NationStates Jolt Archive

It has become apparent to me (In a separate thread) the true extent of the socialists' disdain for the common man. I have come to understand that in it's traditional form, socialism is implicitly against the fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination. Indeed, to the point that is nothing short of slavery in itself. Allow me to elaborate.

Let us meet Jens. Jens is a lumberjack. He cuts wood all day to put towards his personal goal of building the worlds largest long-drop toilet, so perhaps he and his family can live a life of splendour and fame at it's base. Anyhow, it turns out that the government needs to build a bridge in a neighbouring province.

If the government were to come along and conscript Jens into a workers camp (Al la Qin Shi Huangdi) for 20% of his day, that would be slavery. It would be so because they are contravening his basic right to self-determination implicit in self-ownership. Just to clarify, to force Jens to work for free without his consent is slavery.

Now, if the government were to rock up to his wood pile at the construction site and demand 20% of a day's worth of wood for the construction of their bridge, this is (apart from theft) slavery. That is to say, 20% of the wood Jens cut today has been forcibly 'taxed' by the government. This effectively means Jens was forced to cut 20% of his day's wood for free. The government may as well have rocked up in the morning and told him to cut it for them for free (as we already established). The wood, in Jens' case is simply a representation of this work, and to steal it is to force him to work for free. Additionally, for Jens, it means another 20% worth of a day's wood he will have to cut to make up for his loss (of which he will lose another 20%... do I detect a paradox?).

In Jens' case his capital (means of production) was his body and his axe. The fruits of his labour was wood. However, unlike Jens, most people do not work for wood, they work for money. The money a person earns is representative of the work they have done. To forcibly tax that money without a person's consent is (as I said earlier, apart from theft) slavery. It is no better than stopping a person work for 20% of their day and putting them to work in a slave gang (well a little better, but you catch my drift).

Now the root of my point approaches. If the government did not want to breach Jens' self-ownership, then all they would have to do is convince Jens to donate his wood voluntarily. If the bridge is a worthwhile project (to Jens), this should not be difficult. However, seeing as Jens lives in a separate province, he does not stand to benefit from this bridge. As such, it is unlikely that Jens would donate any of his wood to such an irrelevant goal (unless he was feeling altruistic). Yet, socialism still demands that he must despite that he does not want to. Socialism feels it should not have to convince people of what is worthwhile and for the common good, but rather feels that it is better to contravene their very self-ownership in what is nothing less than abstracted slavery.

It is this attitude that is indicative of a disdain for the common man's self-ownership (a fundamental human right), his capacity to choose and know what is best for himself. It would seem that socialism finds the common man 'ignorant' on what he should be doing for what purpose, so much so that it could not be explained reasonably to him with an expectation for him to understand and yield voluntarily.

Besides, who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not?

Quite a good analysis. In essence all Government has some elements of Socialism in that goods/services/money are taking forcibly from people for redistribution. In overtly Socialist systems the individual isn't all that important; it is rather the State that takes preeminence.

Socialism on a large scale breeds mediocrity because there is less incentive for the individual to excel. Just look at productivity figures in Russie in the pre and post Soviet era, or today's differences in productivity between countries like Japan and the US vs many more Socialist EU countries. It also contributes to relatively high unemployement figures, as again in a society where Goverment takes the role of mother/father/caregiver there is just not the same incentive to find work. Of course the negative economic effects of high taxation contribute to these as well.

Funny, I don't know any socialists that advocate carting people off to forced labour camps. Stalinist style communists maybe, but not your average socialist. Given that Socialism is generally about improving the lives of common men like Jens the lumberjack (and no, I can't resist humming the song) I think you may have your terms a bit confused.

Heard exactly that story once, back at the university. I guess you just have an economics or politics class, no?

Heard exactly that story once, back at the university. I guess you just have an economics or politics class, no?

I was just thinking that - I am pretty sure I have heard that story or a very very similar one before too.

Anyway - the summary of the post is along the lines of "Waaaaa!!!! The Guberment is taking my money to improve my coutnry!! Waaa!!!!"

If you don't want to pay tax then move to the UAE. Let the market determine if the government can tax you by taking your tax producing work elsewhere - make your government compete. :)

As a socialist and a wage-earner, does this mean I now have to hate myself, or can I simply dismiss this simplistic tale for what it is: a simplistic tale.

All governments have some 'socialist' traits, and some 'capitalist' traits. The role of the government should be to balance these in order to create a society that empowers everyone in it. This balance is so complex that it can not be summarised in a tale about lumberjacks, or even a single thread.

Taxes are like rent; you pay them so the country you live in can be maintained. Sometimes it's not spent the way you like or it's squandered. Other times it's put into essential services.

Roads?

Ever used one? Yes? Then you have no right to complain about the concept of taxation.

Common man, being, the guy who can't afford to stand around and chop lumber all day because he's got a family to feed and he can't afford a car so he takes the bus but it's in shitty condition so it smells and sometimes it breaks down and he's late for work and he catches shit for it at his job which doesn't pay nearly enough for the amount of work he does and on his way back from work the seats are all taken so he has to stand up and play balancing-man for an hour while the bus makes sudden stop-and-go-with-the-force-of-a-train moves till he gets home and hears how his son isn't learning anything in school because they couldn't afford to give him a textbook because the classroom has too many kids in it so he shares one while in class but even then the information is out of date because they couldn't afford to buy the updated versions for the new year and his wife suddenly comes down with the flu and now nobody can pack the kid's lunch for school so he's stuck eating free crappy PBJ sandwiches in the cafeteria while the other kids laugh at him and the dad can't cook for shit so when they get home they're stuck eating macaroni and cheese and if they're lucky they get pasta with a bit of sauce with it so now his wife could catch pnumonia but he can't afford to take her to the doctor because he's still paying off the hospital bills his mother racked up when she was sick so they're irritated, cramped, sick, uneducated, overworked, underpaid, poor, in-the-hole, and now the kid's developing his angsty stage which just pisses everyone off that much more.

In a land of the free and home of the brave, that situation shouldn't happen. At all. Ever. Shrink the margin between rich and poor, finance social programs such as public transportation, education, and medicine.

any kind of statism entails disdain for the common man.

All governments have some 'socialist' traits, and some 'capitalist' traits.
All governments have "statist" traits, and no other kind. Everything that the government gets involved in, it does so only to increase its own control over the lives of others.

Damn - read the title and thought this was going to be link to a techo remix of 'Fanfare for the common man'.

Never mind.

Your argument does not make sense. Jens would undoubtably have benifitted from taxes from elsewhere in his receipt of other government services (law and order and such). Therefore it is perfectly justified to use his taxation elsewhere.

since when is TAX a socialist concept?

Funny, I don't know any socialists that advocate carting people off to forced labour camps. Stalinist style communists maybe, but not your average socialist. Given that Socialism is generally about improving the lives of common men like Jens the lumberjack (and no, I can't resist humming the song) I think you may have your terms a bit confused.
Thus the irony in such an observation. Did you actually read the op, or just the title and conclusion?

Roads?

Ever used one? Yes? Then you have no right to complain about the concept of taxation. Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.

*blah blah blah*

I'm not all that interested in the bulk of your OP, but I do want to comment on the title of this thread: Socialists' disdain for the comman man. (I'm sorry, I must be a socialist, because I disdain your misspelling of the word 'common'). There is a big divide between the academic left, and the active left that always drives me a bit buggy. The academic left like to glare down their spectacled noses at the 'common man', including the active left, and ignore that 'doing' is a lot more effective than 'thinking about doing'. I think this disdain of the 'common man' is a huge reason why so many socialist revolutions have imploded with a big farting sound. The common man has a wealth of experience that needs to be taken into account. Mr. Common may not understand the intricacies of Marxist thought, but don't try to tell the man how to thresh wheat when he's been frickin' doing it his whole life! And the fresh faced poli-sci majors who harangue the activists with 30 plus years of experience? Oh I'd like to bitch slap you all.

But this isn't a beef confined to the left, it also extends to the right. Because while you and your kind mouth platitudes about 'respecting the common man' via the free market, you go on to blame every failure of your system on those 'common men'. "They're lazy. Stupid. They have every opportunity, and never mind that they were born into crushing poverty, abuse, lack few opportunities for quality education etc...if they would just get OVER it, the weaklings!"

The right has just as much disdain for the common man as anyone on the left. You claim that the left manifests this disdain by not giving the common man choice. I say you do exactly the same...but you clothe your system in 'choice'...limiting that choice of course to the power of consumerism, the occasional tick on a ballot...taking all the credit when things work, and none of the blame when things go horribly wrong.

Don't fool yourself. You're as much an elitist as the people you are pointing fingers at.

Your argument does not make sense. Jens would undoubtably have benifitted from taxes from elsewhere in his receipt of other government services (law and order and such). Therefore it is perfectly justified to use his taxation elsewhere.
Firstly allow me to elucidate that I was not complaining about the unfairness of tax. In fact, I was actually describing how it is in fact an abstracted form of slavery. I made no judgement in the entire OP on the merits of tax. Additionally, it is your arguement that makes no sense. Jens consumes service A so he should be forced to give his money to the provision of service B in the hope that he gets his money's worth out of completely separate service A.

How about Jens consumes service A, so he buys it voluntarily from the competitive provider of his choice. Simple.

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.

Lawl, libertarian. I can ignore you now.

Lawl, libertarian. I can ignore you now.
Indeed, it'll make you feel better.

All governments have "statist" traits, and no other kind. Everything that the government gets involved in, it does so only to increase its own control over the lives of others.

When I went in for emergency surgery, I did not pay a dime. Nor do I have any insurance. The state paid for it all. If the state had not, I would be dead.

Please explain to me how this has increased the control the state has over my life.

Let us meet Jens. Jens is a lumberjack. He cuts wood all day to put towards his personal goal of building the worlds largest long-drop toilet, so perhaps he and his family can live a life of splendour and fame at it's base...

...Now, if the government were to rock up to his wood pile at the construction site and demand 20% of a day's worth of wood for the construction of their bridge, this is (apart from theft) slavery....

...Besides, who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not?

Since Jens is cutting wood all day for his fabulous toilet, he should quit bitching and whining, because the 'tax' on his lumber is probably the only thing that is providing for his wife and kids (and others like them) while he is out playing silly buggers in lumberjack shirts.

Also worth pointing out - "who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not"... not every bridge is going to be directly market-related-worthwhile. That doesn't mean it lacks value, just that marketforces see no value.

I'm not all that interested in the bulk of your OP, but I do want to comment on the title of this thread: Socialists' disdain for the comman man. (I'm sorry, I must be a socialist, because I disdain your misspelling of the word 'common'). Right, go for the spelling. Feel better?
*misdirected drivel*It would seem the only thing you read was indeed the title. I was not talking about as purile and inane of a criticism that "socialists are whiny elitist academics". Nor did I even cast judgement upon any socialism as an idea. Nor did I endorse the superiority of capitalism. No, I simply explained how in practice, the ancient art of taxation infringes upon the fundamental human right of self-ownership. Try reading before you cut and paste your list of hasty conclusions.

When I went in for emergency surgery, I did not pay a dime. Nor do I have any insurance. The state paid for it all. If the state had not, I would be dead.

Please explain to me how this has increased the control the state has over my life.

Well, you didn't notice, but while you were under the knife, they implanted a chip in your heart that can be activated by remote control, stopping said organ. One day you'll get a phone call, and be told to do something heinous for your government to repay the debt you have incurred by being given that life-saving surgery...

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.

I'm not sure I see any reason to accept this premise. The idea that smaller, private groups must implicitly be superior in all ways to larger, governmentally aligned groups is a fundamental tenet of certain types of economic model - and yet there is no really good reason to believe it to be so.

Where one private group is more than usually successful, even private groups become uncompetitive. Indeed, in monopoly situations, private groups will become more uncompetetive than governmental groups, because they are less accountable, less likely to be regulated, and more interested in immediate returns.

Real world examples, especially in essential services like healthcare, show that a moderately uncorrupt state version provides a comparable service to a moderately uncorrupt private market - but with greater access, and lower overheads.

Libertarian, laissez-faire, free-market arguments often hinge on this idea that private must trump state... which might be a worthy argument, if it were supportable.

since when is TAX a socialist concept?
Touche. However, I find that most statist do not even realise that they are such, and as such, do not elicit a response to threads aimed at the flaws in their system. So I decided to direct it at socialism instead, as many here subscribe to that ideaology, and as economic systems go socialism is pretty heavy on the taxes.

Right, go for the spelling. Feel better?
It would seem the only thing you read was indeed the title. I was not talking about as purile and inane of a criticism that "socialists are whiny elitist academics". Nor did I even cast judgement upon any socialism as an idea. Nor did I endorse the superiority of capitalism. No, I simply explained how in practice, the ancient art of taxation infringes upon the fundamental human right of self-ownership. Try reading before you cut and paste your list of hasty conclusions.

Um...jackass? I told you straight up I didn't give a crap about your OP, and was simply making a tangential comment on your title, based on a pet peeve of MINE. You can of course ignore that part if you wish. However, that you chose to ignore the part of my post where I accused you of disdaining the common man as much as any socialist supposedly does, can only mean that you

a) agree, and have no comment
b) disagree, but have no way of backing yourself up.

Good day.

Firstly allow me to elucidate that I was not complaining about the unfairness of tax. In fact, I was actually describing how it is in fact an abstracted form of slavery. I made no judgement in the entire OP on the merits of tax. Additionally, it is your arguement that makes no sense. Jens consumes service A so he should be forced to give his money to the provision of service B in the hope that he gets his money's worth out of completely separate service A.

How about Jens consumes service A, so he buys it voluntarily from the competitive provider of his choice. Simple.

Okay, so Jens wants a road, however he dosn't have enough money to pay for the road into the forest, becuase he dosn't haev that sort of money. So, what does he do? He either A) Dosn't have a road, or B) Forms into a group who pay subs to get a road.... which is a basic state....

By the way Private service isn't always the best option, state usually provides better care as it dosn't cut corners, though it isn't always so efficent, now the Private Sector is more efficent but dosn't provide as good general care as it cuts corners, to make profit. A lot of the money you put in flows out to private shareholders.

read Jennefer Goverment, says a lot abotu what a true libertarian state would be.

When I went in for emergency surgery, I did not pay a dime. Nor do I have any insurance. The state paid for it all. If the state had not, I would be dead.

Please explain to me how this has increased the control the state has over my life.
Well, aside from the obvious point that they had complete control over whether you lived or died through the ability to deny you care.* By providing services such as health care, the state gains a positive image within society, and this image helps quiet the masses so that the upper class can go on doing whatever the Hell they want without worrying about a revolution.

*Yes, I am aware that such would have been illegal and immoral, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been hushed over. Even if the news had gotten out, it would have been too late to save you.

When I went in for emergency surgery, I did not pay a dime. Nor do I have any insurance. The state paid for it all. If the state had not, I would be dead.

Please explain to me how this has increased the control the state has over my life.
The fact that you, and the rest of your country is being forced to pay for such a service to be provided from an artificial monopoly which does not 'earn' it's money so much as it 'takes' it. The government is the only company which can force people to buy it's services, then not even have to compete in the provision thereof.

Whilst you were lucky to have medical treatment, such attention could have just as easily been made possible via a private health system paid for by a private health insurance agency. Especially if you weren't upkeeping the government one with your tax dollars.

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.

Please.

You consume goods and services, do you not? How do those goods get to market, and how do those providing the services get to their places of employment? Roads. Your vessel (argument) here holds no water.

Um...jackass? I told you straight up I didn't give a crap about your OP, and was simply making a tangential comment on your title, based on a pet peeve of MINE. You can of course ignore that part if you wish. However, that you chose to ignore the part of my post where I accused you of disdaining the common man as much as any socialist supposedly does, can only mean that you

a) agree, and have no comment
b) disagree, but have no way of backing yourself up.

Good day.
Allow me to clarify further. I noted your post was a misdirected and misconstrued response to my OP title (which held a double meaning) in agreement with your own acknowledgement thereof by using the word 'indeed'. Go back and read it, you'll see it there:
It would seem the only thing you read was indeed the title.
Furthermore, I did ignore your seemingly aimless stab at my own elitism for a couple of reasons. 1) I never called socialists elitist (or anything for that matter, my discussion focussed mainly on tax and the philosophical implications thereof). 2)I am an elitist, so what? (especially considering being an anarcho-capitalist elitist is niether hypocritical or ironic). 3)I decided to let it slide, because I am pretty sure you are Xisla, a guy I like, and just seemed to be in a bad mood from a misunderstanding.

Well, aside from the obvious point that they had complete control over whether you lived or died through the ability to deny you care.* By providing services such as health care, the state gains a positive image within society, and this image helps quiet the masses so that the upper class can go on doing whatever the Hell they want without worrying about a revolution.

*Yes, I am aware that such would have been illegal and immoral, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been hushed over. Even if the news had gotten out, it would have been too late to save you.

Nobody's throwing a revolution anyway.

Firstly allow me to elucidate that I was not complaining about the unfairness of tax. In fact, I was actually describing how it is in fact an abstracted form of slavery. I made no judgement in the entire OP on the merits of tax. Additionally, it is your arguement that makes no sense. Jens consumes service A so he should be forced to give his money to the provision of service B in the hope that he gets his money's worth out of completely separate service A.

How about Jens consumes service A, so he buys it voluntarily from the competitive provider of his choice. Simple.

Taxation equal slavery, even in an abstract fashion? Yikes.

I like the Interstate freeways, I like the armed forces, I like the police and fire departments -- I like all of those things I cannot afford to provide myself. If you honestly think that private contractors hired out to do all of those things and more would be cheaper, you're smoking something that, by all rights, should be shared, but not taken seriously.

Nobody's throwing a revolution anyway.
No, not as long as they're properly socialized in the school system and their bread and circuses are provided at regular intervals.

Okay, so Jens wants a road, however he dosn't have enough money to pay for the road into the forest, becuase he dosn't haev that sort of money. So, what does he do? He either A) Dosn't have a road, or B) Forms into a group who pay subs to get a road.... which is a basic state....If Jens doesn't live in an area with a decent enough market to support a road, then if he wants a road he can move. If, however, there is a decent enough market of locals, then a transit corp would be well advised to build one and charge them for access. No need to form a govt to build a road.

By the way Private service isn't always the best option, state usually provides better care as it dosn't cut corners, though it isn't always so efficent, now the Private Sector is more efficent but dosn't provide as good general care as it cuts corners, to make profit. A lot of the money you put in flows out to private shareholders.Private healthcare is whatever the market demands it to be. If people wanted healthcare to be of a higher quality for a higher price, then it would be. However, it so happens people want the cheapest healthcare at the cheapest price.

No, not as long as they're properly socialized in the school system and their bread and circuses are provided at regular intervals.

No, I mean, -nobody- is throwing a revolution. Unless you live in Africa or are part of Hamas, you're most likely not throwing a revolution on earth.

Otherwise, you're just sitting here typing like the rest of us. We'll never revolt. Our kids won't revolt unless something huge happens (a la Deus Ex Machina) and our grandkids most likely won't, either.

Please.

You consume goods and services, do you not? How do those goods get to market, and how do those providing the services get to their places of employment? Roads. Your vessel (argument) here holds no water.
It holds plenty of water. The roads can, and should, be privatised and user-pays. Then I don't pay for the roads to exist, plus the roads are built and maintained significantly more efficiently, which means the total burden of the cost of roads has fallen, meaning that the goods are delivered to the market on a cheap efficient (and faster, user-pays) road, meaning my goods arrive at the markets cheaper. Think.

