not. (Correct me if I'm wrong Soheran) He is saying that he believes there should be no rich and no poor and the solution to the problem as he sees it is through the eradication of wealth...at least thats how I read it, I may be wrong...

That's closer.

"Poor" is a class category. There are no "poor" when there are no classes.

I do not deny that the average person in the society I envision could conceivably possess less expensive material things than the average poor person in ours. I deny that this is meaningful in terms of the actual goods they would possess, especially considering just how much of the stuff we possess is only necessary so that we can cope with a society that produces such stuff.

The eradication of work for wealth; work for the community would still exist.

That is why we must go further than mere syndicalization. If we truly wish to be free we must prevent the community as well from making us its wage-slaves.

Yes. But I didn't say anarcho-syndicalisation - I said syndicalisation which is linked to syndicalism not anarch-syndicalism...syndicalism is to do with labour exchange over wage labour and (although Soheran may say I'm wrong and he knows a lot more about it than me) I had thought that labour exchange rather than wage labour was favoured by anarcho-communists...

Anarcho-syndicalism proposes that society be organized by industry, with democratic, decentralized trade unions operating and owning the means of production.

I object to anarcho-syndicalism because it proposes a society where the only real difference between it and capitalism is the composition of the owner class.

I'm mostly a Marxist, only a pacifist Marxist.

You can't be a Marxist AND a pacifist. Marxism is based on coercion. If you are Marxist you support the initiation of Force, for the purpose of theft and slavery among other things.

That's closer.

"Poor" is a class category. There are no "poor" when there are no classes.

I do not deny that the average person in the society I envision could conceivably possess less expensive material things than the average poor person in ours. I deny that this is meaningful in terms of the actual goods they would possess, especially considering just how much of the stuff we possess is only necessary so that we can cope with a society that produces such stuff.

Understood. And agreed with.


That is why we must go further than mere syndicalization. If we truly wish to be free we must prevent the community as well from making us its wage-slaves.

Yes. But work within the community would involve exchange of labour with other communities for goods to support the community; agricultural work, manual work etc would be for the good of the community to the same degree as being a doctor would: hence the idea of anarcho-communism encorporating aspects of syndicalism but not being anarcho-syndicalism...you understand I'm just trying to clear this up for myself....

Yes. But work within the community would involve exchange of labour with other communities for goods to support the community; agricultural work, manual work etc would be for the good of the community to the same degree as being a doctor would: hence the idea of anarcho-communism encorporating aspects of syndicalism but not being anarcho-syndicalism...you understand I'm just trying to clear this up for myself....

Any such production would, ideally anyway, not be based on exchange, but rather on free labor and transfer. (Truly free - I do not agree to sacrifice something in exchange for something else, but rather to give something for its own sake.)

That would prevent potential recipes for exploitation and compulsion.

If you're asking about anarcho-communism as an ideology, as opposed to my specific position, the answers vary. Again, I would advise perusing the Anarchist FAQ.

Any such production would, ideally anyway, not be based on exchange, but rather on free labor and transfer. (Truly free - I do not agree to sacrifice something in exchange for something else, but rather to give something for its own sake.)

That would prevent potential recipes for exploitation and compulsion.

If you're asking about anarcho-communism as an ideology, as opposed to my specific position, the answers vary. Again, I would advise perusing the Anarchist FAQ.

No I'm establishing your own views rather than those of an anarcho-communist.

Free labour and transfer are not opposed to the idea of labour exchange and could happily be encorporated together - some good/labour transfers would be free others would be in terms of an equal exchange...

Why the hell should anyone use technical language on NSG?

I don't see why "scaryass" is any more illegitimate a term than, say, "egregious."

Because we all have degrees in political science! I think this is www.natinostates.net right?

Free labour and transfer are not opposed to the idea of labour exchange and could happily be encorporated together - some good/labour transfers would be free others would be in terms of an equal exchange...

What is an "equal exchange"?

Because we all have degrees in political science! I think this is www.natinostates.net right?
No we all do not and thank goodness this isn't natinostates. That site is rather boring!:p

That would prevent potential recipes for exploitation and compulsion.


Voluntary exchange cannot be used for exploitation or compulsion by definition.

Sorry.

*looks up scaryass in the dictionary*



Damn I did it again...
I gotta find me a dictionary like this!

No we all do not and thank goodness this isn't natinostates. That site is rather boring!:p

They have excellent gift ideas!

What is an "equal exchange"?

Something that benefits the small self-contained and self-reliant, monetaryless community in which I live and the one in which you live equally. You need to build an aquaduct so we send you x number of people to help build and you send us some of your surplus wheat as we had a bad harvest....

If we don't need the wheat then we send the x amount of people for free...

Something that benefits the small self-contained and self-reliant, monetaryless community in which I live and the one in which you live equally. You need to build an aquaduct so we send you x number of people to help build and you send us some of your surplus wheat as we had a bad harvest....

If we don't need the wheat then we send the x amount of people for free...

If this happens on occasion, then I have no objection - as long as the communities are, for the most part, self-sufficient. (That is, as long as their association is free, and not coerced by economic necessity.)

If the economic relations between communities is characterized by exchange, however (as opposed to it occasionally occurring), then the logic of comparative advantage suggests that both communities will soon lose their self-sufficiency; the association between them will have lost the element of freedom. It will become a competition to best extort the other, and both the competition and the extortion will deny the inhabitants freedom.

If this happens on occasion, then I have no objection - as long as the communities are, for the most part, self-sufficient. (That is, as long as their association is free, and not coerced by economic necessity.)

If the economic relations between communities is characterized by exchange, however (as opposed to it occasionally occurring), then the logic of comparative advantage suggests that both communities will soon lose their self-sufficiency; the association between them will have lost the element of freedom. It will become a competition to best extort the other, and both the competition and the extortion will deny the inhabitants freedom.

Agreed. That's why it has to be a voluntary exchange based on the surplus of one community and the kind-heartedness of another. Each community should be self-sufficient but should be able to expect the help of others should they experience trouble - if they can afford some form of exchange then this is surely a positive encouragement of peace between said communities rather than a character of this situation.

Out of interest would you encourage freedom of movement or not?

Each community should be self-sufficient but should be able to expect the help of others should they experience trouble - if they can afford some form of exchange then this is surely a positive encouragement of peace between said communities rather than a character of this situation.

I have no objection to mutual aid, as long as it does not lead to dependency.

Out of interest would you encourage freedom of movement or not?

Absolutely. Freedom of movement is essential to a free society.

Absolutely. Freedom of movement is essential to a free society.

What happens if one community becomes substantially more populace than others?

What happens if one community becomes substantially more populace than others?

What of it?

What of it?

This leads to more man-power and more mouths to feed in the larger commune; might mean that smaller, less populace communities aren't equally fed, clothed and able to live equally with the larger community or vice-versa...(a what-if and potential strawman, sorry)

You are nuts. Division of labor has been the greatest source of progress for all humanity since the dawn of man...
Today, no single person could make something like a pencil ! If you accept labor division on an individual scale then there is no reason there should be a treshold such has 'community' etc where it stops. Self reliance should be maintained only through insurances for the rare events.

This leads to more man-power and more mouths to feed in the larger commune; might mean that smaller, less populace communities aren't equally fed, clothed and able to live equally with the larger community or vice-versa...

