Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

The Spore Depot
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
hey socialists...
    #1919752 -

how can you logically reconcile your position?

how do you respond to that (what should be familiar by now) equation of libertarian freedom and role of government in society?

it must involve a radically different set of ideals. i don't see how one can be a socialist free of contradictions without denying individual freedom. it's certainly a different set of values... and i don't think it is based on sound reasoning...

anyone wanna take a stab at justifying your position?

(ps. this is an honest curiousity of mine. i'd really like to have a civil debate about this... i promise i'll behave)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: ]
    #1919766 -

why do you automatically assume that alternatives to capitalism require statism?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1919777 -

i don't... if you want to include other systems than socialism, that's fine. what do you have in mind?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: ]
    #1919808 -

mutualism, which is a form of socialism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1919811 -

how does it work?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
can you explain more here ... mushmaster [Re: iglou]
    #1919837 -

this might help

im all for socialism now and i use to be a republican!

http://www.socnet.net/faq.html

its a good read and you will find what your looking for ...

PEACE!

Rafa




--------------------
Rafa (x_X)

fuck a sig



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: ]
    #1919850 -

you seem to have already formed an opinion of socialism, so really, what is the point? Your first post is choke full of assumptions and condescension.

If you are sincerely interested in mutualism, visit www.mutualist.net

I'll play along though. Why do I oppose capitalism? Because I believe decision-making power should be in the hands of those individuals who are most affected by such decisions.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1920069 -

can you give a concise overview of mutualism?


--------------------
There is no dark side of the moon really... Matter of fact, it's all dark.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1920125 -

I've been trying to access that site since you provided the link... no go. Perhaps it is down for site maintenance or something. I will continue trying, though.

In the meantime, perhaps you could tell us:

1) which restrictions on human behavior Mutualism endorses. For example, Laissez-faire Capitalistism states that the only human actions which must be restricted are those which involve the initiation of force against another human. Does Mutualism advocate further restrictions?

2) are property rights fully recognized under Mutualism?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: Phred]
    #1921192 -

1) which restrictions on human behavior Mutualism endorses. For example, Laissez-faire Capitalistism states that the only human actions which must be restricted are those which involve the initiation of force against another human. Does Mutualism advocate further restrictions?

Essentially, no. Mutualists subscribe to non-initiation of force and a "live and let live" policy, as well. But considering the fact that you are a statist, our perspective on what restrictions entail and how such restrictions should be dealt with are quite different. The mutualist primarily advocates self-defense and disassociation when coercion occurs, while you as a capitalist offer prisons and police action as the common solution.

2) are property rights fully recognized under Mutualism?

Property rights that are born of statist privilege are not recognized, whatsoever. Property rights of personal use are fully recognized and supported, of course. Mutualist do advocate, in some circumstances, democratic control over large industry (i.e. airlines, energy production, mass transportation, etc) simply because large industrial operations are hardly private matters as they concern and greatly affect communities as a whole. Large industry is a collective matter, while individual business and markets are entirely private matters. Large industry is best avoided or kept to the necessary minimum as we prefer decentralization and local enterprise and endeavors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: Phred]
    #1921260 -

Oh God...not more social dreamers/engineers/utopians....


From Socnet(the socialism net):


What if the world were a place where everyone had the comfortable essentials of a full life, including satisfying work, housing, food, clothing and health care?


This is not possible. There are not enough resources in this
world to provide all of these things to every member of the
human race. The environment would be unable to sustain it.


Plus the opportunity to learn and develop into all she/he could be? A world where neither the environment nor people were exploited?


I would classify having your economic behavior controlled and a large
portion of the fruits of your effort taken away from you and given to
the "collective", as exploitation. It is exploitation of the
individual to serve the collective. You would be sacrificing your
freedom for a forced altruism. Any time this is attempted,
dictatorships seem to quickly follow.


Democratic Socialism is the exciting, life affirming idea for a world that works for everyone, a vision whose time can come.


The closest thing we have...and will ever have to a functioning
democratic socialism, are heavily taxed free-market democracies
that focus on having ample social programs.