If Jens doesn't live in an area with a decent enough market to support a road, then if he wants a road he can move. If, however, there is a decent enough market of locals, then a transit corp would be well advised to build one and charge them for access. No need to form a govt to build a road.
So we just concenrate our population adn have no decent supply of wood or food ect. After all theres no real market to build a road to where I live, after all theres just me and my amilly and a couple otehr farmers spread out over about 40 miles, yet without us you wouldn't be eating any lamb.

Private healthcare is whatever the market demands it to be. If people wanted healthcare to be of a higher quality for a higher price, then it would be. However, it so happens people want the cheapest healthcare at the cheapest price.
But it isn't is it, Private Healthcare isn't value for money-it costs more to get the smae level of care in the US as it does in the UK. The less you pay the worse it gets as they need a to take a bigger share to get a bigger profit, and in the end you end up with it ebign ebtter to have no healthcare at all.

Name someone who actually doesn't have disdain for, or oppress, the "common man" (whatever the "common man" is).

By definition any government or state is going to infringe upon the right of the common man. The only form of "government" that does not do so is a society without hierarchy; essentially, anarchy. And as seems patently obvious, an anarchic state would be extremely chaotic and only last a short time before certain individuals rise to prominence and establish another hierarchy.

/2¢

Otherwise, you're just sitting here typing like the rest of us. We'll never revolt. Our kids won't revolt unless something huge happens (a la Deus Ex Machina) and our grandkids most likely won't, either.
And this state of affairs is maintained by the government providing services that keeps everyone (me included) docile. Yes, I know, that was my point:
Gift-of-God gets surgery, I get the complete run of Futurama on DVD, the "anarchists" get to listen to Anti-Flag courtesy of Sony, and our rulers get to spit on us all.
Which ties back to my earlier statement that all government action is inherently statist and based upon a desire to hold power.

No, not as long as they're properly socialized in the school system and their bread and circuses are provided at regular intervals.
Speaking of which...
*plods to the tv to absorb soma dosage for the day*
Yieeeeeeeeeeeeeeld...mmmmmmmm

It always amazes me when people come up with the argument "the government don't need to take your money, as all their services can be better provided by private enterprise". How exactly?

The prime motive of private enterprise is to make a profit. Full stop. They are not interested in providing a service if it doesn't make any money. Thats where governments step in. Essential services such as law and order, armed forces, fire departments etc CANNOT be provided by private enterprise as there is no profit in them. This is where your argument falls on its arse.

Well, aside from the obvious point that they had complete control over whether you lived or died through the ability to deny you care.* By providing services such as health care, the state gains a positive image within society, and this image helps quiet the masses so that the upper class can go on doing whatever the Hell they want without worrying about a revolution.

*Yes, I am aware that such would have been illegal and immoral, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been hushed over. Even if the news had gotten out, it would have been too late to save you.

If it had been a private company, would they have had complete control whether or not I lived or died? Of course they would. If my private insurance (if I had had one) had told the private hospital thath they would not pay, and the hospital had then refused me service, I would have died. All that to say that the control over my life is not dependent on taxation.

By providing services such as health care, the state gains a positive image within society, and it also helps the masses stay healthy and productive, which is good for everyone, including the upper classes.

Taxation equal slavery, even in an abstract fashion? Yikes.

I like the Interstate freeways, I like the armed forces, I like the police and fire departments -- I like all of those things I cannot afford to provide myself. If you honestly think that private contractors hired out to do all of those things and more would be cheaper, you're smoking something that, by all rights, should be shared, but not taken seriously.
Every one of the above services could be provided by competing markets of private firms. You wouldn't have to hire them, just as you don't hire the government to do it. Rather, you would simply subscribe to the desired services from the desired provider. Kind of like a pick and mix tax, except it is voluntary, more efficient, and keyed towards the demands of the market (i.e. you) rather than the political expediency of corrupt bureaucrats.

Also another point. Where is it written that governments cannot run affairs as efficiently as private enterprise? A prime example is the British rail system. For years people railed against British Rail, the state owned rail company, and it was split up and privatised in the early nineties. Now thanks to the state of the railways people are clamouring for re-nationalisation. The private companies have rung a profit out of it by giving us the highest fares in Europe and some of the most under financed services in Europe. So how exactly are they running things better than the government did?

Every one of the above services could be provided by competing markets of private firms. You wouldn't have to hire them, just as you don't hire the government to do it. Rather, you would simply subscribe to the desired services from the desired provider. Kind of like a pick and mix tax, except it is voluntary, more efficient, and keyed towards the demands of the market (i.e. you) rather than the political expediency of corrupt bureaucrats.

Exactly how would the police and fire services be provided by private enterprise? There isn't a profit in them is there?

It always amazes me when people come up with the argument "the government don't need to take your money, as all their services can be better provided by private enterprise". How exactly?

The prime motive of private enterprise is to make a profit. Full stop. They are not interested in providing a service if it doesn't make any money. Thats where governments step in. Essential services such as law and order, armed forces, fire departments etc CANNOT be provided by private enterprise as there is no profit in them. This is where your argument falls on its arse.

Indeed. While the individual people within the government may be using the job to aquire money (legally or illegally), it's nothing compared to what it would be like if the government-run services themselves were just out to make a profit.

The prime motive of private enterprise is to make a profit. Full stop. They are not interested in providing a service if it doesn't make any money. Thats where governments step in. Essential services such as law and order, armed forces, fire departments etc CANNOT be provided by private enterprise as there is no profit in them. This is where your argument falls on its arse.

Well, technically, you can pay for essential services (like in Jennifer Government): for instance, hiring the police to investigate a robbery costs £5,000, whereas a murder is £20,000 (or £18,000 with a rival firm). Of course, that's, in fact, a tax. Bringing us right back to where we started.

Private enterprise has no motive to provide good services, because as long as they make enough money, they can simply buy out their competitors and then neglect their services (there are no more competing services possible to subscribe to anyway). Of course, the government doesn't provide good services either, because the tax money gets mismanaged or taken by lower-level officials for their own private use, or the government spends more money on the military/welfare/unemployment office/trade/police, or the government has to cut taxes in the face of a deficit and leave essential services unfunded. In short, no-one can be trusted, and we always end up with poor services as a result.

A good summary of every single governmental system it is possible to devise is "The common man is screwed."

The fact that you and the rest of your country are being forced to pay for such a service to be provided from an artificial monopoly which does not 'earn' it's money so much as it 'takes' it. The government is the only company which can force people to buy it's services, then not even have to compete in the provision thereof.

The government earns the money by using the taxes to benefit society as a whole. I pay them through taxes, and they earn that pay by providing roads, health services, police, military, education, free potable water, and a whole list of other services.

Whilst you were lucky to have medical treatment, such attention could have just as easily been made possible via a private health system paid for by a private health insurance agency. Especially if you weren't upkeeping the government one with your tax dollars.

But then I would have had to buy private insurance, and that would cost me far more than I pay in taxes for the equivalent services. Yous system also does not take into account that the people who need medical services are ususally the ones who are least able to pay for private insurance, i.e. the poor, the elderly, recent immigrants, and other less advantaged groups.

Well, technically, you can pay for essential services (like in Jennifer Government): for instance, hiring the police to investigate a robbery costs £5,000, whereas a murder is £20,000 (or £18,000 with a rival firm). Of course, that's, in fact, a tax. Bringing us right back to where we started.

Private enterprise has no motive to provide good services, because as long as they make enough money, they can simply buy out their competitors and then neglect their services (there's nothing else people do anyway). Of course, the government doesn't provide good services either, because the tax money gets mismanaged or taken by lower-level officials for their own private use. In short, no-one can be trusted, and we always end up with poor services as a result.

A good summary of every single governmental system it is possible to devise is "The common man is screwed."

Your first statement is true. The very nature of private enterprise is to make money for their shareholders. If you don't like the service provided by McDonalds and their isn't another restaurant for 200 miles your screwed.

Your second statement is false. Saying all government officials are corrupt and all tax money is mismanaged is the grossest generalisations and possibly misrepresentations. Besides, if that is the case, you have the ability to vote them out. You can't vote out the board of McDonalds can you.

Also another point. Where is it written that governments cannot run affairs as efficiently as private enterprise? A prime example is the British rail system. For years people railed against British Rail, the state owned rail company, and it was split up and privatised in the early nineties. Now thanks to the state of the railways people are clamouring for re-nationalisation. The private companies have rung a profit out of it by giving us the highest fares in Europe and some of the most under financed services in Europe. So how exactly are they running things better than the government did?
The private companies are making money, but only because of government bailouts, and the government is having to bail out these railway consortia with more money than British Rail could ever have dreamed of. I've travelled on nationalised railways in France and Italy, and know which I'd rather have in the Uk tomorrow.

Also another point. Where is it written that governments cannot run affairs as efficiently as private enterprise? A prime example is the British rail system. For years people railed against British Rail, the state owned rail company, and it was split up and privatised in the early nineties. Now thanks to the state of the railways people are clamouring for re-nationalisation. The private companies have rung a profit out of it by giving us the highest fares in Europe and some of the most under financed services in Europe. So how exactly are they running things better than the government did?

A very good point! The current privatised rail system in the UK is just abysmal. I would fully support a re-nationalisation of the railways.

As for the National Health Service, I t will be a cold day in hell before i'd allow one of Britains best humanitarian institutions corrupted by business. I don't want a privatised health service, because I believe quite strongly that Medical services should be free to everyone. If that means paying taxes, i'm totally fine with that and is it appears, by democratic majority worldwide too.

I would even argue that most Americans would approve of a National Health Service, it's is a shame its just never gotten "off the ground" for them.

A very good point! The current privatised rail system in the UK is just abysmal. I would fully support a re-nationalisation of the railways.

As for the National Health Service, I t will be a cold day in hell before i'd allow one of Britains best humanitarian institutions corrupted by business. I don't want a privatised health service, because I believe quite strongly that Medical services should be free to everyone. If that means paying taxes, i'm totally fine with that and is it appears, by democratic majority worldwide too.

I would even argue that most Americans would approve of a National Health Service, it's is a shame its just never gotten "off the ground" for them.
The NHS has been corrupted by business long ago, and is partly why it is in the state it is in.

Every one of the above services could be provided by competing markets of private firms. You wouldn't have to hire them, just as you don't hire the government to do it. Rather, you would simply subscribe to the desired services from the desired provider. Kind of like a pick and mix tax, except it is voluntary, more efficient, and keyed towards the demands of the market (i.e. you) rather than the political expediency of corrupt bureaucrats.


That's how fire departments used to work. You paid a fire company a fee to put out the fire consuming your house, should such an event happen. You had to put a sign on your house so that the fire company would know you paid.

Trouble is, fire spreads. So if the fire spreads to the next house, and the private fire department is not responsible for that house, then that house gets consumed, and whatever houses that get ignited because of those houses, and then the city burns down. Including the private fire stations, and the houses of those who paid.

The private companies are making money, but only because of government bailouts, and the government is having to bail out these railway consortia with more money than British Rail could ever have dreamed of. I've travelled on nationalised railways in France and Italy, and know which I'd rather have in the Uk tomorrow.

Exactly my point. The railway cannot be run at aprofit by private enterprise, so why insist it can? The same would be true of the roads, police etc.

Your first statement is true. The very nature of private enterprise is to make money for their shareholders. If you don't like the service provided by McDonalds and their isn't another restaurant for 200 miles your screwed.
You can conceivably start your own restaurant.


Your second statement is false. Saying all government officials are corrupt and all tax money is mismanaged is the grossest generalisations and possibly misrepresentations. Besides, if that is the case, you have the ability to vote them out. You can't vote out the board of McDonalds can you.

I edited, realising that just in time. However, voting them out doesn't necessarily help; it's not like anyone else would do a better job. Anyway, I've noticed that at least here in the USA, 95% of all government-provided services are greatly inferior in quality. In the UK it's less, but the UK has consequently higher taxes, does not devote nearly so much to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has fewer members of the wealthy élite that's quietly funneling money to politicians that suit their interests while withholding said money from others, etc.

Trouble is, fire spreads. So if the fire spreads to the next house, and the private fire department is not responsible for that house, then that house gets consumed, and whatever houses that get ignited because of those houses, and then the city burns down. Including the private fire stations, and the houses of those who paid.

Except that would be bad for business, so the fire company would then rescue that house as well, and request its fee afterwards.

As for those who can't afford the fees, the main purpose of government would then be to distribute vouchers redeemable as money to the poor and unemployed. The money for that would come from trade, as well as sales and property taxes.

This is all, of course, highly theoretical and would be unlikely to work in real life.

You can conceivably start your own restaurant.



I edited, realising that just in time. However, voting them out doesn't necessarily help; it's not like anyone else would do a better job. Anyway, I've noticed that at least here in the USA, 95% of all government-provided services are greatly inferior in quality. In the UK it's less, but the UK has consequently higher taxes, does not devote nearly so much to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has fewer members of the wealthy élite that's quietly funneling money to politicians that suit their interests while withholding said money from others, etc.

Well maybe when your fellow Americans bitch about poor public services they should realise the money has to come from somewhere, and that they would likely have to pay more to a private enterprise for the same level of service.

Every one of the above services could be provided by competing markets of private firms. You wouldn't have to hire them, just as you don't hire the government to do it. Rather, you would simply subscribe to the desired services from the desired provider. Kind of like a pick and mix tax, except it is voluntary, more efficient, and keyed towards the demands of the market (i.e. you) rather than the political expediency of corrupt bureaucrats.

First thought: I don't have a car... so I can opt out of the cost of roads. Seems fair. Then, when the tree falls on me, and I call the emergency services, they wire my bank to see if I can afford to have a new stretch of road laid to my house, whether my 'emergency insurance' will cover the cost of an ambulance and/or rescue vehicles... and whether or not I am registered as eligible at any of the medical facilities nearby.

Then, of course, when they decide I am not covered for any of the above, they have to charge my children for the wasted manhours researching it, for the costs incurred in removing and disposing of my corpse, and for the cost in lumberjack hours for clearing the fallen tree.


Second thought: What kind of fantasy world do you have to live in to imagine that a pick-and-mix taxation system would be anything resembling efficient? Every citizen might tick or not tick any of ten thousand boxes on which the calculation will be based - and you somehow think this will expedite the process?

Except that would be bad for business, so the fire company would then rescue that house as well, and request its fee afterwards.

As for those who can't afford the fees, the main purpose of government would then be to distribute vouchers redeemable as money to the poor and unemployed. The money for that would come from trade, as well as sales and property taxes.

This is all, of course, highly theoretical and would be unlikely to work in real life.

Ta Da!!!!!

Well maybe when your fellow Americans bitch about poor public services they should realise the money has to come from somewhere, and that they would likely have to pay more to a private enterprise for the same level of service.

The point is, however, that the USA spends more on healthcare or education than just about any other nation in the world. (I'm not sure of the exact figures, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Nonetheless, the USA's healthcare and education systems are horribly inefficient and greatly inferior in quality, although to what we don't really know.

Then again, many essential services, such as gas and water, are provided by government-run "corporations": in effect, they charge you the way a corporation does, but they also take your tax money. It's odd how no-one's realised things like that are actually funnelling more money to the government than it's using. So my question is, where exactly is all that money going? And why isn't it being better spent?

Well, at a certain level the government is aware that money has no real value. Its value comes from the relatively good word of the government as to its 'value' and the scarcity of of it.

Therefore, it behooves the government to accept its own tender as it implies true value. As well, the government employees fall under the scope of the illusion, and need the asset to supply a living for themselves and their family.

Taxation is way to siphon off money from the free market so that public employees may be paid, but it holds a secondary purpose that isnt spoken of much.

Taxation can, and is, used as a tool to fight inflation. When an economy is hot(or even not), and population is rising, more and more bills must be printed to allow the daily transactions of the society. Unfortunately, this allows slack in raising prices, and again, slack in raising wages.

This, unfortunately, makes each dollar printed worth less, because there are more of them. The government cannot simply yank some legal tender without tanking the economy. Indeed, other than armed force, taxation is the only means to do so. Nor can they stop printing new tender for very long.

So taxation is used to limit growth of the economy, and thereby, inflation. If the government taxes you 20 dollars on the 100 that you earn, then the remaining 80 must stretch to assume the role of 100. The taxed individual suffers, but society as a whole benefits by having a large money supply in circulation.

So I might as well explain inflation while I am at it. I am sure everyone knows though.

Inflation is what happens when in 2006, the government prints money so that there is 100 dollars per person in circulation. In 2007, the banks let them know that they now need 110 per person to avoid running short of negotiable cash, due to raised incomes and raised costs(in society, not just the bank).

Since what i need to fullfill my basic needs is very close to what i needed last year, not taking raised prices into account, that 110 dollars is worth roughly the same as the 100 dollars the year before. It only buys me the same things, in the same quantities.

Thats inflation in a nutshell. one dollar is worth less than it was the year before, because there are more out there. Taxation reduces the amount of money in circulation, without destroying the representation of it.

Taxation is a liquid means of adjusting for inflation. The actual tax rate isnt important. The real magic happens when you file your taxes and you either owe more, or get some back. Thats the slack adjustment.

It is this attitude that is indicative of a disdain for the common man's self-ownership (a fundamental human right), his capacity to choose and know what is best for himself. It would seem that socialism finds the common man 'ignorant' on what he should be doing for what purpose, so much so that it could not be explained reasonably to him with an expectation for him to understand and yield voluntarily.

My impression of the paradigm of socialism, or any statism really, is just that: people are too stupid for their own good and need big brother to make it all work out right.

And big brother needs your cash.

My impression of the paradigm of socialism, or any statism really, is just that: people are too stupid for their own good and need big brother to make it all work out right.

And big brother needs your cash.

To some extent I would have to agree with that.

Sorry, I thought that the number one human right was the right to life.

Not self-ownership ffs.

I'd much rather be alive, and having welfare etc. instead of working with no taxes for the sake of petty materialism, and to be honest - so what if some of my income goes to other people?

I don't feel robbed by it - I like helping other people out. And if I'm paying taxes in a UK-based style (already taken into account with a full-time job's salary), then I don't really feel the sting of it unless I'm self employed (my father is, and five-figure bills are rather saddening, but oh well).

Not really an issue, let's be honest.

To some extent I would have to agree with that.

...see.

Who controls the government in socialism? The common person.

Whose wealth is redistributed in socialism? That of the rich.

The people who hold the common people in contempt are the people who think that giving them the power to control the economy that dominates their lives and provides their welfare will result in disaster.

3)I decided to let it slide, because I am pretty sure you are Xisla, a guy I like, and just seemed to be in a bad mood from a misunderstanding.

I'm so not 'a guy' you like.

My impression of the paradigm of socialism, or any statism really, is just that: people are too stupid for their own good and need big brother to make it all work out right.

Your impression is wrong.

...see.

But I'm not really a socialist and it doesn't have anything to do with politics but I honestly think that the society would collapse if there wasn't a "big brother", that is a goverment, to take care of them.

Just in keeping with the building of roads theme…
There is a neighborhood about 4 miles from where I live that did something fairly interesting about 20 years ago. The county ‘maintained’ roads through their neighborhood were simply packed dirt.

Some people got together and sent fliers around to everyone asking them to get together at a backyard cookout to talk about the roads. This discussion ended with them all signing a petition telling the county to stay out of the neighborhood. They then took up a collection asking for donations from everyone in the neighborhood (just pay as much as you feel you can). This money was then used to hire a private company to come in and pave all the roads. Maintenance was carried out either by individuals donating time for smaller projects (single potholes and such) or by holding a bake sale, raffle, or other neighborhood fundraising (which was also a fun community building activity) to fund the repair contracts for the upcoming year. This project helped foster a community spirit while providing them with great roads.

This carried on for many years and everyone was happy, except for the county government.

