REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part IV

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 14, 2008 21:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6998
PAGE 2 of 4

Sunday, February 3, 2008 10:14 AM

FLETCH2


I'm not sure that's even the point. Capitalist systems leverage wealth, that's what they are designed to do, it's set up to allow you to make money from money. Unless you regulate and tax money will accumulate in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals.

If money == power then those people will have power even in the absence of other formal power structures. So irrespective of intent there will be those more able to bring force than others.

The question has never been is the society ethical, the question has been IF someone uses force in a system with no power structures to moderate the outcome isn't there a risk of blatant escalation? I believe it to be a reasonable question. You said the FF had no idea how their society would turn out based on it's principles. That may be true but they kept 800 years of the English common law in place, they maintained courts, Habeus Corpus and other principles necessary for their society to mediate disputes and a mechanism to enforce compliance. They didnt say "well we'll kind of have a justice thing we'll work out later."

Federalist is interesting because there were opponents that brought up issues that the proponents of the constitution had to have at least some answers for. They knew they couldn't really say "we'll work on that latter" or "who knows" and still win the vote, especially in New York.

You're simply not selling this very well. The people that voted on the constitution had a reasonably good idea the general shape of the world they were going into. In the case of Geezerworld it's too abstract for anyone to accept it. "Trust me" doesn't work. If you can't even imagine methods of dealing with this in the abstract then it strikes me as being a fairly shallow philosophy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 3, 2008 11:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, knock me over with a feather Fletch2! For all that we've tangled on what happens to "profit", I see we're in amazing agreement on this topic. Wow. *shakes head* I'll by ya a couple rounds (Not ammo! This isn't 6ixworld!) of whatever you want, should you ever get to LA.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 3, 2008 6:46 PM

ERIC


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But still ... the only thing that would've been funnier is if they had shot each other.


I know this is a bit slow on the draw...so to speak...but, ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/02/cops.shootout.ap/index.html?eref=rss_
topstories

Quote:

BUFORD, Georgia (AP) -- Two off-duty officers from different police departments wounded each other in a gunfight in the middle of a road in an Atlanta suburb, authorities said.

Neither officer's wounds were life-threatening, police said. Their conditions were not immediately known on Saturday.

Officer Jay Daily, a five-year veteran of the Duluth Police Department, exchanged multiple gunshots Friday afternoon with Fulton County Officer Paul Phillips, police said.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 3, 2008 9:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OOOOOH. Ouch.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 3, 2008 10:13 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, knock me over with a feather Fletch2! For all that we've tangled on what happens to "profit", I see we're in amazing agreement on this topic. Wow. *shakes head* I'll by ya a couple rounds (Not ammo! This isn't 6ixworld!) of whatever you want, should you ever get to LA.
.


Actually I think we have several fundamental points of disagreement. I think for example that you see capitalism as being inherently evil, where as I see it as being intrinsically amoral.

I think as an individual you view fairness as an important concept I think that's why the inherent unfairness of the capitalist system upsets you so. My view is that capitalism is about the creation of wealth and not it's fair distribution. It makes no sense to me to criticize the system for lacking a feature it was never supposed to have.

I think capitalism is to modern societies what mitochondria is to a cell, it provides the energy necessary for the society to live and grow, but just as some of the byproducts of metabolism can damage the cell unless action is taken to mitigate the effects, capitalism cant be used "raw" ---society needs some controls to stop it working outside the common interest.

The problem I have with Geezerworld is not the idea that the world would be better if people behaved in responsible and moral ways -- who wouldn't want that? It's that there doesn't seem to be any mechanisms for dealing with the situations where that doesn't happen. For every Enron, there are probably 100,000 companies that play by the rules, report earnings correctly, don't strongarm the markets for their own benefit and generally behave as reasonable institutions. However, an Enron scale event can be devastating to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. I can believe Geezer when he says that most people will play by the rules, my problem is that there seems no way to deal with the ones that don't.



I have more thoughts but it's late...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 4, 2008 6:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Fairly stated Fletch2. The one thing the capitalism is absolutely fantastic at (aside from concentrating wealth) is its inherent increasing productivity.

Now, I LIKE enhanced productivity. I have absolutely no interest in old-fashioned handwork and backbreaking production. Automation is a GOOD thing. The issue that I have with capitalism is the subsequent distribution of wealth. We're far beyond the point of productivity where everyone in the world could have a decent (if basic) life, but capitalism cuts too many people out of the system. In addition, the concentration of wealth (in my view) leads to economic collapse, and thus the inevitable boom-bust cycle. I suspect we see much the same, the only difference between you and I is that you think capitalism can be controlled while I think that capitalism must be destroyed because it will inevitably slip its leash.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 4, 2008 9:41 AM

FLETCH2


The problem is what do you replace it with? It's maybe not the best system --- in fact to paraphrase Churchill, it's the worse system except for all the others we've tried --- but it does work and it does efficiently marshal the resources you need to run a technological civilization.

