Limits of State Power by SergeantX

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
OK, Signym, I'll skip the question of the thread... since you clearly have no intention of answering my questions, I'll take it as a concession that your position (that under socialism neither wealth nor government would decide the issues in question) was essentially contradictory

Sarge, you've asked a lot of questions and I've answered a lot of questions. I'm not sure that I left any UNaswered, and this is a long thread... way too long for me to go digging back and parsing all of it. So if you would kindly re-ask the questions you feel I've dodged on, I'll do my best to answer them.

Quote:
Easy now, don't hurt yourself! So, where are these examples exactly?... when a corporation wants to break you they don't send goons squads

In another thread I mentioned the Mafia and the Yakuza as examples of corporations which exist even in the face of government prohibition and punishment. But I don't have to go to that extreme. Large businesses are very much in the position of saying 'take it or leave it' and to the person that means 'take it or starve'... and, they're broken. That is not a free choice; the huge imbalance of power between the two parties precludes meaningful negotiation. Do you think people would choose to work in slave-like, starvation conditions if they had other options? Do you think this is the future they would freely choose for their children? Do you think that people would choose a system in which 500 people own half the world while a fourth of the world starves even tho they work harder than donkeys? And since I've have traced, over and over again, the process by which monopolization inevitably takes over any semblance of Adam Smith-style capitalism, and provided at least a dozen examples of it, I think I've made a good case for how capitalism eventually takes away people's economic freedom and replaces it with economic coercion.

I sat down one day and thought about how power: what it was and how many ways people can get screwed. Power is the ability to get people to act with you... and often, against their own interests. HOW can you get people to act with you? Most obviously, you can stand over them with a whip, spear, sword, gun, or nuke... whatever the technology of the day... and threaten them with pain or death. But even better if you can convince people you've got something vital - like god on your side. I can point to dozens of theologies in which people gave up their prosperity, their judgment, their children, and even their lives, to hold up the foundations of heaven or some such silly nonsense. And then there is economic coercion: you have a monopoly over something they really DO need- it could be water, oil, food, or jobs- and thus you have the economic whip hand. Best if you can do all three. Divide the population between the haves and have-nots. Convince everyone that the system is the best possible and that any deficiency must be THEIR fault. Control communication so that no other message is heard. Weed-whack the few strays with violence when necessary.

Quote:
This brings up a couple of good points. First off, you ever wonder how we got to the point that your health care, and implicitly your very health, came under the control of your employer?

Not really, 'cause I already know the answer

Quote:
Ask anyone who's self-employed how much health insurance really costs. It's not pretty.

Yes, I know

Quote:
We've driven health care price inflation to the point where the only way it is affordable is by joining a large group plan.

What mean this 'we', Kimosabe? The insurance companies are screwing over ... well, everyone. But before the insurance companies it was doctors and their monopolistic practices which drove up healthcare costs by limiting the number of slots in medical school. This is very much a self-regulated industry doing what it does best: being profitable and making sure it stays that way.

Quote:
The thing is, there are precious few good reasons for harming someone.

And one of those good reason is PROFIT. Why should I pay you a wage on which you might live comfortably if I can get away with paying you a wage which means slow starvation... and pocket the rest? That IS the fundamental capitalist modus operandi, isn't it?

Quote:
This is substantially no different than the "withholding medical care" argument, but it does characterize a class of arguments you use repeatedly, so I'd like to address it. I'm wondering, how exactly do you "starve" someone? The whole notion seems to imply a captive victim. Either that, or it assumes a situation dependent on some rare emergency. How often is there only one source of food? Or for that matter income? Basing public policy on such rare circumstances is useless and deceptive.

It's not rare. It happens everywhere around the world, if you care to look. Capitalism is like musical chairs... there are NEVER enough jobs for everyone. And if there are enough people falling between the chairs to the floor... as has happened in our history several times... then the grumblings of revolution start. That's the whole reason for unemployment insurance.... because it DOES happen. And as we are displaced from our lofty economic peak, as we come into more direct competition with people who really are starving, it'll happen here more and more too.

Quote:
Their power largely resides in our unquestioning acceptance of them as our "overlords", in the notion that working for the man is the only way to make a living and the only way to get health care;

I suppose having your family juggle on a street-corner, or banging out belt-buckles from tin-cans, or prostitution, or scavenging garbage dumps is a better alternative? You can;t have entire populations living off the detritus of the inner circle.

Quote:
in our acceptance of institutional indoctrination

I worry as much about TV as I do about school. Commercials ARE propaganda.

Quote:
our willingness to accept that our corporate masters are too big to fail, and that we must sacrifice our very futures because it's "good for the company"

But you do that every time you argue for capitalism, because the capitalism that YOU argue for doesn't exist now, and in the few times and places where it HAS existed in protoform it became corrupted as soon as industrialization took place. I think we both agree that using taxes to prop up failing industries is bad. But arguing for the continued existence of this system is also bad, as it is inevitably corrupt.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 12:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%.[citation needed] Factories were run through worker committees; agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes.[citation needed] Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers.

This is exactly what I've been arguing for. One of the things talked about was the elimination of any business-form except worker-controlled cooperatives of various sorts. I've gotten into very detailed discussions with Fletch2 about the two currently-successful cooperatives: Mondragon (which is a consortium of Spanish cooperatives) and Carl Zeiss. That is the reason why, in my ideal government (such as it is) each bureau operates under a self-elected Board, for example. And even then, I would make sure there is no "unitary executive" in ANY business form: no President, no CEO, no Chair of the Board.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if you would kindly re-ask the questions you feel I've dodged on, I'll do my best to answer them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX
I was thinking about this in the other thread: You agreed with me, that government shouldn't be able to determine where we live, what we do for a living, whom we marry, or how many kids we can have. But I think you'd also say that those things shouldn't be determined by how much money we have, that kids shouldn't have to go without because their parents are poor, that poor people shouldn't be excluded from nice schools and nice neighborhoods due to lack of money, that we shouldn't be denied a career of our choice due to lack of money.

Well, how do those work for everyone at the same time? What if everyone (or, more realistically, way more than is practical) want's to live in a beach house in Souther Cal? If money isn't at issue, surely every parent will want their children to go to the very best schools, the very best doctors, and have the best daycare. Obviously, everyone can't have everything. The question is, if wealth isn't the determining factor, and government isn't making these selections, who makes the call?