While most people estimate it cost them around $50 a year in donations plus a few hours volunteer time for their roads - the roads were well maintained. A few years ago some local bureaucrat was so annoyed with this neighborhood doing a better job voluntarily than the county could provide, so he claimed the roads as county property and shutdown the community roads. Now each household pays the county government around $300/yr extra in property taxes for crumbling pothole ridden roads. They are actually threatened with severe fines and jail time if the county ever figures out who is to blame for fixing the more egregious problems (apparently fixing a pothole is ‘vandalism’).

Queen Anne’s County of Maryland. Gotta love it.

Furthermore, I did ignore your seemingly aimless stab at my own elitism for a couple of reasons. 1) I never called socialists elitist (or anything for that matter, my discussion focussed mainly on tax and the philosophical implications thereof). 2)I am an elitist, so what? (especially considering being an anarcho-capitalist elitist is niether hypocritical or ironic). 3)I decided to let it slide, because I am pretty sure you are Xisla, a guy I like, and just seemed to be in a bad mood from a misunderstanding.

1) Why the flame-baiting title in a thread chock full of socialists then?

2) Sorry to break it to you, but any philosophy based around rule by unregulated coroporate interests is very elitist. You can talk all you want about "self-ownership" and what not, but it doesn't mean a nickles worth of dog shit when your philosophy implicitly advocates handing everyone in chains to large wealthy coroporatocracies.

3) You decided to let it slide.... ahh hell no! :mad:
You flame-baited, now pay the piper.

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.
Oh yes, private companies do everything better and cheaper. Just like health care. I mean, the US government spends more per capita on health care than the Canadian government, but everyone who lives in Canada is covered while everyone in the US isn't. But yeah, who cares, right? I mean, I love the idea of paying more for the same service just because it means that the government isn't providing it. And who cares if the poor can go to the doctor, it's social Darwinism, let them all die from their easily treatable diseases.

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.

Guess what? The food you eat is delivered on public roads. Your mail is delivered on public roads.

Funny thing about roads is that they are a natural monopoly.

George Walford had something to say about this.

"The private ownership envisages by the anarcho-capitalists would be very different from that which we know. It is hardly going too far to say that while the one is nasty, the other would be nice. In anarcho-capitalism there would be no National Insurance, no Social Security, no National Health Service and not even anything corresponding to the Poor Laws; there would be no public safety-nets at all. It would be a rigorously competitive society: work, beg or die. But as one reads on, learning that each individual would have to buy, personally, all goods and services needed, not only food, clothing and shelter but also education, medicine, sanitation, justice, police, all forms of security and insurance, even permission to use the streets (for these also would be privately owned), as one reads about all this a curious feature emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy all these things.
"There are no public casual wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system but no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to buy the services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much more than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over others.

"No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no machinery for restraining competition (for this would need to exercise authority over the competitors and it is an anarcho- capitalist society) competition would not be carried to the point where anybody actually suffered from it. While proclaiming their system to be a competitive one, in which private interest rules unchecked, they show it operating as a co-operative one, in which no person or group profits at the cost of another." [On the Capitalist Anarchists]

Guess what? The food you eat is delivered on public roads. Your mail is delivered on public roads.

Unfortunately, the taxes that those service providers pay for their road usage is rolled over into the price they charge, so that is not a viable argument.

Sorry, I thought that the number one human right was the right to life.

Not self-ownership ffs.

Life is not good on its own merits.

I'd much rather be alive, and having welfare etc. instead of working with no taxes for the sake of petty materialism, and to be honest - so what if some of my income goes to other people?

"Petty materialism" is not the point, and even redistribution is not the central point. The central point, of course, is unnecessary coersion, unjustified violence.

Unfortunately, the taxes that those service providers pay for their road usage is rolled over into the price they charge, so that is not a viable argument.
I'm going to guess that the OP might not drive a car, but his/her parents do. Or s/he takes public transit or maybe even a school bus. Regardless of whether s/he is actually behind the wheel, s/he is probably using the roads in some manner. Hell, even a bicycle uses the roads or pathways maintained by the city.

*makes popcorn, pulls up chair*

I'm going to guess that the OP might not drive a car, but his/her parents do. Or s/he takes public transit or maybe even a school bus. Regardless of whether s/he is actually behind the wheel, s/he is probably using the roads in some manner. Hell, even a bicycle uses the roads or pathways maintained by the city.

Oh certainly, the necessity of roads is not the point. The fair and free (which are synonymous in this case) burden of cost is the the point.

Except its a simple fact that Canada spends a good deal less per capita on our apparently inefficient and useless healthcare system that somehow manages to provide essential care to every single one of its citizens.

How is private better than that? The US spends ridiculous amounts of money on healthcare; sure, if you are rich, its pretty sweet, but what happens when you are one of the millions without overpriced insurance? Farked. The end.

Aside from ideology, which is all I hear on these forums lately, there is no reason to give up universal healthcare in my country. And frankly the arrogant pricks who keep harping on and on about it in media and other forums of communication make the common man (whom we socialists don't care about, ignoring Tommy Douglas et all) pull their hair out in confusion, frustration, and anger.

Your impression is wrong.

Nah, it really isn't.

I have come to understand that in it's traditional form, socialism is implicitly against the fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination.No form of ownership is a fundamental human right.
Communism maximizes self-determination.


Now, if the government were to rock up to his wood pile at the construction site and demand 20% of a day's worth of wood for the construction of their bridge, this is (apart from theft) slavery. That is to say, 20% of the wood Jens cut today has been forcibly 'taxed' by the government. This effectively means Jens was forced to cut 20% of his day's wood for free. Nope, he could've chosen to not cut any wood at all.

The government may as well have rocked up in the morning and told him to cut it for them for free (as we already established). The wood, in Jens' case is simply a representation of this work, and to steal it is to force him to work for free. Additionally, for Jens, it means another 20% worth of a day's wood he will have to cut to make up for his loss (of which he will lose another 20%... do I detect a paradox?).

In Jens' case his capital (means of production) was his body and his axe. The fruits of his labour was wood. So? There's no inherent right to the product of your labor. Nobody forced Jens to labor.

However, unlike Jens, most people do not work for wood, they work for money. Really? Nobody ever does anything for pleasure? Or out of boredom?

Oh yes, private companies do everything better and cheaper. Just like health care. I mean, the US government spends more per capita on health care than the Canadian government, but everyone who lives in Canada is covered while everyone in the US isn't. But yeah, who cares, right? I mean, I love the idea of paying more for the same service just because it means that the government isn't providing it. And who cares if the poor can go to the doctor, it's social Darwinism, let them all die from their easily treatable diseases.

Oh, you know, kill the poor and all that. That's the only way that everyone will be able to afford to pay the hordes of corporations they would have to buy into to get all the services they currently get just by paying taxes.

the next day, after refusing to pay the theft of taxation, jens home is robbed. He contacts the local establishemnt to be informed that he will notbe helped, as he refused to participate in the government.

We take advantage of services the government provides. True Jens might not have directly paid for THAT bridge, but someone else paid for something that Jens used but that person did not.

Tha's the principle of taxation, a common pool. Sometimes you benefit from your axation, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you benefit from other people's.

Oh, you know, kill the poor and all that. That's the only way that everyone will be able to afford to pay the hordes of corporations they would have to buy into to get all the services they currently get just by paying taxes.
I'm not saying that people would be out killing the poor.

The poor would just be dying on their own, with a total lack of health care and education and an inability to get themselves or their children out of their dire finanacial straits. Hell, they wouldn't even be able to afford to walk on the road to get to a job.

It has become apparent to me (In a separate thread) the true extent of the socialists' disdain for the common man. I have come to understand that in it's traditional form, socialism is implicitly against the fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination. Indeed, to the point that is nothing short of slavery in itself. Allow me to elaborate.

Let us meet Jens. Jens is a lumberjack. He cuts wood all day to put towards his personal goal of building the worlds largest long-drop toilet, so perhaps he and his family can live a life of splendour and fame at it's base. Anyhow, it turns out that the government needs to build a bridge in a neighbouring province.

If the government were to come along and conscript Jens into a workers camp (Al la Qin Shi Huangdi) for 20% of his day, that would be slavery. It would be so because they are contravening his basic right to self-determination implicit in self-ownership. Just to clarify, to force Jens to work for free without his consent is slavery.

Now, if the government were to rock up to his wood pile at the construction site and demand 20% of a day's worth of wood for the construction of their bridge, this is (apart from theft) slavery. That is to say, 20% of the wood Jens cut today has been forcibly 'taxed' by the government. This effectively means Jens was forced to cut 20% of his day's wood for free. The government may as well have rocked up in the morning and told him to cut it for them for free (as we already established). The wood, in Jens' case is simply a representation of this work, and to steal it is to force him to work for free. Additionally, for Jens, it means another 20% worth of a day's wood he will have to cut to make up for his loss (of which he will lose another 20%... do I detect a paradox?).

In Jens' case his capital (means of production) was his body and his axe. The fruits of his labour was wood. However, unlike Jens, most people do not work for wood, they work for money. The money a person earns is representative of the work they have done. To forcibly tax that money without a person's consent is (as I said earlier, apart from theft) slavery. It is no better than stopping a person work for 20% of their day and putting them to work in a slave gang (well a little better, but you catch my drift).

Now the root of my point approaches. If the government did not want to breach Jens' self-ownership, then all they would have to do is convince Jens to donate his wood voluntarily. If the bridge is a worthwhile project (to Jens), this should not be difficult. However, seeing as Jens lives in a separate province, he does not stand to benefit from this bridge. As such, it is unlikely that Jens would donate any of his wood to such an irrelevant goal (unless he was feeling altruistic). Yet, socialism still demands that he must despite that he does not want to. Socialism feels it should not have to convince people of what is worthwhile and for the common good, but rather feels that it is better to contravene their very self-ownership in what is nothing less than abstracted slavery.

It is this attitude that is indicative of a disdain for the common man's self-ownership (a fundamental human right), his capacity to choose and know what is best for himself. It would seem that socialism finds the common man 'ignorant' on what he should be doing for what purpose, so much so that it could not be explained reasonably to him with an expectation for him to understand and yield voluntarily.

Besides, who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not?

Ever read the book "Anthem"?

since when is TAX a socialist concept?

I guess he wants a world in which EVERYTHING is run by business.

But he fails to realize that even then it would become a government.

A government in which they can pay to change the laws.

I'm not saying that people would be out killing the poor.

The poor would just be dying on their own, with a total lack of health care and education and an inability to get themselves or their children out of their dire finanacial straits. Hell, they wouldn't even be able to afford to walk on the road to get to a job.

Sarcasm, dear, sarcasm. If we killed all the poor people, and sort of poor people, then everyone would be able to maybe kinda afford to be paying all these corporations for everything they currently pay one government for. ;)

Seriously, I'm anything but an anarcho-capitalist. The ideology disgusts me even more than fanatical religious fundamentalism.

Quite a good analysis. In essence all Government has some elements of Socialism in that goods/services/money are taking forcibly from people for redistribution. In overtly Socialist systems the individual isn't all that important; it is rather the State that takes preeminence.

Socialism on a large scale breeds mediocrity because there is less incentive for the individual to excel. Just look at productivity figures in Russie in the pre and post Soviet era, or today's differences in productivity between countries like Japan and the US vs many more Socialist EU countries. It also contributes to relatively high unemployement figures, as again in a society where Goverment takes the role of mother/father/caregiver there is just not the same incentive to find work. Of course the negative economic effects of high taxation contribute to these as well.

sorry to ruin your cherished theory but that most socialist country Sweden leads the world as most productive...production figures that Americans are fond to point at for their productivity don't account for Americans working far more hours per week than Swedes and most other socialist countries, likewise the workaholic Japanese...there is more to life than working 10-12 hour days, quality of life/family are 1st priority if it isn't in your life you are definitely fucked up...

CIA unemployment figures show the USA no better than many EU countries Sweden 5%, only Poland and Germany faired worse than the USA....Norway, GB and some others are better less than 5%....unemployment figures are questionable, they do not take into account those who have given up looking for work, in the US that is estimated in the tens of millions...or those in the military who are also technically unemployed ....

socialist Norway population is now ranked as the wealthiest on the planet...

some people have the strangest unfounded ideas about socialism:cool:

Besides, who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not?

the people?

And this state of affairs is maintained by the government providing services that keeps everyone (me included) docile. Yes, I know, that was my point:
Gift-of-God gets surgery, I get the complete run of Futurama on DVD, the "anarchists" get to listen to Anti-Flag courtesy of Sony, and our rulers get to spit on us all.
Which ties back to my earlier statement that all government action is inherently statist and based upon a desire to hold power.

Anti Flag don't claim to be anarchists.

Anarchist bands like Propagandhi and Aus-Rotten and His Hero Is Gone release their records on either record labels they or personal friends own. Except Fat Mike (Fat Wreck Chords) owns the rights to release Propagandhi's first CD, and they think he's a greedy dick.

sorry to ruin your cherished theory but that most socialist country Sweden leads the world as most productive...production figures that Americans are fond to point at for their productivity don't account for Americans working far more hours per week than Swedes and most other socialist countries, likewise the workaholic Japanese...there is more to life than working 10-12 hour days, quality of life/family are 1st priority if it isn't in your life you are definitely fucked up...

CIA unemployment figures show the USA no better than many EU countries Sweden 5%, only Poland and Germany faired worse than the USA....Norway, GB and some others are better less than 5%....unemployment figures are questionable, they do not take into account those who have given up looking for work, in the US that is estimated in the tens of millions...or those in the military who are also technically unemployed ....

socialist Norway population is now ranked as the wealthiest on the planet...

some people have the strangest unfounded ideas about socialism:cool:

Now try it with a country of 300 million spread across 3 time zones.

So one day, Jens fucks up with his axe and slices into his own leg. The nice paramedics come and cart him away to the hospital, where he gets treated, and is later ok. He gets to go back to cutting wood, and because he lives in Canada, he isn't charged anything. This is how the system works: it siphons off a little from everybody so everybody can live better.

Now try it with a country of 300 million spread across 3 time zones.

and that would make a difference how???....it's a matter of good governance and doing what needs to be done...not about excuses....

and the US has 5 continental time zones and Hawaii makes 6....

and that would make a difference how???....it's a matter of good governance and doing what needs to be done...not about excuses....

and the US has 5 continental time zones and Hawaii makes 6....

Good governance is much harder when the government itself is larger, which you might expect from a larger country in both land mass and population.

the people?

Silly FS. Everyone knows that only people with money matter.

The common man knows he should be disdainful of himself and obedient to his richer masters.

Silly FS. Everyone knows that only people with money matter.

oh, right. sorry, i always forget that part. my disdain for the common man sometimes causes me to forget such obvious truths.

Good governance is much harder when the government itself is larger, which you might expect from a larger country in both land mass and population.

you have nothing to back that up as it hasn't been tried...and the USSR and China don't count as socialist governments, they were totalitarian not liberal democratic socialist governments...

size of the country doesn't matter, Canada is very socialist and it's bigger than the USA....10, 20, 30 or 300million it doesn't matter, a modern western country has the ability to govern any population size...the US cannot because the basic system of 50 states doing whatever the fuck they want will screw up any government...

Socialists do not dislike the common man, it is they whom they represent, they believe not in the immediate petty whim of the capitalist indoctrinated masses, but instead to the true aspirations of mankind as a whole.

I also agree with previous comments that the state welfare socialism of Scandinavian countries such as Sweden proves that socialism in a much more gradual, market and democratic environment can work well. No matter what those dirty corporatists tell you.

Seriously, I'm anything but an anarcho-capitalist. The ideology disgusts me even more than fanatical religious fundamentalism.
Yeah, I really have a hard time telling which of those two ideologies I find most repugnant. I think that the religious fundamentalists win that one by a hair, as much as I like my healthcare, I think I'd rather do without that then the sort of treatment I'd get as a woman in most theocracies.

Yeah, I really have a hard time telling which of those two ideologies I find most repugnant. I think that the religious fundamentalists win that one by a hair, as much as I like my healthcare, I think I'd rather do without that then the sort of treatment I'd get as a woman in most theocracies.

For me, the deciding factor is that anarcho-capitalists seem motivated primarily by greed, which is not the motivation of fundies, however insane they are.

No form of ownership is a fundamental human right.

Most certainly there is, there must be.

Is there no point at which I could call the bagel digesting in my stomach my own?

Nope, he could've chosen to not cut any wood at all.

This is your freedom?

You rail against exploitation, and when we complain that taxation is forced labor, you say, oh, he could have just not worked.

So? There's no inherent right to the product of your labor. Nobody forced Jens to labor.

Then so much for your socialist dream.

Really? Nobody ever does anything for pleasure? Or out of boredom?

People generally don't spend a lifetime cutting wood for pleasure.

Yeah, I really have a hard time telling which of those two ideologies I find most repugnant. I think that the religious fundamentalists win that one by a hair, as much as I like my healthcare, I think I’d rather do without that then the sort of treatment I’d get as a woman in most theocracies.
“Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in. But this attempts a stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity” – Thomas Paine

Funny, I don't know any socialists that advocate carting people off to forced labour camps. Stalinist style communists maybe, but not your average socialist. Given that Socialism is generally about improving the lives of common men like Jens the lumberjack (and no, I can't resist humming the song) I think you may have your terms a bit confused.


Hey!
I lived under Communism and I can't ever recall this ever happening... No one fucking took people from theis r place of employment to force them to work on something else. The premise of this thread is false, and that tells me all I need to know about the agenda of the one who started it.
Also- what happens if Jens gets sick and his family can't fend for itself?

It has become apparent to me (In a separate thread) the true extent of the socialists' disdain for the common man. I have come to understand that in it's traditional form, socialism is implicitly against the fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination. Indeed, to the point that is nothing short of slavery in itself. Allow me to elaborate.

Let us meet Jens. Jens is a lumberjack. He cuts wood all day to put towards his personal goal of building the worlds largest long-drop toilet, so perhaps he and his family can live a life of splendour and fame at it's base. Anyhow, it turns out that the government needs to build a bridge in a neighbouring province.

If the government were to come along and conscript Jens into a workers camp (Al la Qin Shi Huangdi) for 20% of his day, that would be slavery. It would be so because they are contravening his basic right to self-determination implicit in self-ownership. Just to clarify, to force Jens to work for free without his consent is slavery.

Now, if the government were to rock up to his wood pile at the construction site and demand 20% of a day's worth of wood for the construction of their bridge, this is (apart from theft) slavery. That is to say, 20% of the wood Jens cut today has been forcibly 'taxed' by the government. This effectively means Jens was forced to cut 20% of his day's wood for free. The government may as well have rocked up in the morning and told him to cut it for them for free (as we already established). The wood, in Jens' case is simply a representation of this work, and to steal it is to force him to work for free. Additionally, for Jens, it means another 20% worth of a day's wood he will have to cut to make up for his loss (of which he will lose another 20%... do I detect a paradox?).

In Jens' case his capital (means of production) was his body and his axe. The fruits of his labour was wood. However, unlike Jens, most people do not work for wood, they work for money. The money a person earns is representative of the work they have done. To forcibly tax that money without a person's consent is (as I said earlier, apart from theft) slavery. It is no better than stopping a person work for 20% of their day and putting them to work in a slave gang (well a little better, but you catch my drift).

Now the root of my point approaches. If the government did not want to breach Jens' self-ownership, then all they would have to do is convince Jens to donate his wood voluntarily. If the bridge is a worthwhile project (to Jens), this should not be difficult. However, seeing as Jens lives in a separate province, he does not stand to benefit from this bridge. As such, it is unlikely that Jens would donate any of his wood to such an irrelevant goal (unless he was feeling altruistic). Yet, socialism still demands that he must despite that he does not want to. Socialism feels it should not have to convince people of what is worthwhile and for the common good, but rather feels that it is better to contravene their very self-ownership in what is nothing less than abstracted slavery.