As a species we've always traded so it takes what we normally do anyway and just added the trading of wealth as a level of abstraction.

Perhaps there could be a shift, but it would require technology like the Star Trek replicator or Neil Stevenson's matter compiler to bring it about. If things could be made with very little up front manufacturing costs then the importance of capital would be reduced, because you wouldn't need to "buy" capital in the market place to set up in business.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 4, 2008 12:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


If I may chime in - there are a few things I find vexing about capitalism.

One is the inevitable concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. And given the particularly pernicious form of capitalism the US teaches (people who are rich are rich b/c they are victors and deserve the spoils, and people who are poor deserve nothing), that means a lot of political power is also concentrated in the hands of very few.

Another is that the decision for production is based on profit, not need. So you'll find all sorts of goodies for people with money, but nothing for those with no money. That's why companies will develop cholesterol-lowering drugs for 'first world' people but not anti-sleeping sickness drugs for Africans.

Overall, capitalism is great at creating the very wealthy (and powerful) and making goodies for them, but not at meeting the needs of anyone else.


***************************************************************
And then there is the problem of the commons, for which there is no accounting - literally - in capitalism. Which is why we have widespread persistant toxics pollution, overfished oceans, stripped landscapes, and ... global warming ...

"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 4, 2008 1:17 PM

FLETCH2


Like I said, capitalism is amoral it doesn't make value judgments, it's not part of it's remit. If making anti sleeping sickness drugs brought in a significant profit then people would probably do that rather than making 1st world "lifestyle enhancers." The market just reflects the truth on the ground which is that African children are "worth less" in our modern world than overweight middle class businessmen.

I don't know that capitalism created that distinction, I think that has to do with the values of the society at large and I think those values vary by society rather than economic system. My co-worker's father in law was a millionaire that worked as a cop because he liked being a policeman and because in Sweden nobody really believes a millionaire is somehow massively superior to anyone else. Sweden is still a capitalist nation, it has businesses, a stock market, people with money still have an easier time making money. The difference is that that society makes different value judgments than yours does.

American culture is very competitive, which means that American business does very well in a competitive marketplace, which is why the US pushes free trade as hard as it does. Businesses elsewhere are far more collaborative especially in societies which value cooperation. Twenty odd years ago I attended a tradeshow in London that had a lot of Japanese companies showing off electronics (this was back when Japan completely dominated consumer electronics.) One of the things that was interesting to a westerner was that often to make a new product several rival Japanese companies would pool R&D resources to get the initial high cost development completed. Individually they wouldn't have afforded it but together..... I can't imagine Google and Yahoo teaming up for any other reason than perhaps to freeze out a third competitor because competition here is that intense yet that kind of cooperation was common in Japan. Japan is a capitalist nation.

Perhaps if the US had the concept of "enough" if politicos and businessmen were seen as folks with a job no more important (and possibly even less important) than nurses, firemen and teachers then the underlying economic system wouldn't matter so much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 4, 2008 2:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi Fletch

I don't mean that capitalism has no metaphorical or ethical acccounting for the commons, I mean no literal accounting. So even though the idea has been around for quite a while that the commons has some kind of value, it took Amartya Sen - who developed the analysis (and won the Nobel prize for economics) - to 'account' for it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 4, 2008 11:19 PM

FLETCH2




Which essentially means the same thing. Big pharma doesn't make sleeping sickness pills because ultimately as a civilization we don't value african children enough. If Warren Buffett put $1B into healthcare for African kids, or the US did, or the EU did there would be plenty of incentive for companies to make those pills. The market just reflects the reality on the ground.

The problem is that to develop most things costs money, which means that at the very least you have to make that money back (some charities do fund research I know but looking at a "pure" capitalist methodology.) Ultimately the R&D costs pays for facilities, equipment and personnel all of which you will need to develop a useful product and all of which are sizable costs. So in the absence of someone bankrolling the R&D these breakthroughs in orphan diseases don't happen.

You could imagine any number of ways around this, we've already mentioned charities, there is blue sky government research, perhaps an R&D tax where a percentage of profits from sales of non generic drugs is fed beck into R&D for orphan diseases? Or we could give every african child an annual "drug allowance" and thereby create a market?





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 8:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"ultimately as a civilization we don't value african children enough. If Warren Buffett put $1B into healthcare for African kids, or the US did, or the EU did there would be plenty of incentive for companies to make those pills. The market just reflects the reality on the ground."