They are free to leave and join the larger one. And as long as the communities are genuinely independent, I don't see class society developing in this circumstance.

I'm a fairly typical Canadian; I'm a liberal democrat with socialist tendencies. Since I'm a right-of-centre liberal, most Canadians probably think of me as a conservative, but compared to the rest of the world (barring the Scandinavian countries), I'm a commie bastard. *shrugs*

As long as there is a functional democratic system, with reasonable safegaurds from both tyranny and economic deprivation, I'm all for a capitalist system that encourages self-motivation. And hockey. And the occasional cup of coffee.

They are free to leave and join the larger one. And as long as the communities are genuinely independent, I don't see class society developing in this circumstance.

Ok. That's pretty clear.:D

You are nuts.

So I've been told.

Division of labor has been the greatest source of progress for all humanity since the dawn of man...

It's made us produce stuff we don't need at ever-faster rates, at the rather significant costs of equality and freedom.

Today, no single persone could do something like a pencil !

So?

If you accept labor division on an individual scale then there is no reason there should be a treshold such has 'community' etc where it stops.

I can think of lots of reasons. Two off the top of my head:

1. It is more difficult psychologically to extort someone who you know personally. Social pressure and basic compassion and empathy are far more effective on the small scale than they are when you are dealing with someone far away.
2. It is much easier to maintain economic equality without a centralized authority when the relevant community is small; the moral basis for donating your labor independent of compensation is stronger, and no real redistribution is necessary, because goods are produced close to where they are distributed.

Self reliance should be maintained only through insurances for the rare events.

Self-sufficiency is not the same as self-reliance.

I don't believe in self-reliance; I believe in mutual aid. I do believe in self-sufficiency; I believe in independence.

There's only meaningful scarcity if the outputs desired require more inputs than are easily available. The fact that the resources of the Earth are finite is irrelevant if the needs we wish to satisfy are even more finite.
So it's people's fault for wanting stuff. If we could arrange them to be happy with gruel and mats weaved out of reeds, then everyone would be happy!

Pity then that you won't be able to make people work that way.

There is a level that will maximize production. Whether or not this is "optimal" is another question entirely.
It's the level that gives us the most output out of a given scarce set of resources. That's what matters, given that people want as much stuff as possible.

I don't think it amounts to "having less" at all. Less wealth, yes. Less goods, no.
If you're going to have inefficient allocation of scarce resources, you have less goods than possible, and likely less than what we have now. No way around that.

Questionable. Why participate, if I can't make myself useful?
Someone had to organise the polio vaccine being developed. If there hadn't been anyone to coordinate, it wouldn't exist.

Health care is also one of the areas where altruism would be a strong motive, however. The solution would probably encompass having doctors who would not be working so as to make others serve them.
Becoming a doctor is tough. If there is no reward in it, then all the altruism in the world isn't going to make a sufficient number of people become doctors. All you end up with is fewer doctors, which are still going to wise up to the fact that they can get more bricklaying for their work, unless you somehow force them not to.

And besides, it's not a matter of "serving", it's a matter of both parties trying to get a good outcome for themselves, and ultimately reaching an agreement that leaves both sides better off.

Another master.
Another partner.

And if Domino's is no better, and they know it?
Then me leaving them for Domino's will still hurt them. I can still hurt them as a bargaining chip, if you will.

Yes, but you were trying to construct a comparison between capitalism and socialism. Supposedly socialism focuses on the bad; thus it restricts freedom. I argue the opposite. Capitalism asserts that human beings are best off when they are chained; this is the fundamental principle of property relations, perhaps the greatest restriction of modern society and the foundation of all class inequality. I own, I control, I treat others as means to my ends - and this is a good thing.
"Chained"? You mean bound by the agreements they voluntarily make with other people.
Freedom without consequence doesn't exist.

This is the whole basis of the "incentive." I am prevented from receiving some good unless I do something I don't want to do.
Like climbing up the palm tree, yes. It's the nature of existence. There is nothing artificial about it.

If socialism is to be genuine, if socialism intends to truly liberate the human being from the tyrannies of property relations and the abominations of class inequality, it must flat-out reject this framework.
Flat-out reject reality. Look, if you want to help people, you can't do it by disregarding the world around you as irrelevant.

I say that to ideological extremists of all kinds and all directions: look out the window. That's the world.
Make it a better place, by all means. But keep in mind that this is your starting block, and you're not going to get anywhere by not using it.

That is exactly what it is.
See, and plenty of people disagree with you

Did he make the land? Did he make the plants? Did he will himself the skills necessary for growing? Are you even capable of doing what he did? If you are not, how is this arrangement fair?
If he hadn't grown the fruit, they wouldn't exist. He got up one day and decided to grow fruit. He put in the effort to acquire the skills (in return for something, presumably...maybe for a few of the fruit) and the necessary inputs.
I on the other hand didn't do anything. I have no right to the fruit whatsoever.

Keep them. Medicine and health care might be one place where a sort of compromise is necessary.
This is an either/or situation. You can't get rid of technology and civilisation and keep medicine around. A proper medical set-up needs all sorts of fancy equipment, back-up industries and many organisations in the background (all requiring some sort of hierarchy to coordinate people).

I doubt it.
The life of the primitive tribesman isn't as easy as the idealised notion would have it.
You're giving them the choice of toiling all day and live in a unheated mud hut, or toiling all day and live in an air-conditioned house with a TV and NS General.

Indeed. That is why the analogy is illegitimate.
What I mean is: the difference in wealth is even greater, I mean.

The Kibbutzim aren't much poorer than the rest of Israel. Your world would be much, much more poor than the real world.

Pity then that you won't be able to make people work that way.

Strange, they seemed to work that way for tens of thousands of years. It's only very recently that we have developed a society where constant growth is a "necessity"; it is purely artificial.

It's the level that gives us the most output out of a given scarce set of resources. That's what matters, given that people want as much stuff as possible.

But at what cost?

If you're going to have inefficient allocation of scarce resources, you have less goods than possible, and likely less than what we have now. No way around that.

Less material products, maybe. Not "less goods."

Someone had to organise the polio vaccine being developed. If there hadn't been anyone to coordinate, it wouldn't exist.

Organization is not the same thing as compulsion.

Becoming a doctor is tough. If there is no reward in it, then all the altruism in the world isn't going to make a sufficient number of people become doctors.

Better to live freely than to prolong an unfree life artificially. But, again, I could see room for a compromise here.

All you end up with is fewer doctors, which are still going to wise up to the fact that they can get more bricklaying for their work, unless you somehow force them not to.

The social arrangements would not permit such a thing. Bricklay what? Where? By what right would the doctor claim ownership of it? Who would coerce the partners to abide by the deal?

And besides, it's not a matter of "serving", it's a matter of both parties trying to get a good outcome for themselves, and ultimately reaching an agreement that leaves both sides better off.

No, it's a matter of serving. All power is based upon "mutual benefit"; the powerful do not exercise the full extent of their power upon the powerless, and in return, the powerless do a service for the powerful. That does not make it any more just an imposition.

Then me leaving them for Domino's will still hurt them. I can still hurt them as a bargaining chip, if you will.