Quote:
I suppose having your family juggle on a street-corner, or banging out belt-buckles from tin-cans, or prostitution, or scavenging garbage dumps is a better alternative?

Well, I wouldn't recommend the prostitution bit, but yeah, the other options sound better than the horrific, slave-like conditions you describe.

Quote:
... the capitalism that YOU argue for doesn't exist now

That's true to a point. There's much that's broken about the current situation. I think can we can agree that corporations have too much power. The manipulate our society, herding us into their "human resource" pens, convincing us that the only option is to live life as their property (employee), pushing us into debt and onto the consumer treadmill. You call this "economic power" and imagine that it is something separate from the coercive power of government.

But, as rue pointed out, economic power is completely dependent on government. The power represented by the numbers in their ledgers completely evaporates without a proactive government to support it. And I'm not talking merely protecting property rights. Government has expanded incrementally in ways that subtly, and not so subtly, push people into serving the interests of the power-hungry. Our education system, our tax code, medical regulation, our foreign policy - pretty much every damned thing the government does - runs through the filter that asks "is it good for business?"

And the really frustrating thing is, every time someone dares to complain about it, the corporations say "boo!" and scare everyone into creating more government. Kinda like their doing right now.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, I wouldn't recommend the prostitution bit, but yeah, the other options sound better than the horrific, slave-like conditions you describe.

And both- the slave-like conditions working for "the man" AND the slave-like conditions working for yourself- are CREATED BY capitalism.

Quote:
economic power is completely dependent on government.

I disagree.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:19 AM

Had more to say, but it seemed like a separate post.

I've mentioned it before, but I think that our society is currently caught in the crossfire between between those who see government as the problem, and those who see it as the solution. And those who seek to control us are having a party, at our expense, in the midst of the confusion.

But even as I type that, I'm considering that you might not necessarily say that "government is the solution". It seems like maybe you have something else in mind, thus my questions. It's not entirely clear to me whether you see state socialism as the goal or not, but you do seem to see it as the next step.

In lots of ways, I see how pure socialism could be better than the mixed bag we're currently slogging through. But what really bothers about socialism is that it seems like the ultimate form of democracy. And putting it bluntly, majority rule democracy scares the bejeezus out of me because I'm almost never in the majority. So the notion of having every damned thing decided by the majority (without a massive change in societal values) sounds like a living hell to me.

So, that's really just sort of background behind my question above. The flip side of that might be "How do you protect the minority if the majority is in control of every aspect of life?"

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ideally, government as I envision is not the government of today. But as of this moment, I see capitalism/ monopolism as a greater threat than government as both are currently constituted. The reason is that our government has a feedback loop to the popular will built in which is THE VOTE. It is the single-most powerful concept devised by the FF. There is NO SUCH feedback built into corporatism/ monopolism. They can play one nation against another... and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.

Quote:
But what really bothers about socialism is that it seems like the ultimate form of democracy... "How do you protect the minority if the majority is in control of every aspect of life?"

That's a pretty big "if". But I suppose you protect the minority the same way that you protect the majority under capitalism today: you don't.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:36 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Sarg,

Unable to post all weekend, & time is short now. But your points are valid all up through this thread. I'm sorry that I can't help the debate.

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
you don't.

Alrighty then. That pretty much takes care of any lingering doubts I may have had. Thanks for your honesty.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And now... to your questions!

Quote:
I was thinking about this in the other thread: You agreed with me, that government shouldn't be able to determine where we live, what we do for a living, whom we marry, or how many kids we can have. But I think you'd also say that those things shouldn't be determined by how much money we have, that kids shouldn't have to go without because their parents are poor, that poor people shouldn't be excluded from nice schools and nice neighborhoods due to lack of money, that we shouldn't be denied a career of our choice due to lack of money. Well, how do those work for everyone at the same time? What if everyone (or, more realistically, way more than is practical) want's to live in a beach house in Souther Cal? If money isn't at issue, surely every parent will want their children to go to the very best schools, the very best doctors, and have the best daycare. Obviously, everyone can't have everything. The question is, if wealth isn't the determining factor, and government isn't making these selections, who makes the call?

Let me toss out some ways in which this can be done without the government sticking its nose into every aspect of your life, from the immediately do-able to the more theoretical.

The first is plain-old European-style democratic socialism: A mixed economy with wealth redistribution and some partly socialized aspects (health care, utilities, transportation, media, communication) which ensures that people don't fall below a certain minimum. The exact mechanisms vary from nation to nation, but no-one can say that Europeans are "told" where to live, who to marry, which jobs to take, or how many children to have. In fact, in those aspects I think Europeans are FREER than we are because they seem to have more viable choices. There are income differences, but not anywhere near as great as the USA.

Then we could get to more theoretical changes which would require radical restructuring: an economy of cooperatives, for example. A educational meritocracy. A direct-democracy government. (One of the good things about direct democracy: if you had to vote personally on very single friggin' law, there would be a damn sight fewer of them proposed!) AFA protecting the "rights" of the minority: WHICH rights are you interested in protecting? After all murderers are a minority... but I'm sure you're not talking about protecting THEIR rights. So are you talking about economic rights... the right to not participate economically? (eg not pay tax nor be told to wear your seatbelt bc otherwise you drive up the cost of health care?) Civil liberties? I can imagine tax-exempt "opt out" communities- like the Mennonites, for example. Your economic ties - both obligations and benefits- would be reduced or eliminated for example- while still retaining full civil rights. Or maybe you have a "Class X" tax and benefits rating: you pay only limited taxes, but if you get in an accident, or become disabled, or when you retire ... you're on your own.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Alrighty then. That pretty much takes care of any lingering doubts I may have had. Thanks for your honesty.

The answer was embedded in your question BY DEFINITION. IF the majority is in control of every aspect of your life... no other answer is possible! That's why I said it was a pretty big IF. But I am clearly not proposing that the majority be in control of every aspect of your life! As such, your question was a simply a rhetorical tool to force an answer.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The answer was embedded in your question BY DEFINITION. IF the majority is in control of every aspect of your life... no other answer is possible! But that's why I said it was a pretty big "if"!

Well, then that brings us back to the thread title. What mechanism in socialism, any brand you might be thinking of, prevents this from happening? I'll the rephrase the question you just answered: Under socialism, what limits the power of the majority over the minority?

