NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you mean by dependency?

Whatever the government gives should be applied to everybody.

(poll choices below)

What option would you select? How would you modify it - if you did at all? Do you think it should apply only to you, everyone, just the poor, just the wealthy, just the educated, just the uneducated, minorities, majorities?

1 - I think that people should depend on a central government for only the most minimal services – national defense, standards weights and measures, currency and not much else. Local government and private enterprise can do the rest.

2 - I think people should depend on a central government for the primary services above plus moderate other services such as education standards, interstate highways, commerce management and other things. Local government and p.e. can do the rest.

3 - I think people should depend on a central government for primary and moderate service, plus local services such as law enforcement, fire control, education, etc. There is no need for local governments. P.e. can do the rest.

4 - I think people should depend on a central government for primary, moderate and local services, plus some personal services such as healthcare, regulating food for healthy content, and determine moral issues such as abortion, marriage and others.

5 - I think people should depend on a central government for primary, moderate, local and all primary personal services including housing, all food, transportation, and employment.

curse Jolt for locking up while I was entering the poll options - and curse them twice for not allowing me to edit the poll question/choices!


Oh well - it's not that hard to figure out.

Please share your thoughts.

0 - There should be no central government.

I believe in limited government, like any good conservative.

voted 4, but something like 3.5 for me. government should not determine the morality in issues such as abortion, marriage and others, though they would legislate on the matter because it affects other areas within their realm.

Very, very, very little. A 0.5 or less.

Without central government, it becomes very hard to accomplish national requirements (national defense, etc.) in an efficient and effective manner, so its necessary. If it were possible for my 'ideology' or whatnot to go without a federal govt.

voted 4, but something like 3.5 for me. government should not determine the morality in issues such as abortion, marriage and others, though they would legislate on the matter because it affects other areas within their realm.

you just contradicted yourself. Try again.

you just contradicted yourself. Try again.
i like contradictions ;) should have worded the statement differently, i suppose.

Between 4 and 5.

Between 4 and 5.

why? for everyone? how come? please expand.

I believe in limited government, like any good conservative.

How limited? 1, 2 somewhere else? What about moral issues? Do you feel those are or are not the juristiciction of a central government?

Well, if there has to be a central government, then I'd be a 1 on this scale.

Given that the poll doesn't leave room for much cooperation between the central government and the state + local governments(such as central government funding for services but state administration) and the central government could be limited but the state and local governments could be highly economically and socially interventionist in a couple of the options I can not choose among the given options.

i put a 1...i believe the government should be there to keep order - no care/help to the people at all, it's their business. except for education, i'd like that to be regulated

Do those who don't believe in any central government realize that means they don't believe in any government? If the US federal government was dissolved there'd be 50 new centers of government(one for each state/new nation) not zero central governments.

"0" option is missing.

Power corrupts. The centralization of power into a single and larger entity makes corruption and inefficiency more likely and easier.

I believe in limited or no state, like any decent Marxist. I believe in local grassroots worker cooperatives and communes based on trade union democratic structuring, if a government has to exist then it would exist for prevent wage inflation, a loose coordination of the economy and trade, and maybe minor defense initiatives (most of which would be taken care of by local community militias and police employed by the communes themselves).

(poll choices below)

What option would you select? How would you modify it - if you did at all? Do you think it should apply only to you, everyone, just the poor, just the wealthy, just the educated, just the uneducated, minorities, majorities?

1 - I think that people should depend on a central government for only the most minimal services – national defense, standards weights and measures, currency and not much else. Local government and private enterprise can do the rest.

2 - I think people should depend on a central government for the primary services above plus moderate other services such as education standards, interstate highways, commerce management and other things. Local government and p.e. can do the rest.

3 - I think people should depend on a central government for primary and moderate service, plus local services such as law enforcement, fire control, education, etc. There is no need for local governments. P.e. can do the rest.

4 - I think people should depend on a central government for primary, moderate and local services, plus some personal services such as healthcare, regulating food for healthy content, and determine moral issues such as abortion, marriage and others.

5 - I think people should depend on a central government for primary, moderate, local and all primary personal services including housing, all food, transportation, and employment.