The effort expended upon the transition will hurt you as well, and as long as Domino's is not a considerably preferable option, they need not worry about enough of an exodus to severely harm their profits. (Indeed, the extra supply of labor might make conditions at Domino's even worse.)

"Chained"? You mean bound by the agreements they voluntarily make with other people.

No, I mean bound by the social conditions over which they have no choice.

Like climbing up the palm tree, yes. It's the nature of existence. There is nothing artificial about it.

Sacrificing in pursuit of an objective is not necessarily artificial, no. It does not follow that all instances of such are not artificial. Indeed, most of them are.

Flat-out reject reality.

No. Flat-out reject the denial of freedom, whatever pretty excuses are offered for it.

Look, if you want to help people, you can't do it by disregarding the world around you as irrelevant.

Certainly not. Nor do I.

I say that to ideological extremists of all kinds and all directions: look out the window. That's the world.
Make it a better place, by all means. But keep in mind that this is your starting block, and you're not going to get anywhere by not using it.

If the thread were asking me for a specific political program for the moment, my positions would be different.

See, and plenty of people disagree with you

And plenty of people are wrong.

If he hadn't grown the fruit, they wouldn't exist.

If his parents hadn't given birth to him, they wouldn't exist. If no one bought the fruit, they wouldn't exist. If no one had given him the idea, they wouldn't exist. If someone else had claimed the land before him, they wouldn't exist. How many people do you want to designate as owners?

He got up one day and decided to grow fruit. He put in the effort to acquire the skills (in return for something, presumably...maybe for a few of the fruit) and the necessary inputs.

He did not acquire the necessary inputs. He usurped them.

I on the other hand didn't do anything. I have no right to the fruit whatsoever.

You are a human being possessed of human dignity and worthy of decent treatment. This in and of itself gives you a right; it gives you the right of need, the right to be treated as an end, for your welfare to be a good in and of itself. The moment your capability to satisfy the need of sustenance fairly easily on your own is deprived from you, you are no longer free; you are forced to serve. And if nothing else, you have the right to freedom. And if this loss of capability is natural (injury, disability, sickness), at the very least you have the right to expect the community in which you live not to use this as an opportunity to exploit you. (Surely even you would grant that that would be disgusting?)

This is an either/or situation. You can't get rid of technology and civilisation and keep medicine around.

I'd get rid of civilization, perhaps, but I see no convincing reason to get rid of technology.

The life of the primitive tribesman isn't as easy as the idealised notion would have it.
You're giving them the choice of toiling all day and live in a unheated mud hut, or toiling all day and live in an air-conditioned house with a TV and NS General.

You clearly have not read the recent evidence on the lives of hunter-gatherers; Bob Black recounts some of it in his essay. I would also note that the sorts of labor performed are the sorts of labor for which we have evolved; unlike labor in modern contexts, they thus do not conflict with our natures. While in modern society we are constantly forced to suppress and restrain ourselves so that we can cope with it, in a free and undomesticated society (and I would argue that there are social modes qualifying other than primitivism) these are permitted free reign, to define our labor instead of to be suppressed by it.

(Indeed, even you must accept the first notion, that human beings have a natural distaste for the sort of labor we perform in our present societies. If we did not, there would be no incentives problem. But why do we have such a thing? Is it a natural distaste for all labor? Why would we have that, if labor is a necessity of life? No, it must be a distaste for some labor - labor that is unnatural, that conflicts with our natural inclinations. That is what I seek to abolish, or at least to minimize.)

Being freely chosen, independent of the sorts of artificial social subordination dominating present societies, such labor is not fairly described as "toil" - no more than other kinds of productive activity that we enjoy would be described as such.

What I mean is: the difference in wealth is even greater, I mean.

Certainly. Unlike you, I think the difference in wealth is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the difference in quality of life. There, the Kibbutzim seem to fall closer to the present societies - and that is precisely why they are able to maintain levels of material wealth higher than that which would exist in the sort of society I would advocate.

I'm an American Conservative. . .

*raises big, metal shield*

Go ahead. . . say what you're thinking. . . I've heard all the bashing before

I'm an American Conservative. . .

*raises big, metal shield*

Go ahead. . . say what you're thinking. . . I've heard all the bashing before

I'm thinking about a nice big toasted cheese and marmite sandwich with a glass of orange juice and a cigarette.

I'm thinking about a nice big toasted cheese and marmite sandwich with a glass of orange juice and a cigarette.

. . . I did not get that. . . at all. Am I eating a cheese and marmite sandwich? Are you? Is a dolphin eating it?

. . . I did not get that. . . at all. Am I eating a cheese and marmite sandwich? Are you? Is a dolphin eating it?

I'm thinking about it. You did ask what I was thinking...

I'm thinking about it. You did ask what I was thinking...

That I did. . . that I did.

And a cheese sandwich does sound good. But what the hell is marmite?

btw, 400th post!

That I did. . . that I did.

And a cheese sandwich does sound good. But what the hell is marmite?

btw, 400th post!

Marmite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite)

That I did. . . that I did.

And a cheese sandwich does sound good. But what the hell is marmite?
Something you should never put on a sandwich. I am sure tar tastes better.

I'm an American Conservative. . .

*raises big, metal shield*

Go ahead. . . say what you're thinking. . . I've heard all the bashing before
Oh, just don't stress any social conservative issues and you'll be fine. Also, if you are going to promote nationalism, do so with strongly rational arguments. The boards will tolerate economic liberalism and there are a lot of libertarian/free market people so if you debate on that you won't be bashed too much.

A lot of these seem to overlap.. for instance, I'm a libertarian but a fiscal conservative.. but arent most libertarians fiscally conservative by nature? I dunno.

It's made us produce stuff we don't need at ever-faster rates, at the rather significant costs of equality and freedom.


What do you mean we don't need. It's none of your business what people need, and this is what have been driving production; weither you like people needs or not is irrelevant. Freedom is mostly infringed by the government which should be destroyed. If you want real freedom, then you have to realize this includes freedom to pay someone a wage, to trade freely... a lot of things you probably dislike. Freedom implies equality in rights, it's inherently incompatible with egalitarianism.

Geez, lots of anarcho-communists.

Putting in some work at school.
A State-funded school, I hope.

Have a good idea for a new product.
Good plan, but not an option for everyone.

Not get oneself into ridiculous credit card debt (one reason poor people are poor is usually because they've got heaps of debt to pay off).
I agree with this entirely.

Get in contact with charity organisations to gain extra skills for the job market. Alternatively, save a few hundred bucks and pay for the courses yourself.
I agree, if saving money is possible you're lucky already.

If you are good at something, try becoming an independent contractor.
This is one of the most irritating of liberal myths, the idea that anyone can start up their own business and make a comfortable life. It's not a viable option for everyone because if everyone did this, there would be too much competition for the demand and you would just end up with a large number of people with a lot of debt.

But the first is probably the most important one. Poor people are not poor because their parents were poor, they are poor because they didn't get the education one needs to acquire marketable skills.
They are poor because their parents were poor and failed to foster a pro-education atmosphere at home. People are often bound by the cultural background they come from. Ever heard of habitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus)?

And once one gets half-decent marks at school, one can go on to uni without too much trouble. Even in the US I don't think many people miss out on uni because they don't have the money...there's scholarships, loans and support programs available.
Only about 15% of students in America go on to university, I think, whereas in many European countries the figure is around 50%. I think money has a lot to do with it.