You answered this before by beginning a list of specific rights that would be protected, but that brings no clarity because, presumably, that very list of rights is at the mercy of majority rule. Constitutionally limited government does provide that clarity because it takes the inverse approach and compiles a concise list of what the government can do (ie the rights you don't have rather than those you do).

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 3:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We have a Constitution which has been violated by the government every which way for the last eight years, sporadically before then, and majorly under Nixon and Lincoln. I'm not sure a simple "goddamn piece of paper" is going to protect anyone. That's why I keep harping on HOW the government is formed and HOW it operates. You need rights but as importantly you need a system which will keep the government under control. So you need to look at when rights were violated and how to prevent it in the future. (and IMHO more of the same will just lead to more of the same.)

Quote:
What mechanism in socialism, any brand you might be thinking of, prevents this from happening? I'll the rephrase the question you just answered: Under socialism, what limits the power of the majority over the minority?

I'm assuming that we're taking about democratic... whateverism. (I'm not actually proposing socialism.) As I started saying, I think there need to be structural changes.

So, first of all, you need a constitution which states your rights... and very clearly states that NO ENTITY can violate those fundamental rights... whether that entity is the Federal government, the state, the city, a business... or even your very own family

Secondly I think we should eliminate the office of the President. Most of the abuses seem to have come from the Executive Branch.

Thirdly, I think we need a way of kicking power downwards... solving problems at the lowest possible level. But I don't think limiting central power is either wise or sufficient. New situations will arise where only a centralized power can act effectively, but there needs to be a constant push in the other direction. I haven't put much thought into how to do that, but I suspect in a couple of day I will propose a mechanism that is flexible and effective. In fact... what about if the more central authority only comes into play on appeal from a lower entity? (For example, the State would adjudicate a property-tax conflict between counties?

Fourth, maybe one should be able to opt-out of certain taxes and government services. You say you have imagination Sarge? Maybe you should put it to work!

And, speaking of work... it's my day off, but my family needs me.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 3:37 AM

Cool... some interesting ideas there.

I've been blowing way to much time on this thread the last few days and I really need to get some work done, so I'm going tear myself away for a bit. But I'd like to continue, if at a slower pace.

Anyway, thanks for addressing my points.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 5:07 AM

Hmm, it really DOES sound like both of you are looking at the Catalonian model from opposite ends.

The inherent problem, other than creating it, however, is defending it, and you're not gonna do that without violence, and a lot of it, unfortunately.

Another thing I am interested in, but having difficulty finding any information on, is how the Spain of the time produced so many folk who's inherent nature trended towards that degree of self-reliance and management, enough to make something like that WORK in the first place.

One thing our social, economic, educational and other systems have been all too damned good at, is weeding out folk who trend that way, sure, some slip through the cracks here and there - but most of them wind up in the hellcamps, which is one reason I felt they needed to be destroyed, since as long as we were actively eliminating those among us who had the potential to not only thrive without their "masters" but who would eventually desire that exact result, this concept wasn't gonna *go* anywhere, you see ?

I've spent a good chunk of my life figuring out what makes people like that, and it's been my conclusion (and a shout-out to HKCav here) that the mental health of those folk is in some way more stable and superior to average, as they see empathy and cooperation as strength, not weakness - and yet, despite them being of superior mental health in my perception, our society perceives them, specifically in the factor of having less respect for "authority" which has not proven it's value, as suffering from mental illness!

And as such, also sees them as needing "treatment" in much the fashion of soviet style re-education, which leads down the road to the camps, a model which if unchecked, was gonna lead to use against adults soon enough, still might, the potential is there, anyhows.

But really, what's it say about modern psychiatry when self reliance, self control, empathy and cooperation to a degree where external control is no longer desired or required - is considered a mental illness requiring treatment ?

Anyhows, if you want such models to work, first you have to have people capable of survival within them, willing to play by those rules, and who desire to do so - but that flower is never gonna bloom so long as we smash it flat at the slightest sign of it sprouting, you understand ?

Fixing THAT problem has been the work of an entire lifetime, for me.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 6:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Government should force the powerful to give up that power.

And who gets to decide who has power and who has to give it up? You? How level should the government force things to be? Should everyone, regardless of ability or drive, have the same thing? Didn't Kurt Vonnegut write a story about such a utopia?

Quote:
This is exactly what Haken has done. It seems to work pretty well.

Was he forced to do so by the government? Is he one of those you consider powerful?

If folk can get access to media to distribute their ideas using outlets and technology freely available, such as FFF.com and a free computer terminal at a library, why bring government force into it at all?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 6:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And both- the slave-like conditions working for "the man" AND the slave-like conditions working for yourself- are CREATED BY capitalism.

Or they can be created by socialism or communism. Since in most socialist or communist systems both the economic and governmental systems are socialist or communist, you got a better chance of government being the one enforcing the slave-like conditions there.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 7:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hmm, it really DOES sound like both of you are looking at the Catalonian model from opposite ends.

It appears that we are. BTW... onew of Rue's favorite books is The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin. Strange to say but... it's a book about an anarchist society. I suspect there is more anarchist in us than we thought.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 7:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And who gets to decide who has power and who has to give it up? You? How level should the government force things to be? Should everyone, regardless of ability or drive, have the same thing? Didn't Kurt Vonnegut write a story about such a utopia?

Since that's not what I said, I'm gonna ignore that question and suggest that you re-read my posts.

Quote:
This is exactly what Haken has done. It seems to work pretty well.-signy

Was he forced to do so by the government? Is he one of those you consider powerful? If folk can get access to media to distribute their ideas using outlets and technology freely available...

No, but he was almost forced out of it a few years ago. You may recall the telecoms at one point thinking they were going to charge some websites more? It was only a big hue-and-cry.... the kind you seem to be so worried about.... that stopped it.

Quote:
such as FFF.com and a free computer terminal at a library, why bring government force into it at all?-geezer

The library IS government. Or haven't you noticed?

Quote:
And both- the slave-like conditions working for "the man" AND the slave-like conditions working for yourself- are CREATED BY capitalism. -signy

Or they can be created by socialism or communism. Since in most socialist or communist systems both the economic and governmental systems are socialist or communist, you got a better chance of government being the one enforcing the slave-like conditions there.-Geezer

Actually, there was a big DROP in living standards when socialist nations converted to capitalism. Quite frankly, capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful. But since I'm a big fan of democracy I don't see that as an issue.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 7:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since that's not what I said...