It is this attitude that is indicative of a disdain for the common man's self-ownership (a fundamental human right), his capacity to choose and know what is best for himself. It would seem that socialism finds the common man 'ignorant' on what he should be doing for what purpose, so much so that it could not be explained reasonably to him with an expectation for him to understand and yield voluntarily.

Besides, who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not?


This is not about socialism, it's about tax. Republicans tax. King Richard II taxed. Everybody taxes. There's no other way of running a country.
This is your classic Libertarian 'ask not what I can do for my country' anti-tax nonsense, and I'm not going to argue with it save to suggest that to test this hypothesis by abolishing taxes would be one the most irresponsible social experiments of all time (though probably not as bad as the Soviet Union, which as a SOCIALIST I abhor).
Socialism to me is in part about ensuring that taxation is progressive, putting a ceiling of sorts on people's earnings and curbing the 'fat cat' phenomenon. A true socialist wants to tax Jens himself as little as he can get away with, and Jens's bosses by as much as they can afford. You may disagree with that. Fair enough.
But I resent being insulted in the thread title when the OP isn't even about socialism.

Funny, I don't know any socialists that advocate carting people off to forced labour camps. Stalinist style communists maybe, but not your average socialist. Given that Socialism is generally about improving the lives of common men like Jens the lumberjack (and no, I can't resist humming the song) I think you may have your terms a bit confused.

The point of the story is not to claim that socialists want to haul people of to labor camps, instead the point is to illustrate the perceived injustice of taxation as being akin to being hauled off to a labor camp under duress.

I don't necessarily disagree with this understanding.

Taxation is just because the planet’s resources are limited. Since none of us have more rights to these resources than another, these resources need to be distributed justly through taxation.

Taxation is just because the planet’s resources are limited. Since none of us have more rights to these resources than another, these resources need to be distributed justly through taxation.

Taxation has nothing to do with limited resources. Taxation has been around for thousands of years before anyone had any inkling of the concept of a resource running out.

Taxation has nothing to do with limited resources. Taxation has been around for thousands of years before anyone had any inkling of the concept of a resource running out.

Resources have always been limited. Still, we need not discuss the history of taxation; we only need to assert whether taxation is just or unjust.

Unfortunately, the taxes that those service providers pay for their road usage is rolled over into the price they charge, so that is not a viable argument.

Not at all - the point is that the public roads are used by everyone, even those who do not drive.

Thus, there is no logical imperative to allow someone to 'opt out' through lack of use.

Oh certainly, the necessity of roads is not the point. The fair and free (which are synonymous in this case) burden of cost is the the point.

In which case, your argument is flawed - since you seem to be arguing that 'fair' equates to 'direct-user-only' responsibility.

We wouldn't accept that psychology in war. A commander that sends his men to kill innocents, doesn't get to be exempted from 'responsibility' just because he personally wasn't pulling triggers.

You eat the food the carrier carries. You are responsible for the process required in bringing that food to you. Not entirely - obviously. You share the responsibility with the carrier, and all the other customers. But you are involved.

Good governance is much harder when the government itself is larger, which you might expect from a larger country in both land mass and population.

A good argument. Of course... if Americans can appreciate that governmental needs change with scale, why do they constantly whine about the policies of China...

Personally, I'm not sure that sheer number of bodies makes that much difference. The UK has about the surface are of the state of Georgia... and about a fifth of the entire population of the US, and yet the governmental agencies (whilst, obviously bogged down in monumental redtape) operate far more quickly per capita. (As I discovered personally comparing the visa application processes of the two nations - about 2 weeks one way, about 3 years the other way).

In which case, your argument is flawed - since you seem to be arguing that 'fair' equates to 'direct-user-only' responsibility.

We wouldn't accept that psychology in war. A commander that sends his men to kill innocents, doesn't get to be exempted from 'responsibility' just because he personally wasn't pulling triggers.

You eat the food the carrier carries. You are responsible for the process required in bringing that food to you. Not entirely - obviously. You share the responsibility with the carrier, and all the other customers. But you are involved.

I am not arguing fair equals responsibility direct use, I am arguing that fair equals responsibility for your portion of the use. As I said, the food delivery service who is charged for use of the roads will pass the fee on to you through increased prices, so you will be charged even if it is not your direct use.

However, a universal government taxation simply cannot be a fair assignment of cost, and any unfair treatment by government should be avoided when possible.

I am not arguing fair equals responsibility direct use, I am arguing that fair equals responsibility for your portion of the use.


Why? If I live nearer the food store, should I pay less for the food? Can I nominate that I am only responsible for the mileage incurred by one certain driver?

No - because 'fair' isn't always about 'proportional'.


As I said, the food delivery service who is charged for use of the roads will pass the fee on to you through increased prices, so you will be charged even if it is not your direct use.


That is between you and your supplier. That is your supplier defraying their costs, by passing them on to you - that doesn't absolve you of responsibility.


However, a universal government taxation simply cannot be a fair assignment of cost, and any unfair treatment by government should be avoided when possible.

Fine. It can't be avoided. Your point is now moot.

Most certainly there is, there must be.

Is there no point at which I could call the bagel digesting in my stomach my own?Why should you need to? The fact that you're using it is enough.

This is your freedom?

You rail against exploitation, and when we complain that taxation is forced labor, you say, oh, he could have just not worked.It by definition isn't forced labor, as he could have chosen not to work.
If you want to say it's theft, that's a separate argument.

Then so much for your socialist dream.If I base my objections to capitalism on people being denied "the product of their labor", then yes. I don't.

People generally don't spend a lifetime cutting wood for pleasure.Perhaps not, but why should I assume that they're cutting it to keep it? I'd imagine that woodcutting can be good exercise.

Why? If I live nearer the food store, should I pay less for the food? Can I nominate that I am only responsible for the mileage incurred by one certain driver?

No - because 'fair' isn't always about 'proportional'.

Well not directly, fair is pretty much what you will agree to, but there is a general trend where people are less likely to take on greater burden for the same benefit.

That is between you and your supplier. That is your supplier defraying their costs, by passing them on to you - that doesn't absolve you of responsibility.

Of course, that is my point.

Fine. It can't be avoided. Your point is now moot.

Yes it can.

I believe in a Welfare State very similar to the model employed by the Scandinavians, but far more restricted. It would allow state owned companies to operate as normal based on the profit motive like capitalism, but be taxed immensely by the state, everything would be. A large Government Regulatory body would allow employers from the companies to pay their workers set wages defined by the market etc, but that this govt body would assign 'social worth's to individual jobs and subsidize each workers wages accordingly, these subsidies would be paid via immense business and individual taxes, but the people wouldn’t really notice as their wages will be higher.

Over time the stigma associated with such jobs as Public Servants and the community jobs would be lost as they are paid more, because they put more into society, while more greedy workers would end up with far less, thus shaping the society slowly over times to the mindset of communism.

I am also very much against democracy, mainly because the greedy and not yet indoctrinated people would 'vote out' the socialist path to communism. So in the socialist transition period (may take many decades) a restrictive government will control the media and political stuff, etc. Of course consumer goods and the like will always be available for people to buy with their subsidized wages, and so people will try and help society more by better jobs of more 'social worth' to buy more consumer items.

This is using the capitalist mind frame of the population in the transition to produce a socialist and selfless result, and this will suffice until the population are more communist and less greedy, which will of course take a long time. I trust not the petty ever-changing whim of the 'mob' to simply vote out socialism, but I trust their deep aspirations, and so to do what is best for them.


I don't think Social Democracy should be classified as hopeless, it more refers to less radical social changes within an established pluralist democracy. In case point, Scandinavian state welfare socialism takes place within an immensely wealthy state with high taxes, but lots of welfare and social support. I support this mostly because there is, I think alot of things Marx did not predict about the future.

I am skeptical also about democracy and socialism, mainly because pro-business reactionaries can hijack the system and abolish state welfare. For this reason I do not advocate authoritarianism so much as the socialist policies being constitutionally established and put in stone for good.

It needs to be established that helping the poor, dislocated and marginalized of society is not controversial, and that national control of assets is best so that greedy exploitive firms at home and abroad cannot rob the people. In short there needs to be unassailable safeguards for social support within the mainframe of the state.

Still, we need not discuss the history of taxation; we only need to assert whether taxation is just or unjust.

Agreed.

Well not directly, fair is pretty much what you will agree to, but there is a general trend where people are less likely to take on greater burden for the same benefit.


'Selfishness' and 'fair' are, again, not the same thing.


Of course, that is my point.


Then I am confused, since you now appear to be arguing both ends of the same argument.

Tell you what, I'll come back later, and see which side of you wins.


Yes it can.

This you say. The real world has a tendency to suggest it isn't as easy as you like to pretend.

The op's rant was one of the dumbest political arguments i heard made in a while, and last weekend somebody tried to tell me that cuba was the most democratic state in the world :D

http://www.quaylargo.com/Transformation/McCelvey.html

Why should you need to? The fact that you're using it is enough.

Surely right to sole usage is a ownership right?

It by definition isn't forced labor, as he could have chosen not to work.
If you want to say it's theft, that's a separate argument.

Just remember this when you try to point out exploitation or property lenders.

If I base my objections to capitalism on people being denied "the product of their labor", then yes. I don't.

I can't understand a socialist who advocates further alienation of the worker. The only redeeming factor of Marxism and socialism in general is the idealism with which they viewed the laborer and his position in society.

'Selfishness' and 'fair' are, again, not the same thing.

Never said they were.

Then I am confused, since you now appear to be arguing both ends of the same argument.

Tell you what, I'll come back later, and see which side of you wins.

When the service provider passes the cost of road use on to you with your order, they are in a sense passing responsibility on to you.

In a sense, someone charges them to use the road, they say "If he hadn't ordered, we wouldn't be using this road, so he is responsible. Let's charge him the fee."

This you say. The real world has a tendency to suggest it isn't as easy as you like to pretend.

The real world has never tried.

Taxation is just because there can not be any just ownership of property, because of the problems with original acquisition. Though you have the rights to the fruits of your labour you do not have any rights regarding to your property, because it was gained through unjust acquisition, therefore the government can justly redistribute wealth.

Surely right to sole usage is a ownership right?There isn't a right to sole usage, just a right to not have your use interfered with.
Of course, in the case of the digesting apple, there's no way for someone else to use it without interfering with your use. Nonetheless, the fact of sole usage doesn't imply the right of sole usage.

Just remember this when you try to point out exploitation or property lenders.Since I don't believe in property rights, I would say that property lending would tend to be (if it isn't inherently) exploitative.

I can't understand a socialist who advocates further alienation of the worker. The only redeeming factor of Marxism and socialism in general is the idealism with which they viewed the laborer and his position in society.I have an idealistic view of the laborer as well, but not for the same reasons that Marx (and others) did.

There isn't a right to sole usage, just a right to not have your use interfered with.
Of course, in the case of the digesting apple, there's no way for someone else to use it without interfering with your use. Nonetheless, the fact of sole usage doesn't imply the right of sole usage.

I agree, though the historical practice of property exists, there can be not right to property without just original acquisition.

I agree, though the historical practice of property exists, there can be not right to property without just original acquisition.That is one of my biggest objections to the concept, yes - the problem of original acquisition.

That is one of my biggest objections to the concept, yes - the problem of original acquisition.

Because property can be efficient, from a utilitarian point of view I reckon we should not speak of property rights, but rather of custody rights. Custody rights do leave room for distributive justice by the government.

Never said they were.


That seems to be the implication.


When the service provider passes the cost of road use on to you with your order, they are in a sense passing responsibility on to you.

In a sense, someone charges them to use the road, they say "If he hadn't ordered, we wouldn't be using this road, so he is responsible. Let's charge him the fee."


Not at all. The supplier is responsible, because they choose to supply, through that avenue - thus, they must be held partially accountable.

The customer has a similar responsibility, regardless of what fraction of his costs, the supplier choose to defray on his customer.


The real world has never tried.

By which argument, you admit that socialism/communism has no flaws.

Because property can be efficient, from a utilitarian point of view I reckon we should not speak of property rights, but rather of custody rights. Custody rights do leave room for distributive justice by the government.How do we determine proper custody? Do we look at just original acquisition only, or would there be more to it?

There isn't a right to sole usage, just a right to not have your use interfered with.

One and the same.

Since I don't believe in property rights, I would say that property lending would tend to be (if it isn't inherently) exploitative.

How?

I have an idealistic view of the laborer as well, but not for the same reasons that Marx (and others) did.

What is your idealistic view of the laborer?

That seems to be the implication.

I only stated that what is fair is established by free association and agreement, and that typically people only agree to equal sharing of burden.

It is fair for someone to be a freeloader if there is agreement from those he or she leaches off of, but it is typically hard to reach that agreement.

Therefore selfishness and altruism is irrelevant as both can be fair courses of action.

Not at all. The supplier is responsible, because they choose to supply, through that avenue - thus, they must be held partially accountable.

The customer has a similar responsibility, regardless of what fraction of his costs, the supplier choose to defray on his customer.

The supplier would not use the roadways without the consumer, the consumer would you use the roadways without the supplier, therefore the consumer is responsible (although I will admit that there is some indirect responsibility placed upon the supplier), but as I said, what is fair is what is agreed to.

By which argument, you admit that socialism/communism has no flaws.

True communism is magnificent if we reach it; socialist methods for reaching it have been tried and have failed across the board, some with disastrous results.

Because property can be efficient, from a utilitarian point of view I reckon we should not speak of property rights, but rather of custody rights. Custody rights do leave room for distributive justice by the government.

Or because property is necessary?

And how could custody rights possibly be a suitable replacement for property? Does it allow for the complete distruction of the item or items over which one has custody?

Bah, doesn't the OP ever get tired of making these threads? :D

I only stated that what is fair is established by free association and agreement, and that typically people only agree to equal sharing of burden.

It is fair for someone to be a freeloader if there is agreement from those he or she leaches off of, but it is typically hard to reach that agreement.

Therefore selfishness and altruism is irrelevant as both can be fair courses of action.


I'm not entirely sure the 'leech' argument is ever (strictly speaking) fair... I think it comes down to weighing up what counts as contribution.

Example: A monarchy is a 'leech', but what about if the 'people' want a monarchy? At that point, being nothing more than a pretty face, becomes a valuable contribution.


The supplier would not use the roadways without the consumer, the consumer would you use the roadways without the supplier, therefore the consumer is responsible (although I will admit that there is some indirect responsibility placed upon the supplier), but as I said, what is fair is what is agreed to.


I don't think this is true. Firstly, because it creates the false situation that the consumer is somehow an equal partner with the supplier - when, of course, reality would be that hundreds of consumers would likely be in 'partnership' with one supplier. Thus - if I 'opt out' of the arrangement and stop buying from the supplier, it is not a logical asusmption that he will stop trading - he will just stop gaining my market share.

Also, of course - even if all customers abandoned the supplier, he wouldn't just 'stop using the roadways'... he would cease being a supplier, and would continue using the roadways as some other venture, or as a private citizen.


True communism is magnificent if we reach it; socialist methods for reaching it have been tried and have failed across the board, some with disastrous results.

I don't think 'socialism' has ever come close to being tried or failed. I think a lot of other -isms have failed, with the word 'socialism' attached... but statism, despotism, and fascism all have their own inbuilt flaws, long before socialism is attached to their platforms.

I don't think 'socialism' has ever come close to being tried or failed. I think a lot of other -isms have failed, with the word 'socialism' attached... but statism, despotism, and fascism all have their own inbuilt flaws, long before socialism is attached to their platforms.

No true scotsman, eh?

No true scotsman, eh?

No, not really.

If I bake you an apple pie, but I take a dump in it first, what value should we attribute to your opinion of apples after you take the first bite?

What about apple turnovers, prepared with the same secret ingredient?

No true scotsman, eh?

nah, because there are in fact some people that aren't scotsmen

Wow, I could use the same argument to say that there hasn't been real fascism, and thus we should give it another try...

except that fascism is defined by the characteristics which make it horrific

No, not really.

If I bake you an apple pie, but I take a dump in it first, what value should we attribute to your opinion of apples after you take the first bite?

What about apple turnovers, prepared with the same secret ingredient?

Wow, I could use the same argument to say that there hasn't been real fascism, and thus we should give it another try...

Wow, I could use the same argument to say that there hasn't been real fascism, and thus we should give it another try...

Indeed you could. And, if we were talking about the absolute pure ideal of 'fascism' (that is, literally "unity"), then perhaps I would show it support.

I'm not entirely sure the 'leech' argument is ever (strictly speaking) fair... I think it comes down to weighing up what counts as contribution.

Example: A monarchy is a 'leech', but what about if the 'people' want a monarchy? At that point, being nothing more than a pretty face, becomes a valuable contribution.

If the people want a monarchy, how can a monarchy not be a fair form of government? Were the monarchy desolved it would be replaced by either an unwanted government or another monarchy, and certainly we would say that the monarchy would be the more fair of the two.

In the end, what is fair is completely subjective, meaning that the only judgement of what is fair should be determined by the individual doing the judgement who makes his judgement known through agreement or disagreement.

I don't think this is true. Firstly, because it creates the false situation that the consumer is somehow an equal partner with the supplier - when, of course, reality would be that hundreds of consumers would likely be in 'partnership' with one supplier. Thus - if I 'opt out' of the arrangement and stop buying from the supplier, it is not a logical asusmption that he will stop trading - he will just stop gaining my market share.

At which point the individual consumer bears no responsibility and pays none of the added cost for road use.

Also, of course - even if all customers abandoned the supplier, he wouldn't just 'stop using the roadways'... he would cease being a supplier, and would continue using the roadways as some other venture, or as a private citizen.

It is doubtless that he would not stop using the roadways, but he would stop using them on behalf of the consumers, and their culpability would end.

I don't think 'socialism' has ever come close to being tried or failed. I think a lot of other -isms have failed, with the word 'socialism' attached... but statism, despotism, and fascism all have their own inbuilt flaws, long before socialism is attached to their platforms.

The Bolsheviks, the CCP, and Fidel Castro should not be considered socialists when the took power? I will agree that they fell into statist totalitarianism, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. They were certainly socialists long before they became despots, and I do not feel that it was coincidence.

One and the same.Not exactly. My car is parked outside right now; I won't be using it tonight. If someone else were to run to the store with it, as long as they replaced te gas they used, I needn't ever know. Their use wouldn't interfere with mine.

How?Because with imbalances of power, there tend to be imbalances of benefit from exchanges of property.
If we take the statement that trades benefit both parties in the trade, we can assume that they both benefit. However, it is rare that they both equally benefit. If it is true that trades between two parties benefit both, then it's conceivable that a trade between both parties could be made that benefits both equally. As a result of unequal property distribution, trades are made that don't benefit both parties equally, with the majority of the benefit going to the party with more property. The richer person exploits their position.
Unless someone were to state that property should be shared equally by everyone, I fail to see how it is not exploitative.

What is your idealistic view of the laborer?I would say that the worker is the producer, and is necessary to produce things, whereas the employer (frequently) produces nothing, and is therefore unnecessary. In the cases where the employer also works, it is rare that the amount the employer does justifies the compensation that the employer receives.

Not exactly. My car is parked outside right now; I won't be using it tonight. If someone else were to run to the store with it, as long as they replaced te gas they used, I needn't ever know. Their use wouldn't interfere with mine.

That is what I meant, usage rights merely state that when you are using something, it is your to use, and other's must respect that. The reason I said "sole usage" is because usage rights are rarely (and if you get nitpicky, never) concurrent.