Uhhm - no. I'm talking about capitalism in and of itself, not extra-capitalistic factors. You're talking about charity, which is not a function of capitalism. What I'm saying is that capitalism in and of itself causes the problem - aggregation of money into few hands and focusing on making products for those few with money. And that the system has no corrective mechanism within itself to address the problems it itself causes.


Unless you don't see it as a problem. But since, very generally, I think people should set up systems and run them to their aggragate benefit, and not the other way around, I see capitalism as problematic for the vast majority of people on the globe. And therefore it's something that should be replaced.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 8:55 AM

ANTIMASON


Rue are you an admitted socialist? im not labeling, i only ask out of curiousity... that would explain to me your position global warming

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Do you mean communist ? No.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:28 AM

FLETCH2


Capitalism creates wealth from wealth (ie capital) so yes, once you have some it's easier to make more and yes that means agrigation. That's the nature of the beast it is amoral and never intended to be fair.

As I see it you get 3 options.

1) leave it as it is, accept that it's unfair and realy on the fact that even with an uneven distribution the compounded effect is that most folks get a lil richer (the American way)

2) Put social mechanisms in place outside of capitalism to try to redistribute wealth in a "fairer" way (the European system.)

3) Scrap the whole thing and go for something else, even though few other systems have the efficiency and raw organisational advantages of the capitalist system.

Now 3) would make for an interesting discussion because I'm not at all clear how you could pull that off within the current technological paradyne. Capitalism exists because businesses need to borrow money to finance expansion and development. People with excess capital are encouraged to invest it in business with the promise of profiting from that business. They invest that money in the context of a market place where various businesses offer various rates of return in exchange for the use of the capital. It is in the lender's best interest to secure the best rate.

The reason those sleeping sickness drugs are not made is because the company can make no profit from them, so when they look for investment they are saying "give me your capital for no return" while the guy down the street is offering five or ten percent. The investor as a rational actor invests in the business that gives him the best return which isn't the guy's making the pills.

What I'd like to know is how you would plan to deal with that? How can you replace it while still giving people the right to enjoy their own property?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 5:30 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch

Those are the options as I see them as well. Perhaps someone else can come up with others.

If the choice is between
(1) US-style capitalism
(2) Swedish-style 'socially constrained' capitalism
(3) Le Guin style anarchy, or
(4) Geezer/CTS 'anarcho'capitalism (which is US-style rapacious capitalism without pesky government regulation)
I would go with Swedish-style 'socially constrained' capitalism. Although I like the idea of Le Guin style anarchy, in my particular situation I like the idea of modern medicine a little bit more. If it was just about me, I'd go with Le Guin-style anarchy. But as the saying goes you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. So while that's all well and philosophical, it's only good until one of those 'eggs' happens to be a member of your family. And the promise of a miracle cure just wouldn't be there in that world.

In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no need to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same. And the few people who want to break that philosophy - who want to prey on greed and insecurity - are carriers of a deadly contagion. Because once the grabbing starts you will have NO security and you will have to start grabbing too, and treating everyone like an enemy.

Now how that translates into a modern technological economy I don't know, or even if it does. But I do know it breaks capitalism b/c the idea of profit as the greatest good is anathema, as is the churning of markets to increase sales of junk for sales sake, as are the endless rounds of insecurity and greed propagated to keep the system lurching forward.





***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 5:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well Fletch2 you've asked an interesting question (What do we put in its place?) which deserves an answer. I've thought for a long time about how to create a system that has all the advantages of capitalism with none of the disadvantages. To be clear, let me list (IMHO) capitalism's advantages:

Improved productivity. Now, productivity has been improving all along, with or without capitalism. The invention of fire, farming, the alphabet, printing press, roadways, and many of our most recent discoveries and advances- including the internet, polymerase chain reaction which was used to further our understanding of genes and make them available for sequencing- were made on the non-capitalist system. So that's not to say that capitalism is the ONLY source of innovation, but under capitalism these innovations are applied to production much faster.

Response to changing conditions. The Soviets tried a planned economy, and it sucked. There's no way a central system can plan and dictate everything from the number of street-corner vendors to the electrical grid system. The market has to lead the way for most things. (Some things require planning and forethought.)


The disadvantages of capitalism are myriad

Concentration of wealth. It's an internal contradiction which inevitably leads to boom and bust.

Monopolism, and it's many-tentacled reach into politics, technology, and ethics. Capitalism, at its heart, promotes the destruction of even the very CONCEPT of "society".

Failure to account for "the commons". In previous centuries, when there was more than enough of everything to go around it was easy to move on when the old space was used up. At population capacity we'll have to recognize and manage "the commons" (air, fresh water, the oceans, forests, biodiversity etc.) to maintain productivity. We fail to do that at our peril.