You said "Government should force the powerful to give up that power." I'd think questioning who decides the definition of 'powerful' in that scenario is valid.

Quote:
No, but he was almost forced out of it a few years ago. You may recall the telecoms at one point thinking they were going to charge some websites more? It was only a big hue-and-cry.... the kind you seem to be so worried about.... that stopped it.

So it was public opinion, not government, that stopped these changes. Why would I be worried about that?

Quote:
Actually, there was a big DROP in living standards when socialist nations converted to capitalism.

So it's better to be a well-fed slave? Actually, if you think Russia is capitalism, I believe you're mistaken. I'd suggest it's more in line with Corporatism, with government/business centers of power, such as Gazprom, which the government uses as a political weapon.

Quote:
Quite frankly, capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful. But since I'm a big fan of democracy I don't see that as an issue.

Signym, even the welfare state systems you like so much, such as Sweden, are basically capitalist economies with redistribution of wealth by taxes and governmnet social programs. the money to provide those social programs comes from the capitalist economic engine.

As for 'capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful', this could apply to pretty any system. In the Soviet Union, the system worked best for the politically powerful. In current Russia, the politically powerful can still fix elections and kill with impunity. The same for North Korea currently. No capitalism needed if you got the guns.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 8:54 AM

Quote:
one of Rue's favorite books is The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin. Strange to say but... it's a book about an anarchist society. I suspect there is more anarchist in us than we thought.

Not only that, but LeGuin is also a Kropotkinist, and within that novel also explores how consensus itself can become a powerful institution in it's own right, leading to conflict - and how one of the most important characteristics of free thinking folk is the ability and willingness to commit heresy.

I'd highly recommend backing that up with "The Left Hand of Darkness" also by Le Guin, which doesn't gloss over some of the more unpleasant aspects of 'younger' forms of Anarchism, and touches on the some of the concepts which make it work, like the lack of strong nationalism or ambition for it's own sake, as well as the concepts of 'having enough stuff' or not caring too much what someone elses beliefs are - they're not explored in detail so much, but they're there.

Lemme also add two more texts to that reading list, whether one agrees with them in detail or not, they do raise and address some of the more salient points we've discussed here.

No Treason - Lysander Spooner.
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

Our Enemy, The State - Albert Jay Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html

Very much well worth the time to read, if not print out and keep handy.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 2:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You said "Government should force the powerful to give up that power." I'd think questioning who decides the definition of 'powerful' in that scenario is valid.

I've already addressed that. Please read my posts.

Quote:
So it was public opinion, not government, that stopped these changes. Why would I be worried about that?

In the meantime the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used their jurisdiction[49] over the issue and has laid down guideline rules that it expects the telecommunications industry to follow. ... On 1 August 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that “We are preserving the open character of the Internet.” The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used to download movies, television shows, music and software on the Internet.

Quote:
So it's better to be a well-fed slave?

Better to be a well-fed slave than a starving one!

Quote:
As for 'capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful', this could apply to pretty any system.

But in the USA and its extreme so-called free-market free-trade clones the differences tend to be more extreme.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So it's better to be a well-fed slave?
Better to be a well-fed slave than a starving one!

That would seem to be the national consensus. But it stands in sharp contrast to earlier sentiments:

Quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 4:21 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
When I refer to "laws of convenience", I mean laws that might not directly involve protecting potential victims, yet make it easier for us to get along peacefully...

First of all thanks for clarifying on this, still pretty new to this whole discussion.

Quote:
I don't think it ought to be the government's job to go around making sure people do things that are good for them. Laws that protect people from themselves are demeaning and unnecessary.

Why do you say unnecessary? Continuing on with the seat belt example, don't you think it's a bad thing if human beings are not taking a very straight-forward safety precaution and some of them dying because of it? So you say unnecessary, but the only question in my mind is, is the state intervention effective? And then, is it worth it?

You say such a law is demeaning, I say the fact that human beings can be (and often are) so irrationally careless with their own lives is demeaning. A low opinion of humanity forms a large part of my political thinking, and I'm afraid in some respects humans are more like sheep in need of subtle cajoling than fully rational beings. And I include myself in this - because it's very natural for the human mind to assume concerning grave misfortune: 'it will never happen to me' - this instead of a more rational, risk assessment calculation.

And there are I think other examples of human psychology where we are generally weak, and irrational and under-evolved to deal with the modern world (drug dependency is another, quite depressing example) - and these things in my view diminish the value of our proud instincts for self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Now to me these same principles of human folly/weakness apply to activities such as cigarette smoking, and in a nation's right to gun ownership/use. These things I see as profoundly silly and bad for society, but...

I draw a line between these examples and the seat belt example, because these are cultural, and I don't see it as the state's place to play God and trample on the human soul - even if it is only on its most foolish manifestations.

So back to the seat belt example, where we are on opposite sides of the line - do you disagree with and dislike that law specifically, or just in principle? Or do you see it as a 'slippery slope', or something like that?

Heads should roll

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 5:49 PM

kpo,

It's definitely the principle I'm opposed to. But not necessarily the slippery slope. I DO think those kinds of laws are proliferating as a trend, but I don't see them leading directly to totalitarian government.

I'm saying such laws are unnecessary because they don't relate to the reasons we need government in the first place. We need government (settle down, Frem - merely stating the prevailing theory) so that we can have civilized social interaction. We need it to settle disputes, to apprehend bullies and violent predators. We need it maintain a commons where we can interact with some sense of order and trust.

But we don't need it to tell us the right way to live. We don't need it to tell us what church to go to or what books to read. We don't need it to maintain our health, to feed us, to cloth us, to make sure we brush our teeth before bed or tuck us in at night.

Signym said in another thread that of all our rights, the most important was "the right to think freely". (sorry for stealing this Signy, but I really like it

) I amend it slightly to say that most important is the "right to think for yourself". That means the right to form your own opinions, make your own judgments and act on them. It also means the right to form stupid opinions, make poor judgments and act foolishly. That's fundamental to the concept of liberty.

The only time we need government to step in is when that foolishness threatens other people. Outside of that, basic freedom requires people be allowed to think for themselves.

