Quote :

"Rewards and competition may actually hinder performance. "

This is simply inconsistent with human nature.

Quote :

"Overthrowing hierarchy completely appears nearly impossible at this point."

It’s because it is an extremely efficient means to produce. How would the production of something as simple as food work without a hierarchal organization? If the owner of the land and tools were the "boss" of 20 workers, how would you organize production, without the means of theft, so that the 20 workers were under a non-hierarchal system? And how would that be more efficient?

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/31/2008 9:36:17 AM

Quote :

"How did I get the money to pay the owners in all these wonderful voluntary transactions? Yes, that's right, wage slavery. It's not brutal oppression like you get in wars and dictatorships, but it's oppression nonetheless. "

Not at all slavery. Voluntary trading of your time for money. Nothing in the world stops you from going out and building your own home, making your own food and living entirely without money (taxes that you would owe the government who is in the business of redistributing your wealth aside). Certainly that would be a more difficult lifestyle than what you have now, but that is only because your fellow men would rather trade money with you, than the scribbling you call art that you produce. And surely you can find some other altruistic folks like yourself who will be more than happy to provide you with free equipment and materials. Perhaps because they will assume that in the future you would do the same for them, so really what you're doing is exchanging one item (labor, materials, land, or even dare I say it... money) for another item. But don't worry, since it isn't money, it's not slavery or oppression, it's equality.

Quote :

"Individuals, of course. Anarchy won't be imposed by violence. We might take your stuff, but we won't make you do anything. Given the philosophy's unpopularity, separatism does seem ideal. We'll be lucky to ever get a space without bosses. Overthrowing hierarchy completely appears nearly impossible at this point."

How do you plan to take my stuff without violence? Wait, I forgot that you don't view setting fire to my house as a violent act.

Quote :

" I'm not forgetting any of the things you claim. We disagree at a very basic level. That doesn't mean I'm unaware of your arguments and reasoning. Believe me, I've heard them before. I understand them fully. I used to make some of them myself. "

So you are aware there isn't one "benefit for all" but you will insist on pushing ahead anyway and force people to accept your one true benefit?

Quote :

"Well, I'd always want room to compromise and negotiation. Folks would have determine when to struggle and when to accept minor inequality. Some agreement between collectivists and capitalists could possibly be reached. Given current conditions, I don't consider these details too important. We're blatantly unequal, and talking alone ain't working. It's time for direct action. "

You didn't answer the question. Does treating people like human being include taking away the things they produce merely because it isn't fair?

Quote :

"Because they believe in cooperation and value their work. Intrinsic motivation is the most powerful kind. Producing such people might take conditioning, but it should be possible. "

As I said, cooperation operates on the belief that you will receive something of benefit from the cooperation, whether it is immediately realized in the project you cooperate on, or realized later in the form of future cooperation, either way you're still trading and surrendering resources, just like now.

Quote :

"If Dick has a bunch of stuff and Jane has none, equality mandates redistribution. The unequal treatment serves to fix the imbalance."

What if Jane doesn't want what Dick has?

Quote :

"Food, housing, health care, clothing. Just the basics would be a good start. "

So a lean to, bread, water, advil and a burlap sack? Or would a shared room with 20 other people, MREs, water, a first aid kit for all and some robes be enough? How will you deal with the vegetarians who won't want their equal share of meat? What about all the people that want to live on the beach? Or the ones that want to live in down town manhattan? In your perfect world, how long would Teri Schiavo have been kept alive? After all with no hierarchy's the husband would have had no more say than her family, and clearly the family wanted her still alive, are they allowed to consume health care resources endlessly? As I said, define comfortable life.

Quote :

"No, nothing like that. I wouldn't want to make everything identical. I would wish you complete freedom to produce sculpture. I believe the arts would flourish like never before under technocracy. Again, these kind of questions strike me as silly under circumstances of extreme inequality. We live in world of bosses. I'm not worried about your clay sculpture. "

What you don't seem to understand is that such clay sculptures are how we got to this world in the first place. Money didn't occur by accident, it's because even when people were equal way back when the world first started, some produced what others wanted.

Quote :

"Yes. If I didn't make such choices, I'd drown in postmodern ambiguity. You know this. "

I just wanted to be sure that we aren't talking about making people equal.

Quote :

"I know it's awfully good for folks with capital. That's how far deserving goes under our current system. Folks are worthy of money because they have money. Great."

Hardly. Under our current system, Derek Jeter is worthy of money because he provides a service that people want. Similarly, your investor is worthy of money because he provides a service that people want.

8/31/2008 12:35:57 PM

QUOTE WAR

8/31/2008 1:08:38 PM

The only result of GoldenViper's dream system would be the rise of more mafioso type orgainizations.

8/31/2008 1:36:00 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: So you are a voluntary socialist. That's just great."

I like to think so.

Quote :

"You go ahead and smash the state, and when me and my neighbors opt not to equalize, instead choosing to secure our property ourselves (guns, custom, and hired security) you will simply leave us be, right?"

That would depend on the circumstances. If you ended up oppressing folks in your community, as I suspect you would, I'd try to aid them. If my comrades and I lacked what needed and you had it, we might steal. Assuming, of course, we couldn't come to some agreement.

Quote :

"No sending in men with guns to kill us for failure to adhere to your idiology?"

Of course not. However, we might protect ourselves with guns. If you responded to property crimes with violence, that's when things could get ugly. But I'd want to avoid such a conflict.

Quote :

"What happens when we start imposing our justice on others we believe have wronged us (custom based systems usually involve involuntary compensation of victims), will you still leave us alone then?"

As before, it would depend on circumstances and conditions. I doubt anarchists would accept anything like a prison system quietly.

Quote :

"If so, then you are doomed to failure, in our opinion, as voluntary socialism requires love and there is simply not enough love for strangers to compensate for the very real sacrifice required for the production required in their name."

Yes, I'm well aware for this logic. I don't agree, though I'll grant the transition from the capitalist mindset to anarchist technocracy would be difficult. We're all conditioned for the current system, by parents, peers, and media. As natural as it seems, none of this is essentially human. It's constructed by society. Tearing that down and constructing something different in its place should be possible.

Quote :

"But I too recognize this stops being true once production no longer requires human sacrifice (AI), thus negating the need for any incentive whatsoever, be it reward or love."

That's my main hope. I believe we could live without the bosses now, or even with primitive technology. I think the system could work, but I doubt those with power would allow it. But future production advances will force some sort of change.

Quote :

"Hunt: This is simply inconsistent with human nature."

I suggest reviewing the psychological literature before you make such claims.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Voluntary trading of your time for money."

I don't worship at the altar of free choice. Our choices are constrained by circumstances. As you basically admit, it's either work for peanuts or go primitivist. That's why we call it wage slavery.

Quote :

"Nothing in the world stops you from going out and building your own home, making your own food and living entirely without money (taxes that you would owe the government who is in the business of redistributing your wealth aside)."

Except that most of the land, particularly the productive land, is owned by somebody. Homeless folks try to do the the sort of thing you're suggesting. They harassed by cops and owners constantly.

Quote :

"But don't worry, since it isn't money, it's not slavery or oppression, it's equality."

You've got it. I love exchange and cooperation between equals. Wage slavery under bosses is another thing entirely. There's no pretense of equality at most jobs. They don't even both with your postmodern mental gymnastics. Most bosses flaunt their superior position.

Quote :

"How do you plan to take my stuff without violence?"

How does an anarchist punk steal CDs without packing heat?

Quote :

"So you are aware there isn't one "benefit for all" but you will insist on pushing ahead anyway and force people to accept your one true benefit?"

This argument isn't getting you anywhere. Yes, I desire my notion of equality and oppose what I see as oppression. None of this objectively correct. It's fuzzy, it's messy. I don't care. These terms still have meaning to me and my comrades. Probably to you as well, though you might not admit it for this debate.

Quote :

"Does treating people like human being include taking away the things they produce merely because it isn't fair?"

If they've got plenty and others lacks, absolutely. But treating people as human beings means looking at the specific individual and circumstances. I find inflexible rules to be dehumanizing.

Quote :

"As I said, define comfortable life."

Technocracy would easily let everyone in continent enjoy middle-class standards of living. People, of course, would still choose what the wanted. It wouldn't be identical. Equality and oppression would be defined by the folks involved. That's why I can't answer all your silly questions. Humans would decide that for themselves. It would largely be a subjective judgment.

Also, it wouldn't be perfect. I'm amused how everyone immediately associates anarchy with utopia. Y'all must like the bosses less than you let on. No, such a world would have many of the same problems. I say it would be better. I don't claim it would be paradise. Technology may be able to create that desired perfection. Smashing hierarchy alone won't.

Quote :

"I just wanted to be sure that we aren't talking about making people equal."

I certainly am. Again, you must realize that this tactic works just as well against anything. I could redefine countless other concepts and thus undermine any belief system based on them. So what? If the anarchist notions of equality and freedom don't appeal to you, you won't like the philosophy. Let's leave it at that.

Quote :

"Hardly."

No, exactly. I would literally only need a few hundred thousand dollars to live in ease and comfort my whole life. Get a decent rate of return and I'd be set. It wouldn't be based on my ability or worth. I'd simply invest the money and relax.

8/31/2008 1:49:31 PM

Quote :

"Of course not. However, we might protect ourselves with guns. If you responded to property crimes with violence, that's when things could get ugly. But I'd want to avoid such a conflict...As before, it would depend on circumstances and conditions. I doubt anarchists would accept anything like a prison system quietly."

And we would with full understanding that you were the agressor. We put up signs informing you that this region had enforced property rights, and yet you damaged an electric fence, shot a guard dog, and damaged a car in an attempt to steal it. As such, being good capitalists, upon capture our authority will insist you pay restitution for the damage. If you have payment on you then we will let you go free and clear, if you are short then we will send an agent back with you home to collect payment. I am just guessing this is how it would work, as most customary law does not allow for corporal punishment as it has a deadweight loss (if we execute you then who will compensate the family of the individual you murdered?). Failure to pay compensation, of course, would make you an outlaw and thus eliminate any consequences for someone else killing you.

Quote :

"though I'll grant the transition from the capitalist mindset to anarchist technocracy would be difficult. We're all conditioned for the current system, by parents, peers, and media."

I disagree; it is our biological sense of competition which conditions us. How do you expect to feel when I show up, ask nicely, and take away all you have worked hard to produce (say grain) and then turn around and sell it, pocketing all the product of your labor and giving back nothing? Do you think you will do it again?

But in your poverty striken world, how exactly is it going to work? Is there going to be a weekly town meeting where someone stands up, proclaims poverty, and everyone else voluntarily hands over a share of what they have (be it food, medicine, etc)? How do you deal with hoarding or fraud? What happens if no one in town feels like farming, wanting instead to work inside designing video games?

Quote :

"That's my main hope. I believe we could live without the bosses now, or even with primitive technology. I think the system could work, but I doubt those with power would allow it."

What? There is nothing to stop you and a bunch of friends from starting a collective. You don't need to steal our machines if you are right that we've achieved enough technology for technocracy. Go get copies of a few patents and build your own machines in the empty midwest. Afterall, just under half of the United States is virgin territory. The Police cannot molest you and your fellow homeless if you don't insist on using our streets and park benches. Similarly, you aren't required to pay royalties if the patent holders never hear of your existance.

8/31/2008 4:42:42 PM

Quote :

"And we would with full understanding that you were the agressor. We put up signs informing you that this region had enforced property rights, and yet you damaged an electric fence, shot a guard dog, and damaged a car in an attempt to steal it."

You crazy? Anarchists aren't going to shoot dogs. Anyways, we would of course reject your assertion that we started it. (It would be like most violent conflicts in the respect.) By our thinking, you can't legitimitely protect property with guns. Signs or not, we don't recognize the type of property rights you claim.

Quote :

"I disagree; it is our biological sense of competition which conditions us."

We have a biological sense of competition? I think it's very dangerous to assign likely cultural traits to biology. Oh, let's look for a gene for everything. Come on. It's environment more than nature.

Quote :

"How do you expect to feel when I show up, ask nicely, and take away all you have worked hard to produce (say grain) and then turn around and sell it, pocketing all the product of your labor and giving back nothing? Do you think you will do it again?"

No, that sounds like what an oppressor would do.

Quote :

"But in your poverty striken world, how exactly is it going to work?"

It wouldn't poverty stricken. No, technocracy would yield abundance like the world has never seen. That's what liberating our vast productive capacity from the price system would mean.

Quote :

"Is there going to be a weekly town meeting where someone stands up, proclaims poverty, and everyone else voluntarily hands over a share of what they have (be it food, medicine, etc)?"

Something like that. I'd want efficient systems of distribution and production. Folks who know to grow food would do so, and they wouldn't have to worry about producing too much and thus lowering prices. The syndicates or sequneces would provide needed goods and services. If you want something, you'd get it from the local depository. They'd keep records to determine what folks were using and thus what needed to be produced.

Quote :

"There is nothing to stop you and a bunch of friends from starting a collective."

Indeed. I have some experience with collectives. Unfortunately, I've yet to get in touch with any anarchists out here.

Quote :

"You don't need to steal our machines if you are right that we've achieved enough technology for technocracy."

Technocracy, as a originally designed, is a system for the North American continent. It's not something you can create with a couple of buddies and case of beer. I've never claimed system would work for a handful of folks with current tech.

Quote :

"Go get copies of a few patents and build your own machines in the empty midwest. Afterall, just under half of the United States is virgin territory."

That would require a lot of capital that I don't have, not to mention skills. Also, where is this virgin territory you're talking about? Places I've been are owned and controlled by someone, either public or private. A quick internet search tells me basically everything taken. Obviously, all the productive land is owned and probably used as well. I'd need a lot of technology and/or friends before I tried to live off resource-poor land. Once we reach that point, I'm game.

Quote :

"The Police cannot molest you and your fellow homeless if you don't insist on using our streets and park benches."

You grossly underestimate the police. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The state would be on top of any attempt to establish a significant anarchist collective in the wilderness.

Quote :

"Similarly, you aren't required to pay royalties if the patent holders never hear of your existance."

Yeah, what you're suggesting would never make the news.

8/31/2008 5:29:39 PM

Quote :

"You grossly underestimate the police. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The state would be on top of any attempt to establish a significant anarchist collective in the wilderness."

I wish I could remember the name, but I saw an independent film about a year ago which followed around a group of about 100 individuals building a separatist society in a desert region of New Mexico I believe most of them were criminals fleeing the law back home and just came to settle in the same place. That is, until a group of young anarchists came in and stole someones TV and after an armed standoff agreed to leave.

Quote :

"Also, where is this virgin territory you're talking about? Places I've been are owned and controlled by someone, either public or private."

'Places' do not become useful until transportation is provided. Specifically, you can't even log a region without road access and if there are lots of rivers then it is not worth constructing the required bridges to make it useful. As such, lots of territory even here in North Carolina remains unaccessible to the productive economy. Which would be irrelevant for you, since you do not intend to export the resources you extract. Just find an area in the state registry, get a quick-claim deed, and build you and your friends a log cabin.

Quote :

"They'd keep records to determine what folks were using and thus what needed to be produced."

Don't stop there! What's the next step!?!? Since everyone is free to go and take whatever they want out of the store room, who gets stuck going out to cut more fire-wood or climbing down into the sewers to clear out blockages?

Quote :

"You crazy? Anarchists aren't going to shoot dogs."

Then I guess you are going to get your face bitten off, as we worked hard to train our dogs to attack and keep atacking until a property enforcer arrives.

Quote :

"and they wouldn't have to worry about producing too much and thus lowering prices"

This statement shows a glarring misunderstanding of how markets operate in real life. Individual farmers can produce as much or as little as they want with no discernible effect upon prices. The only thing curtailing a farmers output is the cost of resources that have alternative uses. .

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 6:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/31/2008 6:05:30 PM

Quote :

"That is, until a group of young anarchists came in and stole someones TV and after an armed standoff agreed to leave."

Yeah, I guess that's how we roll.

Quote :

"Which would be irrelevant for you, since you do not intend to export the resources you extract. Just find an area in the state registry, get a quick-claim deed, and build you and your friends a log cabin."

Assuming this is even possible under the law, which I question, I'm not a primitivist.

Quote :

"Since everyone is free to go and take whatever they want out of the store room, who gets stuck going out to cut more fire-wood or climbing down into the sewers to clear out blockages?"

Without poor folks who can be easily economic coerced into doing the unpleasant work, I suspect it'd be automated quickly. If not, it should divided up evenly amongst those able.

Quote :

"Then I guess you are going to get your face bitten off, as we worked hard to train our dogs to attack and keep atacking until a property enforcer arrives."

Despite what cops may lead you to believe, shooting dogs isn't only way to handle them.

Quote :

"Individual farmers can produce as much or as little as they want with no discernible effect upon prices."

Who said I was talking about individual farmers? Regardless, lowering agricultural production to increase or stablize prices is a real phenomenon. We've been doing it in this country for a while now.

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 6:21 PM. Reason : stupid price system]

8/31/2008 6:17:19 PM

Quote :

"Without poor folks who can be easily economic coerced into doing the unpleasant work, I suspect it'd be automated quickly. If not, it should divided up evenly amongst those able."

How? What happens to me when I refuse to do my unpleasant duties? Capitalists have an easy answer: if you refuse to contribute to society then society will refuse to contribute to you. But, since all are provided for in your society regardless, thus eliminating the carrots used by capitalists, then all you have left are the sticks, which tend to break bones and suffer a deadweight loss for everyone involved. Is that not the case?

Quote :

"Who said I was talking about individual farmers? Regardless, lowering agricultural production to increase or stablize prices is a real phenomenon. We've been doing it in this country for a while now."

Such is a feature of non-capitalist societies, what would you have me say? I cannot condemn the practice any more than I already have: it is a crime against humanity for government to disregard the property rights of farmers in such a way.

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/31/2008 6:34:03 PM

Quote :

"How? What happens to me when I refuse to do my unpleasant duties?"

Nothing more than social pressure, I would imagine.

Quote :

"But, since all are provided for in your society regardless, thus eliminating the carrots used by capitalists, then all you have left are the sticks, which tend to break bones and suffer a deadweight loss for everyone involved. Is that not the case?"

No, that's a myopic view of motivation. What are you, a behaviorist? We're human beings. We have far more than carrots and sticks at our disposal. Folks do thing because they understand they need doing or enjoy the task itself, not only because of some external reward or punishment.

Quote :

"Such is a feature of non-capitalist societies, what would you have me say?"

What would happen without government agricultural schemes? I suppose you'll say prices would fall with high production but then rise again as farmers left the market. Has this happened anywhere? I thought nearly all governments were involved in food production.

This highlights the fact that your ideal system isn't so much closer to reality than mine. We've got capitalism and state intervention in USA, a mixture that shows every sign of enduring for decades to come.

8/31/2008 7:15:49 PM

Quote :

"That would depend on the circumstances. If you ended up oppressing folks in your community, as I suspect you would, I'd try to aid them. If my comrades and I lacked what needed and you had it, we might steal. Assuming, of course, we couldn't come to some agreement. ... Of course not. However, we might protect ourselves with guns. If you responded to property crimes with violence, that's when things could get ugly. But I'd want to avoid such a conflict. ... You crazy? Anarchists aren't going to shoot dogs. Anyways, we would of course reject your assertion that we started it. (It would be like most violent conflicts in the respect.) By our thinking, you can't legitimitely protect property with guns. Signs or not, we don't recognize the type of property rights you claim. "

So you reject the ability of others to freely enter contracts with each other because you define it as oppressive but then would turn around and oppress others by forcing them to adhere to a style of governance and living that you prefer? And then you would kill them if they attempted to defend their way of life, because you don't recognize their having a right to that way of life? And you wonder why people reject your ideas.

Quote :

"As before, it would depend on circumstances and conditions. I doubt anarchists would accept anything like a prison system quietly. "

You don't have to accept it, you wont have a choice, what with being in a cage and all that.

Quote :

"Our choices are constrained by circumstances. As you basically admit, it's either work for peanuts or go primitivist. That's why we call it wage slavery. "

You wind up having to go primitivist because you don't have the skills to do everything that society gives you now, and because people will not work without some form of benefit to themselves. Regardless of whether that benefit comes in the form of money, sex, your labor later or fur pelts, you still need to pay, even in your system.

Quote :

"xcept that most of the land, particularly the productive land, is owned by somebody. Homeless folks try to do the the sort of thing you're suggesting. They harassed by cops and owners constantly."

But you don't believe in property rights. Go out and non-violently start your revolution.

Quote :

"How does an anarchist punk steal CDs without packing heat?"

Amazing how few anarchist punks there are if it were all so easy.

Quote :

"This argument isn't getting you anywhere. Yes, I desire my notion of equality and oppose what I see as oppression. None of this objectively correct. It's fuzzy, it's messy. I don't care. These terms still have meaning to me and my comrades. Probably to you as well, though you might not admit it for this debate. "

Again though, you're talking about a benefit for all when there is no such thing. All you are doing is trading one oppression for another.

Quote :

"If they've got plenty and others lacks, absolutely. But treating people as human beings means looking at the specific individual and circumstances. I find inflexible rules to be dehumanizing."

Yet you believe in inflexibly confiscating from some to give to others.

Quote :

"Technocracy would easily let everyone in continent enjoy middle-class standards of living. People, of course, would still choose what the wanted. It wouldn't be identical. Equality and oppression would be defined by the folks involved. That's why I can't answer all your silly questions. Humans would decide that for themselves. It would largely be a subjective judgment. "

Perhaps you could solve the questions of who gets what limited resources via a system of trade. For example, Joe has space to live on the beach that Jane wants, but Jane only has an apple farm that Joe doesn't want. Fortunately, Paul has an apartment in the middle of downtown manhattan that Joe wants, and Paul really wants to move to the country. So Jane and Paul can trade properties. Of course, Paul's apartment is something that a lot of people want, and Bob is willing to trade his farm, which has both apple and pear trees, which is awfully tempting to Paul, if only there were some way for Jane to add value to what she has to offer for trade. Perhaps some form of credit to be redeemable at a later date for a service provided by Jane, she could call them "Dollars", and depending on the various services requested, Paul could trade some of his "Dollars" for the services (life, consulting on how to actually run an apple farm). So Jane offers Paul her farm and a sizable sum of "Dollars", and in exchange, she gets his apartment, which she now turns around and trades to Joe in exchange for his space on the beach. Voila, welcome to capitalism.

So again, how will your system provide everyone with a comfortable life since there's no one size fits all definition.

Quote :

"If the anarchist notions of equality and freedom don't appeal to you, you won't like the philosophy."

Because there's no such thing as an anarchist notion of equality as there is no way to enforce equality without some form of governance, whether voluntary or not, which then instantly takes you out of anarchy.

Quote :

"No, exactly. I would literally only need a few hundred thousand dollars to live in ease and comfort my whole life. Get a decent rate of return and I'd be set. It wouldn't be based on my ability or worth. I'd simply invest the money and relax."

So why aren't you doing that now? What is stopping you?

Quote :

"No, technocracy would yield abundance like the world has never seen. That's what liberating our vast productive capacity from the price system would mean."

Again, when we get to that point, we can rethink this whole capitalism thing.

Quote :

" Folks who know to grow food would do so, and they wouldn't have to worry about producing too much and thus lowering prices."

What if they would rather write slash fiction instead? Will you force them to grow food? How?

Quote :

"The syndicates or sequneces would provide needed goods and services. If you want something, you'd get it from the local depository. They'd keep records to determine what folks were using and thus what needed to be produced."

And what happens when the local depository decides you don't need what you're asking for? When they decide you've had your share? And when they reach that decision, will they confiscate from you if you make it for yourself? What if you make it for yourself in lieu of say, providing the food you're supposed to provide since you're the local farmer?

Quote :

"Technocracy, as a originally designed, is a system for the North American continent. It's not something you can create with a couple of buddies and case of beer. I've never claimed system would work for a handful of folks with current tech. "

If it can't work on a small local scale, as an isolated unit, even if the unit as a whole needs to operate within the current confines of society, it certainly can't work on a large scale. Hell, even communism on a small scale works, it just has scaling problems.

Quote :

"That would require a lot of capital that I don't have, not to mention skills."

And yet somehow, your magic society will have this problem solved.

Quote :

"Also, where is this virgin territory you're talking about? Places I've been are owned and controlled by someone, either public or private. A quick internet search tells me basically everything taken. Obviously, all the productive land is owned and probably used as well. I'd need a lot of technology and/or friends before I tried to live off resource-poor land. Once we reach that point, I'm game."

Again, you don't believe in property rights or oppressive crime and punishment systems. Go use your non violent methods and start the revolution.

Quote :

"You grossly underestimate the police. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The state would be on top of any attempt to establish a significant anarchist collective in the wilderness. "

That assumes that you start drawing attention to yourself.

Quote :

"Yeah, what you're suggesting would never make the news."

Luckily for you, patent laws only prevent you from manufacturing to distribute, nothing against you manufacturing the patented item for yourself.

Quote :

"Assuming this is even possible under the law, which I question, I'm not a primitivist. "

Right, we've already established you want the fruits of other peoples labors without having to give anything for those fruits.

Quote :

"Nothing more than social pressure, I would imagine. "

What sort of pressure? You sure as hell aren't going to withhold any needs and wants, as that would be unequal and unfair. And taunts and jeers and cold stares wouldn't hold any moral weight as your society doesn't have the right to oppress someone for their labor.

Quote :

"No, that's a myopic view of motivation. What are you, a behaviorist? We're human beings. We have far more than carrots and sticks at our disposal. Folks do thing because they understand they need doing or enjoy the task itself, not only because of some external reward or punishment. "

Right, and why does something need doing? Because if it doesn't get done, there is some form of punishment associated (no money, no food, no life etc) so carrot meet stick. And as far as doing things for enjoyment, what happens when that enjoyment or pleasure is fulfilled? Either it stops being done, or someone offers something to have it continue. Again, carrot, meet stick

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 7:47 PM. Reason : dsflk]

8/31/2008 7:41:49 PM

Certainly you already know this, but the vast majority of America's food production is still unmanaged. However, prior to the 30's, the whole of American agricultural production was unregulated. Prior to the 1890's, the whole sector was unregulated in any way.

And no, right now deregulation would result in the planting of marginal lands (owners are currently being paid not to farm) and an potential end to the current food crisis.

8/31/2008 8:05:40 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: So you reject the ability of others to freely enter contracts with each other because you define it as oppressive but then would turn around and oppress others by forcing them to adhere to a style of governance and living that you prefer?"

How am I forcing anyone? In other words, what are you talking about?

Quote :

"And then you would kill them if they attempted to defend their way of life, because you don't recognize their having a right to that way of life?"

Now, I might use violence in defense of life if they attacked me or one of my comrades. Look at this way. Suppose I claimed the entire planet as my property and promised to defend it with guns. You would, I imagine, ignore this claim and proceed to use what you pleased. If I attacked you, you'd probably fight back.

Quote :

"But you don't believe in property rights. Go out and non-violently start your revolution."

I'm trying. Excuse me I if favor my own tactics over those suggested by an opponent.

Quote :

"Amazing how few anarchist punks there are if it were all so easy."

There's plenty of non-violent property crime.

Quote :

"Again though, you're talking about a benefit for all when there is no such thing."

Perhaps not all, but close enough for me. I do believe certain needs and desires are universal or nearly so. I don't much care beyond that. I'm not interested in objective truth here.

Quote :

"Yet you believe in inflexibly confiscating from some to give to others."

I don't think you read the section you quoted. The point that I don't believe any principle should be dogmatically applied without regard for the circumstances.

Quote :

"So why aren't you doing that now? What is stopping you?"

I don't have a few hundred thousand dollars lying around.

Quote :

"Again, when we get to that point, we can rethink this whole capitalism thing."

You're getting confused. Understandable, as I invoke various arcane concepts. Technocracy doesn't require advanced technology. In fact, it's a system made for 1910s.

Quote :

"What if they would rather write slash fiction instead? Will you force them to grow food? How?"

No, I wouldn't be able to.

Quote :

"And what happens when the local depository decides you don't need what you're asking for?"

That shouldn't come up too often. I imagine the society would use negotiation and social pressure to resolve conflict, always remembering the principles of equality and freedom.

Quote :

"If it can't work on a small local scale, as an isolated unit, even if the unit as a whole needs to operate within the current confines of society, it certainly can't work on a large scale."

You've provided no support for this assertion. Can I make a automobile factory in my backpack? If not, that hardly disproves mass production. Technocracy means using the continent's productive capacity to benefit everyone equally. As I don't control any of that capacity, I'm not going to make any progress on my own.

Quote :

"And yet somehow, your magic society will have this problem solved."

Yes, because the world's population is greater than one. Come on. I don't see any of y'all capitalist creating prosperous society alone.

Quote :

"That assumes that you start drawing attention to yourself."

Anarchists have a funny way of doing just that.

Quote :

"Luckily for you, patent laws only prevent you from manufacturing to distribute, nothing against you manufacturing the patented item for yourself."

I wasn't aware of that. Okay, you've convinced me!

Quote :

"Right, we've already established you want the fruits of other peoples labors without having to give anything for those fruits."

I want what I want, yes. I'm not concerned about earning and deserving.

Quote :

"What sort of pressure?"

Appeals to equality, freedom, and camaraderie.

Quote :

"Because if it doesn't get done, there is some form of punishment associated (no money, no food, no life etc) so carrot meet stick."

Such intrinsic rewards and punishment, if you must call them that, differ from imposed, external ones.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: And no, right now deregulation would result in the planting of marginal lands (owners are currently being paid not to farm) and an potential end to the current food crisis."

Well, right now, yes. There's plenty of demand. I was thinking of times of when high supply was driving down prices. I believe this happened at the end of the 1990s. Surely you aren't going to tell me that high supply won't reduce prices.

[Edited on August 31, 2008 at 8:52 PM. Reason : supply and demand]

8/31/2008 8:49:16 PM

[quote bomb][/quote bomb]

8/31/2008 9:14:17 PM

This is what the lincoln-douglas debates would look like if they had the internet in the 1800s

8/31/2008 9:24:03 PM

Quote :

"Well, right now, yes. There's plenty of demand. I was thinking of times of when high supply was driving down prices. I believe this happened at the end of the 1990s. Surely you aren't going to tell me that high supply won't reduce prices."

No, I won't. Why would I? What is your point? Are you trying to suggest that cheap food is a bad outcome? Farm owners have always tended to be individuals of greater means than the population at large. So a system built on the ideal of having the rich cut each others throats in price wars in order to provide cheap goods to their fellows of humble means should be a good outcome in your book as well as mine. Is that not the case?

8/31/2008 9:26:12 PM

^ No, I think we're close to agreeing there. I'm no fan of US agricultural policy. Some of today's problem are caused by the government interfering in your beloved market. Who knows, maybe a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society would be prosperous without being too oppressive. I'll believe it when I see it.

9/1/2008 12:34:29 AM