Project Karma

[indie]

It’s time for a tangent. If you’ve read this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=108522&postcount=102), you know why. I’ve developed a healthy disgust for corporate greed and conglomerates and the way that corporations are exploiting our planet and the people on it.

This should be a fun experiment, where we can pretend we’re like the drafters of a new form of system/govt. (what are the basic human rights? how should power be balanced?), only instead of a bunch of old white men creating the laws for a nation seeking religious freedom, we’ll be an age and gender and ethically-diverse group of people with the common goal of preventing power-hungry psychopathic corporations from destroying our planet and hurting people . And instead of “One Nation under God,” the crowning phrase should be “One Planet Near the Sun” since we’re all in this together. . . Oh, and no suggestions of violence. This is not meant to be like the Taliban.

So, I’m starting this thread, which I hope will be an age, gender, and ethically-diverse meeting of the minds with the purpose of brainstorming about a theoretical idealized economic system for the earth that will “expand the pie” (of well-being for all) and “minimize the negative externalities” (the harm caused to the planet by the necessary utilization of resources for making goods and services essential for survival).

Where to begin? It’s 2005 and Planet Earth is hurting. Corporations have killed people, plundered resources, created pollution, and destroyed species. Maybe it didn’t have to be like that.

So we have a time machine. We go back to, say, 1780 when the US Capitalism system did not exist, yet, but something will. . . some world-changing form of government is waiting to happen. Instead of Jefferson and Edison (and whovever, history is not my best subject), there is us, a crazy but brilliant bunch of INTPs.

We know what is wrong and the faults of the system, and we have an opportunity to start from scratch, to create something better and that is not as easily exploited and manipulted. What do we do?

Please share your ideas.

[s0978]

you're wacky. I like you. :hug:

[mgb]

That's really difficult to do indiejade. Obviously, many of the problems we have now, were unforseen by the founders of your country. For example, they had no intentions of giving corporations the powers they now have.

The problem with going back is that any solutions we have might seen great on paper (or monitor as it were) but in practice might have horrible consequences.

One thing that's struck me since reading Robespierre's thoughts on government is that they stand the chance of running into the exact same problems as say a heavy socialist country at the other end of the scale, greed leading to a corruption of the system. If you can figure that one out, I think you can pretty much create any type of system.

[crule81]

Even though I do not agree with your sweeping condemnation of corporations, I enjoy alternate history and "what ifs?". Here are some changes I would make to the US.

I have no wish to live in society with 1780's technology and I'm afraid that some of your progressivism and environmentalism applied at the beginning would actually hinder technological advancement. Therefore, my changes at the beginning would be small and would consist of adopting more of the Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay vision of the Federal government than that of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. I believe that the weakness of the federal government until the Civil War hindered development of the nation. With a stronger federal government, hopefully slavery could be fazed out gradually so as to minimize the economic and social impact of this change.

So what do we do about the Indians? I think the dominance of Europeans in the US is almost a foregone conclusion no matter what is the scenario and not a bad thing in the long-run because of the economic benefits to the nation. But maybe if settlement had been better controlled by the government, many of the unfortunate instances of conflict between whites and Indians could have been avoided.

It's funny because I think more government regulation was necessary then, but that less government regulation would be better now.

[Robespierre]

The most basic and only human right to to be secure in one's property. Self-ownership being self-evident, this coveres the right to be secure in one's own body, and the full right to the product of one's labor.

A right is something that all sentient being have, in equal measure. No one has any more rights than anyone else. It's more important, in the light of other opinions, to mention what human rights are not. The "right to medical care" is not a human right, and not a right at all, but an expression of a want. A right cannot exist that imposes a duty upon some other human, and this is exactly what a "right to medical care" does. People who support such "human rights" as the right to medical care, adequate housing, food, a job, etc, nearly always fail to concern themselves with the other side of the equation: who is bound by right to supply these things? The only logical answer is clearly, no one.

A system of government that ultimately recognizes the basic human right to be secure in one's property, is anarchic. A government, in the form a state, that recognizes human rights is an oxymoron, as the basic definition of a state is a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force, which inherently violates the only real human right, that of absolute sovreignty over one's property.

[Robespierre]

Oh, and no suggestions of violence. This is not meant to be like the Taliban.

Of course not. Don't say it out loud and no one will realize that imposing the values of the majority on the minorty is violent. Any system of government that operates on anything more than a voluntary level, is inherently violent.

[indie]

The most basic and only human right to to be secure in one's property. Self-ownership being self-evident, this coveres the right to be secure in one's own body, and the full right to the product of one's labor.

What about the rights of the other living things on the planet? The forests and the animals? What about the rights of future generations to live on a planet that has not been ravaged and had all the natural "resources" of property plundered by previous generations?


A right is something that all sentient being have, in equal measure. No one has any more rights than anyone else. It's more important, in the light of other opinions, to mention what human rights are not. The "right to medical care" is not a human right, and not a right at all, but an expression of a want.

I agree with you. Human beings have infinite wants and limited resources. However, "the right to be secure in one's property" is not the only basic human right.


A right cannot exist that imposes a duty upon some other human, and this is exactly what a "right to medical care" does. People who support such "human rights" as the right to medical care, adequate housing, food, a job, etc, nearly always fail to concern themselves with the other side of the equation: who is bound by right to supply these things? The only logical answer is clearly, no one.

I don't recall mentioning anything about medical care or adequate housing, food, or a job. But that is an interesting (and obvious) observation.


A system of government that ultimately recognizes the basic human right to be secure in one's property, is anarchic. A government, in the form a state, that recognizes human rights is an oxymoron, as the basic definition of a state is a territorial monopoly on the legal use of force, which inherently violates the only real human right, that of absolute sovreignty over one's property.

Please do not apply your preconceived notions of what a "government" or a "business" is to this intellectual experiment. The line between them has already been so blurred that it's not possible to distinguish one from the other.

[Robespierre]

What about the rights of the other living things on the planet?

Non-sentient things have no rights of any kind.


The forests and the animals?

See above.


What about the rights of future generations to live on a planet that has not been ravaged and had all the natural "resources" of property plundered by previous generations?

People who don't exist have no rights either.


I agree with you. Human beings have infinite wants and limited resources. However, "the right to be secure in one's property" is not the only basic human right.

I'm willing to accept that I may be mistaken, but simply negating my statement isn't enough. Why is self-ownership not a human right, and what do you propose IS a human right?


I don't recall mentioning anything about medical care or adequate housing, food, or a job. But that is an interesting (and obvious) observation.

I'm using a typical argument in opposition to my definition to better explain my point. I have not yet accused you of holding this position. How defensive...


Please do not apply your preconceived notions of what a "government" or a "business" is to this intellectual experiment.

Yeah right. We'll just stick with YOUR preconceived notions. A conversation is not possible without some agreed upon definitions beforehand. If you can suggest a better definition of "government" and "business" then please do. Otherwise, you are merely an emotional brigand.


The line between them has already been so blurred that it's not possible to distinguish one from the other.

In the US this is certainly true. However, this blurring has in no way changed the meaning of the words we use to describe them. Both government and business have involved themselves in the affairs of one another. However, it is possible to recognize a fundamental difference between how one operates, vs the other. Nation-states, by definition, represent coercive monopolies on the supply of legal services, among other things, over a defined area. Business is a coalition of individuals, on a voluntary basis, who have decided to pool their resources to provide some product or service to sell, usually for a profit. These are fundamentally different activities, as one MUST involve violence and the threat of violence, the nation-state.

[coffeezombie]

Non-sentient things have no rights of any kind.


Why do humans have rights and non-sentient things don't? Because we can make them up ourselves? What rights do we have that an animal should not have because it is an animal?

[Robespierre]

Why do humans have rights and non-sentient things don't? Because we can make them up ourselves? What rights do we have that an animal should not have because it is an animal?

We have rights because of our ability to recognize rights. Animals do not have this ability, at least with respect to humans. If a lion eats a man, is that lion violating the man's rights? I would say not, because animals do not have the proper relationship with man to make this possible. Animals may have some rights which concern themselves, territoriality, etc, but none of these things apply to humans, for the same reason that human rights don't apply to animals.

[Claverhouse]

The most basic and only human right to to be secure in one's property. Self-ownership being self-evident, this coveres the right to be secure in one's own body, and the full right to the product of one's labor. Where and how in a state of nature does this alleged 'right' come from, apart from 'It would be nice if that big chap didn't keep coming over and taking all my stuff: he shouldn't do that, there ought to be a law against him being mean.' ?

Any right of Ownership without governance of even the most basic kind to enforce it would generally be the right of the strong to own everyone else.

Which leads to another question... without a government to register land-transfer who would decide who owns what property ? Suppose, as it is possible to imagine, two --- or more --- persons both believe they have the sole rights to a property or item: who adjudicates in the absence of law ?

And if as in one of your instances roads are to be built by private persons or corporations, who will give them the land-rights to the land proposed to be used; and what happens if someone else's land stands between and he refuses to allow further progress of the road ? And suppose after people decide to use those roads without recompense to the builders, who will make them pay up ?