The other reason that kind of law is a bad idea has to do of the one-size-fits-all approach to solving problems. That's really my beef with majority rule government in general. We're all stuck with what the majority decides we should do. Sometimes, that's the only practical way to go. Sometimes, we need everyone needs to be on the same page. But most of the time it's not necessary. And when its not, we should let - even encourage - people to think for themselves.

I don't think it's wise for society to force conformity when it's not required. For one thing, it puts all our eggs in one basket and commits us to one solution. And, sometimes the majority is just plain wrong (hard to believe, I know). Why not hedge our bets and let the free thinkers try out alternatives?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 6:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I've already addressed that. Please read my posts.

I have. I don't see a direct answer. Who decides, and using what criteria, who has so much power that the government needs to control them?

Quote:
In the meantime the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used their jurisdiction[49] over the issue and has laid down guideline rules that it expects the telecommunications industry to follow. ... On 1 August 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software.

As requested again and again, cites would be nice.

Quote:
Better to be a well-fed slave than a starving one!

But considering the planned starvation of slave populations in Stalinist Russia and present-day North Korea, this isn't even a valid comparison. Besides the fact that present-day Russia isn't capitalist at all.

Quote:
But in the USA and its extreme so-called free-market free-trade clones the differences tend to be more extreme.

Oh bull. Compare the average person(a million a year starving out of a population of 25 million. 4% starving to death in a year) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/57740.stm in North Korea with Kim Jung Il's standard of living. How many starve to death in the US? Compare the average person in Russia with Putin.

Hell, compare the standard of living in countries with a capitalist economy with those with socialist or communist economies. Once again, even the social welfare states like Sweden make their money for social programs through taxing their successful capitalist economies. You have yet to refute this. I don't believe you can.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 6:44 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

First of all, why do you say unnecessary? Continuing on with the seat belt example, don't you think it's a bad thing if human beings are not taking a very straight-forward safety precaution and some of them dying because of it? So you say unnecessary, but the only question in my mind is, is the state intervention effective? And then, is it worth it?

The fun of this, to me, is - how far do you go? If we save lives mandating seatbelts, wouldn't we save more mandating a nationwide automobile helmet law? how about a 25MPH speed limit? It's the 'if it saves one life, it's worth it' argument. I guess it does seem to me to be leading to the slippery slope where everything possibly dangerous is banned. Too much fat in that steak - you can't have it. Skiing? you could hit a tree.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Monday, May 11, 2009 7:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Besides the fact that present-day Russia isn't capitalist at all.

By that criteria, neither is the USA.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Who decides, and using what criteria, who has so much power that the government needs to control them?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The answer to your question is... I would propose that businesses and governments be run by self-elected boards and that no organization have a "unitary executive" ... President or CEO etc. I thought I had said that several times already. Is that clear enough for ya?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:18 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The answer to your question is... I would propose that businesses and governments be run by self-elected boards and that no organization have a "unitary executive" ... President or CEO etc. I thought I had said that several times already. Is that clear enough for ya?

And your idea is that each company will have a committee who will decide that this company needs to be under the thumb of the government? Seems to me that no company is going to willingly decide that it will be controlled by the government unless doing so makes them more powerful, not less. So that’s not really an effective solution, or a solution at all.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:29 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That would seem to be the national consensus. But it stands in sharp contrast to earlier sentiments:

I think Sig was saying it's better to be a well fed slave than a badly fed slave, because either way you're still a slave. But you know a well fed slave is undeniably better off than a slave that isn't well fed.

How well fed can be applied to the citizens of the soviet union, I have no idea though. Just pointing out that your dismissal doesn't address what Sig said.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 6:53 AM

Whoa, good thread. How'd I miss this one?

Quote:
moved from the "end of free content" thread...

One of things libertarians fret about a lot is the idea the proper role of government. We believe that government should be a tool of last resort when solving our problems. So we want to limit government to a small set of necessary services. Thus the notion of constitutionally limited government.

I don't recall socialism or socialists ever setting out any concept of clear limits on government power. Obviously, that makes libertarians very nervous. The one thing that socialists are clear about is that government should be used to redistribute wealth. From one point of view, if the state lays claim to the fruits of our labor, other "rights" become a moot point.

So, what I'd like to do here is invite the socialists (or those who lean in that direction) among us to explain what they see as proper limits on government power. Are there any? What would you consider off-limits for the state, and more importantly, why?

Well, Sarge, to answer your question, I really don't like government much at all. I think any power structure carries with it the possibility of corruption. In fact, I think power structure itself may in fact BE a corruption, because generally a power structure must be maintained and enforced. Like Yin-Yang said, I identify myself as Anarcho-Socialist.

So things I consider off limits to the state are our bodies, our thoughts, our possessions, and determinations on how to use our time. Furthermore, I'd like to stipulate that no one person should own another person or have rights over their body, their thoughts, their possessions, or their time. I'd put in something here about "without some agreed upon limit on the extent of this control" because it's very hard for me to imagine child-rearing without some measure of parents and community being able to instruct the children, but I'm hesitant because of the abuse that could allow.

You also asked how a system would work without either government or economic controls.

I think that without government or wealth to motivate people, I think what'll motivate people is their survival, and then what they want to do. Any system with some degree of stability would first have to address those basic needs to a significant majority of the population, a la Maslow's hierarchy.

Syndicalism is a good start for determining how best to distribute those all important basic needs and reimburse the people who work to produce them. I've been hesitant to bring the idea up, because there's a lot of wariness when it comes to the idea of a union of workers, a lot of perfectly justified concerns over corruption and exclusion. But when married to the idea of basic necessity and socialism without government oversight and without any real need to redistribute wealth because people are starting OUT fairly equal, syndicalism works pretty well to fulfill that bottom rung of the ladder. Of course, efforts would need to be made to prevent the rise of a "party" of workers that doesn't represent the workers, like in state communism. The whole thing should be kept completely democratic, only with everyone having an equal vote, since democracy doesn't necessarily always mean EVERYONE.

And like I said, once people have food and livable conditions, I believe there will be people who will want to pursue other interests, such as technological or cultural progress, out of simple human curiosity and creativity, or a genuine desire to help other people and make life better.

I may sound like I'm rehashing SignyM's arguments here. I'm just trying to explain them in my perspective and to clarify the position.

Socialists argue that any society has an obligation to make sure that all it's population has, in the very least, their basic needs taken care of. This is because those who truly believe socialism (rather than abuse it) also believe that every person has intrinsic potential and that every person has a right to live.