-----------------

I've already eliminated totally planned economies as an option. We COULD follow the European system, but IMHO as long as dog-eat-dog capitalism maintains a healthy base elsewhere the European system is vulnerable to being out-competed.

I think the answer lies in the laws that we've adopted which allow various business forms. The most pernicious is the publicly-traded corporation, which creates a theoretical "body" which can own both assets and liabilities. The way these corporation seems to work, the top echelon sucks in the assets and shirks the responsibilities. The other pernicious idea is corporate "personhood", which granted corporations such "rights" as privacy and freedom of speech.

So, looking at the various forms of production, I think we could solve most of our problems by simply limiting the types of businesses which can be formed. My first thought would be simply allow the creation of several versions of only one kind of business, which is the cooperative: Every person who works is an equal part-owner of the cooperative, and nobody else can be a part-owner. Each cooperative can create business plans, assess the market, make investments, etc. and each individual owner shares in the profits and liabilities. (I know that Geezer got really weird with this whole idea.) There ARE successful cooperatives, the largest is Mondragon (in Spain).

I DO think there needs to be a central bank and a central government. A central government is the only entity that can handle certain-sized problems such as large sized infrastructure: roadways, bridges, and transportation; power distribution (the current "deregulated" capitalist system is falling apart as owners try to squeeze the last nickel out of a decrepit infrastructure), and manage "the commons".

I know this isn't an "economic" system' but I would also like to see direct democracy on a lot of issue, and eliminate "politicians" as much as possible.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Rue, I like your philosophy. I think you're a misplaced Swede.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:27 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So there's no need to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same.


(italics are mine)


So, having more than two kids essentially constitutes a selfish act? What about accidents? What about people who love being in a big family?

I get the inherently harmless concept of limiting one's needs and all, not taking more from nature or one another..

But the limitation of children - while it makes sense as a form of preventing overpopulation, would constitute a form of extreme restraint and should be aknowledged as that. I wouldn't class the number of children in the same category as "taking from another person", something that is in itself ethically questionable. This image kind of disturbs to me what seems otherwise a fairly idyllic vision.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:33 AM

MOLOTOV


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Personally, I think we should get rid of "the police". (Too bad there's no foundation for THAT one!)


Well in the mean time there's always Communities United Against Police Brutality, they can be found at www.cuapb.org/
I'm sure there are local organizations like it in your major cities as well.

Hi I'm Molotov by the way! Just registered yesterday.

Anyways, I'm off to bed, but I'm sure I'll be back later to check this thread out more thoroughly.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 7:32 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, looking at the various forms of production, I think we could solve most of our problems by simply limiting the types of businesses which can be formed. My first thought would be simply allow the creation of several versions of only one kind of business, which is the cooperative: Every person who works is an equal part-owner of the cooperative, and nobody else can be a part-owner. Each cooperative can create business plans, assess the market, make investments, etc. and each individual owner shares in the profits and liabilities. (I know that Geezer got really weird with this whole idea.) There ARE successful cooperatives, the largest is Mondragon (in Spain). .




Cooperatives were one of the first industrial business forms and as such have the dubious distinction of being both proto-capitalist and proto-socialist. There are a few problems with them though (and some of these problems also exist in real cooperatives.)

1) Young Jack joins the cooperative as an apprentice. He comes in with nothing and presumably will contribute his labour. Does he get equal rights and equal shares as Arthur who has been there 30 years?

2) When Arthur retires what happens to his share? Does it form his pension? Does he return the capital it represents to the cooperative. Can he sell his stake back to the co-op as a whole or to an individual within it. Since this is Arthur's life's work and the bulk of the capital he's amassed in a lifetime can he will it to his heirs?

3) When the co-op is successfull how do they borrow money and with what assets can they secure a loan?

4) If there is a downturn which would normally require a cut back in production how do you manage that? You can't lay off part owners but on the other hand you cant afford to pay people for doing nothing.

5) What happens to a stakeholder when they leave to work somewhere else? Do they lose the capital they built up in the business? Are they bought out?

6) Businesses have to be started somehow and often the folks that start them take considerable risks with assets that they could lose if the business fails, on the other hand people joining later have fewer risks. Does being a founder and having taken the risk infer any benefit to that person? Do they get some kind of "golden share" or "captains share" of the enterprise? Fred morgages his home to open Fred's sandwich shop. It is so successfull that he hires Dave to work there. Did Dave just become Fred's full partner for the cost of answering a "help wanted" ad?