0. There should be no monopoly (legal barrier to entry) on jurisdiction or on any service. I say replace it with jurists and customary law, instead of having some legislature feasting upon tribute while thinking up all sorts of regulations to help their cronies.

It would seem then that most people here are small-government conservatives...

Do those who don't believe in any central government realize that means they don't believe in any government? If the US federal government was dissolved there'd be 50 new centers of government(one for each state/new nation) not zero central governments.

That's what keeps me from voting in polls like this. I want a strong state government with little to no federal government, but if I vote that I want a strong central govt people will (legitimately) assume I meant a strong federal government.

That's what keeps me from voting in polls like this. I want a strong state government with little to no federal government, but if I vote that I want a strong central govt people will (legitimately) assume I meant a strong federal government.

which is why I was specific to a 'central' government. You are discussing a non-central government. You will notice that many state-level (and State as specific to the US term) and even city level services in my poll are added the higher the number... That is on purpose.

I'm afraid that most people are not small govt. conservatives here. Most are small govt. Liberals. (Checks political compass topic) Yep. That 3rd quadrant still has the most people.

I'm afraid that most people are not small govt. conservatives here. Most are small govt. Liberals. (Checks political compass topic) Yep. That 3rd quadrant still has the most people.

I disagree - most people here only THINK they are not small-government liberals. When challenged on specifics they will opt NOT to be dependant on the government and FOR decentralization.

which is why I was specific to a 'central' government. You are discussing a non-central government. You will notice that many state-level (and State as specific to the US term) and even city level services in my poll are added the higher the number... That is on purpose.

I understand, but I want the states to be the central governments themselves. If there absolutely has to be a federal government (which I'm not at all convinced is necessary) then I'd pick number 1 on the poll. If the states are the central governments I would want my state to be around 4 (leave out the "determining moral issues" part).

How limited? 1, 2 somewhere else? What about moral issues? Do you feel those are or are not the juristiciction of a central government?
The federal government shouldn't get involved. I think it should be up to the states. Personally, as a Christian I am for morality (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, etc.) but I don't want the federal government taking up powers not meant for them per the Constitution.

I disagree - most people here only THINK they are not small-government liberals. When challenged on specifics they will opt NOT to be dependant on the government and FOR decentralization.

That's not what he said. What he said was that most people were for small government, and were liberal. Not for small government and conservative, and not against small government and liberal.

I picked 5. I noticed the absence of 'moral' issues in that option, which the central government shouldn't decide upon.
Furthermore, when I say 'centralized government', this is distinct from 'centralized state'. There should be no distinction between the government and the people governed.

I understand, but I want the states to be the central governments themselves. If there absolutely has to be a federal government (which I'm not at all convinced is necessary) then I'd pick number 1 on the poll. If the states are the central governments I would want my state to be around 4 (leave out the "determining moral issues" part).

You are looking at this from a US centric percepition. If you eliminate the federal government in the US you would still have a central government where you life - the state. It would just govern a smaller territory.

You don't believe a state should mandate the legality of abortion? Gay marriage?

I picked 5. I noticed the absence of 'moral' issues in that option, which the central government shouldn't decide upon.
Furthermore, when I say 'centralized government', this is distinct from 'centralized state'. There should be no distinction between the government and the people governed.

So you feel that everyone should be completely dependent on the government for all of their needs for their entire life? Similar to children living at home with their parents?

The federal government shouldn't get involved. I think it should be up to the states. Personally, as a Christian I am for morality (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, etc.) but I don't want the federal government taking up powers not meant for them per the Constitution.

Ummm. States ARE government. Don't contradict yourself.

That's not what he said. What he said was that most people were for small government, and were liberal. Not for small government and conservative, and not against small government and liberal.

Liberal - by most definition - favors an increased role of government. Conservative favors less government involvement. The only exception seeming to be on moral issues - where they flip-flop. Go figure.

So you feel that everyone should be completely dependent on the government for all of their needs for their entire life? Similar to children living at home with their parents?Pretty much, yes. I wouldn't quite say it's the same as children living at home; the familial relationship leads to constraint that wouldn't be there in a relationship between people and their government.