I include even people who should be considered criminal in every society: the murderers, the thieves, and even rapists. Though their crimes are condemnable and obviously require some measure of public vigilance in the case of recidivism, their crimes also do not inherently negate the potential of these criminals.

Anyway. Starvation, illness, violence... All could be considered a threat to a person's life. In the end, none are a particularly enviable position to want to be in.

When going against a system results in suffering one or all of those three statuses as a penalty, a system designed to use basic needs against it's population, I call that a system designed to control that population. It's a system that doesn't serve the people, but itself and the people in power controlling that system.

Sarge, you say that rather than become a slave, you would willingly suffer starvation, illness, or violence. You would become an outlaw. A system that enslaves is a system that is fundamentally flawed, and I think your rebellion against such a system would be commendable.

And a catch-22, a system that punishes both those who participate and it's outlaws equally, through starvation, illness, or violence...? That is a system that not only is fundamentally flawed, but a self-destructive society and inhumane, to boot.

And some forms of capitalism do this. In it's purest form, would capitalism always eventually degenerate into use and abuse of workers to support incompetent executives, politicians, aristocracy, and established hierarchy? I can't answer that. But that is what our system capitalism is now. At least, how I see it. And if I could remake the whole thing, well, since I don't know if capitalism has any inherent tendency, my inclination would be to not tempt the risk of it.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The answer to your question is... I would propose that businesses and governments be run by self-elected boards and that no organization have a "unitary executive" ... President or CEO etc. I thought I had said that several times already. Is that clear enough for ya?

And once the self-elected boards are voted into power, none of them will ever covet, try to maintain, or abuse that power, of course.

Your communal business/government model has the same problem libertarian or anarchist systems have, you need to have a large percentage of the people with the proper mindset. If people either aren't interested in participating in the running of their business or government, or don't have the skills to participate usefully, you'll end up with the boards accreating more and more power. Then you're back to the same old same old.

Everyone doesn't think the same way, so any model that relies on a large consensus to work, isn't gonna work. And you can't really force everyone to think the same way. The best you can do is give folk the freedom to find one of many possible situations that is as close to their liking as possible.

If you want a business that runs on your communal model, find like-minded folk and start one. Don't try to force everyone else into the same mold.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:41 AM

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

"But, as rue pointed out, economic power is completely dependent on government. The power represented by the numbers in their ledgers completely evaporates without a proactive government to support it. And I'm not talking merely protecting property rights."

This is a mistatement. You can't have ANY economic system - even a libertarian one - without government - but it's not completely about guns and force. Sure guns and force (laws) factor into it - property rights and contract law, for example. But you also need currencies, infrastructure, technical standards (even consensus ones), a publicly available place from which to borrow money - just to name a few.

Without these large scale socially-defined structures, you end up with local economies dependent on local resources - wood, bone, hide, stone - and iron if you are lucky - a very primitive lifestyle indeed.

And on the other side, once formed, business becomes government - with all the power of life and death of government - but without the feedback control available through the vote.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:52 AM

Surprisingly relevant to the topic, especially given the source!

Out of the mouths of Madmen...
http://www.cracked.com/article_17216_5-most-popular-safety-laws-that-d
ont-work.html

Also, that "public safety" crap concerning red light cameras has been prettymuch exposed for the dangerous profit-making scheme it always was from the beginning.

-F

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And your idea is that each company will have a committee who will decide that this company needs to be under the thumb of the government?

Er... no. How did you figure THAT? I don't want companies to be under the direct control of government. What I want are feedback loops, checks and balances, which keep power dispersed as much as possible.
I think I may have confused people with what I want because there are two tracks: what I think is do-able in the immediate future, and what I want in the ideal world. Immediately, I think we should have single-payer health care. Immediately, we should divorce money from political campaigns by making media time freely available to all candidates. Immediately, we should shower money on NPR. Immediately, we need to government to invest in infrastructure - especially emerging green technologies. WHY? Because the so-called free-market system has fucked everything up immensely.

But ideally? I'd like to see and end to concentrations of power, whether it is money, laws, guns, the power of the pulpit or what-have you.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:05 AM

I think I've actually read that article. The language made me laugh, and then I felt very depressed for a while about the state of things.

"Mixed Martial Art Courtroom..." *smiles*

You know, speaking of the Amber Alert, Utah's trying to come up with their own version now. I suspect it'll be pretty ineffectual.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:44 AM

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

"(Catalonians)... trended towards that degree of self-reliance and management... "

Or towards cooperation and mutuality.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:59 AM

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

As (probably) the only person to have belonged to a co-op -

If the bylaws are written correctly, it'd be VERY hard to 'abuse' power in a coop. The co-op that I belonged to ran under direct democracy.

Since every member is a voting member, it would be very difficult for anyone to have the time and resources to actually coerce enough people to coerce the vote to abuse their power in the co-op.

Unless of course you are a font of ideas that you can sell very well. In which case, you 'abuse' your power by persuading others to go along. And if your ideas test out over over time as being generally good ideas, you'll probably get a better listening-to over time.

***************************************************************

Such is the horror of abuse of power in a co-op.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:54 AM

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

While I think 'The Dispossessed' was a helpful book -

Many sticky questions remained unanswered. Who mined (or recycled) the iron and coal to make the parts to fix the railroad engines to run the railroad ? Who mined and refined the minerals to manufacture the chips to run the computer that listed areas where work needed to be done ? Who gathered the resources to create the nutrition/ food lab to research new and better food supplies ?

Basically, it comes down to a lack of large-scale organization that you need to get complicated things done. I didn't see it in the book, and I don't think the society could survive without it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:04 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And your idea is that each company will have a committee who will decide that this company needs to be under the thumb of the government?
Er... no. How did you figure THAT? I don't want companies to be under the direct control of government. What I want are feedback loops, checks and balances, which keep power dispersed as much as possible.
I think I may have confused people with what I want because there are two tracks: what I think is do-able in the immediate future, and what I want in the ideal world. Immediately, I think we should have single-payer health care. Immediately, we should divorce money from political campaigns by making media time freely available to all candidates. Immediately, we should shower money on NPR. Immediately, we need to government to invest in infrastructure - especially emerging green technologies. WHY? Because the so-called free-market system has fucked everything up immensely.