I also think it's wrong that money should be able to buy you better opportunities than someone with equal or better talent, but less money.

The "free market" past was a class society in which government and big business were virtually the same thing. There was no adequate legal protection against actual coercion.

It doesn't apply here.
Of course it applies here. It demonstrates what happens when no social services are provided.

Because they promise them money. And, admittedly to a smaller extent, ignorance about "neoliberal policies" comes into it too.
Why would anyone vote for a party that says they ought to jump through hoops of fire (metaphorically speaking) to attain a decent quality of life, when another party outlines education, healthcare, etc as rights for all?

I have a TV, I have a computer and I even have a car (though I'm still paying that off).

Compared to having to live in a world in which economic efficiency was drastically reduced to bring about economic equality, I'm rich.

Compared to most people in our actual society, I'm poor.
That's my point. We are in the uppermost quintile of the world's economy. We aren't poor in any meaningful sense, largely because of the social democratic parties that shaped the west over the past century.

In other words: being poor in our world is still better than being equal in a much crappier world.
Of course, it's not like I desire a global USSR.

this millionth of these but what ever. horray for fascism. i wore a shirt saying that once. people didnt like it.

You can't be a Marxist AND a pacifist. Marxism is based on coercion. If you are Marxist you support the initiation of Force, for the purpose of theft and slavery among other things.
Surely Marxism is unpacifist because it endorses violent revolution, rather?

Strange, they seemed to work that way for tens of thousands of years. It's only very recently that we have developed a society where constant growth is a "necessity"; it is purely artificial.
But every time they had a chance to improve their lot, they did it. I can't think of any society that willingly reduced technological progress and the issues of specialisation and perhaps alienation that come with it.
Call it myopic if you want, but you won't be able to get people to give up on their current lifestyle.

But at what cost?
It seems that people are willing to put up with quite a lot of mental and physical stress to amass material goods.
And for those who aren't, capitalism has a lot of flexibility to decide on one's own living standards through deciding how much and what to work.

Less material products, maybe. Not "less goods."
Okay, less material products. Comes down to the same thing, more or less. Because if you really went through with your plan, it wouldn't simply be a little reduction in stuff, it would be massive (and I mean massive) shortages of everything.

I mean, the planners in the USSR were able economists, they had the diagrams and models there and worked to get production outcomes as close to as they would have been under market conditions as possible. And people stood in line for hours to buy as much as a piece of bread.

If you completely abandoned the idea of economic efficiency, it would mean the collapse of all production and indeed a return to primitive pre-industrial life. Which you might be happy with, but most of the world probably isn't.

Organization is not the same thing as compulsion.
Developing pharmaceuticals requires economies of scale. That's why there are no successful small pharma-concerns.

You can organise a small group by mutual agreement. You can't organise a company of thousands of workers without some degree of compulsion.

Better to live freely than to prolong an unfree life artificially. But, again, I could see room for a compromise here.
So now you're compromising on healthcare too. Don't you think you're moving a bit too far right now?

Because if you went to, say, your neighbours, and you offered them a life without working for a boss, but in return they die 40 years earlier...they're probably gonna tell you that they don't mind their lives that much. Certainly not enough to not see their grandchildren grow up.

The social arrangements would not permit such a thing. Bricklay what? Where? By what right would the doctor claim ownership of it? Who would coerce the partners to abide by the deal?
So everyone just acts out of the sheer goodness of their hearts. Caring for other people is a virtue, caring for yourself is a vice.
Something tells me that won't make people happy.

No, it's a matter of serving. All power is based upon "mutual benefit"; the powerful do not exercise the full extent of their power upon the powerless, and in return, the powerless do a service for the powerful. That does not make it any more just an imposition.
So what power does Pizza Hut refrain from using on me? The power not to do business with me?

If I post this post, and you chose not to respond to it...would you be exploiting me? You'd be using your power of not responding to my post, perhaps to make me post something that is more like something you would want to respond to.

The effort expended upon the transition will hurt you as well, and as long as Domino's is not a considerably preferable option, they need not worry about enough of an exodus to severely harm their profits. (Indeed, the extra supply of labor might make conditions at Domino's even worse.)
But I'm not just a unit of labour at this store. I've been there for a year now, I have experience, I have built relationships with people, I'm heavily involved in training new drivers.

It doesn't matter what all the other drivers do, because all the other drivers aren't like me. And the manager recognises that by giving me bonus payments, offering me heaps of extra money to cover other people's shifts and so on.

No, I mean bound by the social conditions over which they have no choice.
Every culture, by definition, has certain commonly held values, assumptions and beliefs.
Your ideal world would have them too, and its inhabitants would be "bound" by them just the same.

Sacrificing in pursuit of an objective is not necessarily artificial, no. It does not follow that all instances of such are not artificial. Indeed, most of them are.
So in other words, if I want a coconut, and I climb up a tree to get it, that's okay.
But if someone else did the same thing, and then offered me one of the coconuts in return for, say, scratching their back, that's wrong.

If the thread were asking me for a specific political program for the moment, my positions would be different.
And you don't think that's a problem?

If his parents hadn't given birth to him, they wouldn't exist. If no one bought the fruit, they wouldn't exist. If no one had given him the idea, they wouldn't exist. If someone else had claimed the land before him, they wouldn't exist. How many people do you want to designate as owners?
None of these people did it with the intention and (as you mentioned once before) expectation of growing fruit. None of these people put in effort to grow fruit.

You are a human being possessed of human dignity and worthy of decent treatment. This in and of itself gives you a right; it gives you the right of need, the right to be treated as an end, for your welfare to be a good in and of itself.
A good for myself. Not a good for everybody else. People can make their own minds up on whether or not they think my welfare matters to them, just like I do the same with them.

The moment your capability to satisfy the need of sustenance fairly easily on your own is deprived from you, you are no longer free; you are forced to serve.
Just like a stone age caveman (or -woman) who could gather berries, but enough to sustain herself. He/She needed to work together with other people to get everything she needed, by offering his/her work in exchange for that of others'.

And if nothing else, you have the right to freedom. And if this loss of capability is natural (injury, disability, sickness), at the very least you have the right to expect the community in which you live not to use this as an opportunity to exploit you. (Surely even you would grant that that would be disgusting?)
I don't think humans need to be forced not to pray on sick people. That's what I mean by being an optimist who focusses on the good in people, not the bad they might do.

I'd get rid of civilization, perhaps, but I see no convincing reason to get rid of technology.
You can't have one without the other.

You clearly have not read the recent evidence on the lives of hunter-gatherers; Bob Black recounts some of it in his essay.
If this evidence was indeed correct, indiginous cultures and ways of life wouldn't be disappearing because people choose to move to the big city.

I would also note that the sorts of labor performed are the sorts of labor for which we have evolved; unlike labor in modern contexts, they thus do not conflict with our natures.
Sitting in school or organising a supply chain doesn't conflict with my nature. I have never felt a yearning to instead go and spend 40 backbreaking years in the jungle somewhere before dying from Malaria.