From www.mutualist.net:


Liberty, equality, cooperation


Will never occur naturally in this world because people oftentimes
are greedy and selfish. These three listed things need to be
implemented by force or the threat of force.


Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.


So, you will still allow free trade? Which means people are
free to desire whatever they want, other people are allowed to
provide those desires, and people are allowed to engage in economic
trade to get what they want. How is that any different from a
modern day free market economy? The same "problems" will still
occur. Resources and capital will be pooled to gain profit. Which
will result in environmental damage, disparity of incomes, pursuit
of materialism, "social stratification", etc...

It sounds as if mutualists envision a world where people like to
hang out on little farms and not want much stuff. The entire
population of the world would delight in the simple life where
everybody's needs were unselfishly looked after, materialism
was non-existent, and cooperation was prevalent in every aspect
of life.

This might work if the world had a population of forty people.

In the real world however....this will never work.

I remember arguing in a thread a while back....I think it was
titled "Communism". A lot of the weaknesses of these
"cooperative" societies were exposed in that thread.
You should check it out.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1921273 -

Quote:
Oh God...not more social dreamers/engineers/utopians....



It sounds like you think the human imagination is something to be sneered at.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1921302 -


It sounds like you think the human imagination is something to be sneered at.


Unattainable utopian dreams that ignore reality deserve to be
sneered at.

The human imagination should be allowed to run whereever it may
go. Unfortunately, things that are thought up in the imagination
would not always work in the real world.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1921487 -

Oh God...not more social dreamers/engineers/utopians....

I am not a utopian, rather I am theorist. I do not belive mutualist ideas will led us to Paradise (tm), but is certainly more geared toward human liberty and participation then statism, capitalism, corportism, and representative democracy. Furthermore, utopianism is not practical; mutualist ideas are in action everyday.

Liberty, equality, cooperation Will never occur naturally in this world because people oftentimes are greedy and selfish. These three listed things need to be implemented by force or the threat of force.

Among my friends and lovers and community members, I experience equality and cooperation and there is no force involved whatsoever. What are you talking about?

So, you will still allow free trade? Which means people are
free to desire whatever they want, other people are allowed to
provide those desires, and people are allowed to engage in economic
trade to get what they want. How is that any different from a
modern day free market economy?

There is no authoritarian position to allow individuals to do or not to do something. The free market will simply exist between consenting free individuals. The difference between a free market and capitalism is state privilege and how decision-making among individuals power operates.

It sounds as if mutualists envision a world where people like to
hang out on little farms and not want much stuff.

No, it doesnt. But if individuals wish for such an existence, so be it.

The entire population of the world would delight in the simple life where everybody's needs were unselfishly looked after, materialism
was non-existent, and cooperation was prevalent in every aspect
of life.

World's population? Mutualist do not advocate some sort of blanket world-wide economic theory, unlike the capitalists/statists. People have different needs, desires, propensities, and modes of living, therefore different theories and models are needed. I am merely speaking of myself and my community. And mutualism manifest in a shadow economy is working just fine with us.

You obviously know nothing about mutualist ideas, but yet you have already formed an opinion, an opinion that is quite removed from anything but bias, laziness, assumption, and condescension. Here's a tip: read up on a subject, then form an opinion. The fact that you had to ask How is that any different from a modern day free market economy? proves you know next to nothing about mutualist ideas.

Have a good day, sir.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1921718 -

Damn! I still can't access that site. I've tried with both Netscape and Explorer, and all I get is "Connect: Contacting host mutualist.net" and the little wheel just spins and spins...

Are there any other sites out there that describe Mutualism? I really want to read up on it.

But considering the fact that you are a statist...

You have an odd definition of Statist. I am a Laissez-faire Capitalist, or Libertarian, or Minarchist, whichever term you feel most comfortable with. I believe that no society can last for any length of time without an objective body of law enforced by impartial organizations accessible to all members of the society in question -- specifically police, courts, and military. Note that the sole legitimate purpose of the three agencies listed above is the protection from the initiation of force of the members of the society in which they have jurisdiction. These agencies do not rule the populace, they protect the populace. They are not kings, but bodyguards.