Basically, you want the taxpayers to fund a huge take over of the private sector. And I guess, I’m not sure how that prevents the concentration of power. Where does it end? It seems to me the basic flaw your position is that it is not self consistent. You claim that ideally, you want an “end to concentrations of power,” but your methods of doing this is to put that power in the hands of the government, which leaves me with the same unanswered question I have always asked socialists, how does concentrating power in the government bring an end to concentrations of power.

This is essentially the Marxist model. Make a totalitarian dictatorship, then magic happens, and everyone is suddenly living in completely egalitarian world. I don’t buy it. And where it has been tried it has led to disaster.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:14 AM

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

"... but your methods of doing this is to put that power in the hands of the government ..."

Since I seem to be the only one on-line at the moment - I think the answer is posted above. Whereas both systems have concentrated power - when it is concentrated with business, there is no limiting (negative) feedback mechanism. When it is concentrated in government, you have (in this country) the limiting feedback of the vote.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:21 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Hehe...my post got long, and I may have gotten lost along the way. Not just going to dump it now though...a couple of things in here are on topic.

Just to respond to SergeantX's notion that the people should have the right to think stupidly....or whatever...

sure, at face value, that sounds democratic. I agree that thoughts should not be mandated----

but in a republic such as ours, where our future depends on the sanity(and by this I don't mean "common wisdom"), of the populace at large,

we can't really afford for those stupid voices to get a whole lot of traction, without regressing as a society every time the American people as a whole, get complacent, and content to not know shit about whats going on.

So I do believe in public schools, and I do believe in curriculum,

and at the very same time, I am aware of the threats that such a system could pose----

indoctrination versus honest providence of facts and ideas, is a real concern----and just looking at examples of states demanding the inclusion of Intelligent Design as a legitimate theory, in science class, emphasizes to me just what a slippery slope this is, and I have to appreciate the possibility that there are ideas on the left that can be propagated in the same way, even now, that I'm just not quite as sensitive to.

There is certainly evidence of indoctrination on a large scale. Socialism has been a boogie man word for ever in this country...people are content to equate any socialistic forms of government, with our enemies in the cold war. It has been so effectively propagated on a gut level that without even truly engaging the thoughts of people like Marx, Americans have been derisive and dismissive of anything that fairly or unfairly, gets the label of Marxist, or socialist, or communist.

Now, I'm no fond of Communism, and am certainly not appreciative of any tracking that country's might have done in their efforts to follow the Marxism "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,"

But I have in the past, found it disturbing that some ideas can't see the light of day very easily in this country. It is illumination that is the most important thing, both to discover merits of different thinking, and to debunk the unsound ideas in the public sphere, that might otherwise be cultivated.

Another such area of effective indoctrination is in our drug laws, and the lack of any serious debate about them in the mainstream for as long as such laws have been used to target and sometimes demonize certain ethnic groups, inflate the for-profit prison industry, etc. etc.

The "Just say NO" campaign, while being wholly ineffective at curbing drug use, has been exactly the way we have been willing to approach any discussion on the drug war in this country, until just recently.

Sure, there have always been rebels, and thankfully, free speech and the value placed on that right by most Americans, has prevented most from being literally silenced.

renegade messages, for so long relegated to the fringe, have over time found themselves to deliver a less pavlovian response to those popular outlets of information, so good on us I guess.

But look at all the wasted time, and all the disrupted lives.

.............

So, yeah, we have the right to be stupid and ignorant, but while we've seen where that road goes, we will likely forget about it in the next 10 years if things get better instead of getting worse in this country.

There is no national emphasis on staying informed...there is no, strong, national call to for Americans to exercise our duty, and make sure we spend some time governing.

Voting campaigns are simply not enough.

That is indoctrination we could use more of, in my opinion, because taking individual isolationism to the extreme as we so often do here, is probably not tennable for the long haul.

Now, i personally, have always had a romantic place in my heart for the individualism that is so idealized in American living, but it might serve to undercut our very real responsibility. Our ancestors took on that responsibility when they became part of a Republic...

and as I said earlier, we can only be bothered with that responsibility when shit finally gets noticably bad for us. I think our national identity needs to account for our role as governors. I think there needs to be a cultural emphasis on politics in our country, and of course,this only does any good if our people are educated well, to be able to think on their own, to have critical, objective tools of scrutiny.

that comes back to schools, which is why it is my opinion that government should have a role in defining curriculum(as it does now), and that curriculum should be defined empyrically. the checks and balances then come from the public sphere, from the voters etc. In turn we have a better educated populace, better able and more willing, more dedicated and more qualified to oversee the decisions of our representatives...

heh...and then we have world peace, and lions and people and sharks and alligators will all live in harmony...etc. etc.

It comes down to national framework. There is certain idealism that can still be debated, say, any of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, for instance, even while we take them as part of our American identity. It's worth arguing that what makes America great is everybody dancing to their own tune, but as part of our National Framework, I think its integral that we trump that just barely, with not just our right, but our duty as Americans, to govern.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:23 AM

On Marx/Lenin State Communism: Unprecedented amount of control on a national level, rampant cronyism and corruption among lobbyists, a bloated economic system based largely on fraud and cooked up numbers, and a single party system masquerading as two parties with the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo?

Gee, I can't wait for us to collapse into a kleptocracy!

...

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:33 AM

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

"... There is no national emphasis on staying informed ..."

My answer to that has always been a parliamentary system. When you can vote them out at any time, it behooves you to keep track of what they are doing (and in general it works better than the US system), and it behooves them to keep themselves in line with the electorate.

But direct democracy, which we can now do facilitated by computers, is another option.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:35 AM

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

"Gee, I can't wait for us to collapse into a kleptocracy!"

Elections are coming up in two years. Time to get that vote ready !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:49 AM

Quote:
You know, speaking of the Amber Alert, Utah's trying to come up with their own version now. I suspect it'll be pretty ineffectual.

Well, it depends.
(Advisement: This'll be long winded, as it's a pet peeve and a complex issue)

There's certain other factors in getting an AA issued, like if you're an upper class white suburbanite, versus poor white trailer trash or the wrong minority (in which case the trying is likely to get YOU arrested as a suspect, and a "confession" pounded out of you) - as well as the potential for abuse of the system, which has happened three times to our count but no one is gonna admit that, and certain glaring weaknesses in both the Amber Alert and Emergency Broadcast Systems which one would think might draw hackers and pranksters...