You are looking at this from a US centric percepition.

Yes I am, being an American and all. My opinion on this matter requires a unitary state. While the American states are technically unitary states, the Federal government has rather more responsibility and control over issues that I'd prefer the states control. In essence, I support strong state governments, to the point where they're viewed as the central governments, and the federal government is viewed the way the EU is in Europe.

As I said, assuming a unitary state I'd support a 4 on your poll, minus the moral judgements. When I lived in France I was largely happy with the level of government involvement in daily life.

If you eliminate the federal government in the US you would still have a central government where you life - the state. It would just govern a smaller territory.

Yes, that is my intention.

You don't believe a state should mandate the legality of abortion? Gay marriage?

No I don't. I don't believe the state has any business involving itself in such matters.

how much should people put up with the entities called corporations that provide legal privileged protections to the ownership oligarchists,
how much should people allow them to run these things called "states" and "governments" to keep us divided and from building and participating in the events of our lives freely and democratically?


tear 'em down.

corporations are but legal entities.
legal privileged protections for the wealthy few to keep the rest of humanity
as pets and plow-pulling work-horses,
keep us poor and divided so we keep fighting for scraps off the table they throw down to us.
oh, we're so grateful and obedient for the crumbs of the earth that is all of ours - bar none, that you pretend is divinely yours.

Yes I am, being an American and all. My opinion on this matter requires a unitary state. While the American states are technically unitary states, the Federal government has rather more responsibility and control over issues that I'd prefer the states control. In essence, I support strong state governments, to the point where they're viewed as the central governments, and the federal government is viewed the way the EU is in Europe.

As I said, assuming a unitary state I'd support a 4 on your poll, minus the moral judgements. When I lived in France I was largely happy with the level of government involvement in daily life.
(snip)
I don't believe the state has any business involving itself in such matters.

So you feel the government has a role in determining if you should have access to food that may not be healthy (chocolate mousse, for example) You also feel that the state does not need to protect a womans right to an abortion or a persons right to marry whom they wish?

So you feel the government has a role in determining if you should have access to food that may not be healthy (chocolate mousse, for example) You also feel that the state does not need to protect a womans right to an abortion or a persons right to marry whom they wish?

I have no idea how you reached those conclusions.

I'm saying the government has no business in regulating abortion specifically. The government should protect a person's right to have any medical procedure they and their doctor deem necessary, to include abortions, but abortion should not be treated as any different than any other medical procedure.

As to gay marriage, I believe that marriage should be a contract among legal adults. Beyond being legal adults the state should have no part in determining who can marry who. Note that this means I don't care if 4 or 5 people get married, it's not my business, nor should it be the business of the state.

It would seem then that most people here are small-government conservatives...
Seriously dude, American political designations ftl, I am a socialist and believe in NO government.

Pretty much, yes. I wouldn't quite say it's the same as children living at home; the familial relationship leads to constraint that wouldn't be there in a relationship between people and their government.

Like section 8 housing in the US? You think everyone should be required to do that?

Seriously dude, American political designations ftl, I am a socialist and believe in NO government.

LOL - so you believe the government should control parts of the economy - but you don't believe there should be a government! haha!

They shouldn't. Government should solely exist to help people help themselves to achieve the things they want.

I have no idea how you reached those conclusions.

I'm saying the government has no business in regulating abortion specifically. The government should protect a person's right to have any medical procedure they and their doctor deem necessary, to include abortions, but abortion should not be treated as any different than any other medical procedure.

As to gay marriage, I believe that marriage should be a contract among legal adults. Beyond being legal adults the state should have no part in determining who can marry who. Note that this means I don't care if 4 or 5 people get married, it's not my business, nor should it be the business of the state.

If the state does not recognize a marriage then there is nothing to make anyone else recognize it. If the state does not have laws about abortion then a baby could be aborted up to the moment before delivery.

Like section 8 housing in the US? You think everyone should be required to do that?Not exactly. Section 8 housing is typically underfunded and is limited to certain houses.
However the government should be providing houses for people, but this provision shouldn't be limited to certain houses.