While in modern society we are constantly forced to suppress and restrain ourselves so that we can cope with it, in a free and undomesticated society (and I would argue that there are social modes qualifying other than primitivism) these are permitted free reign, to define our labor instead of to be suppressed by it.
The only way to decide what to do at any given point with regards to labour is if you lived in a bubble, completely cut off from the rest of mankind.

As long as there are other people and you interact with them, there will be requirements put on you to act a certain way and to spend your time a certain way.

Indeed, even you must accept the first notion, that human beings have a natural distaste for the sort of labor we perform in our present societies. If we did not, there would be no incentives problem.
Primitive tribal societies still have incentive problems. If there are no animals around, there is no incentive to go hunting.
And if there are animals around and you just refuse to go hunting with the guys, you can bet your ass they won't be all too happy with you.

Being freely chosen, independent of the sorts of artificial social subordination dominating present societies, such labor is not fairly described as "toil" - no more than other kinds of productive activity that we enjoy would be described as such.
The sheer number of harsh laws and even harsher punishments in cultures like the Australian Aboriginal tribes seems to indicate that they don't always enjoy everything they do.

Certainly. Unlike you, I think the difference in wealth is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the difference in quality of life.
Modern people can't have one without the other. The development wealth-wise that we enjoyed is irreversible, you would never be able to convince people to give up their material wealth to come live in a primitive world with supposedly higher quality of life.

Libertarian/Libertarian Socialist

Libertarian Socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism and the main principles are liberty, freedom, the right for workers to fraternize and organise democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority and the resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists hold that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information and therefore stress education rather than regulation. In current society, the individual worker is separated from her or his fellow workers and not permitted to organise against his or her own exploitation... the state is the force which permits this lack of freedom to continue.
Libertarian Socialists see humankind divided in a struggle between different social classes: the property-owning class, and the working class. Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and capitalist, and do not seek to regulate human behaviors by way of the state, including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexual conduct between consenting individuals, and related issues.



Libertarian Socialists see such things as gun control, "speech codes", drug, alcohol, pornography and prostitution prohibition as a waste of time, and an unnecessary violation of individual choice. Most of humanities woes arise from the inherently coercive, undemocratic and un-libertine capitalist and state systems which human society is currently forced to follow. The answer is not regulation or limitation, but organisation and education with a working-class emphasis. Libertarian Socialists reject the "social democratic" solution of keeping the state & military apparatus around but raising taxes to support social programs. These are merely "band-aids" for problems which under capitalism will never go away, and always threaten to get worse. World problems will not be solved by "professionals", free-market entrepreneurs, the ruling capitalist class, politicians or stateist bureaucrats. Only the people, organised and educated, can solve their own problems.

Libertarian socialists believe in a form of the free market - but a truly free "market" (of ideas and aspirations, not money and wealth), not the capitalist construct that exists today which is based on a minority controlling the world's resources and the rest forced to work for them or pay them rent. A free market where workers are free to organise unions without fear of repression, and where exploitation of workers through profits does not exist. People who run their own individual businesses (or trades) without exploiting anyone would be left alone.. but large projects would be based on mutual free associations, which would last for the duration of the project - where each member affected would have an equal say in how the project is carried out and what wages are paid. Instead of huge government or corporate structures, individuals would truly have control over their lives when working together, or alone. In a true free market, production facilities would be owned and controlled by the workers themselves, not capitalist bosses or government bureaucrats. Libertarian communists specificly wish to abolish money, the basis for the concentration of power (wealth).

That there is just about me. You'll find me chilling at (-5.13, -5.23) on teh Political 2D Graph

I'd get rid of civilization, perhaps, but I see no convincing reason to get rid of technology.
I am curious. Would you see a return to man's animal nature as positive? After removing civilisation, and necessarily technology, what would remain is pretty much a return to something akin to pre-Stone Age communities. This would certainly maximise freedom and autarky, as much as animals enjoy these anyway...

And for those who aren't, capitalism has a lot of flexibility to decide on one's own living standards through deciding how much and what to work.
Indeed, he could put his model society into practice right now. There are plenty of uninhabited places on the Earth. If he and a like-minded group of individuals banded together they could go ahead. So long as the same is not demanded of the rest of us.

A State-funded school, I hope.
I went to one, yeah. Graduated in the top 1.5% of my state.

But then, if you gave people the choice to which school to send their kids (I think it's determined by geography in the States, isn't it?), they'd naturally choose better schools. And if you then allowed these better schools to benefit from the greater influx of students (for example in the form of a school fee, or a school fee paid by the government, ie a school voucher), I think you could give poor people much greater choice and avoid kids getting stuck in bad schools in which academic performance isn't valued as highly as it should be.

Good plan, but not an option for everyone.
I think everyone is good at something. It just takes the drive and commitment to make money out of it.

I agree, if saving money is possible you're lucky already.
Well, most poor people actually do spend a bit of money, they just spend it on the wrong sort of things (in the ghetto that might be fancy clothes, in other places it could be guns, or alcohol or other such non-essential items).

But again, charities offer free financial advice for these things.

This is one of the most irritating of liberal myths, the idea that anyone can start up their own business and make a comfortable life. It's not a viable option for everyone because if everyone did this, there would be too much competition for the demand and you would just end up with a large number of people with a lot of debt.
There is no such thing as too much competition. But it's mainly a matter of actually being good at what you do.
Some people won't manage to be successful independently (which is not an excuse for not trying...you should see the sheer number of 'simple' tradespeople here in Brisbane who drive BMW), that's true. And they could be employed by those who do have success.

But being an independent contractor is first and foremost an attitude thing. One has got to get out of the thinking that one is the worker of someone else, and start thinking of one's employer as one's partner. You sell your services, your labour, and they pay for it. And if you sell a better product, you can rightly demand a better price.

They are poor because their parents were poor and failed to foster a pro-education atmosphere at home. People are often bound by the cultural background they come from. Ever heard of habitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus)?
That's the one issue that's a bit more difficult to address. My parents always taught me that I could be anything or anyone I wanted to be, they valued education above all else and at times went to great lengths to allow me to do what I wanted education-wise.

I can't say that I have a ready-made solution for how to get more people to be like that. Perhaps that's one area where the government or government-initiated charity could help out, but the proper social programs would depend on the place and circumstances.

Only about 15% of students in America go on to university, I think, whereas in many European countries the figure is around 50%. I think money has a lot to do with it.
I'm not sure on those figures, 15% seems a bit low. And it would be pure speculation to think about the reasons, unless we have more information.

I also think it's wrong that money should be able to buy you better opportunities than someone with equal or better talent, but less money.
What about a car? Is it wrong for Bill Gates to buy a Ferrari and for me to only be able to buy a Mazda?

Of course it applies here. It demonstrates what happens when no social services are provided.
The social services weren't the reason kids worked in mineshafts though. The reason was that the police would come and lock up anyone who refused to work or protest the conditions.

The Industrial Revolution is just not representative of free-market capitalism.

Why would anyone vote for a party that says they ought to jump through hoops of fire (metaphorically speaking) to attain a decent quality of life, when another party outlines education, healthcare, etc as rights for all?
It's not so much a question of rights as it is of whether these services are provided for free. But someone always ends up paying, there's no such thing as a free lunch. That's why many poor people vote for parties that give them a bit of tax relief, rather than massive social programs which may eventually lead to some change.