But doesn't, because despite it's glaring weaknesses, even amongst the very bottom feeders of the hacker community, an action like that is below the moral event horizon of even the lamest script kiddy, which in a sideways kind of way, illustrates that even those with no respect for the law have certain moral limits.

I did however see one remarkably decent use of the EBS on a local scale when I was living up near Flint - some store accidently refilled and exchanged a propane tank that was defective and likely to cause an explosion if used, and they put out an alert via the EBS which resulted in the recovery of the defective tank within a couple hours and possibly averted a disaster.

As far as Amber Alert, generally law enforcement personnel are fairly useless for that sort of thing, because actual investigation is no longer considered a priority by something that's devolved from public safety to protection racket, and the NCMEC is a shell game of feelgood which traded actual ability for perceived legitimacy - I could give you a list of ten questions which would have you thrown out of their office and hit with a restraining order within the hour, I do NOT jest.

However, they're not the only forces out there, and even in cases where Amber Alert is NOT engaged, there are folks who can and will set whole networks into action looking, none of us has forgotten Madeleine McCann, and her unique identifying characteristic means that if any photographic evidence whatsoever becomes available, the result is gonna be like kicking a hornets nest.

PeeJ is another such group, who deserves a bit of a shoutout today, because someone from a nearby township started stalking a female member of the socrates club (Talkin about YOU, Eric!) and PeeJ rolled him up as a habitual sex offender with previous convictions, resulting in Wayne County throwing him back in slam for a parole vio - believe me, if you handed them a "Missing-Critical (timeframe)" case they'd be all over it immediately.
Fair Warning though, they're hardcases and some of em are former DeeVees, so if you're concerned about fairness and justice, well....
On the other hand if ALL you want is your kid back in one piece to hell with the niceties or "building a proper case" or suchlike, they're a go-to group for that kinda thing.

Childseek is another, and I mention these two cause they're legal, aboveboard programs, even as harsh as PeeJ is, and thus willing to be excoriated in every possible detail down to what size shoes they wear in order to get "cooperation" from law enforcement.

If you can get the word to less aboveboard individuals and those who hang out in the "grey area" between aboveboard orgs and downright criminals, that interface can be amazingly useful because of their contacts on the dark side - there's been many a time where a name and description has been passed, and facing the possibility of high profile police/press involvement, which is a severe annoyance more often than outright threat to them, mind you - the kid is quickly deposited at a nearby fast food or convenience store from outside security camera range in accordance with a mutual SOP for this sort of thing, the kid gets returned and whatever investigation there is becomes a formality without an all hands turnout which would inconvenience the dirtbags, cause they can always, always get more "product", sadly enough.

You might also contact local cab companies, IF you can get past their cynical misanthropy, they're invaluable cause between dispatch and the drivers, they generally know EVERYTHING going on in town, aboveboard or not.

The fastest way to get a snatcher to drop a kid, whether it be a "product grab" custody snatch or what the cops call a "joyrider" (grab-use-dump, common in detroit) in their twisted black humor, is to turn the heat up by getting the low and criminal elements on YOUR side, and give them nowhere to hide or run to - the movie Ransom illustrates this principle quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_(1996_film) <-Add manual

One thing that has totally poisoned the well on this matter for law enforcement is their nasty little habit of arresting folks who report this crap, rather than those who commit it - it's had a devastating chilling effect on cooperation regarding this issue, and how I wound up with my assistant/secretary Alice.

Lemme recap that, for them what missed it the first time - lady was a typical suburanite housewife, of little technical competence, and when browsing a recipe site got browserjacked into the "cascade popup window of doom" which I am sure folks around here may be grouchily familiar with, and they was a couple years back when the freaks were NOT shy about advertising their horrid wares since no one seemed inclined to do much about it.

Shocked and horrified by the cascade of awful images, Alice pulled the plug on the computer and called the cops, who called the FBI - who then arrested HER for possession of said content, and despite our best intervention after the fucking ACLU blew us off again, was charged, convicted and registered as a sex offender, resulting in divorce, loss of custody and being kicked out of her home with nowhere to go, no income, and the pariahs mark of being a "sex offender" which of course would make getting a rental lease or employment a freakin next-to-impossible nightmare with no real job experience or skills to draw on.

All for trying to be a decent human being, and being ignorant of the fact that law enforcement as a rule hates to be dragged into having to work, and prefers the quick and easy option of a bust-in-hand.

And so, when walked up to her in the middle of contemplating suicide and offered her another option, she took it - although she's still workin out "issues" and will go into something between a berserker frenzy and nervous breakdown upon sight of a police officer, which is understandable.

Anyhows, the problem with Amber Alert is both a certain unfortunate discrimination and bias on behalf of those who decide to issue one, and the zealotry of typical police in combination with a lack of amnesty agreements for those who would participate - why come forward when YOU will likely be arrested for outstanding warrants/parole violation/etc while you're giving your statement ?

For that matter, what if a parent has legal "issues" and doesn't dare come forward cause the record search is gonna get em busted for driving on a suspended license, which, being a bust-in-hand, is all the cops are gonna be caring about at the time and maybe, if they even remember, they'll go after the kid once they get done booking YOU.

Which then means if they do get the kid back, since you're in jail and all, right into the social services/foster care meatgrinder they'll go, which doesn't help matters all that much now, does it ?

If they want it to WORK, they absolutely have to add a no-questions-asked amnesty provision, or the folks you NEED to come forward ain't gonna do it, not only cause of the lack, but also because if they did start doing it anyway, the police would soon use false alerts as bait.

The ONLY priority, once the system is engaged, should be getting the kid back unharmed - period.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:50 AM

Rue: If only that would actually make a difference. But no one's going to do a thing about all the corporations pulling the strings and exporting our future to China. Not when the politicians on the side of the platform who might say they'd do something about it are all firmly in the pockets of those same corporations, and the ones who aren't won't do anything either because of free enterprise.

I sound bitter. *muses on that*

Anyway, I sincerely hope there isn't a collapse. The amount of suffering people would experience... But sometimes I wonder if that's the only way to establish a system that works. Reform within the system seems almost impossible.

I'll keep voting and talking to people around me, I think that's all I can do right now. My efforts at civil disobedience have been... lackluster, at best. But I really don't expect to make any difference.

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:54 AM