LOL - so you believe the government should control parts of the economy - but you don't believe there should be a government! haha!
Well I kinda said my view on the last page, I don't think a federal 'government' is needed persay, at least not in the way we think of government today, it would have no power of initiative, it would be a loose and broad macro-economic department or the like to keep wage inflation (central bank) down, a coordination of trade (domestic and foreign) and loose macro-economic coordination. Otherwise society would be run by autonomous trade union cooperatives and communes run equally and democratically, the application of democracy in all its forms (including voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, systems of appeal, and so on) to the workplace.

So my point was, the American designation of socialist=big government, and conservative=small government is silly considering I support a stateless and classless society, or at least a transition until one can be properly achieved. Socialism isn't about a state controlling the economy, it's about the workers controlling the means of production equally through common ownership at the most local decentralized level.

Not exactly. Section 8 housing is typically underfunded and is limited to certain houses.
However the government should be providing houses for people, but this provision shouldn't be limited to certain houses.

I see - so you believe the government should own all houses and determine who gets to live in which ones.

. Socialism isn't about a state controlling the economy, it's about the workers controlling the means of production equally through common ownership at the most local decentralized level.

Actually that more closely resembles communism than socialism.

Regardlss - you feel that people other than you should determine your employment, houseing, food, etc. Right?

I see - so you believe the government should own all houses and determine who gets to live in which ones.Yes. In addition, all houses should be the same at first and located in the same general area and then customized by their owners during the process of living there.

This (http://capitalism.org/faq/government.htm) more or less describes my answer in a nutshell.

i think any government under any idiology, economics or anything else needs to justify its existence with real serves provided to people who really need and bennifit from that service being provided. i don't think this is a question of how much anyone should have to depend upon it to do so at all.

no one should HAVE to, but inequities in policy and culture create situations which do put people in a position of doing so. without building codes and private land ownership people could build their own shelter from nature and hunt and gather to their hearts content, and many, presented with this option, would choose it, and perhapse get along just fine. but the reality is, that in the u.s., and perhapse most other modern nations, that option is circumstantially, if not in many contexts, directly by statute, denied to them.

=^^=
.../\...

Actually that more closely resembles communism than socialism.

Regardlss - you feel that people other than you should determine your employment, houseing, food, etc. Right?
No. My ideology is roughly a mixture of unreconstructed Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism.

Do those who don't believe in any central government realize that means they don't believe in any government? If the US federal government was dissolved there'd be 50 new centers of government(one for each state/new nation) not zero central governments.

my country doesn't have states. besides, i'm talking about all forms of central governments, not "the federal govt."

Liberal - by most definition - favors an increased role of government. Conservative favors less government involvement. The only exception seeming to be on moral issues - where they flip-flop. Go figure.

Dude, familiarise yourself with the Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org . Then recognise that one can be socially liberal to the point of anarchism and economically socialist to the point of communism, at the same time.

I'm -7.25, -7.64 - anarcho-communist. I support common ownership, the rights to do as much as possible, and minimal to no government.

Actually that more closely resembles communism than socialism.

Regardlss - you feel that people other than you should determine your employment, houseing, food, etc. Right?
News flash: Other people already determine your employment, housing, food, etc.

In a capitalist economic system, the price of labor (= your wage), as well as the price of housing, food, and everything else sold on the market, is determined by supply and demand. In turn, supply and demand are determined by the actions and preferences of other people. Unless you happen to own a large business, your individual choices have no major impact on supply or demand, so your ability to buy things is completely at the mercy of other people. And the types of things that are available for you to buy in the first place are also determined by supply and demand, so they are also entirely at the mercy of other people.

In fact, in any kind of industrialized society, individual choices will always be greatly constrained by the decisions of other people - no matter if those decisions are made through a government or through the market. Economic individualism isn't just immoral, it's a delusional pipe dream.

Oh, and I voted 5. A democratically elected central planning authority - call it a "government" if you wish - should be responsible for all economic decisions. A number of moral issues should also be decided by the government.