The only thought I have is that you'd have to create some form of transferable "share" which has a real asset value and distribute them amongst your employees in the same way a company might pay a dividend to investors. However for them to have any real value you would need a mechanism to freely trade them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 8:10 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"(limiting children) would constitute a form of extreme restraint and should be acknowledged as that"

Back in the day when children died early and often people had as many as they could as a form of insurance. In my society there's no need for that since you will always have what you need. In addition, in today's real world there isn't going to be 'enough' for more people. And even in an ideal world, 'more than replacement' means you still end up with too many people for the resources. It would take longer, but it would get there. And the world once again would become a deadly competition for mere survival.

Having human technology changes the very condition of survival from iffy to guaranteed - as long as you don't have more children than the environment can support. So 'number of children' needs to be understood as a central idea to fulfill security - of your children, their children, and in fact everyone.

If you had a choice between a world where your children and their children and so on would thrive, or a deadly and mean world, which would you choose ?

That's all I'm saying - people would understand that to be the choice.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 2:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no reason to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same. And the few people who might want to break that philosophy in my world - who want to prey on greed and insecurity - are seen as carriers of a deadly contagion. Because once the grabbing starts you will have NO security and you will have to start grabbing too, and treating everyone like an enemy."

"a fairly idyllic vision"

On further thought, I'd like to reply to this as well.

Rather than being an 'ideal world' it is the real world today. Because of technology our survival is guaranteed. It's something everyone could have without fail.

***************************************************************
Which makes me wonder why we put up with anything less.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 3:42 PM

FLETCH2


Humm well I come from a family with 4 kids but 2 of us are adopted, so are we being irrisponsable? I know if my mother could have afforded to keep all the kids she wanted there would have been 8 of us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 8:40 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Some posts are such pristine examples they deserve to shine solo in the spotlight for a while.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 10:51 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Some posts are such pristine examples they deserve to shine solo in the spotlight for a while.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."



Ok?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 12:28 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well ...

Personally I try to not talk about family members or other people unless I think it could have RW value at some point - for example, how to interpret the behavior of a loved family member who has developed neurological issues. Or, what are some of the more problematic end-of-life circumstances one may face with a family member or friend.

I'm guessing your mother was a product of her times and education level, and from when the world only had 1.8 billion people - not that anyone cared how many there were, back then. But younger and better educated people in a world of 6.6 billion might find her dreams of having 8 children to not be sweet - but rather provincial. I wouldn't want to virtually expose a family member to that judgment, even anonymously.

There was the 'picking a small detail and not discussing the idea' problem. The idea is that there is in fact no rational reason for poverty. Not even in today's world of 6.6 billion. We - you, me, and everyone else - could all be guaranteed the essentials of life and even a level of comfort. So why do we do accept poverty ? Why do YOU accept it ?

And then there was the whole 'people unclear on the concept' thing. It would be a world where people evaluate their choices not based on what they can afford but what keeps their lives in balance with freedom from fear and anxiety, real life security, and actual long-term potential.

And then your post was incoherent. What exactly was I supposed to reply to ? That your mother couldn't afford what she wanted ? That she realized she couldn't afford what she wanted and decided accordingly ? That she wanted 8 children of 'her own' ? That she settled on raising 4 ? Or that she only birthed two ?

You might have had something in mind - maybe it was - my mother who is a sweet lady wanted 8 children, so does that make her evil ?

But it didn’t come across. I still don’t know what your post was about.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 1:37 PM

FLETCH2


I was trying to clarify what your point was since it seemed to lace a certain utopianism with what seems to be a huge personal bias. I was trying to determine if that bias was actual or just an unfortunate choice of words.

I don't view having kids as being in some way a selfish act or that if you have more than two you're having more than your fair share. Children are more than just a biological process to replace yourself no matter what "The Selfish Gene" may say. They are whole people who's company you get to share, who's jokes make you laugh and whose joys you get to be part of.

While I agree that in the modern world there is no need to have huge families to offset child mortality or to provide breadwinners to support you in your dotage there are other reasons people have large families and those reasons make them neither selfish nor simple and uneducated.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 2:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"personal bias"

Not a personal bias - a statement of fact. Even under the very best circumstances more than replacement children leads to starvation for somebody. That puts the ethics of more than replacement children into doubt.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 3:56 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Even under the very best circumstances more than replacement children leads to starvation for somebody. That puts the ethics of more than replacement children into doubt.

Purplebelly.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 4:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no need to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely.


Compared to this vision, I think that establishing a functional world of anarchists who follow the Non-Aggression Principle would be a piece of cake.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 4:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not really, b/c your world is ultimately self-destructive.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 5:09 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not really, b/c your world is ultimately self-destructive.