Because with imbalances of power, there tend to be imbalances of benefit from exchanges of property.
If we take the statement that trades benefit both parties in the trade, we can assume that they both benefit. However, it is rare that they both equally benefit. If it is true that trades between two parties benefit both, then it's conceivable that a trade between both parties could be made that benefits both equally. As a result of unequal property distribution, trades are made that don't benefit both parties equally, with the majority of the benefit going to the party with more property. The richer person exploits their position.
Unless someone were to state that property should be shared equally by everyone, I fail to see how it is not exploitative.

How can it be exploitative when the person agreed to the trade?

He did not have to do business with the other individual with more property.

I would say that the worker is the producer, and is necessary to produce things, whereas the employer (frequently) produces nothing, and is therefore unnecessary. In the cases where the employer also works, it is rare that the amount the employer does justifies the compensation that the employer receives.

That is no more glory than an ant.

Well maybe when your fellow Americans bitch about poor public services they should realise the money has to come from somewhere

Mmm, one of my pet peeves. Most Americans complain about two things: high taxes and poor government services. Well, how are you gonna get a better school without taxes?

It just pisses me off in my area where people clamor for lower taxes and better schools, not knowing how they relate at all.

That is what I meant, usage rights merely state that when you are using something, it is your to use, and other's must respect that. The reason I said "sole usage" is because usage rights are rarely (and if you get nitpicky, never) concurrent.I don't see why they couldn't be concurrent. I suppose they typically aren't in today's society, but that's more to do with property rights.

How can it be exploitative when the person agreed to the trade?Exploitation isn't just whether or not the person agrees to something, it occurs when someone has more power over another person and they make some sort of deal.
For instance, if a teacher offers a student a better grade if they have sex, that's exploitation.

He did not have to do business with the other individual with more property.True, and the individual with more property didn't have to make the deal either. However, the individual with less property is likely to need to make a deal more than the other person.

That is no more glory than an ant.I don't see the ants rising up and getting rid of the queen anytime in their future.

I don't see why they couldn't be concurrent. I suppose they typically aren't in today's society, but that's more to do with property rights.

All items of utility can be reduced to a point where they cannot be consumed simultaneously by two individuals.

Consider a bus, for example: While it is certain that a bus can transport a good number of people from place to place, the argument can be made that it is not the bus, but the seat on the bus that transports the individual. Without getting into any back and forth reductionism (someone can sit on the person's lap) we can assume that the usage rights of the bus seat can only be held by one person at one time.

Exploitation isn't just whether or not the person agrees to something, it occurs when someone has more power over another person and they make some sort of deal.
For instance, if a teacher offers a student a better grade if they have sex, that's exploitation.

Or, for instance, when a government tells a lumberjack that he cannot make his living cutting wood unless he pays them a substantial portion of his product.

Sure the lumberjack can simply not cut wood for a living, but the student can simply be satisfied with his lower grade.

True, and the individual with more property didn't have to make the deal either. However, the individual with less property is likely to need to make a deal more than the other person.

As is the individual woodcutter when faced with the armed police state.

I don't see the ants rising up and getting rid of the queen anytime in their future.

And I don't see your vision of the worker ever becoming more than the subservient drones they border upon now.

Giving someone a vote is hardly giving someone freedom.

All items of utility can be reduced to a point where they cannot be consumed simultaneously by two individuals.

Consider a bus, for example: While it is certain that a bus can transport a good number of people from place to place, the argument can be made that it is not the bus, but the seat on the bus that transports the individual. Without getting into any back and forth reductionism (someone can sit on the person's lap) we can assume that the usage rights of the bus seat can only be held by one person at one time.That's fine; when they are done with the seat they move, and someone else sits there. This is different from property rights, where the owner of the seat can prevent others from sitting there even if the seat is unoccupied.

Or, for instance, when a government tells a lumberjack that he cannot make his living cutting wood unless he pays them a substantial portion of his product.

Sure the lumberjack can simply not cut wood for a living, but the student can simply be satisfied with his lower grade.

As is the individual woodcutter when faced with the armed police state.Certainly. If you want to argue that taxes are exploitation, that's fine, but they aren't slavery.

And I don't see your vision of the worker ever becoming more than the subservient drones they border upon now.

Giving someone a vote is hardly giving someone freedom.I support maximizing their self-determination; the vote is merely one part of this.

Giving someone property rights does even less than giving them a vote.

Slavery and exploitation are inseparable.

Then the teacher is a slave-owner?

That's fine; when they are done with the seat they move, and someone else sits there. This is different from property rights, where the owner of the seat can prevent others from sitting there even if the seat is unoccupied.

All ownership is property, not all property is ownership.

Certainly. If you want to argue that taxes are exploitation, that's fine, but they aren't slavery.

Slavery and exploitation are inseparable.

I support maximizing their self-determination; the vote is merely one part of this.

Giving someone property rights does even less than giving them a vote.

Self-determination does not exist without property. The man who controls his own labor has far more freedom and self-determination than the man who controls one millionth of everyone's labor.

Then the teacher is a slave-owner?

If she uses her authority to command the labor of another, then she is indistinguishable from the slave owner.

If she uses her authority to command the labor of another

Now you're changing the example.

Neither the government in taxation nor the teacher in Jello Biafra's example "command[s]" anybody else's labor.

All ownership is property, not all property is ownership.What is it that makes ownership and property not the same?

Slavery and exploitation are inseparable.All slavery is exploitation, not all exploitation is slavery.

Self-determination does not exist without property. The man who controls his own labor has far more freedom and self-determination than the man who controls one millionth of everyone's labor.I disagree, it is the opposite. My self-determination is enhanced by having access to a house, to transportation, and many other things, which couldn't have occurred with my labor alone.

Now you're changing the example.

Neither the government in taxation nor the teacher in Jello Biafra's example "command[s]" anybody else's labor.

So someone who says, "Prostitute yourself or I will shoot you" is not commanding another's labor? That one is obviously commanding someone's labor.

And I would posit that forcibly taking away the product of a person's labor is no different than forcing someone to work for you.

What is it that makes ownership and property not the same?

Property is the agreement between people in relation to desirable resources and goods. Ownership is a form of property where people agree that this or that belongs to this person until they do away with it.

Usage rights is not ownership in the general definition of the word, but it is property, and it requires some sort of justification, just as any other form of property. If you delineate between usage and other forms of property, you must show why one is justified and the others aren't.

All slavery is exploitation, not all exploitation is slavery.

Here is a little challenge. You propose an instance of exploitation, and I will try to show that it also constitutes slavery.

I disagree, it is the opposite. My self-determination is enhanced by having access to a house, to transportation, and many other things, which couldn't have occurred with my labor alone.

Unfortunately, all of those things that you have access to are only available to you through decree of everyone else. You are limited to freedom of the mind, which I guess is slightly above an ant.

Just knock off the panty-bunching! Who's holding the gun to your head? If the system bothers you so much, go and try to eke out an existence without the vast infrastructure that's been provided for you by this so-called "theivery" you speak of. Bet you won't survive a week.

Edit: this was directed at the people impotently screaming about how government and taxation = slavery, and all that rot & BS. I hit the "quote" button by mistake.

You propose an instance of exploitation, and I will try to show that it also constitutes slavery.

A capitalist who has secured monopoly control over a non-essential natural resource extorting huge prices from buyers.

Property is the agreement between people in relation to desirable resources and goods. Ownership is a form of property where people agree that this or that belongs to this person until they do away with it.

Usage rights is not ownership in the general definition of the word, but it is property, and it requires some sort of justification, just as any other form of property. So you're saying that they're the same simply because they both require a justification?

If you delineate between usage and other forms of property, you must show why one is justified and the others aren't.Certainly. I accept that humans have the right to life, which means that they have the right to the things needed to sustain life. In order for this to occur, this means that we will need to use various natural resources around us in order to sustain our lives - food, clothing, shelter, etc. Simply because we need to use things, however, does not mean we need to own them. I can conceive a system where we use natural resources without owning them, can you conceive of a system where we own resources but not use them?

Here is a little challenge. You propose an instance of exploitation, and I will try to show that it also constitutes slavery.I've proposed one; why is my proposal not exploitation?

Unfortunately, all of those things that you have access to are only available to you through decree of everyone else. You are limited to freedom of the mind, which I guess is slightly above an ant.Other than your labor, you only have access to anything else through the decree of everyone else anyway.

Again, people here are thinking of communism as the radical introduction and it's effects, which of course would be terrible if introduced not in a gradual process. Socialism is a transition between capitalism and communism, and has elements of both, that is a mixed market economy with some level of government interference for the people. The fact is, a Welfare State or something similar to the State Scandinavian system is a very good step, and could be called market socialism. Gradual reform is the way to go.

The entire basis of this argument is assuming that property is a universally accepted concept. Property by its very nature is undemocratic, because it restricts access to something, to the exclusion of all others except the owner. Property, in my opinion, is as natural as a conservative politician supporting renewable energy and same-sex marriage. I have written a few things on this subject already on my blog, take a look if you are interested:
http://zimirk.wordpress.com/prose/theory-of-democratic-social-equality/
http://zimirk.wordpress.com/2007/02/04/the-truth-about-economic-freedom/

A capitalist who has secured monopoly control over a non-essential natural resource extorting huge prices from buyers.

All stripped down, what is he deriving from the buyers?

So you're saying that they're the same simply because they both require a justification?

No, I am saying that that that the right to usage is a property right because it entails an agreement between people in relation to a desirable good or resource.

Then I am saying that, usage is a property right, you must come up with justification for the delineation between usage and ownership, instead of just deriding property rights.

Certainly. I accept that humans have the right to life, which means that they have the right to the things needed to sustain life. In order for this to occur, this means that we will need to use various natural resources around us in order to sustain our lives - food, clothing, shelter, etc. Simply because we need to use things, however, does not mean we need to own them. I can conceive a system where we use natural resources without owning them, can you conceive of a system where we own resources but not use them?

So we don't have a right to use those things that do not serve to provide for our life?

I've proposed one; why is my proposal not exploitation?

Which proposal?

Other than your labor, you only have access to anything else through the decree of everyone else anyway.

Of course, anything more would deprive the other of their labor.

No, I am saying that that that the right to usage is a property right because it entails an agreement between people in relation to a desirable good or resource.

Then I am saying that, usage is a property right, you must come up with justification for the delineation between usage and ownership, instead of just deriding property rights.I assume you mean that the people making the agreement also have the right to do so, as opposed to someone selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.
That's a definition of property that I'm unused to. Do you have a basis for defining property in such a manner?

So we don't have a right to use those things that do not serve to provide for our life?We do, but that right comes afterwards. We don't have the right to use things if to do so would result in the deprivation of another's life.

Which proposal?The proposal where the teacher offers a better grade in exchange for sex.

Are you only considering exploitation to be the threat of physical harm if something is or isn't done? Why is physical harm inherently worse than other forms of harm?

Of course, anything more would deprive the other of their labor.So then the systems that both of us propose require the decree of everyone else in order to have access to resources. I would argue that my system results in more self-determination than yours does.

Bah, doesn't the OP ever get tired of making these threads? :D
Evidently not. Do you ever get tired of reading them?

Evidently not. Do you ever get tired of reading them?
Bah, reading them is far easier than arguing in them. :)

The entire basis of this argument is assuming that property is a universally accepted concept. *snip*
No it does not. I specifically excluded any exploration into the realms of property rights for just this reason. I did not propose that tax was theft (which I believe to be true), but rather that tax is slavery (seperate all together from property rights). The problem was not that they were taking Jens' wood, but rather that they were effectively making Jens work without his consent.

Bah, reading them is far easier than arguing in them. :)
This is true. I have just come out of a 6 month lurking spree, wherein I simply had not motivation to post on what I saw to be irrelevant and meaningless crap (yet most hypocritically continued to read). The effort. The time. It was too much.

The entire basis of this argument is assuming that property is a universally accepted concept. Property by its very nature is undemocratic
Even if the OP did such a thing, don't you do exactly the same by assuming that something must be democratic to be worthwhile, and that this (for you) serves as a valid basis for justifying something?

Just knock off the panty-bunching! Who's holding the gun to your head? Uh.. the government. Actually. If I do not play their game their way they will try to lock me up, and if I resist that, they will hold a gun to my head. If the system bothers you so much, go and try to eke out an existence without the vast infrastructure that's been provided for you by this so-called "theivery" you speak of. Bet you won't survive a week. Or replace the maintenance of this vast infrastructure with a private market (as opposed to a public monopoly).

Edit: this was directed at the people impotently screaming about how government and taxation = slavery, and all that rot & BS. I hit the "quote" button by mistake. Conflicting opinions!? In MY forum?! AAAAARGH fire the nukes!

Even if the OP did such a thing, don't you do exactly the same by assuming that something must be democratic to be worthwhile, and that this (for you) serves as a valid basis for justifying something?
Mhmm. Because Democracy is such a flawless and wonderful system...

Mhmm. Because Democracy is such a flawless and wonderful system...

Which version of democracy would you be referring to? The one that most of us are currently acquainted with, Representational Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy), or the one I was referring to, Direct Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)?

I assume you mean that the people making the agreement also have the right to do so, as opposed to someone selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.

I don't understand.

That's a definition of property that I'm unused to. Do you have a basis for defining property in such a manner?

Rights always exist in between people, they require either non-interference or positive action on the part of one towards another. So when we say "property rights" we are referring to all requirements of non-action or positive action between people in relation to things.

So any requirement refraining one individual from interfering in another's use of something should be defined as a property right.

We do, but that right comes afterwards. We don't have the right to use things if to do so would result in the deprivation of another's life.

Would you argue that as long as everyone could manage a living, that another person could have 1000x the average wealth?

I would also like to point out that this does not oppose ownership property rights.

The proposal where the teacher offers a better grade in exchange for sex.

Are you only considering exploitation to be the threat of physical harm if something is or isn't done? Why is physical harm inherently worse than other forms of harm?

It is kind of a difficult scenario to analyze, as they could actually be on equal standing, but if the teacher used his/her ability to assign an undeserved bad grade to get the student to provide sexual favors, then it is exploitation and slavery.

So then the systems that both of us propose require the decree of everyone else in order to have access to resources. I would argue that my system results in more self-determination than yours does.

I do not deny that there is dependency on society. I have repeatedly argued that a peaceful and equitable society is only possible when are mutually dependent.

One can hardly escape their need for others, but that should hardly be reason to further alienate us from our sense of selves.

I don't understand.I meant that simply because you and I make an agreement between which of us should own the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't mean we have the right to do so.

Rights always exist in between people, they require either non-interference or positive action on the part of one towards another. So when we say "property rights" we are referring to all requirements of non-action or positive action between people in relation to things.So then if we agree to leave a large section of rainforest untouched, we are exercising our property rights over it? Mightn't it be more accurate to say that we are recognizing our lack of property rights over it?

So any requirement refraining one individual from interfering in another's use of something should be defined as a property right.I suppose this is strange because it's new terminology to me; I suppose I don't mind the idea of rejecting ownership and accepting property rights based on use.

Would you argue that as long as everyone could manage a living, that another person could have 1000x the average wealth?Yes and no. The initial basis for being able to use natural resources is to secure the life of one, or of others. Once this occurs, the default position is that the natural resources remain untouched except on a case-by-case basis. One can conceivably secure the right to take the untouched natural resources from the people most likely affected by doing this, and it's conceivable that this could occur to the point where one has 1000x the wealth of everyone else, and it's conceivable that one would actually be using all of this wealth, but it's highly unlikely.
Undespoiled nature has (or can have) value, too.

I would also like to point out that this does not oppose ownership property rights.It does when you require that the person use all of that wealth on a regular basis.

It is kind of a difficult scenario to analyze, as they could actually be on equal standing, but if the teacher used his/her ability to assign an undeserved bad grade to get the student to provide sexual favors, then it is exploitation and slavery.So then any agreement between Party A and Party B where nonagreement leads to bad consequences to one party directly from the other is slavery? Is blackmail slavery?

I do not deny that there is dependency on society. I have repeatedly argued that a peaceful and equitable society is only possible when are mutually dependent.

One can hardly escape their need for others, but that should hardly be reason to further alienate us from our sense of selves.I would say that the sense of self is increased with increases self-determination, and that creating the right to the product of one's labor creates a false sense of self.

Which version of democracy would you be referring to? The one that most of us are currently acquainted with, Representational Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy), or the one I was referring to, Direct Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy)?

Representative democracy= Fake democracy wherein people are given the illusion of power whilst a mob of politicians do everything they can to limit the input people have into government, and shape the way they live their lives. It is not at all too disimilar to a bureaucratic dictatorship whish a quad-annual rotation of staff.

Direct Democracy= Mindless mob rule. All government decisions are essentially polled, with the top rating option taking the cake. Even sensitive issues, such as economic and foriegn policy are decided by popular consensus. Truly a system wherein "wise men argue and fools decide".

Both systems lick nuts, the latter licking far more nuts (Of a greater magnitude) than the former.

I meant that simply because you and I make an agreement between which of us should own the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't mean we have the right to do so.

There is a far greater number of opinions required, but yes, agreement of those involved is all that is needed to establish a property right. What sort of justification is better than mutual agreement?

So then if we agree to leave a large section of rainforest untouched, we are exercising our property rights over it? Mightn't it be more accurate to say that we are recognizing our lack of property rights over it?

It depends on if everyone else is precluded from use.

I suppose this is strange because it's new terminology to me; I suppose I don't mind the idea of rejecting ownership and accepting property rights based on use.

But this is the easy part, the hard part is justifying original and sole use while condemning original and sole ownership.

Yes and no. The initial basis for being able to use natural resources is to secure the life of one, or of others. Once this occurs, the default position is that the natural resources remain untouched except on a case-by-case basis. One can conceivably secure the right to take the untouched natural resources from the people most likely affected by doing this, and it's conceivable that this could occur to the point where one has 1000x the wealth of everyone else, and it's conceivable that one would actually be using all of this wealth, but it's highly unlikely.
Undespoiled nature has (or can have) value, too.

How is this case-by-case basis resolved?

I would like to point out that no wealth goes unused, that is a simple financial fact.

It does when you require that the person use all of that wealth on a regular basis.

That's not what I mean. I asked why usage rights are justified when ownership is not.

For your justifications of usage, ownership could quite easily be transplanted in without skipping a beat.

So then any agreement between Party A and Party B where nonagreement leads to bad consequences to one party directly from the other is slavery? Is blackmail slavery?

It is not that simple.

As I said, the example was hard to analyze. If the two were on equal standing, with the student having earned a bad grade and the teacher offering to provide a good grade in exchange for sex, it is not exploitation or slavery. If the teacher, however, has agreed to offer a fair evaluation, and finds him/herself in a position to offer an undeserved bad grade, then it becomes exploitation, extortion, and slavery.

So it is a matter of unnatural authority and not bad consequences.

Blackmail is not exploitation.

I would say that the sense of self is increased with increases self-determination, and that creating the right to the product of one's labor creates a false sense of self.

What is a true sense of self? Surely you are not going to define it objectively?

Representative democracy= Fake democracy wherein people are given the illusion of power whilst a mob of politicians do everything they can to limit the input people have into government, and shape the way they live their lives. It is not at all too disimilar to a bureaucratic dictatorship whish a quad-annual rotation of staff.

Direct Democracy= Mindless mob rule. All government decisions are essentially polled, with the top rating option taking the cake. Even sensitive issues, such as economic and foriegn policy are decided by popular consensus. Truly a system wherein "wise men argue and fools decide".

Both systems lick nuts, the latter licking far more nuts (Of a greater magnitude) than the former.

That completely depends on the situation. If there is a far reaching centralized government, then yes, representative democracy is the far better system. It is better checked than direct democracy and greatly limits the ability of reactionaries to create law that the apathetic majority would not agree with.