Yes. In addition, all houses should be the same at first and located in the same general area and then customized by their owners during the process of living there.

Is that sarcasm or do you really mean it?

News flash: Other people already determine your employment, housing, food, etc.

In a capitalist economic system, the price of labor (= your wage), as well as the price of housing, food, and everything else sold on the market, is determined by supply and demand. In turn, supply and demand are determined by the actions and preferences of other people. Unless you happen to own a large business, your individual choices have no major impact on supply or demand, so your ability to buy things is completely at the mercy of other people. And the types of things that are available for you to buy in the first place are also determined by supply and demand, so they are also entirely at the mercy of other people.

In fact, in any kind of industrialized society, individual choices will always be greatly constrained by the decisions of other people - no matter if those decisions are made through a government or through the market. Economic individualism isn't just immoral, it's a delusional pipe dream.

Oh, and I voted 5. A democratically elected central planning authority - call it a "government" if you wish - should be responsible for all economic decisions. A number of moral issues should also be decided by the government.
Really? I can't quit my job, or sell my house?

The way you describe supply and demand makes it look like people are voting with money for what products, prices and services they consume. You aslo admit that no one person can influence that. If everyone is voting over these things then it sounds much like the types of communism many here endorse. Are you saying that the ideal communist utopia is the capitalist society most modern nations live in already?

Is that sarcasm or do you really mean it?Why should it be sarcastic?

Smash the state. 'nuff said

Really? I can't quit my job, or sell my house?
You can quit your job, but other people determine the nature and number of the new jobs available to you. You can sell your house, but other people determine the price at which you can sell it.

And by the way, you can quit your job and move to a different home in a socialist system too.

The way you describe supply and demand makes it look like people are voting with money for what products, prices and services they consume.
Indeed they do, but different people have vastly different amounts of money; therefore, the capitalist market may involve "voting", but it is not democratic voting. Some people have a million more votes than others.

You aslo admit that no one person can influence that. If everyone is voting over these things then it sounds much like the types of communism many here endorse. Are you saying that the ideal communist utopia is the capitalist society most modern nations live in already?
No. In a communist society everyone would have equal power to influence production and distribution - an equal number of votes, if you will. In a capitalist society, some people have far more economic "votes" than others.

For what?

The question is ridiculously vague and broad.

Government as we know it is a contradiction in terms. Think about it - if we pay people for a service, normally we're the customers, right? That shoudl command a degree of respect. We should have influence over their practices rather than the other way around. We wouldn't let a business suddenly vote and say, "OK, here's how it's going to be. You pay us X amount of dollars for this service, and we're going to dictate how you can use it."

So why is it that we pay all this money to government, and they turn around and tell us what we can and can't do? Government is a service, people. Sure, we'd like it if they cleaned up the streets, enforced laws, and took care of the roads, but they're our laws and they're our contractors hired to carry them out. Therefore, we're the ones in charge here. How it is that we let them get away from us and start telling us what to do is a little mystifying.

I'm not against paying taxes, but I am against writing a blank check to the government and letting them use my tax dollars to figure out how to take more of my money and keep me from doing what it is that I want.

Government should be there for things that are, say, beyond basic. Most people can and should be able to take care of themselves. Government is here for some necessities, to enforce the just laws and improve the quality of life, and to help out in case of emergency. It is not here to micromanage us and treat us like we need to be led by the hand and told how to live. We're human beings, not chimps.

my country doesn't have states. besides, i'm talking about all forms of central governments, not "the federal govt."

My point is still valid for the dissolution of non-federal/non-confederal nation-states. A government that runs a city or a subsection of a city still has a central government. Its just that what constitutes the center has changed.

Somewhere between 2 and 4.

For example: French nuclear power has proven far more effective than American nuclear power. Why? Because it was something that worked better when state sponsored.

Smash the state. 'nuff said

http://www.alphaworks.net/temp/1hourHulkSmash.jpg

Why should it be sarcastic?

It was so brief as to be hard to tell if it was meant to be snarky. Sorry.

You'd have to expand on what I consider obvious issues such as location (remember real estate=locatoin location location), age, improvements, etc.