I tend to disagree. Your's, on the other hand, is ultimately impossible.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2008 5:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


No, mine just requires that people adopt basic reality into their lives. Some posters (you perhaps ?) have a vested interest in having people believe that the only way to survive is to compete against each other for scraps. And that is a lie.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, mine just requires that people adopt basic reality into their lives. Some posters (you perhaps ?) have a vested interest in having people believe that the only way to survive is to compete against each other for scraps. And that is a lie.


Your vision just requires that everyone adapt their lives to your concept of reality. The average worldwide per capita income is around $7,000.00, depending on source. Are you giving away your surplus?

And then we get the good old "anyone who diesn't agree with me must have a 'hidden agenda' or a 'vested interest'" riff. Yawn.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 6:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misrepresenting) my argument. So let me try to put to rest some of your errors.

I'm all for private property. I don't require that people give away anything to the state or anyone else. I'm not talking about a free-ride - this isn't a society which 'provides' for anyone.

What I'm proposing is that everyone has free and equal access to the means of survival - work and resources. That they can and do work for their survival and for their security and some comfort. That they get to keep all the proceeds and benefits of their own labor. But that they stop at that.

And BTW I noticed that while I have explained at length the problems with your system you haven't actually come up with an argument against mine. The reason, I suspect, is b/c you are basing yours on an unstated assumption about human nature (greedy rat-bastards), which is an argument you can't make since it conflicts with your earlier posts.


Also, the differences between your position and mine are:

1) Mine is a fact. There is enough productivity on the planet for everyone to survive and have a level of comfort. The average wage demonstrates this. There is no rational reason for any poverty or starvation.

2) Mine doesn't need everyone to follow it - just enough people to make the current system unattractive.

3) Mine has a system to deal with those who won't follow it, unlike yours which needs everyone to behave. And yours at best will lead to an oligarchy where very few have most of the wealth and power.

4) Yours is based on a faulty if unstated 'human nature' argument - that people are greedy rat-bastards and they won't work unless it's a competition to beat out someone else.

5) And finally, since you are making this personal, I've already stated many times (which I've notice you've chosen to conveniently forget or misrepresent) that I would give away everything if it would guarantee a fair world. But since making a fair world is out of my hands it's also not my 'fault' for not doing so. And, unlike you, in the RW I'm not looking after my privileges, I'm looking after the future of a disabled family member.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Molotov- that's a waste of good vodka!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BigDamnKnownothing- I know people who have decided to limit their number of children to 0,1, or 2 for ethical reasons, including me. (And even under Chinese law, since my child is brain damaged I'd have a shot at a second child.)

When I look at these people and listen to their reasons they seem far more ethical than the average person.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:23 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, as usual he chose to take a cheap and inaccurate personal shot rather than address any actual issues.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 7:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Fletch2- you asked some good questions about cooperatives which deserve answers.
Quote:
[Young Jack joins the cooperative as an apprentice. He comes in with nothing and presumably will contribute his labour. Does he get equal rights and equal shares as Arthur who has been there 30 years?
Yes. But not necessarily an equal salary.
Quote:
When Arthur retires what happens to his share?
He leaves it behind when he leaves the cooperative.
Quote:
Does it form his pension?
No, that's taken care of by a different mechanism
Quote:
Does he return the capital it represents to the cooperative.
Yes
Quote:
Can he sell his stake back to the co-op as a whole or to an individual within it. Since this is Arthur's life's work and the bulk of the capital he's amassed in a lifetime can he will it to his heirs?
No and no.
Quote:
3) When the co-op is successfull how do they borrow money and with what assets can they secure a loan?
Needs some thought on the assets and liabilites of a cooperative.
Quote:
4) If there is a downturn which would normally require a cut back in production how do you manage that? You can't lay off part owners but on the other hand you cant afford to pay people for doing nothing.
Both increases and reductions in workforce are accomplished by vote (including hiring, firing, and layoffs) as well as pay structure and workweek. There are many possible options to a downturn including layoffs, shortened workweek, or general salary reduction.
Quote:
5) What happens to a stakeholder when they leave to work somewhere else? Do they lose the capital they built up in the business? Are they bought out?
Yes and no.
Quote:
6) Businesses have to be started somehow and often the folks that start them take considerable risks with assets that they could lose if the business fails, on the other hand people joining later have fewer risks. Does being a founder and having taken the risk infer any benefit to that person? Do they get some kind of "golden share" or "captains share" of the enterprise? Fred morgages his home to open Fred's sandwich shop. It is so successfull that he hires Dave to work there. Did Dave just become Fred's full partner for the cost of answering a "help wanted" ad?
One of the big reasons why Mondragon is so successful is that it operates its own bank. Loans and bonds are good mechanisms to raise capital... I know several small business owners (including a successful restaurant owner) who started with small business loans. So sinking your life's assets into a business venture isn't necessary. However, there IS an "out" for people who want to retain total control of their business: They can contract with other cooperatives (even a single-person cooperative)for services, and maintain an arm's-length relationship with their various service providers.
Quote:

The only thought I have is that you'd have to create some form of transferable "share" which has a real asset value and distribute them amongst your employees in the same way a company might pay a dividend to investors. However for them to have any real value you would need a mechanism to freely trade them.
I've thought of that. But without the mechanism of transferable shares you'd have to do "book value" accounting, and that just seems too complex and open to manipulation.