However, when direct democracy is used as it should be, broken down to the lowest level, which is certainly a natural form of cooperative government, it can bet quite effective and fair.

Actually the Radical Direct Democracy practiced in particular by Ancient Athens was very efficient indeed, having almost no corruption, effectively everyone could turn up to the Assembly and vote on policy and legal decisions. Land was redistributed and all that. I believe with modern technologies such as the internet such a system could be possible.

Actually the Radical Direct Democracy practiced in particular by Ancient Athens was very efficient indeed, having almost no corruption, effectively everyone could turn up to the Assembly and vote on policy and legal decisions. Land was redistributed and all that. I believe with modern technologies such as the internet such a system could be possible.
Any easy feat for a small group of educated elitist athenians. Remember citizenship was not a default title to all athenians. That is, in fact, my point. Who wants their government policy decided by the majority of society, when the majority is as uninformed and gullible as they are. Direct democracy in the USA today would result in a theocracy.

Any easy feat for a small group of educated elitist athenians. Remember citizenship was not a default title to all athenians. That is, in fact, my point. Who wants their government policy decided by the majority of society, when the majority is as uninformed and gullible as they are. Direct democracy in the USA today would result in a theocracy.

Well if your talking about the Athenian model, the democracy itself doesn't extend to changing the system itself.

The majority of people in society are uninformed. Why? Because capitalism has been used as a means to distract people from being informed. Simple observation will prove this as fact. Money is the greatest distraction of them all. Anyone who is only concerned with making money will almost certainly be the most uninformed person you could know. Reason being, they will do anything to squeeze that last cent, to cut corners with total disregard for quality of product or safety of worker/end user. Television ranks second. Anyone who spends any time at all watching television is a slave to the cold and emotionless screen of flickering light. If you are watching television just for the news, even that excuse is mute. Anything called 'news' on television is just infotainment, another construction of capitalism to distract you from the important issues that take place in the world around us. The only time that news on television may be even close to what the name suggests, is government funded. Then of course there are magazines with their glossy images of celebrities secretly dying from the lifestyle they flaunt as being the greatest and most worthy of being emulated. Newspapers are no better. They contain more advertising then real stories, and most of their stories are just trivial nonsense about fashion and cream cheese. Stories about places around the world are not important unless citizens of that country are affected, which to me is a travesty. No wonder people are so ill informed, capitalism makes sure that the common people do not know what is going on, and therefore they just continue to mindlessly go about their business, accepting the dogma of the great and powerful. This is the sort of thing that happened in the Dark Ages. If people were informed of what was happening in this, their world, then a system of Direct Democracy would most certainly be more effective and representative of the will of the people. I would also point out that any system of centralised executive power is to be avoided in a Direct Democracy. If every single person were to work for the government, and everyone was therefore paid equal amounts by said government, and if everyone had a say in how said government was run, then how can that be seen as mob rule? There would be no means to exploitation of minorities, because if everyone has the same as everyone else, and government ensures that this equality cannot be usurped, what gain is there to be had? Democracy means rule by the people, not over them. Democracy is about sharing power with other people, about sharing the responsibility of governance, about upholding the principles of equality and justice, something that many people today do not seem to realise.

Uh.. the government. Actually. If I do not play their game their way they will try to lock me up, and if I resist that, they will hold a gun to my head. Or replace the maintenance of this vast infrastructure with a private market (as opposed to a public monopoly).

Why? I personally don't mind living within the current system. It hasn't harmed me in any way. In fact the current system makes my job a lot easier. I trust the "market" a hell of a lot less than I do a slow ponderous government. At least the government is too busy trying to find its own asshole to concentrate on finding new ways to screw with me. Corporations have a much greater knack for that.

Conflicting opinions!? In MY forum?! AAAAARGH fire the nukes!

Persecution complex much. Get over it, you ain't that special.

Actually the Radical Direct Democracy practiced in particular by Ancient Athens was very efficient indeed, having almost no corruption, effectively everyone could turn up to the Assembly and vote on policy and legal decisions. Land was redistributed and all that. I believe with modern technologies such as the internet such a system could be possible.

Whenever anyone suggests using the internet as a means of democratic governance, I die a little inside. I'm a computer major, and I would never trust the internet with something as important as a government.

Whenever anyone suggests using the internet as a means of democratic governance, I die a little inside. I'm a computer major, and I would never trust the internet with something as important as a government.

But voting machines, paper ballots, and sending people thousands of miles to Washington are foolproof?

The Internet should be the major tool of governance. We are already beyond the point where there can be any realistic pretense at 'democracy' without some radical rethink. Instantaneous information, and instantaneous expression make the Virtual Democracy the Next Big Thing.

There is a far greater number of opinions required, but yes, agreement of those involved is all that is needed to establish a property right. What sort of justification is better than mutual agreement?I suppose that's fine, then.

It depends on if everyone else is precluded from use.Yes. I mentioned before that this would be the default position of resources after everyone has secured enough to sustain their lives.

But this is the easy part, the hard part is justifying original and sole use while condemning original and sole ownership.I'd say that ownership is the hard part to justify. :)

How is this case-by-case basis resolved?By asking permission from the nearby people. If they are communities with established democratic procedures, as I'd hope they would be, it shouldn't be too hard.

I would like to point out that no wealth goes unused, that is a simple financial fact.Well, yes, technically this is the case. If I like the sound of the birds singing in the forest, I would be using it.

That's not what I mean. I asked why usage rights are justified when ownership is not.

For your justifications of usage, ownership could quite easily be transplanted in without skipping a beat.Ownership doesn't require that the person be using the things that they own.

It is not that simple.

As I said, the example was hard to analyze. If the two were on equal standing, with the student having earned a bad grade and the teacher offering to provide a good grade in exchange for sex, it is not exploitation or slavery. If the teacher, however, has agreed to offer a fair evaluation, and finds him/herself in a position to offer an undeserved bad grade, then it becomes exploitation, extortion, and slavery.

So it is a matter of unnatural authority and not bad consequences.What would you consider unnatural authority and natural authority to be?

What is a true sense of self? Surely you are not going to define it objectively?Well, it is hard to define, but I would say that it requires not deliberately fooling yourself.

Corporations have a much greater knack for that.
Oh yes, those evil, evil corporations. Everytime I buy a coke, or bread or a meal, or a video game, or whatever, they just rub their hands with glee over how they managed to screw me over. Get real...

Persecution complex much. Get over it, you ain't that special.
Based on what you just posted, I'd say the same to you.

Anyone who is only concerned with making money will almost certainly be the most uninformed person you could know.
Here's a little challenge for you - go try and make money whilst being uninformed. Go on.

The only time that news on television may be even close to what the name suggests, is government funded.
God, I can't believe I'm hearing this! :p In what world do you happen to live in?

If every single person were to work for the government, and everyone was therefore paid equal amounts by said government, and if everyone had a say in how said government was run, then how can that be seen as mob rule? There would be no means to exploitation of minorities, because if everyone has the same as everyone else, and government ensures that this equality cannot be usurped, what gain is there to be had? Democracy means rule by the people, not over them. Democracy is about sharing power with other people, about sharing the responsibility of governance, about upholding the principles of equality and justice, something that many people today do not seem to realise.
You don't seem particularly bright, so I am going to spell it out for you. You say the government is the will of the people, the majority in this case. Nothing else. And you say oppression is now impossible. Why? What if the majority suddenly got the brilliant idea that coercing a small minority into slavery, it could have its every need sated without much effort? One might say a constitution could hinder this - except that, constitutions are not carved in stone, and never will be. In representative democracies, at least, it is much harder to effect changes upon them. If the government is the people, as in the majority, why would it limit its own powers!?

After posts like that I am really getting the urge to just give up NS for good...

No. No True Scotsman is a form of ecquivocation in which the definition of the "Scotsman" gets subtly changed to as a rebuttal to the opponents argument.

I keep hearing socialists and communists shift the goalposts to say, "well, that country really wasn't an example of..."

No true scotsman, eh?

No. No True Scotsman is a form of ecquivocation in which the definition of the "Scotsman" gets subtly changed to as a rebuttal to the opponents argument.

I keep hearing socialists and communists shift the goalposts to say, "well, that country really wasn't an example of..."

This is how it goes with socialists.

1. "Socialism requires the freedom of the indivdiual as well as social equality"

Counter to 1: "But the Soviet Union didn't allow individual freedom"

Rebutal: "The Soviet Union subverted the very meaning of socialism as it has always been defined."

No true scotsman goes like this.

1. No scotsman eats his porridge with sugar.

Counter to 1: "But my uncle Angus eats his porridge with sugar"

Rebuttal: Ahh, but no true scotsman eats his porridge with sugar.

There is a difference. The first case differs to conventional defintion of socialism as it existed prior to the soviet union. The second redefines what a "scotsman" is.

I'm not all that interested in the bulk of your OP, but I do want to comment on the title of this thread: Socialists' disdain for the comman man. (I'm sorry, I must be a socialist, because I disdain your misspelling of the word 'common'). There is a big divide between the academic left, and the active left that always drives me a bit buggy. The academic left like to glare down their spectacled noses at the 'common man', including the active left, and ignore that 'doing' is a lot more effective than 'thinking about doing'. I think this disdain of the 'common man' is a huge reason why so many socialist revolutions have imploded with a big farting sound. The common man has a wealth of experience that needs to be taken into account. Mr. Common may not understand the intricacies of Marxist thought, but don't try to tell the man how to thresh wheat when he's been frickin' doing it his whole life! And the fresh faced poli-sci majors who harangue the activists with 30 plus years of experience? Oh I'd like to bitch slap you all.

But this isn't a beef confined to the left, it also extends to the right. Because while you and your kind mouth platitudes about 'respecting the common man' via the free market, you go on to blame every failure of your system on those 'common men'. "They're lazy. Stupid. They have every opportunity, and never mind that they were born into crushing poverty, abuse, lack few opportunities for quality education etc...if they would just get OVER it, the weaklings!"

The right has just as much disdain for the common man as anyone on the left. You claim that the left manifests this disdain by not giving the common man choice. I say you do exactly the same...but you clothe your system in 'choice'...limiting that choice of course to the power of consumerism, the occasional tick on a ballot...taking all the credit when things work, and none of the blame when things go horribly wrong.

Don't fool yourself. You're as much an elitist as the people you are pointing fingers at.You sir, are person worth listening to.

At the OP if he's stil bothering to check this thread - who protects people from unexpected force? Then who watches the watcher? How is the market any better at providing services? You only have to take a cursory glance at history to spot all the numerous cartels throughout history. The market cannot adequately address many of the distortions of power that arise through the market mechanism.

Essentially what you are arguing is about is similar to the International Relations debate between hegemonic stability theory and the balance of power theory. I suggest the study of international relations as it is the closest you will get to studying humanity in a stateless form if you consider each state as an individual.

Yes. I mentioned before that this would be the default position of resources after everyone has secured enough to sustain their lives.

Then it is property, particularly property in common.

I'd say that ownership is the hard part to justify. :)

I create something, I have a right to it. That is a rather common sense justification.

By asking permission from the nearby people. If they are communities with established democratic procedures, as I'd hope they would be, it shouldn't be too hard.

Would the democratic communities be faced with endless petitions for use?

Would the democratic communities be able to determine what constitutes life sustaining usage?

Well, yes, technically this is the case. If I like the sound of the birds singing in the forest, I would be using it.

Ok....

Ownership doesn't require that the person be using the things that they own.

This is circular.

What would you consider unnatural authority and natural authority to be?

Nonconsensual vs. consensual

Well, it is hard to define, but I would say that it requires not deliberately fooling yourself.

And our perception of our creation as being an extension of ourselves, and therefore being ours is deliberate self-denial?

I suppose that's fine, then.
This is what I tried to demonstrate to you last time - that it's impossible not to refer to a usage right as a subclass of a property right. It seems Vittos was able to get the point through better than me though. :p

This is how it goes with socialists.

1. "Socialism requires the freedom of the indivdiual as well as social equality"

Counter to 1: "But the Soviet Union didn't allow individual freedom"

Rebutal: "The Soviet Union subverted the very meaning of socialism as it has always been defined."

No true scotsman goes like this.

1. No scotsman eats his porridge with sugar.

Counter to 1: "But my uncle Angus eats his porridge with sugar"

Rebuttal: Ahh, but no true scotsman eats his porridge with sugar.

There is a difference. The first case differs to conventional defintion of socialism as it existed prior to the soviet union. The second redefines what a "scotsman" is.

Many people are actually saying that true socialism/communism has never been attempted. Saying that the attempts made by the CPC and the Bulsheviks were not attempts to bring about socialism would be a "no true scotsman" statement.

I'm not quite sure which is more appalling, your analysis or the fact that in thirteen pages no one has come through and systematically dismantled it.

It has become apparent to me (In a separate thread) the true extent of the socialists' disdain for the common man. I have come to understand that in it's traditional form, socialism is implicitly against the fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination.

Okay, stop right there. What exactly do you mean by the "fundamental human rights of self-ownership and self-determination"? If you mean people pursue their rights, namely the right to life and the right to freedom and material means to sustain that life, then yes, that's absolutely true. But somehow, I don't think that's what you mean. You seem to think that there is a fundamental character of humans that in all circumstances and all situations necessitates a fundamental and absolute respect for a person's right to pursue liberty and said material means at all costs.

Not only is this begging the very question you ask by presupposing the conditions you seek to justify, but I have to ask you where you find proof of this? Because it seems to me that while you may have the unrestricted right to life, the lion doesn't much care about that. While you may have the unrestricted right to property, the brigand in the state of nature doesn't much care either. In point of fact, in the state of nature, the brigand also has no self-interested reason to care, especially if he's stronger or can get away with it. This is, in point of fact, precisely why we form governments: because it is governments, not the state of the world itself, that protects those rights you claim to have by nature. Governments are the security of property, governments are the security of liberty, and governments are the protector of your life if you choose to live in them. That security and guarantee might be imperfect, but their a lot better than handling yourself in the state of nature. If you don't believe me, go ask a Somali.


Let us meet Jens. Jens is a lumberjack. He cuts wood all day to put towards his personal goal of building the worlds largest long-drop toilet, so perhaps he and his family can live a life of splendour and fame at it's base. Anyhow, it turns out that the government needs to build a bridge in a neighbouring province.


Ah, but this is important to note, and not for the reason you think it is. Jens is a person who works day and night, long and hard, but does he work purely for profit? From how you write the passage, I would have to say no: he works because he prizes the creation of his work or the things he gets out of the work created. Implicit in this claim is also the claim that it's value comes not in it's price value (how much price value the world's largest long-drop toilet could have I am unsure of but I will venture to guess is low), but in the labor and construction of something of value. You are therefore indirectly referencing the labor, not the price value as being the operative term in Jens relationship to his creation. This may be in common with Locke and Marx, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the economics you espouse.

So what, you might ask? Well, my response goes, if the value Jens derives comes from the effort he puts into a task, why can the same not apply to the bridge? Can he not make the trek to see the bridge, look proudly at it, and say "My wood built that bridge!" The fact that he was ordered to do it matters not a whit; his effort still went into it, and his effort is reflected in the eventual creation. Simply put, if we accept your analysis of Jens, we can only make sense of his effort if we assume that price value doesn't reflect why he does what he does. But if we accept that the labor reflects the value, then he should be able to value the bridge just as much as he values the poop chute, as in both cases, his effort was necessary to build it.


If the government were to come along and conscript Jens into a workers camp (Al la Qin Shi Huangdi) for 20% of his day, that would be slavery. It would be so because they are contravening his basic right to self-determination implicit in self-ownership. Just to clarify, to force Jens to work for free without his consent is slavery.


Several things.

1) I might have missed it in my readings of, say, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, The German Ideology, or any of the other socialist tracts I've read, but I've never once heard that worker's camps were an integral part of "socialism". I must have missed it, so could you do me a favor and cite it for me?

2) I might also have missed it in, say, The Second Treatise on Government, Politics, The Philosophical Dictionary, The Persian Letters, The Social Contract, or any of the other classical liberal treatises, where taking 20% of your time = slavery. Slavery is a position marked by two conditions. First, a person coerces you to act in a manner that you would rather not. Second, and this is crucial, there is no remedial way that you can change the situation. If you are a citizen in a democracy and you don't want to surrender 20% of your time to work in a laborer camp, you vote for candidates (or vote directly) for it not to happen. If you get outvoted and you choose not to leave the social contract, to say that you are in a state of slavery borders on insulting, because it compares you with a person who got no say in what happened to his fate and had no recourse if things went badly for him; a condition which in a state that allows votes simply does not exist for you.

3) Consent implies the ability to do otherwise if one chooses to. In this case, by your own definition, capitalism is a form of slavery, because in it people work for part of the day solely for the benefit of others (i.e. profit which is made over and above what the workers make), and many workers do not have a recourse to a job that does not also require them to work for the benefit of others and cannot live independently of having a job. As such, they cannot effectively consent to their positions in capitalism, as they have no ability to choose otherwise.

4) Again, where does this notion of self-ownership come from? In the state of nature, yes, you own yourself in the sense that you are purely and solely responsible for yourself, but from where in that does it follow that the brigand must respect that which you made and that which you are? He will respect you only if you are stronger than he, and no man is always stronger than all others. So again, we come back to the state as protector of rights: we make governments because they guarantee us protection from the arbitrary predation of the stronger upon the weaker, as well as the many upon the few.


Now, if the government were to rock up to his wood pile at the construction site and demand 20% of a day's worth of wood for the construction of their bridge, this is (apart from theft) slavery. That is to say, 20% of the wood Jens cut today has been forcibly 'taxed' by the government. This effectively means Jens was forced to cut 20% of his day's wood for free. The government may as well have rocked up in the morning and told him to cut it for them for free (as we already established). The wood, in Jens' case is simply a representation of this work, and to steal it is to force him to work for free. Additionally, for Jens, it means another 20% worth of a day's wood he will have to cut to make up for his loss (of which he will lose another 20%... do I detect a paradox?).

In Jens' case his capital (means of production) was his body and his axe. The fruits of his labour was wood. However, unlike Jens, most people do not work for wood, they work for money. The money a person earns is representative of the work they have done. To forcibly tax that money without a person's consent is (as I said earlier, apart from theft) slavery. It is no better than stopping a person work for 20% of their day and putting them to work in a slave gang (well a little better, but you catch my drift).


Again, how so?

Slavery is arbitrary, forced control over another's labor power for your own sole benefit. Now I could at this point simply reiterate my point above, that a person who lives in a democracy could hardly be said to live in a state of slavery if they agreed to voting as a basis of making decisions. If I wanted to be flippant, I could also point out that slave owners and thieves don't generally work their dredges and predate upon other people in order to provide roads, infrastructure, and vaccines for those dredges and predated. But I think this is an ideal point to make a stronger positive claim about what government is and why it does what it does, as well as why it has a legitemate claim to do so.

It is an inherent part of making a government that, in exchange for protecting certain liberties, we also surrender certain liberties we would, at least ostensibly, have in the state of nature. We surrender the right of retaliation, for instance; it is inherent in the nature of a state that it is the sole organ of law and the sole arbiter of punishment. A government that allows its citizens to kill other citizens for real and imagined grievances without sanction is no government at all. We also agree to forfeit absolute claims to life, liberty, and property; a government that wants to survive can't rely on asking nicely for volunteers to fight in a war, for instance. Not only is it ineffective (just ask pre-Franco Spaniards, the very best examples of volunteerism, how well it staved off Franco and the Nazis, for instance), but is again a necessary part of a state, and good for its citizens overall, for the state to defend itself against attack by another state or external threats. To do that requires a state to sometimes ask its citizens to die, something no person in the state of nature is required to do and, indeed, is a direct contradiction to the notion of an absolute, unbreakable right to life.