It does not take much imagination to realize that even identicallt constructed homes will not take long before some become more or less desireable than others...

You can quit your job, but other people determine the nature and number of the new jobs available to you. You can sell your house, but other people determine the price at which you can sell it.

And by the way, you can quit your job and move to a different home in a socialist system too.
You need to decide if you want to discuss communist or socialist before I can reply.
As far as 'other people' deciding what price you sell a home at - that is not exactly the case - the price is negotiated and agreed between the buyer and seller - neiter is compelled. Same for a job - nobody is compelled to work nor hire a worker. It is a negotiated transaction between willing participants.


Indeed they do, but different people have vastly different amounts of money; therefore, the capitalist market may involve "voting", but it is not democratic voting. Some people have a million more votes than others.

Maybe they do, but not one of them has enough to influence the retail price of anything, even something so mundane as a can of tomatoes.


No. In a communist society everyone would have equal power to influence production and distribution - an equal number of votes, if you will. In a capitalist society, some people have far more economic "votes" than others.

Have you decided to discuss communist or socialst economics?

In a capitalist society there is no limit imposed on anyone's ability to contribute to the economy, nor is there a restriction on what they may do with their rewards for contributing more.

It was so brief as to be hard to tell if it was meant to be snarky. Sorry.

You'd have to expand on what I consider obvious issues such as location (remember real estate=locatoin location location), age, improvements, etc.

It does not take much imagination to realize that even identicallt constructed homes will not take long before some become more or less desireable than others...Ah, I see. :)
Well, I'm thinking of smaller communities here - the houses are unlikely to take up more than what we would consider to be a single neighborhood of the city.

As far as 'other people' deciding what price you sell a home at - that is not exactly the case - the price is negotiated and agreed between the buyer and seller - neiter is compelled. Same for a job - nobody is compelled to work nor hire a worker. It is a negotiated transaction between willing participants. ...based upon market prices.

Ah, I see. :)
Well, I'm thinking of smaller communities here - the houses are unlikely to take up more than what we would consider to be a single neighborhood of the city.

Even on a 'neighborhood' scale that will matter. Who is closest to the park? Who is closest to the lake? Shopping (or whatever-distribution), etc. Also is the isue of age - newer=better most often. Then there are improvements - the house with the addition or the pool or whatever.



...based upon market prices.

AKA - a fair price compared to what they could sell/buy to/from another person. Neither is compelled to complete the transaction unfairly...

Even on a 'neighborhood' scale that will matter. Who is closest to the park? Who is closest to the lake? Shopping (or whatever-distribution), etc. Also is the isue of age - newer=better most often. Then there are improvements - the house with the addition or the pool or whatever. Presumably the public recreation areas would be in the middle of the housing area. Most likely they'd surround the town hall.
Also, while the houses would be identical at first, people would be able to customize them throughout the time they live in them.

AKA - a fair price compared to what they could sell/buy to/from another person. Neither is compelled to complete the transaction unfairly...But individual people don't control what the market price is.

Presumably the public recreation areas would be in the middle of the housing area. Most likely they'd surround the town hall.
Also, while the houses would be identical at first, people would be able to customize them throughout the time they live in them.

Well, if people lived forever and never moved then that would not be a problem - but that is not the case. People die. People move. If someone has improved their property then it will have a preceived increase in value. If someone has neglected it then there will be a perceived decrease in its value. What about people with large families? Would they be foreced to live in a residence the same as a retired empty-nester?

People have children. People live in towns bigger than the diameter of their town hall. (and most people enjoy going places other than their town hall). People like living near the better schools. People have adult children move out. People have pets - including horses. People like southern exposure. People like fruit trees. People dislike some fruits. People like living near a main traffic artery. People like living away from a main traffic artery. All of these things have an impact on making the same house more or less appealing to different people. Voila - you have a market - even with cookie-cutter homes.


But individual people don't control what the market price is.

Which is exactly why it does not matter if one person has more money than another. Market prices are determined by an efficient market full of buyers and sellers all negotiating for the best deal.