And why did you choose the title of the liberal statist Maximilien rather than say, Bakunin or possibly that of the tragic nutter Nechaev ? Both of whose irresponsible yearnings for anti-traditional freedom and universal equality all-over would have given you more in common with Indiejade, rather than identifying you with the guillotine...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

Where and how in a state of nature does this alleged 'right' come from, apart from 'It would be nice if that big chap didn't keep coming over and taking all my stuff: he shouldn't do that, there ought to be a law against him being mean.' ?

Self-ownership is a self-evident fact. Ownership is another word for control. Who else, but the individual, owns himself? Who but the individual has direct control over the movements of his muscles?


Any right of Ownership without governance of even the most basic kind to enforce it would generally be the right of the strong to own everyone else.

Why? What sort of "right to ownership" could possibly allow the strong to rule over the others? That sounds more like a society without property, like tribal or nomadic societies.


Which leads to another question... without a government to register land-transfer who would decide who owns what property ?

Homesteading. That person who improves the land from its original state, owns it. No broad government-style claims based upon discovery can be valid. Simply seeing something first doesn't create ownership, only mixing one's capital with the land can infuse something already owned, the effort of one's own body, with the previously unowned, the land.


Suppose, as it is possible to imagine, two --- or more --- persons both believe they have the sole rights to a property or item: who adjudicates in the absence of law ?

As I described in the corporate thread, systems of dispute resolution in a nation-stateless society cannot be predicted exactly. We can imagine some likely possibilities, like a private arbitration company, where both parties can go to settle disputes.


And if as in one of your instances roads are to be built by private persons or corporations, who will give them the land-rights to the land proposed to be used;

They may only use that land which individuals are willing to sell them, or which they improve from the unowned state of nature.


and what happens if someone else's land stands between and he refuses to allow further progress of the road?{/quote]

Then the road builder must find another way.

[QUOTE=Claverhouse]And suppose after people decide to use those roads without recompense to the builders, who will make them pay up ?

What if someone were to walk into a grocery store and eat the food, then leave? What would those stores do?

That's just another form of theft and tresspassing, and it is not difficult to imagine any number of ways in which private roads might handle payment, especially considering they exist, though not in great numbers, today in the US. Toll booths are one, very old, example.


And why did you choose the title of the liberal statist Maximilien rather than say, Bakunin or possibly that of the tragic nutter Nechaev?

The irony. Max Robespierre was my complete political opposite. He slept with a copy of Rouseau's writings at his side.


Both of whose irresponsible yearnings for anti-traditional freedom and universal equality all-over would have given you more in common with Indiejade, rather than identifying you with the guillotine...

I couldn't disagree more. Bakunin may have had some similar criticisms of the state, but his philosophy is one that recognizes no property or individual rights. He was an anarcho-communist, a very different sort of philosophy.

[ApeTheDog]

You guys seem to assume that the USA and the world are the same thing - or at least that what is best for the USA, is best for the other countries in the world as well. This thread started out wonderful, with the statement that the world is hurting, and that we should try and figure out a way to save our planet, but then it inexplicably turns into a discussion about what should be improved to the USA. It's a bit offensive that you just ignore the rest of the world like that, and even more so that you're not doing it on purpose, but don't seem to notice you're doing it.

Anyway. For me, the best government is a social democracy with good, free social security for everybody that the working class support based on their income. One part of the income goes into this fund, the largest part people can keep. Best of both world. In short, the belgian model, really.

[Circe]

All these terms being argued back and forth regarding "rights", "ownership", "corporations" etc.
This leaves me thinking - at what time in history did the human race elect to place their responsibility regarding "stewardship" under anesthesia?

[Robespierre]

You guys seem to assume that the USA and the world are the same thing - or at least that what is best for the USA, is best for the other countries in the world as well.

This is a typical mistake made by those who promote statism. It's the philosophy of "I know better than you, how you should live" put into practice.


This thread started out wonderful, with the statement that the world is hurting, and that we should try and figure out a way to save our planet

Yes, but the very premises which that statement was based upon are horribly flawwed. That is why the conversation took a sudden turn.


but then it inexplicably turns into a discussion about what should be improved to the USA.

What makes you think the conversation was only about the USA? Can you quote some passages?

Perhaps the US was provided in some examples, but the conversation is about the globe and the human race, and the use thereof. What about that limits it to the US?


It's a bit offensive that you just ignore the rest of the world like that, and even more so that you're not doing it on purpose, but don't seem to notice you're doing it.

If the rest of the world has got something to add, do so! Nothing I was speaking about applies only to the US.


Anyway. For me, the best government is a social democracy with good, free social security for everybody that the working class support based on their income.

So is your version of social security free, or is it looted from the working class? Both can't be true.


One part of the income goes into this fund, the largest part people can keep. Best of both world. In short, the belgian model, really.

And what if your neighbor in Belgium doesn't think this model is best? Will you ask the government of Belgium to point a gun at him and force him to "contribute"?

[Robespierre]

This leaves me thinking - at what time in history did the human race elect to place their responsibility regarding "stewardship" under anesthesia?

And just when in history did this "stewardship" begin, under what terms, and for how long?

[Circe]

And just when in history did this "stewardship" begin, under what terms, and for how long?I have no idea when "stewardship" began. Yet, there is certainly evidence that this played a major aspect in the lives of different countries' aboriginal inhabitants before invasion or colonization.

[Robespierre]

I have no idea when "stewardship" began. Yet, there is certainly evidence that this played a major aspect in the lives of different countries' aboriginal inhabitants before invasion or colonization.

So it was some code that people chose to live by?

[Circe]

So it was some code that people chose to live by?I don't know. Subjectively "observing" as an outsider, it appears more of a "bond" than that of a "code". A code seems "imposed" upon from outside, whereas a "bond" is a connection formed from within.

[Robespierre]

I don't know. Subjectively "observing" as an outsider, it appears more of a "bond" than that of a "code". A code seems "imposed" upon from outside, whereas a "bond" is a connection formed from within.

And if someone doesn't feel that same "bond", do the others who feel the "bond" in a different way have the right to use violence to stop the one who disagrees?

[ApeTheDog]

What makes you think the conversation was only about the USA? Can you quote some passages?

Well, sure. For starters in the first post, the time machine puts us in the USA, in the place of the people writing the US constitution. The third post talks of the indians, and the european dominance in the USA. And in the fourth one starts with 'here are some changes I would make to the US'.

I don't mind this, but the thread title should then reflect this thread is about the USA, not the world so people like me won't feel like they can't contribute.


Perhaps the US was provided in some examples, but the conversation is about the globe and the human race, and the use thereof. What about that limits it to the US?

Well I have to follow the premise. I'm in a time machine taking the place of the founding fathers. I'm entirely limited to the USA. But yes, this is nitpicking on my department - it is not a big deal to me and I don't really want to make an argument out of it.


If the rest of the world has got something to add, do so! Nothing I was speaking about applies only to the US.

Okay, I might.


So is your version of social security free, or is it looted from the working class? Both can't be true.

Looted? Is that an official term?

It is free for everybody - in that nobody has to pay to receive the benefits of it. It's is not free in that it costs the working class no money but then I mentioned that in the same sentence, so you can hardly claim I'm trying to obscure that fact. But again. Looted? Feeling a bit prejudiced, are we?


And what if your neighbor in Belgium doesn't think this model is best? Will you ask the government of Belgium to point a gun at him and force him to "contribute"?

Well, the model is really good. Nobody can predict whether or not they'll end up with a horrible disease somewhere along the line of their life they won't be prepared for - and this way, they always are. Belgian hospitals are amongst the best in the world, there's a very short waiting list. But if my neighbour thinks the system is not to his liking, then there is nothing he can do about it.

I hardly think you can blame Belgium for this, though. There are many things, I'm sure, that some citizens of the USA do not like about their country as well, and which - you'll have to admit - they're equally powerless to change as the Belgian who dislikes our social security. That's just how it is.

Does the USA government point a gun at the heads of people who dislike how it does things? Of course not. And, obviously, neither does the Belgian one.

[Circe]

And if someone doesn't feel that same "bond", do the others who feel the "bond" in a different way have the right to use violence to stop the one who disagrees?I'm not understanding what you are infering here. Where does this new "variable" of violence come into play?
Stewardship is not "owership", it is "mindfulness"/"respectful care" of something that is entrusted to you. "Stewardship" is the awareness that you do not "own" the earth.

[Robespierre]

Well, sure. For starters in the first post, the time machine puts us in the USA, in the place of the people writing the US constitution. The third post talks of the indians, and the european dominance in the USA. And in the fourth one starts with 'here are some changes I would make to the US'.

And as I said, some examples using the US were used. How does this choice of example limit the discussion on such a broad topic ONLY to the US? Most of those posting likely live in the US, and can best explain their points using US examples.


I don't mind this, but the thread title should then reflect this thread is about the USA, not the world so people like me won't feel like they can't contribute.

Well the thread IS about the world, not just the USA. This seems like a typical overly defesive reaction to americans. No one is being excluded. If you want to see some examples outside of the US, provide them yourself! I certainly don't have a problem with this.


Well I have to follow the premise. I'm in a time machine taking the place of the founding fathers. I'm entirely limited to the USA.