We surrender these rights absolutely for two reasons. One, because life in the state of nature is or would be worse than life in a state of government, because as mentioned repeatedly, brigands have a way of disrespecting your rights far more and far more arbitrarily than most governments. Two, we do so because many of the benefits in our society are only protected by government guarantee. We may well recieve promises from a businessman in the state of nature that the medicine won't poison us or make us addicted, and it may even be in his long-term rational interest not to do so. But people don't always act in their long-term rational interest, and government ensures that he means what he says, otherwise he risks sanction.

So to summarize: yes, governments do ask their citizens to sacrifice some of their liberties. This is not slavery, nor is it even necessarily wrong. It is necessary for the existence of government, and governments generally improve our life over the state of nature. They ensure we are reasonably safe, and they give us means to ensure that when our liberties are taken, they are not taken arbitrarily.


Now the root of my point approaches. If the government did not want to breach Jens' self-ownership, then all they would have to do is convince Jens to donate his wood voluntarily. If the bridge is a worthwhile project (to Jens), this should not be difficult. However, seeing as Jens lives in a separate province, he does not stand to benefit from this bridge. As such, it is unlikely that Jens would donate any of his wood to such an irrelevant goal (unless he was feeling altruistic). Yet, socialism still demands that he must despite that he does not want to. Socialism feels it should not have to convince people of what is worthwhile and for the common good, but rather feels that it is better to contravene their very self-ownership in what is nothing less than abstracted slavery.


And we come to one of the main points of my point-by-point analysis, which is that your post is entirely full of it, on several issues. For starters, "socialism" does not demand that he do something despite the fact that he does not want to. Any and all governments ask their citizens to do thing they don't always want to do. Governments ask their citizens all the time not to kill each other, not to steal from each other, not to break oaths with each other, despite the fact that a great while of the time people do in fact want to do these things. This is not wrong. Governments also ask their citizens to sacrifice some of their liberty and some of their absolute right to life and property in exchange for being better about using the latitude citizens give them than brigands would in the state of nature. This is not wrong either. Nor still is it slavery, because slavery is incompatible with the notion of a society that, in any sense of the term, chooses how it operates.

In a more narrow sense, perhaps it would be a good time to let you know, since it's increasingly obvious you didn't know this before you decided to lecture the rest of us on economics, that socialism is the doctrine espousing enforced siezure of the means of production by the proletariat class from the bourgeoisie, combined with the forcible redistribution of the means of production to common ownership by the proletariat. In what sense does this have anything to do with Jens? Is he a part of the bourgeouisie? Is he a part of the proletariat? What are the means of production in your analysis? Do you even know what the means of production are?


It is this attitude that is indicative of a disdain for the common man's self-ownership (a fundamental human right), his capacity to choose and know what is best for himself. It would seem that socialism finds the common man 'ignorant' on what he should be doing for what purpose, so much so that it could not be explained reasonably to him with an expectation for him to understand and yield voluntarily.

Besides, who knows better than the market as to whether the bridge is worth building or not?

Actually, it's indicative of your disdain for us that you lecture about socialism when you have no idea what socialism is, or even what legitemate government or the rule of law is. Throughout this post, I've neglected to even bother using socialism to refute you. Instead, I took my lessons almost verbatim by the progenitor of classical liberal political theory, The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke. The labor theory of value was developed by Locke. The notion of a social contract and state of nature was purely Lockean, as was the explanation of why we come out of that state of nature, and why we endure the necessary deprivations of government. On the other hand, we have what I can only assume are the bat-crap crazy ravings of either an anarchist or someone who has never bothered to read a word of the tradition he purportedly defends. Adam Smith was the founder of capitalism, and he argued for strong public education systems, a position no doubt you would consider a sign of the coming tyrannical Apocalypse. All I can say at this point is that you need to stop, take a few deep breaths, and actually read some of the works that inspired the founding fathers. It's better not to even mention socialism at this point.

You sir, are person worth listening to. It is madam, I believe.

At the OP if he's stil bothering to check this thread - who protects people from unexpected force? Then who watches the watcher? How is the market any better at providing services? You only have to take a cursory glance at history to spot all the numerous cartels throughout history. The market cannot adequately address many of the distortions of power that arise through the market mechanism. Who protects the people from unexpected force? Who ever is willing to do so in exchange for however much they want that protection. To expand further, security firms to which people would subscribe to either directly, or indirectly via their insurance company. Basically, the private police forces.

Essentially what you are arguing is about is similar to the International Relations debate between hegemonic stability theory and the balance of power theory. I suggest the study of international relations as it is the closest you will get to studying humanity in a stateless form if you consider each state as an individual. Are you trying to convince me, or simply stating?

*snip*
Jesus what a block of text. This I will address. But not now. Perhaps tomorrow or later on tonight. I look forward to it.

the fact that in thirteen pages no one has come through and systematically dismantled it.

It has become apparent to me (In a separate thread)

That's a part of the reason.

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.

First off, this mentality fails for numerous reasons. Private industry's primary motivator is profit. Road construction is a large, expensive venture with significant maintenance costs and limited returns on investment. The only way of recouping losses legally is to establish a toll system.

In areas where there is a high volume of traffic in limited road distance, such as urban zones, this translates to high toll charge rates to keep up with maintenance and traffic jams that last for 48 hours or more. This would translate to people avoiding such roads entirely, thereby negating any reason why a private firm would be interested in building one.

What about community funding you say? Well, that works, but only on a small scale, and you'd still have maintenance issues to deal with. For the local residents, that means a tax. So that puts the whole idea on the shishkabob. You'd still pay, even if you didn't use it. Otherwise, nobody would pay, and the road would go unbuilt.

From what you're saying, I figure you're looking more towards a form of anarchist communal ruling system. I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

If so, I'm sorry to say that your idea would not work without killing off somewhere around 50 to 70% of the human population, arbitrarily breaking up the survivors into small groupings under a 100 or so people and scattering them across the globe. Too many people live in cities which require very high levels of coordination and just as many resources to produce the kind of projects that are necessary to maintain life in urban zones.

What about community funding you say? Well, that works, but only on a small scale, and you'd still have maintenance issues to deal with. For the local residents, that means a tax. So that puts the whole idea on the shishkabob. You'd still pay, even if you didn't use it. Otherwise, nobody would pay, and the road would go unbuilt.
Just out of curiosity, how would the left-anarchists on here propose dealing with so-called public goods and "free riders", especially those which do not ask for the provision of certain goods in the first place? Invariably, a road will still cost money to build and maintain, and this will not change under left-anarchism. So what is its proposed solution?

Then it is property, particularly property in common.Even if it's a recognition that none of the individuals don't have the right to use the resources?

I create something, I have a right to it. That is a rather common sense justification.Not really.

Would the democratic communities be faced with endless petitions for use?

Would the democratic communities be able to determine what constitutes life sustaining usage?Probably not endless petitions, no. Even if it was a few petitions, the communities would likely figure out what they would be willing to accept, and immediately reject all petitions asking for something else.

There wouldn't be a set rule of what is life sustaining usage, but in most cases, you can tell what is and isn't.
To use the resources to sustain life wouldn't require a petition.

This is circular.How so? You said that my justifications for usage rights applied also to ownership rights. I said that they didn't, because ownership doesn't fit an important part part of usage rights - that the person with the right be using the resources.

Nonconsensual vs. consensualAll authority is consensual. Even if it's "accept my authority or die", it's still consensual.

And our perception of our creation as being an extension of ourselves, and therefore being ours is deliberate self-denial?The latter part is. We don't allow people to extend themselves indefinitely. Capitalists also recognize this, when they say that a person can't take another's property, even if labor is mixed with it.
Furthermore, even if it was the case, if I create something and then sell it, what I purchase with the money I receive certainly isn't an extension of myself.

This is what I tried to demonstrate to you last time - that it's impossible not to refer to a usage right as a subclass of a property right. It seems Vittos was able to get the point through better than me though. :pReally? I suppose you did, but I don't recall.

Just out of curiosity, how would the left-anarchists on here propose dealing with so-called public goods and "free riders", especially those which do not ask for the provision of certain goods in the first place? Invariably, a road will still cost money to build and maintain, and this will not change under left-anarchism. So what is its proposed solution?Well, there isn't a single solution among all of us - I would say that the community would decide via a majority vote what is needed and allocate resources accordingly.
If an issue is particularly contentious, perhaps a supermajority could be used.

Firstly, no. I have no car, nor do I want a car, and yet I still pay for everyones roads. Which brings me to the 'secondly'. Secondly, roads can be provided just as well, nay, better by private industry. No need to put it into the hands of an oversized, unspecialised, corrupt monopoly which extorts its funds from consumers, rather than competing for them like everyone else.
I think you will have to try very hard not to benefit from public roads.

OK - you don't use a car. Do you use busses? Do you buy food that has been transported to where you are by road? Do you like the police being able to reach emergencies quickle? Ditto Ambulances. Do you live or work in a building that used roads to transport the materials to their current location? Do you own a computer? How did it get to you? How did it get to the shop you brought it from? Do you own clothing? How did they get to the shops that sold them? Do you go to bars to socilize? How did the beer get to them? How did the staff get to them? Does the beer and staff being at your bar benefit you?

Unles you live in a wood hut somewhere in the forest with a couple of sheep you take wool from to make your clothing and you live off self caught deer and fish and veggies grown in your garden then it is very unlikely you are not benefiting from roads.

Octopus!!!!!

Just out of curiosity, how would the left-anarchists on here propose dealing with so-called public goods and "free riders", especially those which do not ask for the provision of certain goods in the first place? Invariably, a road will still cost money to build and maintain, and this will not change under left-anarchism. So what is its proposed solution?

From what I can tell, nobody has a solution that doesn't fall under the statist governmental form that anarchists always preach against.


Well, there isn't a single solution among all of us - I would say that the community would decide via a majority vote what is needed and allocate resources accordingly.
If an issue is particularly contentious, perhaps a supermajority could be used.

So how would you get money from those who don't want to pay but are willing to benefit from such projects? Force them to pay? That falls under taxes.

So how would you get money from those who don't want to pay but are willing to benefit from such projects? Force them to pay? That falls under taxes.The money would come from the resources that the community hasn't doled out to the individual members.

The money would come from the resources that the community hasn't doled out to the individual members.

And where would these resources come from? A general pool of cash that everyone contributes too? Isn't that a form of tax as well?

And where would these resources come from? A general pool of cash that everyone contributes too? Isn't that a form of tax as well?The people who choose to harvest resources as a job would be harvesting those resources for the community (during the time that they're working - they could conceivably harvest the resources for themselves in their spare time).
In other words, everyone in the community works for the community.

The people who choose to harvest resources as a job would be harvesting those resources for the community (during the time that they're working - they could conceivably harvest the resources for themselves in their spare time).
In other words, everyone in the community works for the community.

Uh huh. In other words, a tax. What if he doesn't want to give to the community? Force him to pay or leave?

Uh huh. In other words, a tax. What if he doesn't want to give to the community? Force him to pay or leave?

One could always put him in a gulag, or shoot him.

Who protects the people from unexpected force? Who ever is willing to do so in exchange for however much they want that protection. To expand further, security firms to which people would subscribe to either directly, or indirectly via their insurance company. Basically, the private police forces.
Is it just me, or does this private police force business sound like the mafia or something to anyone else?

Uh huh. In other words, a tax. What if he doesn't want to give to the community? Force him to pay or leave?He doesn't have to leave if he doesn't want to, but since nobody in the community wouldn't associate with him, he'd either have to leave or starve to death.

He doesn't have to leave if he doesn't want to, but since nobody in the community wouldn't associate with him, he'd either have to leave or starve to death.

Which seems a bit worse than jail time for not paying taxes in your standard government no? Either way, there's a coercive force that enforces the payment of tax or suffer the consequences.

Which seems a bit worse than jail time for not paying taxes in your standard government no? No, there are plenty of places to go, perhaps one where a person doesn't have to pay tax, or they could subsistence farm somewhere.
It doesn't limit the nonpayer's freedom of movement the way jail does.

Either way, there's a coercive force that enforces the payment of tax or suffer the consequences.The opposite - forcing people to associate with someone that they don't like - would also be a coercive force. I find the former to be the least of all the evils.

He doesn't have to leave if he doesn't want to, but since nobody in the community wouldn't associate with him, he'd either have to leave or starve to death.

So, in essence, you supplant a social pressure to conform with a social pressure to conform?:rolleyes:

So, in essence, you supplant a social pressure to conform with a social pressure to conform?:rolleyes:There will always be social pressure.

There will always be social pressure.

However, why ascribe such appeal to communism, if the same social pressures remain?

An ugly girl can change her clothes, but not the fact she's ugly.

He doesn't have to leave if he doesn't want to, but since nobody in the community wouldn't associate with him, he'd either have to leave or starve to death.
So pay the tax or face exile?

However, why ascribe such appeal to communism, if the same social pressures remain?

An ugly girl can change her clothes, but not the fact she's ugly.Because the economic pressures are much more worrisome.

So pay the tax or face exile?Sort of - people wouldn't be forced to leave, but there'd be no reason for them to stay.

Because the economic pressures are much more worrisome.

Sort of - people wouldn't be forced to leave, but there'd be no reason for them to stay.
I believe you can already do this in most countries in the world today.

If you are prepared to grow all your own food and don't sell anything and don't buy anything (which would be the same as someone in your system staying dispite not paying tax and being shunned) I am pretty sure you will manage to evade taxes. If you do not like it you can always emigrate to another country more suited to your liking - which is the same as the guy in your community going into exile until he pays his taxes.

Because the economic pressures are much more worrisome.


Worrisome to whom?

No, there are plenty of places to go, perhaps one where a person doesn't have to pay tax, or they could subsistence farm somewhere.
It doesn't limit the nonpayer's freedom of movement the way jail does.

Not really. In the US, you can also go with tax evasion, but you'd have to leave as well. In your scenario, it's pay or leave or starve. In current situations, it's pay or leave go to jail.

At least you'd still be able to eat in jail.

Furthermore, your scenario fails to take into account theft, or sometimes, forceful ejection. Something that often happens to social outcasts in very tight knit societies.


The opposite - forcing people to associate with someone that they don't like - would also be a coercive force. I find the former to be the least of all the evils.

Last I checked, the government doesn't force you to associate with anybody unless you've got official business with them. Like registering for a passport and that sort of stuff.

Really? I suppose you did, but I don't recall.
Yes, in the French housing thread. I gave up after a while though. :)

Well, there isn't a single solution among all of us - I would say that the community would decide via a majority vote what is needed and allocate resources accordingly.
If an issue is particularly contentious, perhaps a supermajority could be used.
I assume this would be coupled with a right of secession. I'm curious because when it comes to the provision of law and order (and roads) I think anarcho-capitalists could borrow from left-anarchists ideas on the matter, and perhaps "import" them into its theory, via a few alterations (for instance, making the provider of these services a firm the ownership of which is in the form of community-wide shareholding).

Is it just me, or does this private police force business sound like the mafia or something to anyone else?
This depends on how they function in the end. I am an anarcho-capitalist, but have my doubts on this specific element of the theory. The main criterion for any such association is that it must be voluntarily contracted with, not that it necessarily forms a firm of sorts. If a government were to recognize the right-to-secession, and were ultraminimal in scope (provided nothing but roads and law and order) it would fit in with anarcho-capitalist theory.

I believe you can already do this in most countries in the world today.

If you are prepared to grow all your own food and don't sell anything and don't buy anything (which would be the same as someone in your system staying dispite not paying tax and being shunned) I am pretty sure you will manage to evade taxes. If you do not like it you can always emigrate to another country more suited to your liking - which is the same as the guy in your community going into exile until he pays his taxes.There aren't any countries with anarcho-communistic systems of government.

Worrisome to whom?To socialists, obviously.

Not really. In the US, you can also go with tax evasion, but you'd have to leave as well. In your scenario, it's pay or leave or starve. In current situations, it's pay or leave go to jail.

At least you'd still be able to eat in jail.

Furthermore, your scenario fails to take into account theft, or sometimes, forceful ejection. Something that often happens to social outcasts in very tight knit societies.Theft can be handled. Forcible ejection wouldn't fit into my scenario because my scenario is that of an anarcho-communist community, which wouldn't be able to do such a thing.

Last I checked, the government doesn't force you to associate with anybody unless you've got official business with them. Like registering for a passport and that sort of stuff.Sure it does - other people benefit from your tax money. Voila - association.

There aren't any countries with anarcho-communistic systems of government.


I don't really see how this prevents you rom having the same options you mention - contribute to the community and have your contributions divided up according to majority vote, be shunned or leave.

In most western countries you pay your contribution to the community/society, which is then divided up by representatives elected by majority vote and redistributed back into society. If you do not want to make contributions you can live a self sufficient lifestyle neither selling or buying anything nor earning any cash - like the shunning example you gave, or you can leave the community/society.

I don't really see how this prevents you rom having the same options you mention - contribute to the community and have your contributions divided up according to majority vote, be shunned or leave.It isn't the fact that there are options there, but the lack of acceptable alternatives.

In most western countries you pay your contribution to the community/society, which is then divided up by representatives elected by majority vote and redistributed back into society. If you do not want to make contributions you can live a self sufficient lifestyle neither selling or buying anything nor earning any cash - like the shunning example you gave, or you can leave the community/society.There are a few things wrong with this. The representatives as well as the institution of property being the two biggest.
The idea in the scenario I've proposed is that everyone in the community receives an equal, or nearly equal amount of resources.

Theft can be handled.

By whom? If the majority of the community wants it, i.e. mob rule, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of stopping it. Unless you've got some sort of leader with a personal army of some sort.


Forcible ejection wouldn't fit into my scenario because my scenario is that of an anarcho-communist community, which wouldn't be able to do such a thing.


Why not? Such communities by their very nature can't be large otherwise the whole coordination of efforts falls apart. And since they aren't very large, they're clannish by nature. Outcasts would be shunned and eventually ejected, or living there will be made so unbearable that migration becomes necessary, ergo ejection by proxy.

As to why they wouldn't be able to do that, how so? Install behavior limiting devices in them?


Sure it does - other people benefit from your tax money. Voila - association.

So would people in your scenario. If you don't like Jim Bob who's your neighbor, but still have to pay something for the local town water pump, he'll also be benefiting from it, just like you are.

Yes, in the French housing thread. I gave up after a while though. I thought you gave up because you needed to reread Hoppe's argument. ;)

I assume this would be coupled with a right of secession. I'm curious because when it comes to the provision of law and order (and roads) I think anarcho-capitalists could borrow from left-anarchists ideas on the matter, and perhaps "import" them into its theory, via a few alterations (for instance, making the provider of these services a firm the ownership of which is in the form of community-wide shareholding).Yes, there would be secession rights, naturally.
There's no reason why anarcho-capitalism couldn't theoretically do this, but I don't see it happening. Such a move would limit competition in the neighborhood.


By whom? If the majority of the community wants it, i.e. mob rule, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of stopping it. Unless you've got some sort of leader with a personal army of some sort.If the majority allows it, then it isn't theft.
If the community can't enforce its own edicts, too bad.

Why not? Such communities by their very nature can't be large otherwise the whole coordination of efforts falls apart. And since they aren't very large, they're clannish by nature. Define "large".

Outcasts would be shunned and eventually ejected, or living there will be made so unbearable that migration becomes necessary, ergo ejection by proxy.Ejection by proxy is fine - that isn't forcible.

As to why they wouldn't be able to do that, how so? Install behavior limiting devices in them?Forcible ejection would be to create a state institution, which would mean that the community is no longer an anarcho-communist community by definition.