Well, if people lived forever and never moved then that would not be a problem - but that is not the case. People die. People move. If someone has improved their property then it will have a preceived increase in value. If someone has neglected it then there will be a perceived decrease in its value. What about people with large families? Would they be foreced to live in a residence the same as a retired empty-nester?To start with yes, but presumably once a person realizes they're expecting children, they would have the community improve their house.
The perceived increases in value can't be controlled for, but if someone wants a bigger house they could ask the community to do it. Of course, houses can't be improved infinitely, as the construction workers will have other things to do, so it will have to be done just every once in a while.

People have children. People live in towns bigger than the diameter of their town hall. (and most people enjoy going places other than their town hall). People like living near the better schools. People have adult children move out. People have pets - including horses. People like southern exposure. People like fruit trees. People dislike some fruits. People like living near a main traffic artery. People like living away from a main traffic artery. All of these things have an impact on making the same house more or less appealing to different people. Voila - you have a market - even with cookie-cutter homes.Of course there would be other entertainment venues than the town hall.
As far as pets go, I'd imagine that horses would be cared for by the community, though I suppose someone could have their house improved whilst expecting a horse, also.

Which is exactly why it does not matter if one person has more money than another. Market prices are determined by an efficient market full of buyers and sellers all negotiating for the best deal.Which means that for the most part, an individual employee's wage is out of the hands of that individual employee.

To start with yes, but presumably once a person realizes they're expecting children, they would have the community improve their house.

So you would reward procreation and disincent people who choose not to reproduce? You still fail to address the issue of fairly distributing improved property after a death or relocation.


The perceived increases in value can't be controlled for, but if someone wants a bigger house they could ask the community to do it. Of course, houses can't be improved infinitely, as the construction workers will have other things to do, so it will have to be done just every once in a while.

So there will be selective improvements not equally distributed...

Of course there would be other entertainment venues than the town hall.
As far as pets go, I'd imagine that horses would be cared for by the community, though I suppose someone could have their house improved whilst expecting a horse, also.

Ummm. You don't know much about horses or horse owners... You aslso acknowledge that there would be perceived value differenced based on home location, improvements, etc.

With value differentiation there is then no way to equally distribute housing...



Which means that for the most part, an individual employee's wage is out of the hands of that individual employee.

and in the hands of the market - aka community! Voila!

So you would reward procreation and disincent people who choose not to reproduce? You still fail to address the issue of fairly distributing improved property after a death or relocation.If someone is relocating outside of the community then of course they aren't taking their house with them.
If someone is having children, then they would likely choose to have their house improved instead of getting some other luxury.

So there will be selective improvements not equally distributed...While some people are having their houses improved, other people might want to get a new big-screen TV or fur coat.

Ummm. You don't know much about horses or horse owners... You aslso acknowledge that there would be perceived value differenced based on home location, improvements, etc.

With value differentiation there is then no way to equally distribute housing...Housing itself isn't the only thing to be concerned with equal distribution. The total distribution of all resources should be equal. Looking at individuals, we would see that individuals prefer different things, and thus each individual would have different things, but the aggregate total is the same.

and in the hands of the market - aka community! Voila!Not quite, no, but nonetheless you agree that what a person makes in a capitalist system is largely out of their hands, and so it is silly to say that such is determined by negotiation between employer and employee, which was the argument being made by that poster.

I would say 5. The government should be responsible for provision of all key services, housing, education, healthcare/childcare, telecoms, production and distribution of key commodities (agricultural and sea foodstuffs, key industrial minerals and industrial/defence products) and the like as well as ensuring social order needed for a cohesive and functioning society (law enforcement, justice, punishment, substance abuse and rehab etc) but this should not extend to moral judgements.

What people do in their homes is down to them, provided it is not infringing on another's freedom. I.e.: Decisions regarding abortion, marriage partners, to consume or not to consume a donut with it's sugary goodness etc. are not and should not be the business of the state. I do feel, however, that is very much the business of the state if any person is sick, homeless, or starving, or running around the metro station with an AK-47, gunning down random commuters. Similarly the state should recognise and reward those who serve society well, both those who work directly for the state or who do so in a independent capacity.