But the question is also whether the latter party can keep its promises. The evidence for the most part seems to suggest that in the long-term nationalised services are inferior, very expensive and end up woefully inefficient. It just comes with the inherent inflexibility of systems like that.

That's my point. We are in the uppermost quintile of the world's economy. We aren't poor in any meaningful sense, largely because of the social democratic parties that shaped the west over the past century.
Well, there's plenty more concrete reasons for our wealth (largely stable government and sound economic, if not social, policies) which the developing world lacked.

But then, the developing world is a different matter entirely, and my views there are different. I'm not one to slavishly adhere to liberal economic policies in all cases, and countries like South Korea and Malaysia have demonstrated that with government involvement properly organised, it can yield great results.

But that's got to do with aggregate wealth and GDP growth, not social equality and redistribution.

Geez, what have you all been doing?

Direct Democracy all the way with fines for not voting. Combine this with an electronic commons and you have an interesting future state.

But every time they had a chance to improve their lot, they did it.

Why do you say so? The history (that which is known, anyway) of the destruction of hunter-gatherer societies is one of immense external coercion and forced displacement, not of internal improvement.

And if hunter-gatherers desired so much to improve their lives, what took them so long? The vast majority of the existence of the human species has been dominated by that social mode, even though biologically the humans then were almost identical to the humans now. The process that ended that social mode was painstakingly slow.

I can't think of any society that willingly reduced technological progress and the issues of specialisation and perhaps alienation that come with it.

Any "society," no, but plenty of individuals.

And the point is moot, because you would be hard-pressed to find many societies that willingly accepted a change in the opposite direction, too.

Call it myopic if you want, but you won't be able to get people to give up on their current lifestyle.

That is quite possible - even likely. Cultures are highly resistant to radical changes of any kind, and this change would be the most radical that would ever have been implemented.

It seems that people are willing to put up with quite a lot of mental and physical stress to amass material goods.

Perhaps, but this is hardly proof of the worthiness of the system. Drug addicts, for instance, may similarly "put up with quite a lot of mental and physical stress" to attain drugs.

And for those who aren't, capitalism has a lot of flexibility to decide on one's own living standards through deciding how much and what to work.

The "flexibility" is artificial, because my wants are largely socially determined - by the living conditions in which I grew up, by the need to function in a modern, economically-developed society, by the desire to avoid marginalization by keeping up with the basis, and so on.

Okay, less material products. Comes down to the same thing, more or less. Because if you really went through with your plan, it wouldn't simply be a little reduction in stuff, it would be massive (and I mean massive) shortages of everything.

I should clarify that I wouldn't make this change in a short period of time. That would be idiotic for a lot of reasons.

If you completely abandoned the idea of economic efficiency, it would mean the collapse of all production and indeed a return to primitive pre-industrial life.

"Pre-industrial"? I don't want "pre-industrial."

I'm thinking "pre-agricultural" if anything. If we can't manage that, or if there are good reasons not to (and I think there are some), we might as well keep at least some elements of industry.

Which you might be happy with, but most of the world probably isn't.

At this point, most of the world doesn't want libertarian socialism with market mechanisms, either, or any variety of anarchism, or laissez-faire capitalism, for that matter.

Developing pharmaceuticals requires economies of scale. That's why there are no successful small pharma-concerns.

You can organise a small group by mutual agreement. You can't organise a company of thousands of workers without some degree of compulsion.

I don't think that's true at all; you would need more coordination, perhaps, but not compulsion.

So now you're compromising on healthcare too. Don't you think you're moving a bit too far right now?

"Too"? It's the only thing I've compromised on.

And my reasons are quite good - human life is essential to human freedom, so if I wish to create a free society, I need to protect human life.

Because if you went to, say, your neighbours, and you offered them a life without working for a boss, but in return they die 40 years earlier...they're probably gonna tell you that they don't mind their lives that much. Certainly not enough to not see their grandchildren grow up.

I might take it. But that's beside the point, because we're not talking about "forty years" - maybe ten or twenty at the most, and probably less. And that's looking at people in the richest places on Earth.

And I already said that I can see room for compromise on health care.

So everyone just acts out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.

No, they act for their own benefit too.

Caring for other people is a virtue, caring for yourself is a vice.

That's not what I said, and that's not what I advocate.

So what power does Pizza Hut refrain from using on me? The power not to do business with me?

Yes. The degree of power this exercises over you depends on your economic condition.

If I post this post, and you chose not to respond to it...would you be exploiting me? You'd be using your power of not responding to my post, perhaps to make me post something that is more like something you would want to respond to.

Only the relationship between us is not characterized by power. Sure, both of us can interfere with the other - we can refrain from responding, we can respond aggressively or calmly, we can respond intelligently or with demagoguery. But I don't think either of us is emotionally invested enough in this for there to be a real power relationship here; at most, the result would be annoyance.

If I were arguing with someone over whom my words did have power - someone who, say, was feeling extremely guilty over something she said or did to me - I would probably speak more carefully, because I would be aware of the import of my words. And I certainly would not exploit that emotional power to extract some kind of service.

But I'm not just a unit of labour at this store. I've been there for a year now, I have experience, I have built relationships with people, I'm heavily involved in training new drivers.

It doesn't matter what all the other drivers do, because all the other drivers aren't like me. And the manager recognises that by giving me bonus payments, offering me heaps of extra money to cover other people's shifts and so on.

I have no doubt that Pizza Hut has good reasons to keep you with them; what I doubt is whether or not these reasons have enough of an effect.

Every culture, by definition, has certain commonly held values, assumptions and beliefs.
Your ideal world would have them too, and its inhabitants would be "bound" by them just the same.

What about it?

So in other words, if I want a coconut, and I climb up a tree to get it, that's okay.
But if someone else did the same thing, and then offered me one of the coconuts in return for, say, scratching their back, that's wrong.

As I've already said, I don't think exchange in and of itself is problematic. The problem comes in when you have a society characterized by exchange - when exchange leads to lopsided power relationships and to depraved views of other human beings as merely means to one's ends.

I exchange favors and the like with my friends all the time, but not only am I mostly independent of them, but I also do not exchange with the objective of maximizing my own profit at their expense (and it is always at their expense. While exchange is not a zero-sum game, the terms of the deal always are.) Nor do I avoid such maximization because I wish to keep them as friends. I avoid such maximization, as, indeed, most humans do, because they are my friends and perhaps even more importantly, because I see them as human beings. I cannot bear to exploit them.

If there is a "natural" economic relation, I think it is close to that.

And you don't think that's a problem?

A problem of what kind? Every serious radical differentiates between immediate and long-term objectives; if she does not, she will get nowhere.

None of these people did it with the intention and (as you mentioned once before) expectation of growing fruit. None of these people put in effort to grow fruit.

The "expectation" I mentioned is not to grow fruit; it is to grow fruit with the intention of making it one's property. And I followed from that premise to the conclusion that if I have a society where private property over fruit is forbidden, the rational person would never act with such an expectation - and the person who would need not be the responsibility of the social system.

I will agree that none of the others have the intent and expectation to grow fruit to make it their property, but it is quite possible that they do indeed intend to help in the growing of more fruit in their community.

A good for myself. Not a good for everybody else. People can make their own minds up on whether or not they think my welfare matters to them, just like I do the same with them.