So would people in your scenario. If you don't like Jim Bob who's your neighbor, but still have to pay something for the local town water pump, he'll also be benefiting from it, just like you are.Yes, but if enough people refuse to support Jim Bob, he'll have to leave. To force the community to support him would be coercive.
In this scenario, even if I withdraw my support, the effect is minimal since Jim Bob will receive the benefit of everyone else's contribution.
Nonetheless, my contribution isn't force, as I can always petition to have Jim Bob's water shut off.

If the majority allows it, then it isn't theft.


Using this argument, if the majority of people support taxes, or at least the services it provides, tax is not theft.


If the community can't enforce its own edicts, too bad.


Mob rule, lynch mobs, riots and all the other lovely flavors of lawlessness enforced by group behavior. I can see it now...welcome to Dodgeville, population 120


Define "large".


Probably around 70-100 people. 200 is pushing it.


Ejection by proxy is fine - that isn't forcible.


I think having your house set on fire is a forcible type of ejection, even if it is by proxy. That's part of the package of anarcho-communism.


Yes, but if enough people refuse to support Jim Bob, he'll have to leave. To force the community to support him would be coercive.


But what if it's just you? Too bad? That goes against your anarcho-communist creed doesn't it?


In this scenario, even if I withdraw my support, the effect is minimal since Jim Bob will receive the benefit of everyone else's contribution.


Thereby making you subject to ejection by proxy. Which if you don't want, you would put up and shut up.


Nonetheless, my contribution isn't force, as I can always petition to have Jim Bob's water shut off.

You could, but if Jim pays and you don't, your voice would have about as much worth as used toilet paper no? What if you and Jim both pay? Petitioning to shut off his water just because you don't like him? Even if he paid?

Your anarcho-communist society is sadly a castle made of sand, and the tide is coming in.

Using this argument, if the majority of people support taxes, or at least the services it provides, tax is not theft.Tax isn't theft.

Mob rule, lynch mobs, riots and all the other lovely flavors of lawlessness enforced by group behavior. I can see it now...welcome to Dodgeville, population 120Hello, slippery slope fallacy.

Probably around 70-100 people. 200 is pushing it.Nah, that's small. Direct democracy could handle more.

I think having your house set on fire is a forcible type of ejection, even if it is by proxy. That's part of the package of anarcho-communism.It might be part of the package of restribution, but not after the community has been formed, no.
Nonetheless, I oppose this type of violence.

But what if it's just you? Too bad? That goes against your anarcho-communist creed doesn't it?No, I could decide that the community is better than the alternative(s).

Thereby making you subject to ejection by proxy. Which if you don't want, you would put up and shut up.Or argue for Jim Bob's removal. Or get a mediator to mediate the conflict between Jim Bob and myself.

You could, but if Jim pays and you don't, your voice would have about as much worth as used toilet paper no? What if you and Jim both pay? Petitioning to shut off his water just because you don't like him? Even if he paid?If I dislike him, it's highly likely that he's alienated others, as well.

This sounds like it assumes that people are innately reasonable creatures who all tend to get along and have a habit of going with the flow and what is best for everyone else and have the upmost respect for other peoples property and are really good at coming to agreemnts and cooperating even when they do not directly benefit.

I wonder why such a form of government never took off...

If I dislike him, it's highly likely that he's alienated others, as well.

Strange as it may seem but all over the world there are billions of people with personal grudges against other folks that nobody else cares about. It is quite easy for two people to dislike each other without dragging loads of other people into it.

Also - why do you think the community will side with you over him?

This sounds like it assumes that people are innately reasonable creatures who all tend to get along and have a habit of going with the flow and what is best for everyone else and have the upmost respect for other peoples property and are really good at coming to agreemnts and cooperating even when they do not directly benefit.

I wonder why such a form of government never took off...There are examples of such governments in history. There are also current examples, but these aren't exactly like the one I described (though they're similar).

Strange as it may seem but all over the world there are billions of people with personal grudges against other folks that nobody else cares about. It is quite easy for two people to dislike each other without dragging loads of other people into it.Usually I'm one of the last people to dislike another person.

Also - why do you think the community will side with you over himOut of their dislike of him.

There are examples of such governments in history. There are also current examples, but these aren't exactly like the one I described (though they're similar).
Can you give examples please?


Out of their dislike of him.
Why do you think they will dislike him over you?

It's quite possible everyone else will think he's a decent guy and will be wondering why you have such an issue with him.

Tax isn't theft.

Funny, a lot of anarcho-communists seem to think so.


Hello, slippery slope fallacy.


Not really. Direct democracy is mob rule. The only distinction is how much adherence there is to law. So you could have anything from riot level mobs to fairly ordered societies.

Although going by Murphy's law, not to mention human psyche, it's more likely the former than the latter.


Nah, that's small. Direct democracy could handle more.


Not anything more than a small township. Anything larger would require even more coordinated levels of administration that would strain direct democracy to the limits. Heck, I'm not even sure if you could get enough people to agree on a postal service.


It might be part of the package of restribution, but not after the community has been formed, no.
Nonetheless, I oppose this type of violence.

That means you've ejected all non-conformists in order to form this community. Isn't an anarcho-communist society supposed to hold individual choices and opinions sacrosanct?

As to opposing that type of violence, good luck stopping it with communal policing.


No, I could decide that the community is better than the alternative(s).


That means the whole argument for anarcho-communism fails. Taxation through threat of reprisal.


Or argue for Jim Bob's removal. Or get a mediator to mediate the conflict between Jim Bob and myself.

If I dislike him, it's highly likely that he's alienated others, as well.

Huh, so now you're the judge and jury of how much a person is liked in the whole community? Of how many? 200? 500? That's arrogance talking.

And removal of a person you don't like, even though he's supposedly part of the ideal anarcho-communist?

You sir, exhibit more characteristics found in dictators than those espoused in anarcho-communists.

Can you give examples please?

Wow, awesome, all in one article. I'll have to read this sometime. Lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities

Why do you think they will dislike him over you?

It's quite possible everyone else will think he's a decent guy and will be wondering why you have such an issue with him.Theoretically conceivable, yes, but unlikely for the reasons I mentioned.

I thought you gave up because you needed to reread Hoppe's argument. ;)
That was for something separate, more to do with rights theory. I'm waiting an article to come out that will allegedly clarify how his argument works and answer criticisms thereof, so for the time being it's in the "deep freeze". :)

Yes, there would be secession rights, naturally.
There's no reason why anarcho-capitalism couldn't theoretically do this, but I don't see it happening. Such a move would limit competition in the neighborhood.
That's why I am going to look into how this could work. If a traditional firm is indeed not the best model for a provider of law and order given the specific market's unique nature (this still requires empirical testing though), it'd pay to look into more efficient models.

Funny, a lot of anarcho-communists seem to think so.And others do not.

Not really. Direct democracy is mob rule. The only distinction is how much adherence there is to law. So you could have anything from riot level mobs to fairly ordered societies.

Although going by Murphy's law, not to mention human psyche, it's more likely the former than the latter. More likely amongst all humans, not more likely amongst the humans who would wish to live in an anarcho-communist community.

Not anything more than a small township. Anything larger would require even more coordinated levels of administration that would strain direct democracy to the limits. Heck, I'm not even sure if you could get enough people to agree on a postal service.A few thousand is possible, which is enough.

That means you've ejected all non-conformists in order to form this community. Isn't an anarcho-communist society supposed to hold individual choices and opinions sacrosanct?Usually, yes, but if someone's opinion is incredibly repugnant, they shouldn't expect the community to support them.

As to opposing that type of violence, good luck stopping it with communal policing.Such violence has historically been done in times where violence is perpetrated against the anarcho-communists.
While this doesn't excuse the burnings, it also means that there's no reason for them to occur if secession is allowed.

That means the whole argument for anarcho-communism fails. Taxation through threat of reprisal.That isn't the argument for anarcho-communism.

Huh, so now you're the judge and jury of how much a person is liked in the whole community? Of how many? 200? 500? That's arrogance talking.No, but the general trend is that I'm one of the last people to dislike someone. I don't think it's arrogant to point this out.

And removal of a person you don't like, even though he's supposedly part of the ideal anarcho-communist?If they're being removed, they're probably not the 'ideal' anarcho-communist.

You sir, exhibit more characteristics found in dictators than those espoused in anarcho-communists.You're the one who suggested jail time for tax evaders. All instances of force being advocated were done by you.

And others do not.

You're the first one I've seen who claims not to think it's theft.


More likely amongst all humans, not more likely amongst the humans who would wish to live in an anarcho-communist community.

Which unless you've got some special breed of human, is just as susceptible to those issues. At the number you mention though, that being a few thousand, it is somewhat more susceptible since law would be determined and enforced by the community.

Assuming you have people appointed to enforce law in this society, it'd more closely resemble towns of the old Wild West.


A few thousand is possible, which is enough.


Very tricky. Basic amenities such as water, maybe power, local law enforcement and medical facilities may be done without too many problems, but other issues such as roads, public lighting, garbage collection, sewage control, etc, etc would probably draw a lot of arguing that will go nowhere.

The bigger the community, the more infrastructure is needed to support it, and the more coordination is needed to get it done. It'd take gambling odds to get all factors right to even get a working road up.

It's extremely easy to create fractures in societies where they number more than 500 people. Anarcho-communism works in small populations (Kibbutz) because everybody knows each other, and even that produces friction now and then. When we start talking about thousands of people, not everyone is going to know everyone else. Heck, once any frictions start, that'll be the end of it.


Usually, yes, but if someone's opinion is incredibly repugnant, they shouldn't expect the community to support them.

I suppose not, but here, the only issue I've raised in that essence is that you don't like someone and want the community to cut him off.


Such violence has historically been done in times where violence is perpetrated against the anarcho-communists.

While this doesn't excuse the burnings, it also means that there's no reason for them to occur if secession is allowed.

Not really. To take an old example, let's look under witch hunts. Primarily, they targeted people who stood out, be it whether they just looked different or acted differently and almost always devolved into violence against their victims.

All it'd take is for someone to be a bit of a recluse in your community, and before you know it, that person will be forcibly driven out.

I have complete faith in human bigotry.


That isn't the argument for anarcho-communism.


Then what is your argument for it? Remember, those who I've met before all claim tax as their primary reason for it. Since you claim otherwise, you'd have to elaborate.


No, but the general trend is that I'm one of the last people to dislike someone. I don't think it's arrogant to point this out.

Out of how many people? In a population of thousands, you can't seriously expect me to believe you won't come across someone you'll hate but have problems finding others who feel the same way.


If they're being removed, they're probably not the 'ideal' anarcho-communist.


But with Jim Bob, even though he was an 'ideal', you advocated his removal because you didn't like him.


You're the one who suggested jail time for tax evaders. All instances of force being advocated were done by you.

Uh uh. I never suggested jail time for tax evaders. It was a statement of fact. People who don't pay taxes go to jail in most countries.

As for force, well, that's a part of human nature. Violence that is. If you can create a anarcho-communist society without one, it probably wouldn't be populated by humans.

Wow, awesome, all in one article. I'll have to read this sometime. Lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities


With a couple of exceptions almost all of those societies seemed to last less than 20 years, with a heap lasting less than 10 years, and quite a few lasting less than 5 years...

Argentina is an anarchist commnity?

What if he doesn't want to give to the community?

He cannot refuse to give that which he has no right to own in the first place.

He cannot refuse to give that which he has no right to own in the first place.
Productive contribution to a community via one's labour is theirs to give though. What if one does not one to contribute in such a manner, and yet is still a free rider of sorts (even if they do not want the benefits they enjoy)?

Productive contribution to a community via one's labour is theirs to give though.

Sure.

What if one does not one to contribute in such a manner, and yet is still a free rider of sorts (even if they do not want the benefits they enjoy)?

Positions differ.

I tend towards the "so what?" perspective... but then I care little for efficiency.

Positions differ.

I tend towards the "so what?" perspective... but then I care little for efficiency.
This isn't so much an efficiency argument as it is a fairness one I suppose. Efficiency is indeed involved from the point of view that if one person becomes a noncontributor whilst still enjoying the services provided, why should anyone else have to contribute? There are weaknesses within this argument, one of which being that it only applies so long as the good is entirely nonexcludable and/or that no arrangements can be reached on the matter.

From the fairness point of view, one could say why should another enjoy the fruits of my contribution, without themselves doing anything? I would respond that you knew from the beginning that this was likely to be so, so why complain now? As you said though, positions differ, and not everyone will be satisfied with such an answer.

why should anyone else have to contribute

Who said they did?

Who said they did?
How else would the good be produced? Someone has to contribute to its production, be they the direct beneficiaries or otherwise. The logic behind the public good problem is that the good is beneficial once produced, but that given its nonexcludable character no one will have an incentive to produce it. In other words, why should I build a road if everyone else can simply use it, and put no effort into its production?

How else would the good be produced? Someone has to contribute to its production, be they the direct beneficiaries or otherwise.

People do things they don't have to do all the time.

no one will have an incentive to produce it.

Only if their sole motive is personal benefit from the good.

Only if their sole motive is personal benefit from the good.
It would be interesting to see just how much work of this nature gets done when certain people noncontribute, yet still receive the benefits of a good (a potential disincentive for provision of the good), and precisely how much effort one would be willing to expend in such a case.

It would be interesting to see just how much work of this nature gets done when certain people noncontribute, yet still receive the benefits of a good (a potential disincentive for provision of the good)

You are still thinking about it from a productivist mindset.

I am not. I do not seek to utilize labor, but to emancipate it - to abolish, or at least minimize, the structure of compulsion and obedience necessitated by a system that requires modes of production in which people do not wish to participate.

precisely how much effort one would be willing to expend in such a case.

Work contributed reluctantly and contrary to one's desires is hardly likely to be more effortful than work contributed willingly and done for its own sake.

That was for something separate, more to do with rights theory. I'm waiting an article to come out that will allegedly clarify how his argument works and answer criticisms thereof, so for the time being it's in the "deep freeze". Ah. Oh well, then.

That's why I am going to look into how this could work. If a traditional firm is indeed not the best model for a provider of law and order given the specific market's unique nature (this still requires empirical testing though), it'd pay to look into more efficient models.I suppose it would apply to all of the instances where there are likely to be free riders - fire protection, communal defense, etc.


You're the first one I've seen who claims not to think it's theft.The ones that do oppose it while opposing all hierarchies; it is merely a part of the ideology.

Which unless you've got some special breed of human, is just as susceptible to those issues. At the number you mention though, that being a few thousand, it is somewhat more susceptible since law would be determined and enforced by the community.Which would be less suscepitable to it than if it was done at the orders of one or two bureaucrats.

Assuming you have people appointed to enforce law in this society, it'd more closely resemble towns of the old Wild West.Not especially. Certainly, there would be the need to ascertain who did what, other that that it would be a neighborhood watch.

Very tricky. Basic amenities such as water, maybe power, local law enforcement and medical facilities may be done without too many problems, but other issues such as roads, public lighting, garbage collection, sewage control, etc, etc would probably draw a lot of arguing that will go nowhere.

The bigger the community, the more infrastructure is needed to support it, and the more coordination is needed to get it done. It'd take gambling odds to get all factors right to even get a working road up.I disagree; the need to have working roads would likely outweigh the need to quibble.

Just out of curiosity, how much personal experience do you have with direct democracy?

It's extremely easy to create fractures in societies where they number more than 500 people. Anarcho-communism works in small populations (Kibbutz) because everybody knows each other, and even that produces friction now and then. When we start talking about thousands of people, not everyone is going to know everyone else. Heck, once any frictions start, that'll be the end of it.There's no reason to assume that frictions couldn't be resolved via mediation.

I suppose not, but here, the only issue I've raised in that essence is that you don't like someone and want the community to cut him off.Yes, but it would have to be an extreme dislike in order for me, or anyone, to want to do that.

Not really. To take an old example, let's look under witch hunts. Primarily, they targeted people who stood out, be it whether they just looked different or acted differently and almost always devolved into violence against their victims.

All it'd take is for someone to be a bit of a recluse in your community, and before you know it, that person will be forcibly driven out.

I have complete faith in human bigotry.And what would prevent this from happening if the leaders and police in a representative democracy disliked the recluse?

Then what is your argument for it? Remember, those who I've met before all claim tax as their primary reason for it. Since you claim otherwise, you'd have to elaborate.I oppose ownership, as well as institutionalized imbalances of power. Those are the two biggest reasons.

Out of how many people? In a population of thousands, you can't seriously expect me to believe you won't come across someone you'll hate but have problems finding others who feel the same way.Why not? Do you hate easily?

But with Jim Bob, even though he was an 'ideal', you advocated his removal because you didn't like him.You didn't specify until the last post that he was an ideal.

Uh uh. I never suggested jail time for tax evaders. It was a statement of fact. People who don't pay taxes go to jail in most countries.You seemed to indicate that you had no problem with this.
If not, what would you do, if anything, to tax evaders?

As for force, well, that's a part of human nature. Violence that is. If you can create a anarcho-communist society without one, it probably wouldn't be populated by humans.Violence shows itself more often than not in certain conditions. If the conditions for violence aren't there, there's no reason to believe it would show itself in any large amount.

With a couple of exceptions almost all of those societies seemed to last less than 20 years, with a heap lasting less than 10 years, and quite a few lasting less than 5 years...You did specify examples, not long-lasting ones. ;)

The Zapatistas are still around, though.

There is also some evidence to suggest that many primitive cultures were also communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

You did specify examples, not long-lasting ones. ;)

The Zapatistas are still around, though.
Does the fact that almost every example failed in a few years tell you anything about the system in general?

I also note that the wiki page describes these amazingly short lived societies as 'successfully organised according to anarchistic principles'. I don't know about you, but three or four years does not exactly seem a successful society...

Who are the Zapatistas? I did not see them on the page you provided?


There is also some evidence to suggest that many primitive cultures were also communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

You did see that the main reason proposed for them all sharing was that they did not actually have any posessions to own, that they were so poor that nobody could save enough resources to be rich... Note also - this is for very very small tribal groups on the edge of survival, not for very large populations with a high standard of living.

Even if it's a recognition that none of the individuals don't have the right to use the resources?

If there is any agreement between the all those individuals concerned with a thing, then there is property.

Not really.

Why not?

Probably not endless petitions, no. Even if it was a few petitions, the communities would likely figure out what they would be willing to accept, and immediately reject all petitions asking for something else.

There wouldn't be a set rule of what is life sustaining usage, but in most cases, you can tell what is and isn't.
To use the resources to sustain life wouldn't require a petition.

If anything should be learned by present methods to restrict capitalism, i.e. the regulation and bottlenecking of the flow of resources, it is that those who have the power to control the regulation will manipulate it for their own benefit and after regulation has been made, there is a mad scramble to exploit the government prohibitions.

Government restrictions on possible petitions only will highten the intensity of the petitions.

Also, if there are stringent restrictions placed on obtaining resources and goods for expendable use, it is impossible for there not to be an approval system for required use.

But I have found that showing the inefficacies of resource distribution through centralized direct democracy always turns into an endless lesson or redirection.

How so? You said that my justifications for usage rights applied also to ownership rights. I said that they didn't, because ownership doesn't fit an important part part of usage rights - that the person with the right be using the resources.

You are, in effect, stating that ownership rights are different from usage rights because they aren't usage rights.

The question has been "What separates ownership rights from usage rights that makes one valid and one not?"

All authority is consensual. Even if it's "accept my authority or die", it's still consensual.

I can hardly see how that is consensual.

The latter part is. We don't allow people to extend themselves indefinitely. Capitalists also recognize this, when they say that a person can't take another's property, even if labor is mixed with it.
Furthermore, even if it was the case, if I create something and then sell it, what I purchase with the money I receive certainly isn't an extension of myself.

Strawman.