Okay, I might.

Looted? Is that an official term?

Of course not. Why would the theif tell you he is a theif if he doesn't have to? Looting is not the official term for taxation, but that is exactly what it is. People are subjected to a wide-scale threat of retribution if they don't allow the government to take all it wants from their property. If taxation were in any way voluntary, it would not be looting.


It is free for everybody - in that nobody has to pay to receive the benefits of it.

Really? Then why do they collect taxes? Where does the money come from?


It's is not free in that it costs the working class no money but then I mentioned that in the same sentence, so you can hardly claim I'm trying to obscure that fact. Again. Looted? Feeling a bit prejudiced, are we?

No honest discussion of government retirement schemes or social welfare devices can be had without using terms like "looted". Anything more benign doesn't express the true nature of coercive government.


Well, the model is really good.

How can a model based upon violent expropriation of wealth be a good one?


Nobody can predict whether or not they'll end up with a horrible disease somewhere along the line of their life they won't be prepared for

I agree. No one can know the future. But why should people be allowed to take from their neighbor simply because they chose not to prepare themselves?


- and this way, they always are. Belgian hospitals are amongst the best in the world, there's no waiting list at all. But if my neighbour thinks the system is not to his liking, then there is nothing he can do about it.

Not only is there nothing he can do about it, but he must continue to be robbed day in and day out to pay for this very system of which he disapproves.


I hardly think you can blame Belgium for this, though. There are many things, I'm sure, that citizens of the USA do not like about their country as well, and which - you'll have to admit - they're equally powerless to change as the belgian who dislikes our social security.

Exactly. No nation-state can exist that respects individual liberty.


Does the USA government point a gun at their heads? Of course not. And, obviously, neither does the Belgian one.

What!? Of course they do, both of them. Do you suppose that taxes are optional? If I choose to stop paying for public schools, and refuse to pay my property taxes, I will eventually be evicted. And how do you suppose they will convince me to leave my property? At the point of a gun. All government authority flows from the threat of violence. Anything a government does, it does with the understanding that those who oppose it will suffer the use of lethal force or threats thereof. Whether or not you approve of this is a seperate matter, but the fact of government coercion is not debatable.

[Robespierre]

I'm not understanding what you are infering here. Where does this new "variable" of violence come into play?
Stewardship is not "owership", it is "mindfulness"/"respectful care" of something that is entrusted to you. "Stewardship" is the awareness that you do not "own" the earth.

Do you mean that stewardship is the awareness that one does not own the entire earth, or that one does not own any portion of the earth at all?

[Circe]

Do you mean that stewardship is the awareness that one does not own the entire earth, or that one does not own any portion of the earth at all?What is the basis of your thinking where you need to separate one from the other?

[Robespierre]

What is the basis of your thinking where you need to separate one from the other?

I was asking you a question, not making a statement. Does your concept of stewardship imply that no one can own any part of the earth?

[ApeTheDog]

Alright then. Then I protest the premise. Set the time machine so it can take us back anywhere.

Looting is where you take something violently and give nothing back, taxation is where you take something and use that money to provide services. They're not the same. Besides, let's not kid ourselves, looting is used in speeches and arguments like this because it has negative connotations that unsatisfied people are quick to agree with, not because it describes so accurately what happens. I prefer redistribution.



How can a model based upon violent expropriation of wealth be a good one?

You're being simplistic here. The system's merit is not that is expropriates wealth, so that is not what determines it's worth either. The systems merit is that it provides everybody in the country with efficient health care when they need it. I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.


What!? Of course they do, both of them. Do you suppose that taxes are optional? If I choose to stop paying for public schools, and refuse to pay my property taxes, I will eventually be evicted. And how do you suppose they will convince me to leave my property? At the point of a gun. All government authority flows from the threat of violence. Anything a government does, it does with the understanding that those who oppose it will suffer the use of lethal force or threats thereof. Whether or not you approve of this is a seperate matter, but the fact of government coercion is not debatable.

Oh fine. If you're talking metaphorically, then yes, there's a gun there. There are guns everywhere. The gun is not there because the person does not like the system, though - but because the person does not want to do his part, yet wants the benefits. In short, the gun is there because the person steals from the system (the roads he drives on must still be maintained for him, and so on)

[Circe]

I was asking you a question, not making a statement. Does your concept of stewardship imply that no one can own any part of the earth?Yes, and all are responsible for its care.
[Edit] Please help to satisfy my curiosity, what prompted that question?

[Robespierre]

Yes, and all are responsible for its care.

Then property and human nature is a central part of your argument. You argue that there can be no property.

Okay, so assuming you are correct(and I don't think you are, just playing along for argument's sake), who decides how to care for the earth? What does the earth need to survive? Should it be protected from change? If one species finds itself on a new continent, and expands rapidly there, out competing some native species, should man be concerned about stopping it?

[Robespierre]

[Edit] Please help to satisfy my curiosity, what prompted that question?

I'm working up to that. I think there is a basic flaw in your idea of stewardship, and am trying to expose it in a somewhat socratic method. If you find it tedious, I can just let rip with my whole disagreement.

[Circe]

There are guns everywhere. ... In short, the gun is there because the person steals from the system (the roads he drives on must still be maintained for him, and so on)An observation only, thinking out loud.
Are guns due to a fundamental belief of "scarcity"?

[Robespierre]

Alright then. Then I protest the premise. Set the time machine so it can take us back anywhere.

Looting is where you take something violently and give nothing back, taxation is where you take something and use that money to provide services.

And who is to say that the individual who opposes the taxation is getting anything back? That the entire point. The individual is free to judge the results of some action, and decide if they are beneficial or detrimental. The only difference between looting and taxation is that the tax-collector is more stealthy, the people he steals from oft-times don't realize they are being victimized.


They're not the same. Besides, let's not kid ourselves, looting is used in speeches and arguments like this because it has negative connotations that unsatisfied people are quick to agree with, not because it describes so accurately what happens. I prefer redistribution.

I specifically stated that I used the term looting because it accurately describes the nature of the act involved. It is not optional, and it results in a non-voluntary removal of property. Call it redistribution, call it leveling, call it taxation, call it whatever you like. So long as you express the fact that it is not voluntary.


You're being simplistic here. The system's merit is not that is expropriates wealth, so that is not what determines it's worth either.

Each individual has an entire subjective valuation of the world. There is no objective right or wrong "value" of anything, only that which a certain individual decides.


The systems merit is that it provides everybody in the country with efficient health care when they need it. I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.

So the ends justify the means?


Oh fine. If you're talking metaphorically, then yes, there's a gun there.

No, not metaphorically, literally. If you don't do as your told, and hand over the loot, people come after you with very real guns.


There are guns everywhere. The gun is not there because the person does not like the system, though - but because the person does not want to do his part, yet wants the benefits.

Assume much? This is absurd. Why do you assume that someone who dislikes having his property stolen wants something for nothing? Isn't the opposite true? That the individual only wants property rights respected, and those who impose violent redistribution schemes wish to supply something for nothing?


In short, the gun is there because the person steals from the system (the roads he drives on must still be maintained for him, and so on)

So because the system imposes itself on everyone, and limits individual liberty everywhere, no one is entitled to resist it? You haven't even given people a choice.

Do you deny that the so called "benefits" of government are imposed at the point of gun? If so, how can you claim that an individual who resents this, is in some way the theif!?

[Robespierre]

Are guns due to a fundamental belief of "scarcity"?

The guns that are used by government are literal. They are not metaphorical in any sense.

The violence used by governments is identical to that violence used by mafias to protect their territory. Those who don't pay the protection money, are roughed up, until they change their minds. Ultimately, they must pay up or die.

[Circe]

Then property and human nature is a central part of your argument. You argue that there can be no property.
No, I do not argue that. Property does not equal possessions.


Okay, so assuming you are correct(and I don't think you are, just playing along for argument's sake),
I have no time nor interest in play. It is very late here, you never answered my question to you. I am waiting, although I am heading off to bed.


who decides how to care for the earth? What does the earth need to survive? Should it be protected from change? If one species finds itself on a new continent, and expands rapidly there, out competing some native species, should man be concerned about stopping it?I find no point at all in responding to these questions, since there is no mutual exchange taking place. "Extraction" of information is very one sided to this point.
Good night.

[Circe]

The guns that are used by government are literal. They are not metaphorical in any sense.
Really? Well, blow me over with a feather. I learn something new each day.
Thank you for that enlightenment.
Again, good night.

[Robespierre]

No, I do not argue that. Property does not equal possessions.

What does property mean to you, if not that which is owned?


I have no time nor interest in play. It is very late here, you never answered my question to you. I am waiting, although I am heading off to bed.

I've answered every question you posed.


I find no point at all in responding to these questions, since there is no mutual exchange taking place. "Extraction" of information is very one sided to this point.
Good night.

Wow, you gave up fairly quick. Why not pose your questions directly? I have already done quite a bit of expository writing on these topics of property, morality, self-ownership, and human nature. I don't like repeating everything I have written on here for each and every new entrant into the discussion. I was attempting to steer the discussion into waters where it could be meaningful. If you have something to say, or disagree with what I am saying, make with the writing.