Your status as a human being of value is not conditional. Indeed, you yourself would probably accept this - or do you think it is acceptable for someone to just shoot you?

Just like a stone age caveman (or -woman) who could gather berries, but enough to sustain herself. He/She needed to work together with other people to get everything she needed, by offering his/her work in exchange for that of others'.

Firstly, cooperative labor is nowhere near as essential to the hunter-gatherer as it is to the modern human. Secondly, there are plenty of instances of cooperative labor that are not based on exchange, including many of the most natural human relationships - among friends and family members, for instance, who will generally lend aid without the necessity of repayment.

I don't think humans need to be forced not to pray on sick people.

I agree, but modern economies distance us from this instinct in several ways. Firstly, they impose upon us the division of labor; we thus grow dependent on others, and are more likely to need a degree of exploitation to meet our desires. Secondly, they distance us from those with whom we deal; it might be difficult to exploit a sick person met face to face, but one on the other side of the world?

You can't have one without the other.

My guess would be that we are thinking of different definitions of "civilization."

If this evidence was indeed correct, indiginous cultures and ways of life wouldn't be disappearing because people choose to move to the big city.

Primitive (not the same as "indigenous") cultures are not disappearing because people choose to move to the big city.

Indeed, indigenous cultures aren't really, either; they are disappearing because they are victims of external coercion and pressure, in the past (with present consequences) and often continuing into the present as well.

Sitting in school or organising a supply chain doesn't conflict with my nature.

Perhaps not, but if that is in fact the case you are the exception. Consider the number of people who make little to no attempt in school, whatever the pressures to do so; consider the number of people who must be drugged to get them to tolerate school; consider the number of people who hate it even if they do put effort into it.

So much effort must be put into motivating children in school - economic pressure, pressure from parents, pressure from teachers, pressure from the media, pressure from grades and standardized tests and so on - yet still in so many ways it has failed. These pressures are resisted so strongly because they seek to compel people to do what is unnatural - what contradicts our natural inclinations. (My problem is not that it is unnatural; it is rather that because it is unnatural, it is necessarily unfree.)

As for "organizing a supply chain," I guess I can agree that that is not intrinsically alienating labor.

I have never felt a yearning to instead go and spend 40 backbreaking years in the jungle somewhere before dying from Malaria.

Good, neither have I. But that is not what we have been discussing.

The only way to decide what to do at any given point with regards to labour is if you lived in a bubble, completely cut off from the rest of mankind.

As long as there are other people and you interact with them, there will be requirements put on you to act a certain way and to spend your time a certain way.

No, you must not merely interact with them. They must have power over you; they must be capable of compulsion. And furthermore, relevant compulsion is only compulsion that compels us to do what we do not want to do. There are certain kinds of compulsion in a primitive society (economic necessity being the most obvious one), but they do not make us do things we hate doing; they do not contradict our natural inclinations.

Primitive tribal societies still have incentive problems. If there are no animals around, there is no incentive to go hunting.

No, but so what?

And if there are animals around and you just refuse to go hunting with the guys, you can bet your ass they won't be all too happy with you.

Perhaps not, but what will they do about it? They can kill me, but that will gain them little. They can try to enslave me, but that will gain them little as well, for who will watch me? Who will ensure that I do not escape? And why invest the effort, even if it is possible? They can disassociate with me, but without the division of labor, this is a much weaker punishment than it would otherwise be, and, not compelled to fill any specific economic role, it is easier for me to find a place elsewhere.

And, again, most likely little to no compulsion will be necessary anyway.

(Not to mention the fact that hunter-gatherers tended to gather a whole lot more than they hunted, a task that can be more easily accomplished individually than hunting.)

The sheer number of harsh laws and even harsher punishments in cultures like the Australian Aboriginal tribes seems to indicate that they don't always enjoy everything they do.

Indicative of a poor culture, perhaps, but not necessarily of labor that needed to be coerced.

Modern people can't have one without the other.

Then we should cease to be modern people.

The development wealth-wise that we enjoyed is irreversible, you would never be able to convince people to give up their material wealth to come live in a primitive world with supposedly higher quality of life.

Then at least some improvements in today's world may be made by the attempt.

I am curious. Would you see a return to man's animal nature as positive?

Human beings do not need to "return" to an "animal nature." We still possess an "animal nature."

After removing civilisation, and necessarily technology, what would remain is pretty much a return to something akin to pre-Stone Age communities.

Removing civilization is not the same thing as removing technology; plenty of technologies preceded civilization, and plenty of technologies that did not may be consistent with "uncivilized" society.

The keys for me are eliminating (or at least minimizing) economic compulsion and rejecting the domestication of human nature.

Indeed, he could put his model society into practice right now.

Most likely not, for a lot of reasons. Perhaps the most prominent is that human beings living in modern societies are not used to a radically alternative life, and would be incapable of it. These changes need to be made gradually.

And do you really think that if the project were a miraculous success, and thousands rallied to the cause, the powers that be would do nothing about it? Perhaps they would declare it private (or public) property and expel us all, especially if there happen to be useful natural resources nearby.

There are plenty of uninhabited places on the Earth.

Perhaps, but they are also the places least suited for human living.

Human beings do not need to "return" to an "animal nature." We still possess an "animal nature."
To a degree, yes. My question is, though, how far would you be willing to go?

Most likely not, for a lot of reasons. Perhaps the most prominent is that human beings growing up in modern societies are not used to a radically alternative life, and would be incapable of it. These changes need to be made gradually.
I agree; you could though set the foundations for this society, couldn't you?

And do you really think that if the project were a miraculous success, and thousands rallied to the cause, the powers that be would do nothing about it? Perhaps they would declare it private (or public) property and expel us all, especially if there happen to be useful natural resources nearby.
Perhaps. This could be said for any alternate form of society though. Of course, the society could arrange a non-agression pact of some sorts with a nearby government. My guess would be that if such an experiment were a success, then there would be cause for humanity at large (as much of it that is willing, at any rate) to go with such radical plans. Both you and I can theorise ad infinitum about how wonderfully successful our envisioned societies would be - the problem being that neither you nor I, nor anyone, has any true idea of how these societies would work either now, or in the future. If your model were a success I can imagine more people supporting it and withdrawing support from their governments. It is therefore essential these societies be tested on a smaller scale at first, lest something akin to the USSR recurs. What would you do with those who refused such a society, and instead remained committed to any other form, most specifically the statist status quo?

Perhaps, but they are also the places least suited for human living.
I was thinking of something along the lines of a secession, which may insure good territories, but this again is contingent on the goodwill of the State involved.

Why do you say so? The history (that which is known, anyway) of the destruction of hunter-gatherer societies is one of immense external coercion and forced displacement, not of internal improvement.
Except for all the hunter-gatherer societies which developed into agricultural and industrial societies, of course. Sumerians, Egyptians etc developed from hunter-gatherers as well.

They lived the hard lives and found out how to domesticate animals and plants. With that came a more complex society, including much more hierarchical organisations.

But they still did it, because sitting in a hut, working on a field and being protected by people with bronze spears was apparently better than roaming about in the desert having to protect yourself with pointy sticks, even if in one case one was one's own boss and the other one was a lowly servant of allmighty Pharao.