The mutualist primarily advocates self-defense and disassociation when coercion occurs, while you as a capitalist offer prisons and police action as the common solution.

So miscreants are apprehended, tried, and punished by extemporaneously-formed "posses" rather than by a standing body of specialized protectors? And there is no standing army, just militias to be formed when and as needed?

Property rights that are born of statist privilege are not recognized, whatsoever.

And an example of such property rights born of statist privilege would be...?

Property rights of personal use are fully recognized and supported, of course.

I don't understand the concept of "personal" use. Does this mean I may "use" a factory, but not "own" it? If I don't own it, who does?

Or am I completely missing the point here.

Mutualist do advocate, in some circumstances, democratic control over large industry (i.e. airlines, energy production, mass transportation, etc) simply because large industrial operations are hardly private matters as they concern and greatly affect communities as a whole.

Again, sorry if I appear to be misunderstanding the point, but is this not what Socialists advocate as well? Is Mutualism a subset of Socialism?

Who builds the large industries? Who runs them? Who profits from them?

Large industry is a collective matter, while individual business and markets are entirely private matters.

Ah. So if I wanted to build and operate an electrical generating station for example, or if I wanted to buy a bunch of buses and set up a mass transit company, I would be prevented from doing so? By whom?

Large industry is best avoided or kept to the necessary minimum as we prefer decentralization and local enterprise and endeavors.

Yes, I can understand why some would prefer not to bother with large industry, but would those who prefer otherwise be prevented from getting into that business? For example, could I build an iron mine or a steel mill or an automobile factory or a factory that builds commercial jetliners?

I apologize for asking for clarification -- doubtless all these questions are answered at the website, but for some reason I cannot access it. Does it not support Explorer and Netscape?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: Phred]
    #1922076 -

Check your PM's. I cut and pasted the four pages for you and I'd be glad to send more if requested.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1922675 -

Mutualists subscribe to non-initiation of force and a "live and let live" policy, as well.

see... i think one roadblock in this discussion is this denial by socialists of one of the central principles of their system. quite simply, all forms of socialism require initiation of force on the part of the government. they require quite a bit of it...

if you really believe otherwise, i'd really like to see how you can rationally justify it.

the question i suppose i'm posing isn't whether or not socialism requires infringements of liberty (i feel this is obvious... we can discuss it further if someone feels otherwise), but how socialists can reconcile with this fact.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: iglou]
    #1923411 -


You obviously know nothing about mutualist ideas, but yet you have
already formed an opinion, an opinion that is quite removed from
anything but bias, laziness, assumption, and condescension. Here's a
tip: read up on a subject, then form an opinion. The fact that you
had to ask How is that any different from a modern day free market
economy? proves you know next to nothing about mutualist ideas.


When it comes to anarchism, I am condescending. I assume "mutualism"
as you define it is descended from basic anarchist thought, because
the "A" with a circle around it was prominently displayed on the
site. If I am mistaken, please give me a quick summary of your
version of mutualism.

I don't have much of a desire to wade through pages and pages of
turgid pseudo-anarchist thought. I did look at that first page
on "mutualist.net". Very little explaining was done, but from what
it did say it appears that it is an idea that the author wishes
everybody would act out(caring about their fellow man, etc..). There
appeared to be no explaining as to exactly how things would be
structured, how everything would work, etc..etc..

If you do not limit people's ability to desire and produce goods and
services, then you will have a free market. When you have a free
market, you will have the pooling of capital and resources. Some
people will be rich and some won't. Some people will be
concerned with their fellow Man, and some won't. If you give people
the freedom to act selfishly, they will be selfish.


I am not a utopian, rather I am theorist.

That's good. Utopians are idiots.

I do not belive mutualist ideas will
led us to Paradise (tm), but is certainly more geared toward human
liberty and participation then statism, capitalism, corportism, and
representative democracy. Furthermore, utopianism is not practical;
mutualist ideas are in action everyday.

It sounds as if mutualism as you define it is more of an idea that
you want people to embrace, rather than an actual way to govern(or
not govern) economies and people. How can you be sure that everyone
will embrace "loving their fellow Man". We have religions
that have existed for thousands of years that ask us to do that, and
attach penalties if we do not, and still people don't obey.