[Robespierre]

Really? Well, blow me over with a feather. I learn something new each day.
Thank you for that enlightenment.
Again, good night.

If you disagree, feel free to explain yourself. Or are you above that?

[ApeTheDog]

And who is to say that the individual who opposes the taxation is getting anything back? That the entire point. The individual is free to judge the results of some action, and decide if they are beneficial or detrimental. The only difference between looting and taxation is that the tax-collector is more stealthy, the people he steals from oft-times don't realize they are being victimized.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Of course the invididual who opposed the taxation is getting something back. He still lives in a country with soldiers defending his borders that need to be paid, he drives on roads maintained by taxes. So yes, the individual who opposed taxation gets something back. So no, there are many more differences between looting and taxation other than a stealth-factor.


I specifically stated that I used the term looting because it accurately describes the nature of the act involved. It is not optional, and it results in a non-voluntary removal of property. Call it redistribution, call it leveling, call it taxation, call it whatever you like. So long as you express the fact that it is not voluntary.

Okay. It is not voluntary. Is a system possible in which taxes are voluntary? Possibly, although if you ask me it is bound to fail due to being overly complicated and unreliable.


No, not metaphorically, literally. If you don't do as your told, and hand over the loot, people come after you with very real guns.

Yes, but not entirely literal either then, because nobody has held an actual gun to my head in my entire life, and I've paid taxes. A metaphorical gun, I'll admit to. But this is a stupid point.


Assume much? This is absurd. Why do you assume that someone who dislikes having his property stolen wants something for nothing? Isn't the opposite true? That the individual only wants property rights respected, and those who impose violent redistribution schemes wish to supply something for nothing?

Well, you'll want to be able to drive to your property, and you'll want the army to be there to protect it from other countries. The government acts in function of it's people and their properties.


So because the system imposes itself on everyone, and limits individual liberty everywhere, no one is entitled to resist it? You haven't even given people a choice.

But a form of organisation is needed. You cannot do without one. And you also cannot adapt the system for every disgruntled individual. It is possible to change the system - it is not being imposed on you. Politics exist for that very reason.


Do you deny that the so called "benefits" of government are imposed at the point of gun? If so, how can you claim that an individual who resents this, is in some way the theif!?

Because that's what using services, and not paying for them, comes down to. And it is wrong that these services are being forced upon you, yes - but in this case an exception is the only workeable solution. It is vital that a country works, so unless there's an option available that does allow for total individual freedom this is the only thing and everybody must submit to it.

Do you like breathing in polluted air? Me neither. It's either that, or not breathe at all, though. Do you like acid rain in your garden, instead of the normal kind? Everybody has a right to his freedom too, but it is simply not a workeable option at the moment.

[Robespierre]

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. Of course the invididual who opposed the taxation is getting something back.

So it is perfectly okay, in your opinion, to violently remove a portion of someone's property, if you give them something in return? If that person wanted what you were providing to begin with, why wouldn't he simply exchange for it without the violence being needed?


He still lives in a country with soldiers defending his borders that need to be paid, he drives on roads maintained by taxes. So yes, the individual who opposed taxation gets something back. So no, there are many more differences between looting and taxation other than a stealth-factor.

I don't see it. Those are all equal impositions and crimes against individual liberty. There is nothing that can justify the government near-monopoly on road ownership and operation.


Okay. It is not voluntary. Is a system possible in which taxes are voluntary?

Sure, but then they wouldn't be taxes, they would be subscription fees, or club dues, something that is optional.


Possibly, although if you ask me it is bound to fail due to being overly complicated and unreliable.

Individual liberty will fail because it is unreliable and overly complicated? Well, I won't force you to live my way if you don't force me to live your way. Is that reasonable?


Yes, but not entirely literal either then, because nobody has held an actual gun to my head in my entire life

Perhaps not, but the threat is there. It is a real threat, not a metaphorical one. If you don't do as they say, you get the gun eventually. If you walk into a bank and tell them to hand over the cash or you'll shoot them, but you have a gun in your pocket where it cannot be seen, has crime still been committed? I woud say it has.


and I've paid taxes. A metaphorical gun, I'll admit to. But this is a stupid point.

Stupid why? You admit youself that taxes are not voluntary. You even say that a non-voluntary system wouldn't work.


Well, you'll want to be able to drive to your property, and you'll want the army to be there to protect it from other countries.

You can read my mind now?


The government acts in function of it's people and their properties.

Why? Why can the people act in their own best interests? Don't you see what happens in ALL cases where some group consolidates national control into a nation-state? The government ceases to be about the individuals' best interests, and acts in ways that promote the government's own interests. Even if a government were capable of acting in the interests of the voting majority, as the naive believe democracies do, that still leaves a large portion of society which is completely ransacked of their rights.


But a form of organisation is needed.

Of course. Humans are social animals, and need to interact with one another to survive. I suggest that property rights represent the best form of organization yet devised.


You cannot do without one. And you also cannot adapt the system for every disgruntled individual.

Which is exactly why having one over-arching system is so incredibly wrong. Democracy is a travesty.


It is possible to change the system - it is not being imposed on you. Politics exist for that very reason.

So are taxes optional or not? Because here you seem to imply that they are not "imposed on me". Indeed the system IS imposed on all within its borders, no matter what nation-state you live in. If you don't think the system works and wish to be no part of it, you have no option.


Because that's what using services, and not paying for them, comes down to.

So if I come into your house with a gun, shine your shoes, then point the gun at you and demand $10, you would be stealing from me if you didn't pay?


And it is wrong that these services are being forced upon you, yes - but in this case an exception is the only workeable solution.

So the ends do justify the means? There are some goals which are so important, that acting in a moral way to obtain them is not important?


It is vital that a country works

Works how? What is vital about having a parasitic class of politicians directing society for their own personal gain?


so unless there's an option available that does allow for total individual freedom this is the only thing and everybody must submit to it.

Submit to freedom? A more logic way to frame that would be: everyone must refrain from aggression.


Do you like breathing in polluted air?

My air quality is just fine. No thanks to the government which systematically eliminated property rights in air-space by justifying the means of air pollution with the end of industrialization.


Me neither. It's either that, or not breathe at all, though.

And government is the ONLY way to avoid pollution? Wow, Russia should be a pristine evironment then, what with all the government they've had for the past 80 years.


Do you like acid rain in your garden

Nope, do you? Why promote governments, the institution that promotes air pollution by weakening property rights, and promotes it by subsidising the contruction of roads?


, instead of the normal kind? Everybody has a right to his freedom too, but it is simply not a workeable option at the moment.

I can't express how sick this last statement makes me. Everyone has a right to his freedom, but it's not workable? By who's opinion? What do you mean by workable? When WILL it be workable? What concern is there that trumps individual liberty?

[sbw]

I'm so happy that robespierre is here. robie, are you actually alan greenspan? and if you are, do you need a research assistant or anything?

and ape, I'll admit that I didn't read the entire post for context, but the above statement (the one at the end of the most recent post) makes me sick, too, without even having to search for context.

There's probably a reason that continental europe is flat broke and getting worse.

Scott

[Robespierre]

I'm so happy that robespierre is here. robie, are you actually alan greenspan? and if you are, do you need a research assistant or anything?

....

There's probably a reason that continental europe is flat broke and getting worse.

Scott


I'm AG's worst nightmare.

And most of the european social democracies are barely treading water right now. They are staying afloat by over-taxing their own people, and encouraging immigration. It's a house of cards.

[Sally]

(You've probably already addressed this, but just pretend that I haven't been following any of your discussions. ...Because I haven't been. :))

Don't you think that sheer human nature is that people will form groups for their own betterment, and those groups will consolidate power until they are overthrown by individuals who will, in turn, form power-seeking groups?

How would you manipulate human nature to break the cycle?

[coffeezombie]

Robespierre would certainly get killed soon and quickly by some corporate power under a libertarian system.

[Sally]

Robespierre would certainly get killed soon and quickly by some corporate power under a libertarian system.

Dude, your avatar. Your posts seem.... so much more awake now.

[Robespierre]

(You've probably already addressed this, but just pretend that I haven't been following any of your discussions. ...Because I haven't been. :))

Don't you think that sheer human nature is that people will form groups for their own betterment, and those groups will consolidate power until they are overthrown by individuals who will, in turn, form power-seeking groups?

How would you manipulate human nature to break the cycle?

You're absolutely correct in your observation. It seems clear that people are social animals. It would seem that humans tend to act in violent ways that disprespect others in most spheres, with social organization being no exception. History demonstrates this. Societies form, and then some group attempts to consolidate power over them by using violence.

I don't think human nature can/should be manipulated. I think that crime and violence will always exist, and any system that proposes to eliminate it entirely is likely a trick.

My only hope is to spread the ideas that I think are correct, and wait for people to accept at least some of the views on their own. At least challenging some fairly obvious assumptions seems like a good exercise.

[Sally]

You're absolutely correct in your observation. It seems clear that people are social animals. It would seem that humans tend to act in violent ways that disprespect others in most spheres, with social organization being no exception. History demonstrates this. Societies form, and then some group attempts to consolidate power over them by using violence.