The process that ended that social mode was painstakingly slow.
True. I'd put that down to a lack of written language, mainly - it's very difficult to keep good ideas going when you end up taking them to the grave with you.

And the point is moot, because you would be hard-pressed to find many societies that willingly accepted a change in the opposite direction, too.
All major societies in recorded history did it though. All over the world. And every time it kicked off a move towards more complexity, coupled with more hierarchy.

Perhaps, but this is hardly proof of the worthiness of the system. Drug addicts, for instance, may similarly "put up with quite a lot of mental and physical stress" to attain drugs.
And yet most of us on NSG don't believe that coercing you for your own good is the way to go.

Aside from the fact that it is much easier to make a comparison between a person with and without drugs (to the point where most people could agree that the latter is objectively better) than in the case of a society with and without complex social structures.

The "flexibility" is artificial, because my wants are largely socially determined - by the living conditions in which I grew up, by the need to function in a modern, economically-developed society, by the desire to avoid marginalization by keeping up with the basis, and so on.
Yours aren't, are they? You're saying that you'd be ready to give up all sorts of "socially determined wants" if you didn't have to deal with our current system, as far as I can tell.

So obviously you broke loose somehow, as did many other people (I'm thinking of monks, hippies, eremites, escapists etc). Now you could say that these people have somehow seen the light and are inherently correct, while all of us are still unenlightened, but that just sounds like a religion, not a proper argument.

"Pre-industrial"? I don't want "pre-industrial."

I'm thinking "pre-agricultural" if anything. If we can't manage that, or if there are good reasons not to (and I think there are some), we might as well keep at least some elements of industry.
One reason might be that pre-agricultural society just couldn't support 6 billion+ people. So you'd have billions of people starve to death, which can't be reconcilable with the idea of human freedom (to which you point out that life is a prerequisite), or any sort of utilitarian consideration.

At this point, most of the world doesn't want libertarian socialism with market mechanisms, either, or any variety of anarchism, or laissez-faire capitalism, for that matter.
Yeah, I noticed. ;)
So in practice that leaves me little choice but to vote for and help out liberal parties where I can. It's always going to be a lot of compromising, at least in our lifetimes.

But just pointing out: if you asked Joe Everyman whether he'd rather give up unemployment benefits and social security in return for lower taxes, or even more minarchist ideas than that, or return to a pre-agricultural society, something tells me that he's gonna choose the former.

I don't think that's true at all; you would need more coordination, perhaps, but not compulsion.
Thousands of people in hundreds of teams and departments, and you need to have them all pulling in the same direction...unless you're gonna be somehow able to have constant meetings with every single person, they're gonna have their own ideas about how and what to do, and you end up having to set boundaries in which they have to operate.

"Too"? It's the only thing I've compromised on.
I meant that you're giving up on healthcare and medicine too, or at least are willing to reduce their standards.

Yes. The degree of power this exercises over you depends on your economic condition.
More on my willingness to give up on my self-belief, if you ask me.

Only the relationship between us is not characterized by power.
I just can't see how the relationship with Pizza Hut is either. We're both free entities, we both have our own issues to deal with in the world, and in order to deal with them we come together and make an agreement of exchange.

I may need money from a job to pay for my car, but that's not Pizza Hut's doing! They didn't make me get a car. It's something they have no influence over.

Our relationship is characterised by our external needs and wants.

What about it?
They'd still be "chained". You would just change the colour of the shackles.

I exchange favors and the like with my friends all the time, but not only am I mostly independent of them, but I also do not exchange with the objective of maximizing my own profit at their expense
And have you ever considered that their happiness might make you happy? That there's no relevant intrinsic value to their happiness, other than the one you attach to it?

I will agree that none of the others have the intent and expectation to grow fruit to make it their property, but it is quite possible that they do indeed intend to help in the growing of more fruit in their community.
In which case one could argue they might have a right to it. Like if the parents have a child just to have more fruit. :p

Your status as a human being of value is not conditional. Indeed, you yourself would probably accept this - or do you think it is acceptable for someone to just shoot you?
I guess there is one chink in my argument. Not everything is conditional, or rather, if it were, it'd be a rather scary thought.

The question is how far these unconditional bits go. I don't for example think that I have an unconditional right to riches, or even to enough food. Though the latter is something accepted by society, and I share that particular value.

Secondly, there are plenty of instances of cooperative labor that are not based on exchange, including many of the most natural human relationships - among friends and family members, for instance, who will generally lend aid without the necessity of repayment.
Once or twice...perhaps. But a member of a tribal community that doesn't put in will eventually either be forced to do something, or at the least be the first one to be sacrificed in hard times.

The deal might not be "coconuts vs back scratch", it might be "you do what you can for the group, and I do the same".

Secondly, they distance us from those with whom we deal; it might be difficult to exploit a sick person met face to face, but one on the other side of the world?
Personally I don't think it would make a difference. I'm not keen on exploiting anyone, regardless of whether it's face to face or not.

But then, there are some people I wouldn't mind exploiting or treating badly. Just because I can't stand them. And something tells me that that's quite natural too.

My guess would be that we are thinking of different definitions of "civilization."
civilisation
...
3: a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); "the people slowly progressed from barbarism to civilization" [syn: civilization]
...
I think that hits the nail on the head. A civilisation is a society in which there are complex social relationships, which seem to always involve some form of hierarchy.
Technology requires complex social structures to be developed and preserved, and the anarcho-primitivists seem to agree that technology is the source of the things you claim to be unnatural and wrong. It doesn't seem like what we call technology could be applied to a world without specialisation.

Primitive (not the same as "indigenous") cultures are not disappearing because people choose to move to the big city.
It looks to me like the sort of entertainment and options these cultures offer just can't compete in the minds of the younger generations with the sort of stuff modernity offers.

Consider the number of people who make little to no attempt in school, whatever the pressures to do so; consider the number of people who must be drugged to get them to tolerate school; consider the number of people who hate it even if they do put effort into it.
That's more due to myopia than anything else. I don't think people particularly enjoy gathering berries, it's just that the negative effects of failing to do so are much more immediately obvious than the effects of not getting a good education.

There are certain kinds of compulsion in a primitive society (economic necessity being the most obvious one), but they do not make us do things we hate doing; they do not contradict our natural inclinations.
I'm most familiar with traditional Australian Aboriginal culture, so that's the one I will come back to.

There are dozens of stories in Aboriginal mythology (that being the prime means of establishing and conveying laws and traditions) about the boy or girl who preferred to look at himself or herself in the river and generally loiter about rather than help with the hunt or participate in rituals.

They usually end with the kids being kicked out of the community, swallowed by massive creatures or turned into various landmarks.

And actual Aboriginal law involves representations of that. Their punishments are extremely harsh.

No, but so what?
I just felt that you shouldn't put down the concept of incentives.

Perhaps not, but what will they do about it? They can kill me, but that will gain them little.
It'll serve as a reminder to everyone else. So that's what usually happens.

Then at least some improvements in today's world may be made by the attempt.
And lots of damage too. To really make improvements to what you've been describing, you'd need to make a lot of changes. A little change will just bring a lot of damage and little benefit.

I am a true blue Conservative.

Go John Key!

Remember kids, you can't spell 'fascist' without SS.