Liberty, equality, cooperation Will never occur naturally in this
world because people oftentimes are greedy and selfish. These three
listed things need to be implemented by
force or the threat of force.


Among my friends and lovers and community members, I experience
equality and cooperation and there is no force involved whatsoever.
What are you talking about?


Not everybody is as nice as your friends, lovers, and neighbors. Not
everybody acts in a civilized manner. Not everybody does his fair
share to contribute to the human race.

How can you expect the less savory members of our species to act in
ways that are beneficial to Mankind? How will you deal with the
natural greed and power-hunger that is inherent in Man?


So, you will still allow free trade? Which means people are
free to desire whatever they want, other people are allowed to
provide those desires, and people are allowed to engage in economic
trade to get what they want. How is that any different from a
modern day free market economy?


There is no authoritarian position to allow individuals to do or not
to do something. The free market will simply exist between consenting
free individuals.


huh? There is no state to enforce laws? And in this state(or
lackthereof I might say more correctly), where some people will be
committing theft, murder, resource pooling, and profiteering with
impunity, how long do you think that a healthy "free market existing
between free individuals" would last?


Mutualist do not advocate some sort of blanket
world-wide economic theory, unlike the capitalists/statists. People
have different needs, desires, propensities, and modes of living,
therefore different theories and models are needed. I am merely
speaking of myself and my community.


So, let people do what they want to do? That would be a pure free
market. An economy with practically no controls on behaviors. That
is not desirable.

But you and the people in your community are not the only people on
Earth. What about the outside world that affects you? What about
outside people who think and act differently from you?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: Phred]
    #1923432 -

You have an odd definition of Statist. I am a Laissez-faire Capitalist, or Libertarian, or Minarchist, whichever term you feel most comfortable with.

As a "laissez-faire" capitalist, you advocate a state (albeit a minimal one) and corporations, therefore you are a statist.

I believe that no society can last for any length of time without an objective body of law enforced by impartial organizations accessible to all members of the society in question -- specifically police, courts, and military.

Well, that is too bad that no statist body remains impartial, espeically not in 19th century robber baron "laissez-faire" capitalism part II. It didnt work then, and will not work today.

You are an intelligent individual and you should see by now that political bodies (especially those who hold authority and power) do not remain objective for long. Even if it is signed and sealed in gold by Ayn Rand herself or one of her holy disciples in the ARI.

These agencies do not rule the populace, they protect the populace. They are not kings, but bodyguards.

Plant the seed, give it water, and it'll grow and grow.

Now, who creates these supposed "objective" laws? The people themselves or "reprentatives" that act on behalf of everyone else (lol)?

So miscreants are apprehended, tried, and punished by extemporaneously-formed "posses" rather than by a standing body of specialized protectors?

A mutualist community would not advocate judicial revenge or any such trite nonsense. Like I said, we would advocate self-defense and disassociation.

And there is no standing army, just militias to be formed when and as needed?

Yes, militias as needed. Self-defense training and awareness for immediate problems.

And an example of such property rights born of statist privilege would be...?

Corporations.

I don't understand the concept of "personal" use. Does this mean I may "use" a factory, but not "own" it? If I don't own it, who does?

"Personal use and occupancy" is a phrase from the writings of Benjamin Tucker. Look into his ideas.

is this not what Socialists advocate as well? Is Mutualism a subset of Socialism?

Socialists of the statist variety (Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, democratic socialists, etc.) recogize the same problem with capitalism, but advocate gross hierarchial and authoritarian methods as solution which differ wildly and greatly from that of a mutualist. Mutualism is historically a form of socialism, yes, but quite different on many different levels.

Who builds the large industries? Who runs them? Who profits from them?

Workers. Worker and consumer cooperatives. Individuals.

Ah. So if I wanted to build and operate an electrical generating station for example, or if I wanted to buy a bunch of buses and set up a mass transit company, I would be prevented from doing so? By whom?