I don't think human nature can/should be manipulated. I think that crime and violence will always exist, and any system that proposes to eliminate it entirely is likely a trick.

My only hope is to spread the ideas that I think are correct, and wait for people to accept at least some of the views on their own. At least challenging some fairly obvious assumptions seems like a good exercise.

Fair enough.

[coffeezombie]

Dude, your avatar. Your posts seem.... so much more awake now.

Yu-Gi-Oh was on television. I thought a Kaiba avatar was in order.

[indie]

I don't mind this, but the thread title should then reflect this thread is about the USA, not the world so people like me won't feel like they can't contribute.

This thread is not and was not intended to be about the USA. That's why there are two threads. . . the Corporate Greed one and this one THIS one is about something entirely different, however, *somebody* has hijacked it with arguments that belong in the other thread.


So we have a time machine. We go back to, say, 1780 when the US Capitalism system did not exist, yet, but something will. . . some world-changing form of government is waiting to happen. Instead of Jefferson and Edison (and whovever, history is not my best subject), there is us, a crazy but brilliant bunch of INTPs.

This is what this thread is about.

The fact is that US Capitalism started in the US, when once upon a time it did not significantly affect the rest of the world. In 2005, it does significantly affect the rest of the world.

The fact remains that once upon a time, the US government was set up to protect the interests of old white landowning men. Oh, wow, isn't it interesting that most corporations (namely the largest ones with the most influence: GM, GE, Chevron, etc.) put old white guys in the position of power.

Those old, white landowning men sure do get defensive when you challenge their very belief system, because as US Capitalism was established, blacks had no right to own land. Or women. Women are not as special as men, so they shouldn't own land either, because women just aren't as smart as men, right Robespierre? Did you not refer to me as "psychopathic" and later say this?


Of course not, my opinions cut off your illogical and self-pittying arguments against individual liberty. Freedom for you is lovely, but freedom for anyone else seems to scare you.

I don't recall you ever resorting to that low level with any of the males you've argued with on this forum.

* * *

ANYWAY, enough of that. Back to our time machine. . .

Project Karma is now in session.

What do we need to do? Here are a few starting points:

* Money. . . who makes it and how is supply determined?
* Land . . . ownership should it be "finders keepers" or is there a better way? What about preserving space, habitats, and natural resources for future generations?
* Security. . . we aren't established yet, so we probably don't have any enemies. How to prevent from making them? Or do we just make a bunch of guns and weapons and start threatening those people who have the things we want?
* Crime. . . some people will steal, rape, murder. How should these people be dealt with, if at all? If we decide to deal with them, rather than letting them wander, who should pay for it?

[sbw]

(ok, I've read the whole thing to catch up)

indie, you're just being mean. robie WAS addressing your questions--look at the questions immediately above. he was talking about homesteading, etc., which DIRECTLY ADDRESSES the bold-type land question in the above post; another of those bold-type questions is security, and one of the primary concerns to be addressed in any society is preserving/protecting the security of the individual against the power of the state. (societies with property rights and contracts enforceable via judicial process seem to do better with this, strangely enough; obviously, there are varying degrees of success here.) so therefore, by virtue of the part about taxes and their enforcement with the socialist guy, another of your questions was met with a DIRECT RESPONSE.

and also, I think your repeated comments regarding "old white men" represent the same sort of bias for which you apparently condemn those old cracker dudes.

Scott

[sbw]

I'm AG's worst nightmare.

And most of the european social democracies are barely treading water right now. They are staying afloat by over-taxing their own people, and encouraging immigration. It's a house of cards.

I know you are...another thing I've heard about is their existing retirement welfare programs, which, given zero economic growth and negative population growth, face an even worse crunch than the social security system here in the united states. how long before the house of cards comes tumbling down?

(see, whoever was bitching about american predominance earlier, I AM paying attention to you guys! and I'm in the southern U.S., allegedly the most bass-ackward, bigoted, redneck, xenophobic part of this whole allegedly horrible country...get over your continent-wide inferiority complex!)

Scott

[Circe]

This thread is not and was not intended to be about the USA. That's why there are two threads. . . the Corporate Greed one and this one THIS one is about something entirely different, however, *somebody* has hijacked it with arguments that belong in the other thread. indiejade,
My apologies if you thought I was attempting to "hijack" this Project Karma discussion, that was certainly never my intention. I do have concerns regarding Earth and hold contempt for the megalomania "governing" the present direction of the planet. I entered this thread's discussion as a concerned resident of Earth, that was all.
I offer my apologies.

[indie]

No, it's all good, Circe, it wasn't you.


indie, you're just being mean. robie WAS addressing your questions--look at the questions immediately above. he was talking about homesteading, etc., which DIRECTLY ADDRESSES the bold-type land question in the above post; another of those bold-type questions is security, and one of the primary concerns to be addressed in any society is preserving/protecting the security of the individual against the power of the state. (societies with property rights and contracts enforceable via judicial process seem to do better with this, strangely enough; obviously, there are varying degrees of success here.) so therefore, by virtue of the part about taxes and their enforcement with the socialist guy, another of your questions was met with a DIRECT RESPONSE.

and also, I think your repeated comments regarding "old white men" represent the same sort of bias for which you apparently condemn those old cracker dudes.

Yeah, THANKS

How is that mean? How is challenging the centuries-old tradition upon which US capitalism favors "old white men" and you forgot landowning -- mean or biased? Last time I checked, "biased" is favoring one race or gender or age or social status above the other, and everything I've stated thus far has done no such thing. I never said they should "not" be allowed to own land, only that they should not be the only ones allowed to.

The essence of US Capitalism was based upon the notion that only white men should own land. Go back to the basics. Years have passed and things have changed a little bit, but guess who is still in power? Tell me that doesn't have anything to do with the basic structure put in place by the founding forefathers? Imagine if the continental congress had been made up of a more diverse group of people. . . that is what this is aiming for.

For hell's sake, open your damn minds to new concepts and ideas instead of going back to your crutch of those which have been "invented" by white men, like the "homesteading, etc" you spoke of. Imagine how different the world would be if this had not been structured to restrict people based upon gender or race:

Notice the bolded statements. My comments are in blue.


In the United States, the Homestead Act (1862) allowed anyone to claim up to 160 acres (647,000 m²) of land. In 1862 neither women nor blacks had rights to own land After clearing and working the land for five years, the homesteader would receive title to the land from the government. In this sense, homesteading was a means of obtaining land, and was the most important and prevalent means of settlement in the late 19th century. The Act was an embodiment of the broader legal homestead principle.

Currently the term homesteading applies to anyone who is a part of the back to the land movement and who chooses to live a sustainable, self-sufficient lifestyle. While land is no longer freely available in most areas of the world, Because guess who got it first? homesteading remains as a way of life.

[Circe]

.. and one of the primary concerns to be addressed in any society is preserving/protecting the security of the individual against the power of the state.
Where and from who did "the state" gain control of this power in the first instance?
I see external means of government/"state" have been established and continue to develop "control" due to the surrendering/relinguishing of personal responsibility, at some point in time, over to another.

[Robespierre]

Yep. You've got it right here folks. According to IndieJade, individual liberty is just a contrivance to perpetuate the power of white men.

I will also point out that the US government did not invent the term or the concept of homesteading.

[ApeTheDog]

I can't express how sick this last statement makes me. Everyone has a right to his freedom, but it's not workable? By who's opinion? What do you mean by workable? When WILL it be workable? What concern is there that trumps individual liberty?

This is what I dislike about this quotefucking argumentation style. If you look at everything out of context, some things aren't going to make sense, no. Plus we're not getting anywhere like this.

Follow the analogy. There's a right to clean air - but you can't have clean air because the air is polluted. You have a right to not be taxed, to not be forced to pay for road mainatinance, but you can't have it because it's not a possibility. It's very much the same thing - and that's my meaning.

I said that if you're not happy with how thigns are, you can change them - they're not being forced on you, they're being agreed upon by you, and everybody. You can go into politics, you can change things. If you and a lot of other people wanted to, they could turn your country into a communism, or an anarchy even if needed.

It's a very hard system to work, but it doesn't discriminate people. However, if you are one individual who does not like how things are done, and there are millions of others who do like how things are done - I think it's only normal you're not going to get things done your way.

If you don't like taxes, Robespierre, go into politics, work it out, convince everybody - and you'll have your way. The system does not hold you back my friend. It is you being the only person who thinks this way that does.

[sbw]

Yep. You've got it right here folks. According to IndieJade, individual liberty is just a contrivance to perpetuate the power of white men.

I will also point out that the US government did not invent the term or the concept of homesteading.

I was about to point out the second part of that; thanks, dude.

Scott

[sbw]

This is what I dislike about this quotefucking argumentation style. If you look at everything out of context, some things aren't going to make sense, no. Plus we're not getting anywhere like this.


go and re-read that commie's quote; nothing was taken out of context. He was saying some downright orwellian shit, and it is nauseating.

Scott

[sbw]

No, it's all good, Circe, it wasn't you.

Yeah, THANKS

How is that mean?

indie, I'll respond to the homesteading thing and your astonishing presumptuousness when I've more time...for the moment, I just wanted to clarify as to the above quote: I was only stating that I thought robie's comments yesterday DID address the topic, so when you said *someone* hijacked your thread, I thought that was a bit unfair. That was all I was referring to.

thanks,

Scott

[Apostasius]

I’m probably getting in over my head, but with respect to Project Karma…

We go back in a time machine to about 1780, probably in the U.S., because the point of the project seems to be a recreation of a system that did not yet exist. Most other countries would have had a system of government and history that would require us to go much farther back in time. If I understand indiejade’s concern, we are looking at a tabula rasa, if you will, wherein we as INTPs could “get things right” (if such a thing is ever possible). Now of course, if we go back to 1780, we would have to be aware of the cultural and political milieu in various parts of the world that might affect trade or whatever. Do we really want to account for the global condition in 1780, or do we simply want to develop a system without reference to any other? With respect to the objective, we (or at least those of us who agree) want a system that would not be dominated by corporate power or other things that have negatively affected the environment.

It seems that power would be the place to begin. By power, I am not referring to energy but to an intellectual and/or social construct. To me, it seems that we would want some order and structure. In order to establish order, it seems that some structure of power should be established. For example, I guess the questions might be: (1) do we want a system of centralized power, (2) a system wherein power is located provincially, or (3) do we want only the power of individuals?

Personally, I would be drawn to a system of centralized power but one that is neither a dictatorship nor an oligarchy—unless, of course we can agree on some benevolent and rational oligarchy such as ourselves. :)

I'm sure I'll be lambasted as some commy, but I think I would like to see all land "owned" by a central government (keeping in mind that the central gov't would not be some totatiltarian regime). Citizens would then rent or license property. This has the advantage that if use of property is abused (e.g., unrestrained logging), the government could reclaim it from the "offender" and redistribute it. Secondly, areas of great pristine beauty would not be doled out but would be accessible to all (something akin to the National Park system).

Come to think of it. I probably would have been considered a federalist in the 1780s in the U.S.

Of course, this is probably very unrealistic, but these are ideas that just came to me off the top of my head. I'm sure the libertarians and anarchists among us will tear this apart. Perhaps rightfully so. Anyway...

[sbw]

the whole discussion is unrealistic, apostasius; that's what makes it so much fun.

The problem with the government "owning" the land is that they would eventually decide to do what's in the best interests of the government (i.e., the people at the very top of the food chain of that particular government) at the expense of the citizens. This happens EVERY time, and I'm not being metaphorical or hyperbolic (circe and indie--PAGING LORD ACTON). Look at human history; countless examples of repression, imprisonment, and murder have come from the best of intentions.

My personal opinion is that communism (in any form) can't work because most people are fuckin' useless; concomitantly, anarcho-capitalism cannot succeed because, again, most people are useless, but in this case the useless would have to start stealing in order to eat. As such, (traditional) liberal capitalism as governed by enforceable property rights seems like the way to go, as it doesn't require (once again, commies, this is COMPLETELY LITERAL) extortion at gunpoint the way both communism and our current (in the U.S.) non-voluntary taxation system both require, and also provides a check upon the (very similar) extortion-at-gunpoint which would occur between SOME citizens in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Obviously, I have a dim view of humanity on the whole; but where others are of the opinion that humans are not "kind" or "unselfish" or "altruistic" enough for communism to work, I simply think that humans are not sufficiently honest, respectful of private property, or (in most cases) competent enough for anarcho-capitalism to work.

Overall, I just think our species is poorly designed (not yet far-enough evolved?) for the social interactions required by existience, thus making it impossible for any governmental system to be entirely successful...that's why we all waste our time posting here.

Scott

[indie]

Yep. You've got it right here folks. According to IndieJade, individual liberty is just a contrivance to perpetuate the power of white men.

Do not attribute statements like that to me. The words "individual liberty" have not been stated once in this thread (or anywhere, ever) by me, and especially not in relation to the power of white men. The word "corporation," however, has been stated numerous times and in relation to the power of white men.

So, I take it that it is your opinion that the "individual liberty" and "corporation" are the same "wonderful things" and the answer to all of the problems of the world? I take it you view the terms as interchangable? I strongly disagree with that. The concept of individual liberty is merely a front that human beings, with their egos and insatiable desires, use to validate their reasoning to causing harm and destruction to other beings and the planet itself.


I will also point out that the US government did not invent the term or the concept of homesteading.

No, of course not. They did, however, "invent" the Homesteading Act, which is pretty relevant to this discussion, and why I referred to it. You're so busy trying to suffocate everyone else with your viewpoints that you're totally missing the point of this discussion, Robespierre. It's getting very tiresome. So bye, have fun on "ignore."

* * *

It is my belief that capitalism is not all bad. There are certainly good things about creating more "wealth" for all and having that "wealth" distributed in an efficient manner, rather than having a government do it.

However, there are numerous problems created when completely ungoverned entities are allowed to run free and with no check. In essence, the ungoverned entities (corporations) become "a government," in that they have the power and control over the people. . . and as they merge, they get bigger and bigger (inevitable in a free-market society), their power grows even more. If they control the supply, they control the price. They can charge whatever price they want, and that is not good.

So, what it boils down to is that the questions that business ask themselves are the exact same ones that governments must ask themselves:

1. What to produce?
2. How to produce it?
3. How to price it?
4. How to distribute it?
5. How to distribute the "wealth" created by the gap between the cost and the price?

1. What to produce? For governments, the answer is usually "money," and for businesses, the answer is usually "stuff" or "services." History has shown us that everybody is better off when everybody agrees on a single form of currency.

2. How to produce it? Once upon a time, the US Govt produced money in accordance with supply of gold and silver. . . two very limitless resources.

3. How to price it? This is where it gets fun.

4. How to distribute it? This is where the "land" debate is mostly concerned. But if you'll notice. . . it's only one of several questions that need to be answered. Land (on earth, anyway) = finite, what everybody wants, and it therefore never goes down in value. It's the single most valuable thing to anyone. What to do about that?

5. How to distribute the "wealth" created by the gap between the cost and the price? This one is mostly on the business side, but it applies to governments as well. Whereas governments usually have an obligation to return the wealth to the people (tax refunds, etc), businesses don't. What businesses *should,* do, and what they are expected to do is distribute the wealth to the owners (stockholders), but what they usually end up doing is distributing it to the bosses (the CEOs and etc), since those who are in the position of power get to answer the question! Not directly, but it happens. That's an entire tangent, so I won't go into it here, but it happens.

That's what's wrong with corporate America, the outrageous CEO pay to the rich white men who can use the "gap" to further themselves and their country while exploiting people and resources in other countries.

And that's what I think we want to avoid in this little experiment. . . separation of power is essential. That's why there are zeros and ones, black and white, left and right, good and evil. There is a very delicate balance, one that is slowly ebbing away at our planet by the greed of diehard capitalists.

[Robespierre]

The words "individual liberty" have not been stated once in this thread (or anywhere, ever) by me, and especially not in relation to the power of white men. The word "corporation," however, has been stated numerous times and in relation to the power of white men.

Of course you don't use the term "individual liberty" when you speak, it properly exposes the arrogance of your position. Capitalism is what you revile. The essence of capitalism is individual liberty, the right of each individual to act without violent interference from others. Corporations have nothing to do with it.


No, of course not. They did, however, "invent" the Homesteading Act, which is pretty relevant to this discussion, and why I referred to it.

I don't see how the Homstead Act is relevant to the discussion at all. I have not referred to it, it is no longer in effect, and it relies upon the assumption that the federales owned the land and had the right to decide who could use it or not.


You're so busy trying to suffocate everyone else with your viewpoints that you're totally missing the point of this discussion, Robespierre. It's getting very tiresome. So bye, have fun on "ignore."

INTp arrogance and lack of debating ability always frustrates me. I guess I should expect that on INTpcentral...


2. How to produce it? Once upon a time, the US Govt produced money in accordance with supply of gold and silver. . . two very limitless resources.

A typo? Gold and Silver are limitless resources?


That's what's wrong with corporate America, the outrageous CEO pay to the rich white men who can use the "gap" to further themselves and their country while exploiting people and resources in other countries.

Here we see the fallacy of Marxian exploitation. The word "exploit", as used by socialists and intellectuals of most backgrounds, has come to mean something above and beyond what it did in the past. It is not simply utilizing something, but it connotates some sinister ulterior motive, and some dishonesty or fraud. I would like to hear an explaination of how a system of entirely voluntary exchange could result in exploitation.


And that's what I think we want to avoid in this little experiment. . . separation of power is essential. That's why there are zeros and ones, black and white, left and right, good and evil. There is a very delicate balance, one that is slowly ebbing away at our planet by the greed of diehard capitalists.

Are you serious? The planet is ruled by diehard capitalists? If only! Take a look around. Governments everywhere expand unchecked, usurp more and more power without question. No, this is the age of democratic mercantilist socialism.

The individual is an all but dead concept in the minds of most citizens of the world. All ills that are perceived, are attributed to the evils of selfish greedy individualists. If only people could have more community spirit! Think of the greater good!

[sbw]

I was going to question the limitlessness of silver and gold...especially in light of the coming global supply crunch in silver.

Scott

[Robespierre]

I was going to question the limitlessness of silver and gold...especially in light of the coming global supply crunch in silver.

Place your bets now... Gold is $430 an ounce....

[sbw]

If only people could have more community spirit! Think of the greater good!

careful, robie. Although you are obviously mocking this morally and (more importantly) intellectually bankrupt viewpoint, some people out there might actually take you seriously.

Scott

[sbw]

Place your bets now... Gold is $430 an ounce....

umm, 1000/oz. for gold, and 30/oz. for silver?

Scott

[coffeezombie]

I wonder if baseball cards are still a better investment than gold or silver...

[Robespierre]

I wonder if baseball cards are still a better investment than gold or silver...

Probably if you get the right ones. Soon enough, anything that isn't cash will be a wonderful investment.

[Apostasius]

the whole discussion is unrealistic, apostasius; that's what makes it so much fun.

The problem with the government "owning" the land is that they would eventually decide to do what's in the best interests of the government (i.e., the people at the very top of the food chain of that particular government) at the expense of the citizens. This happens EVERY time, and I'm not being metaphorical or hyperbolic (circe and indie--PAGING LORD ACTON). Look at human history; countless examples of repression, imprisonment, and murder have come from the best of intentions.

My personal opinion is that communism (in any form) can't work because most people are fuckin' useless; concomitantly, anarcho-capitalism cannot succeed because, again, most people are useless, but in this case the useless would have to start stealing in order to eat. As such, (traditional) liberal capitalism as governed by enforceable property rights seems like the way to go, as it doesn't require (once again, commies, this is COMPLETELY LITERAL) extortion at gunpoint the way both communism and our current (in the U.S.) non-voluntary taxation system both require, and also provides a check upon the (very similar) extortion-at-gunpoint which would occur between SOME citizens in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Obviously, I have a dim view of humanity on the whole; but where others are of the opinion that humans are not "kind" or "unselfish" or "altruistic" enough for communism to work, I simply think that humans are not sufficiently honest, respectful of private property, or (in most cases) competent enough for anarcho-capitalism to work.

Overall, I just think our species is poorly designed (not yet far-enough evolved?) for the social interactions required by existience, thus making it impossible for any governmental system to be entirely successful...that's why we all waste our time posting here.

Scott


I have an equally dim view of humanity, which is why I just stated an idealistic view wherein we (INTPs) have the power, thereby giving the finger to Lord Acton. Unfortunately, you are correct in that people themselves serve as the greatest obstacle to any human utopia.

[indie]

Robespierre, I love how you ignore every valid point I make, and those you do recognize, you defend by NOT using logic or coherence, but by merely namecalling and using the word "ignorant" in reference to me. I believe you are so outraged that someone (a young female with an MBA, nonetheless) can rip your little utopian ideal of capitalism to shreds so succintly and with such ease that you have been left with nothing but your bitter self, and that is fine by me.

sbw. . . rather than calling my statements "intellectually bankrupt" and hiding behind your buddy robespierre, why don't you try defending yourself using logic and reasoning?

Neither of you have made even the most remotely relevant suggestion to this discussion. Neither of you have made any suggestions at all! You've merely stated that anyone who has the nerve to question capitalism is "ignorant" or "psychopathic" or whatever other nonsense word happens to slither across your brains.

Thanks a lot, both of you. You have scared off everyone else off from this discussion, and it's too far gone to even bother with any more.

May the karma you have sown come back to haunt you.

[sbw]

Probably if you get the right ones. Soon enough, anything that isn't cash will be a wonderful investment.

ha!

[Robespierre]

Robespierre, I love how you ignore every valid point I make, and those you do recognize, you defend by NOT using logic or coherence, but by merely namecalling and using the word "ignorant" in reference to me.

Why is it, that instead of defending your ideas, you leap to personal attacks? You made a few posts about what you think, I challanged you, then you got pissy.


I believe you are so outraged that someone (a young female with an MBA, nonetheless) can rip your little utopian ideal of capitalism to shreds so succintly and with such ease that you have been left with nothing but your bitter self, and that is fine by me.

You say that as if you have ever responded to my ideas. Why not do so right now? Why not drop your indefensible name calling and defend your ideas? Refute what I say about individual liberty, explain why the individual is not the rightful owner of himself.

Weren't you going to "ignore" me?

MBA and ovaries? Lovely. That's all the evidence I need. You needn't explain yourself. If you've got a degree and internal sex organs, you MUST be right.


Neither of you have made even the most remotely relevant suggestion to this discussion.

You posed the question of equitable land distribution. My initial response was right on topic. You obviously were only interested in suggestions that reinforced your pre-existing opinion.


Neither of you have made any suggestions at all!

Private property is the only equitable way to organize a society. How's that for a suggestion? (not that I haven't made it before, even in this thread...)


Thanks a lot, both of you. You have scared off everyone else off from this discussion, and it's too far gone to even bother with any more.

May the karma you have sown come back to haunt you.

And at long last, the final defense: mysticism.

[sbw]

MBA and ovaries? Lovely. That's all the evidence I need. You needn't explain yourself. If you've got a degree and internal sex organs, you MUST be right.

you beat me to it, dawg...

Scott

[sbw]

anyone remember the fedex (or possibly UPS) commercial about the MBA guy?

Scott

[Dman]

careful, robie. Although you are obviously mocking this morally and (more importantly) intellectually bankrupt viewpoint, some people out there might actually take you seriously.

Scott

why don't you two get a room? :)

[Dman]

why don't you two get a room? :)



(4 days later)

I guess they took my advice

[Hypnos]

h4W7

[indie]

(4 days later)

I guess they took my advice

I hope you were referring to sbw and his "robie," because I agree.

[Lee]

Wow, this thread lost it's purpose.

[Robespierre]

I hope you were referring to sbw and his "robie," because I agree.

You had surprisingly little to say about your own topic.

[indie]

Aw, it's too bad "robie" is on my ignore list. I'm sure he has said something that is *oh* so valuable to this discussion. Something that is so kind, considerate, and non-hostile. . . something that suggests, or even *encourages* an open-minded discussion in pursuit of greater good for all of humanity and all creatures of this planet, as per the original intent, and laboriously explained intent of this thread.

OR, more likely. . . it was probably another pathetically-aimed bitter Thermos of coffee intentionally dropped on the fabric of the karma of humanity by some pseudo-intellectual pipe-smoking, rich, but decidedly bitter old white man who has decided that the very fabric of capitalism was enough to get him where HE is today, so it MUST be the right answer.

[Hypnos]

indiejade,

* Robespierre is a more worthy debate counterpart than you are, though he is hardly perfect. Despite your obvious intelligence, you fail to explicate your own moral framework, nor do you engage in enthusiastic debate where there is flexibility. Instead, you resort to ad hominem. Robespierre does much the same thing, with far less ad hominem. And his English is damn good.

* If I am not mistaken, Robespierre is a student in the middle of Siberia. As far as white males go, it's not that great for him, and the status quo around him is quite different from the political views he espouses.

[kuranes]

Robespierre told me that he is now in the USA, though he may have fibbed. I confess it would be interesting to know more about his situation.

Beyond his "Socratic approach" the avatar itself may egg people on with its Daddy Warbucks or Parker Brothers "Monopoly man" icon look. Smugness is what seems to be an underlying message, when I read his posts to others, but he's always been pleasant to me. Perhaps he gets tired of repeating himself. One technique would be to talk about all of the ADVANTAGES of being in a system of the sort he advocates, rather than just focusing on the DISadvantages of this current one. For example, the cost of medical care might go WAAAAY down if people with a basic "nurse-level" knowledge could treat patients for minor medical problems, without the caregiver/diagnoser having to have an expensive license that took 15 years and tons of bucks to acquire.

I think he makes a lot of good points, but failed to answer D-man's argument about short term corrections not being accounted for. His response would probably be that an imperfect system might still be better than what we have now. Perhaps he's right. I often vote Libertarian even though I don't believe in pure laissez faire covering all the bases. "No safety nets whatsoever" etc..

In fact there never has been a test of pure laissez faire, I'm told, by a guy who essentially believes similar tenets to what's been said by R. I explained Robespierre's position, as best as I could sum it up, and he nodded his head to much of it, but asked how we would realistically transition to such an arrangement, and whether Robespierre believed in keeping fraud laws, as well as having something to enforce ownership of property. I wasn't sure how to explain R's position on those areas. He has said that he is in favor of private property, but it seems that a police force designed to protect it could easily degenerate from that restricted form of rule to something more all-encompassing. In the end you are left with Plato's question of "Who will watch the watchers?"

[indie]

indiejade,

* Robespierre is a more worthy debate counterpart than you are, though he is hardly perfect. Despite your obvious intelligence, you fail to explicate your own moral framework, nor do you engage in enthusiastic debate where there is flexibility.

This was not another "let's debate" thread, Hypnos. It was a sincere attempt to get ideas and nothing more. Robespierre's mere presence and quotefucking anyone who dares to contribute anything to this discussion is what concerns me. ApetheDog, CoffeeZombie, and others have contributed very valid points and ideas to this discussion, but before anyone else could expand on them he pounced with his standard status quo. We needn't have a hostile debate to exchange ideas, but if Robespierre is present, it seems like we must.