There are other things to consider also: tax structures, retirement (which you touched on), investment capital, liability, the dissolution of cooperatives etc. It would require rethinking of a lot of things, including the nature of ownership, etc.

However, IMHO this seems to follow the goals of anrachism more concretely, in that while there is still government the purpose of government is to aggressively place ownership and responsibility at the individual level.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:01 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BigDamnKnownothing- I know people who have decided to limit their number of children to 0,1, or 2 for ethical reasons, including me. (And even under Chinese law, since my child is brain damaged I'd have a shot at a second child.)

When I look at these people and listen to their reasons they seem far more ethical than the average person.

Signy,
I thought my comment was quite apropos given the nature of Rue's comment placed in context with the show Firefly. Rue would like to 'meddle' with the Independants who simply want to live 'their' lives.
Has Rue considered that some religions do not believe in birth control? Are people to stop having sex after two kids?
What about those who practice safe-sex and a pregnancy still occurs? What happens to those kids?
What about couples who do not or cannot have kids? Does this demographic allow others to go over the kid limit?
What is the average number of kids per North American family? Awhile ago I believe it was 2.3, would the world really be better off without the .3?
However you look at it, Rue feels she knows best what others are to do based on her own driving philosophy. In other words, Purplebelly, Fed, Member of the Alliance, etc.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Rue would like to 'meddle' with the Independents who simply want to live 'their' lives. Purplebelly, Fed, Member of the Alliance, etc."

And now you've just displayed your complete irrelevance to the discussion AND your lack of knowledge of Firefly - in one short sentence.

Did I mention anywhere that this would be a government law, or program, or even suggestion ? My entire point was that this would be a personal decision about ethics.

DUH.

Man, you are so incredibly personally biased and full of hate you can't even read the simple word on a page without seeing it wrong.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:26 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And now you've just displayed your complete irrelevance to the discussion AND your lack of knowledge of Firefly - in one short sentence.

Did I mention anywhere that this would be a government law, or program, or even suggestion ? My entire point was that this would be a personal decision about ethics.

So in other words, keep things as they are? (minus China of course)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Go back and actually read my posts this time. There is a post where I address this very point, in detail.

***************************************************************
BTW I noticed you failed to apologize for making baseless personal accusations against me.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


mmmmm - dbl good

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So anyway, to repost my reply to Geezer so it doesn't get lost in the clutter


I think you fundamentally misunderstand (or are misrepresenting) my argument. So let me try to put to rest some of your errors.

I'm all for private property. I don't require that people give away anything to the state or anyone else. I'm not talking about a free-ride - this isn't a society which 'provides' for anyone.

What I'm proposing is that everyone has free and equal access to the means of survival - work and resources. That they can and do work for their survival and for their security and some comfort. That they get to keep all the proceeds and benefits of their own labor. But that they stop at that.

And BTW I noticed that while I have explained at length the problems with your system you haven't actually come up with an argument against mine. The reason, I suspect, is b/c you are basing yours on an unstated assumption about human nature (greedy rat-bastards), which is an argument you can't make since it conflicts with your earlier posts.


Also, the differences between your position and mine are:

1) Mine is a fact. There is enough productivity on the planet for everyone to survive and have a level of comfort. The average wage demonstrates this. There is no rational reason for any poverty or starvation.

2) Mine doesn't need everyone to follow it - just enough people to make the current system unattractive.

3) Mine has a system to deal with those who won't follow it, unlike yours which needs everyone to behave. And yours at best will lead to an oligarchy where very few have most of the wealth and power.

4) Yours is based on a faulty if unstated 'human nature' argument - that people are greedy rat-bastards and they won't work unless it's a competition to beat out someone else.

5) And finally, since you are making this personal, I've already stated many times (which I've notice you've chosen to conveniently forget or misrepresent) that I would give away everything if it would guarantee a fair world. But since making a fair world is out of my hands it's also not my 'fault' for not doing so. And, unlike you, in the RW I'm not looking after my privileges, I'm looking after the future of a disabled family member.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:04 AM

FLETCH2


I was going to answer things point by point but formating was starting to be complex so I'll just take the bits as they come.