Certainly not a state. You will not find many free individuals lining up to "consent" to have a boss or a owner in a mutualist community, nor will you find many individuals wishing to work away for nothing more than mere wages. Nor will you find many individuals wishing to trade with you in order to create and/or maintain your business. You will prevent yourself from doing business by utilizing obselete methods of enterprise.

For example, could I build an iron mine or a steel mill or an automobile factory or a factory that builds commercial jetliners?

You can do all that you want, I could care less. Just do not expect much business or to be able to compete with freedom.

Does it not support Explorer and Netscape?

Probably. But the real question is, what are you using those inferior, corporate, unsecure, closed-source browsers? :smile: Perhaps you should try something more of a mutualist, cooperative, non-properitary nature such as Mozilla.      Get with it, man. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: hey socialists... [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #1923476 -

I did look at that first page on "mutualist.net". Very little explaining was done, but from what it did say it appears that it is an idea that the author wishes everybody would act out(caring about their fellow man, etc..). There appeared to be no explaining as to exactly how things would be structured, how everything would work, etc..etc..

Keep reading past the first page. There is a few hundred available there and here.

If you do not limit people's ability to desire and produce goods and services, then you will have a free market. When you have a free
market, you will have the pooling of capital and resources. Some
people will be rich and some won't.

Mutualists offer mutual banking and the lack of state privilege so that all can compete on a market.

Some people will be concerned with their fellow Man, and some won't.

That's too bad for them. They are free to disassociate at anytime.

It sounds as if mutualism as you define it is more of an idea that
you want people to embrace, rather than an actual way to govern(or
not govern) economies and people. How can you be sure that everyone
will embrace "loving their fellow Man". We have religions
that have existed for thousands of years that ask us to do that, and
attach penalties if we do not, and still people don't obey.

Perfection will never be reached. Mutualist theory offers more empowerment and more opportunities for individuals to compete.

How can you expect the less savory members of our species to act in
ways that are beneficial to Mankind? How will you deal with the
natural greed and power-hunger that is inherent in Man?

Many have argued successfully that human nature is vastly more complex than you put forth. I say create the conditions that bring out the "goodness" in man, and evolve past those conditions that foster negativity.

There is no state to enforce laws? And in this state(or
lackthereof I might say more correctly), where some people will be
committing theft, murder, resource pooling, and profiteering with
impunity, how long do you think that a healthy "free market existing
between free individuals" would last?

Take Anthropology 101. Not all socieities have nor desire states, nor do they have rampant crime rates as the industrial world. There is a reason for this. Look into it.

So, let people do what they want to do? That would be a pure free
market. An economy with practically no controls on behaviors. That
is not desirable.

Yes, I belive consenting adults should be free to act upon their wishes so as long as they do not lower themselves to violence and coercion. There are plenty of "controls" within the economy, but none of the statist, corportist variety.

But you and the people in your community are not the only people on
Earth. What about the outside world that affects you? What about
outside people who think and act differently from you?

What about them? So as they long as they do not invade or involve my community, why should I pay mind? I embrace diversity in the marketplace of ideas and so should you.

Good try, though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush?s Socialist Disaster Evolving 2,164 12 11/07/04 09:44 AM
by Aldous
* Any Anarcho-Communists/Platformists here? Libertarian Socialists?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 puffpuff23 9,525 143 09/13/12 05:36 PM
by Mr.Al
* Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Evolving 7,177 63 11/01/02 08:19 AM
by Innvertigo
* Evidence Surfaces That Obama Was Member of a Socialist "New Party"
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 lonestar2004 6,812 71 10/25/08 10:37 AM
by zouden
* Socialist nirvana
( 1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 )		 zappaisgod 11,604 341 05/24/16 09:52 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Are there any out-and-proud Socialists in this forum?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 AsanteM 9,438 152 04/07/14 08:54 PM
by akira_akuma
* Socialist Policemen
( 1 2 3 all )		 Atomsk 2,763 54 03/12/11 10:56 AM
by communeart
* A socialist Ayn Rand fan?
( 1 2 3 all )		 the spiral 3,126 51 11/02/10 08:50 PM
by HippieChick8

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,015 topic views. 0 members, 123 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.