The fact that you said I failed to explicate my moral framework has nothing to do with anything. I don't have a perfect utopian ideal of how things "should be" in my mind, that is why I started this thread. I am interested in brainstorming with others about what they think works and what does not. Also, I have

I do not go around telling everyone that I am right and THEY are wrong. However, I do know that Robespierre's version is not the best answer, and I and Dman have explained why numerous times. If I resorted to ad hominem last night, it was out of mere frustration at the outcome of this thread.

Also, Hypnos, you should probably read the whole thing before you go quantifying degrees of ad hominem. I'd say calling someone "psychopathic" is a wee bit more harsh than making a subtle reference to a "bitter Thermos" of coffee, a joke which I'm betting very few people got, not that I care. . . ;)

[Robespierre]

* If I am not mistaken, Robespierre is a student in the middle of Siberia. As far as white males go, it's not that great for him, and the status quo around him is quite different from the political views he espouses.

Not currently in Siberia. Have been in the past, but not now.

[Robespierre]

OR, more likely. . . it was probably another pathetically-aimed bitter Thermos of coffee intentionally dropped on the fabric of the karma of humanity by some pseudo-intellectual pipe-smoking, rich, but decidedly bitter old white man who has decided that the very fabric of capitalism was enough to get him where HE is today, so it MUST be the right answer.

Have you ever been to a country that was ruled by communists? Have you ever lived in the teeming hives of government built apartment blocks?

But of course, we should all simply accept your arguments without any support at all, simply because you are female? Or because you.. just know better? You've got to provide some reasoning or ... something.. geez.

[Robespierre]

why[/I] numerous times.

Dman has been an admirable debate partner. You have done nothing. You get angry and storm off, or some version of storming off--- like ignoring or whatever. Which is entirely your right, but doesn't really help to further your arguments.

[Robespierre]

I'd say calling someone "psychopathic" is wee bit more harsh than making a subtle reference to a "bitter Thermos" of coffee, a joke which I'm betting very few people got, not that I care. . . ;)

I could be missing something, but are you saying that I called you psychopathic? Where did I do this? So far, the only person to use the word in this thread is you, three times. In your initial post you call corporations psychopathic, then you accuse me of calling you psychopathic in two of your posts. Where did this happen?

[sbw]

why don't you two get a room? :)

my perceived obsequiousness towards robie (whose philosophical views I agree with) was intended to ironically reflect the fact that indie responded to someone she disagreed with via angry outbursts of emotion (complete with personal insults) rather than a reasoned explanation as to WHY she thought (rather than "felt") he was wrong.

love and hate are two sides of the same coin; neither of them make much sense to me.

Scott

[Hypnos]

This was not another "let's debate" thread, Hypnos. It was a sincere attempt to get ideas and nothing more. Robespierre's mere presence and quotefucking anyone who dares to contribute anything to this discussion is what concerns me. ApetheDog, CoffeeZombie, and others have contributed very valid points and ideas to this discussion, but before anyone else could expand on them he pounced with his standard status quo. We needn't have a hostile debate to exchange ideas, but if Robespierre is present, it seems like we must.
*Shrug* it's socratic -- I like it, and it's the norm for any rigorous discussion.

[Biff_Loman]

The most basic and only human right to to be secure in one's property. Self-ownership being self-evident, this coveres the right to be secure in one's own body, and the full right to the product of one's labor.

And this is where Robespierre's entire house of cards comes tumbling down. He is an excellent debater and probably more intelligent than I am, but he seems unable to accept one simple truth: you only really possess that for which you are willing and capable to kill. Alternately, a substitute (such as the military of a nation-state) can do the killing/threatening to kill for you.

There is no such thing as human rights, or sentient rights, or anything of the kind - likewise, there is no bottom end to human behaviour. If I had enough men with guns, I could storm Robespierre's house, rape his family in front of him, throw him in chains, and beat him mercilessly until he died or did my will. He could be my slave, unless he resisted until death, and he would eventually end his miserable life as the property of someone else.

That is pretty much the only reason why we acquiesce to the social construct that is the nation state. If David Koresh and his followers (or terrorists or whatever) had decided they wanted to seize a vital facility such as an oil refinery or an LNG station using deadly force, it wouldn't be the responsibility of the oil company to hire mercenaries to reclaim their property. It would be the responsibility of the U.S. government to capture or kill those individuals, and then dispense justice.

Is this ideal? Fuck no. As we well know, governments are severely flawed - and today, they far overstep their basic mandate, which is to prevent us from running around torturing, raping and killing each other. Sometimes governments destroy the very people they exist to protect. I'm not saying I'm a big fan.

This discussion of "human rights" and personal property is pure horseshit. Such ideas can only exist when people have agreed to suspend the use of violence - an agreement that can only persist under the threat of even greater violence.

[Robespierre]

And this is where Robespierre's entire house of cards comes tumbling down. He is an excellent debater and probably more intelligent than I am, but he seems unable to accept one simple truth: you only really possess that for which you are willing and capable to kill. Alternately, a substitute (such as the military of a nation-state) can do the killing/threatening to kill for you.

There is no such thing as human rights, or sentient rights, or anything of the kind - likewise, there is no bottom end to human behaviour. If I had enough men with guns, I could storm Robespierre's house, rape his family in front of him, throw him in chains, and beat him mercilessly until he died or did my will. He could be my slave, unless he resisted until death, and he would eventually end his miserable life as the property of someone else.

Does your ability to do something, make it right? What you're telling me, is that rights don't exist, that individuals cannot have an opinion on the "right/wrong" nature of any action?

Just what is it that you suppose I think rights are? Am I presenting them as some force-field that stops bad things from happening?


That is pretty much the only reason why we acquiesce to the social construct that is the nation state.

You agree with me, then, that the nation-state is ultimately built on violence.


If David Koresh and his followers (or terrorists or whatever) had decided they wanted to seize a vital facility such as an oil refinery or an LNG station using deadly force, it wouldn't be the responsibility of the oil company to hire mercenaries to reclaim their property. It would be the responsibility of the U.S. government to capture or kill those individuals, and then dispense justice.

I don't know how this relates to your previous statements. Are you suggesting that because some group can take an action, that rights don't exist?


Is this ideal? Fuck no. As we well know, governments are severely flawed - and today, they far overstep their basic mandate, which is to prevent us from running around torturing, raping and killing each other. Sometimes governments destroy the very people they exist to protect. I'm not saying I'm a big fan.

This discussion of "human rights" and personal property is pure horseshit.

Okay, you say it, but why?


Such ideas can only exist when people have agreed to suspend the use of violence - an agreement that can only persist under the threat of even greater violence.

This is clearly false. You are telling me that the ONLY way to get people to agree to suspend violence, is to have some overpoweringly violent overlord threatening all parties?

[Biff_Loman]

This is clearly false. You are telling me that the ONLY way to get people to agree to suspend violence, is to have some overpoweringly violent overlord threatening all parties?

This is precisely what I'm saying. This is Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. Only, instead of one overwhelming individual, we have substituted the modern nation state with an organized military.

And yes, the ability to act precludes the idea of "rights." There are no rights, unfortunately - only possibilities. Rights are an excuse for the reasons we do not do things to others. I wouldn't actually murder you in real life for my own gain, because I "feel" you have a right to live. This is wrong. I have an instinct not to kill members of my own species, and this vague notion evolves into a "right" through the contrivance of thought.

Robespierre: you are an intelligent and dogged debater. I know that, like a terrier, you will sink your teeth into this argument and never let go. My hat goes off to your determination; I really respect that. However, I decline to carry this discussion past my reply to you. I'm confident I will fail to change your mind, and I'm quite sure you won't change mine.

Take care.

[Bill_Zenn]

It is obvious to me that statism is built upon coercive threats of violence (implicitly and explicitly). The fact that many people are unable to see this is troubling to me. Let’s do a little thought experiment here:

Prehistoric humanity – the hunter-gatherer stage: Small tribes/clans are formed. The strongest and most skilled hunter takes over the tribe/clan by force. Competition ensues. Violence is met with violence. The death of the leader ensures that the murderer becomes the next leader.

Civilization begins – the agrarian society stage: Priesthoods are formed. Slavery is instituted. The priestly class rules by “divine mandate”. Disobey and die.

Age of Empires – the monarchical stage: Emperors and Kings consolidate power for themselves, and reach out across the land for more. Disobey and die.

Revolt – the French Revolution: A brief respite. Assumptions of monarchy are put into question, and overthrown. New systems emerge, new ideals are proposed - The Declaration of the Rights of Man, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, etc.

Birth of a nation – the American experiment: A continent is seized, it’s natives the target of genocide. The Declaration of Independence, a republic is formed.

When will we grow up and no longer need a “big daddy” to protect us?

Homo-Galactica: Anarchs leave the planet to the mongering hordes, and begin to settle peaceful communities in the stars where the individual rights of each self-sovereign are respected. True freedom. True liberty. Mutual self-government prevails.

[jimkopelli]

Here's a book recommendation... The Free Lunch, by Spider Robinson. Kinda goes with this, but any more gives away the ending.