Re: Pensions

I know you said you'd have to think about it more but there is something that needs to be considered. Part of the reason we keep getting into the whole profit/income thing is that for a surprising amount of investment this is literally true. In the UK most shares in successfull companies are owned by pension companies and these investments ultimately pay pensions. I have no idea what the proportion is in the US but I suspect all of the capital placed into 401K's and other retirement plans represent a huge amount of investment capital. Now if the only economic form is a cooperative and it can only be owned by workers how can retirement investment work? Especially if as you suggest you lose any capital you have built in your home company when you retire.

Re: Organisation and management

We have had cooperatives similar to the ones you mention that have failed in the UK. However it's hard to come to conclusions since

1) They tended to be worker buyouts of already troubled businesses, it could be that the businesses would have failed anyway no matter what anyone did.

2) They obviously operated against regular companies in the same marketplace and there may be disadvantages in operatins and credit that wouldn't exist if their competitors were of the same type.

That being said though the general consensus of the English examples is that the "direct democracy" model of business management doesnt actually work that well, because it delays decisions, makes it more likely that tough choices won't be made and doesnt actually make it likely that good decisions are made.

I suspect the better solution is to have the workers exclusively own the company (and therefore elect the equivalent of a board to represent their interests) but then have professional management hired by the board.


Re: Finacing

While I agree that there are other sources of capital it's extremely unlikely that any small business would get an unsecured loan. In addition to hard assets the founder probably has hours of unpaid work, personal reputation and good will invested in the concern. If the only way to grow the business is for him to give that up and in effect "give" this capital he's built up to others that have not put in the same efforts or taken the same risks --- well that seems unfair.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:09 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Oh, BTW Fletch - I find yours and SignyM's discussion quite interesting.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm all for private property. I don't require that people give away anything to the state or anyone else. I'm not talking about a free-ride - this isn't a society which 'provides' for anyone.

What I'm proposing is that everyone has free and equal access to the means of survival - work and resources. That they can and do work for their survival and for their security and some comfort. That they get to keep all the proceeds and benefits of their own labor. But that they stop at that.

And if their opinion of what they need for their survival and security is greater than what you think fair?
Quote:
1) Mine is a fact. There is enough productivity on the planet for everyone to survive and have a level of comfort. The average wage demonstrates this. There is no rational reason for any poverty or starvation.
I'm not sure that $7,000 a year per person would be that comfortable.
Quote:
2) Mine doesn't need everyone to follow it - just enough people to make the current system unattractive.

Why would the current system become unattractive? If a lot of folk are happy with mere survival, A lot more stuff is available for folk who want to actually enjoy themselves.
Quote:
3) Mine has a system to deal with those who won't follow it...

How so? Confiscate what the government thinks you have over the prescribed survival level?
Quote:
4) Yours is based on a faulty if unstated 'human nature' argument - that people are greedy rat-bastards and they won't work unless it's a competition to beat out someone else.

Hardly, but if you don't get it by now, you never will.
Quote:
And, unlike you...I'm looking after the future of a disabled family member.

True, since my disabled family member died and I don't look after her any more.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:38 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"In my personal vision for a better world I would have everyone know in their bones that there is enough for everyone, because in reality there is. Human technology has removed basic need from the human condition. So there's no reason to grab more than you need, and people who are grabbing more than they need are taking from your life, your future, your children and their future, from your personal sense of security and happiness, indefinitely. And people having more than replacement children are likewise doing the same. And the few people who might want to break that philosophy in my world - who want to prey on greed and insecurity - are seen as carriers of a deadly contagion. Because once the grabbing starts you will have NO security and you will have to start grabbing too, and treating everyone like an enemy."

"a fairly idyllic vision"

On further thought, I'd like to reply to this as well.

Rather than being an 'ideal world' it is the real world today. Because of technology our survival is guaranteed. It's something everyone could have without fail.

***************************************************************
Which makes me wonder why we put up with anything less.


It wasn't the very true fact that theoretically we could all be doing well that I considered idyllic, but more the fact that you mentioned us not needing those aggressive, greedy instincts anymore. The very painful thing about humanity is that it wasn't designed for a fair world. Our instincts will never leave us, which is why we tend to become destructive when bored.

In order for a fair society like that to work, we need to account for our instincts and leave room for development. Humans do not stagnate well. So, a society where we do not take more than needed is idyllic in the sense that it discounts that our greed is a part of us we cannot shut off. It'd need a greater, common focus, in order for us to keep the everyday harmonious and "ungreedy". Is my theory.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL