| 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 » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
iglou writes:
As a "laissez-faire" capitalist, you advocate a state (albeit a minimal one) and corporations, therefore you are a statist. Ah. I get it. There are only Anarchists and Statists in your worldview. Fair enough. I was just surprised to see someone refer to Libertarianism as Statism. That's a first for me. Well, that is too bad that no statist body remains impartial... And ad hoc posses formed on the spur of the moment; posses which may be composed entirely of relatives of the victim, will be impartial? If you say so, man. Even if it is signed and sealed in gold by Ayn Rand herself or one of her holy disciples in the ARI. Sigh. Why the standard Anarchist visceral knee-jerk snarling Rand-bashing towards anyone who favors Laissez-faire Capitalism? Rand didn't invent Capitalism, you know, nor is she even its most eloquent proponent. Why not attack Frederick Bastiat or Adam Smith or John Locke or Thomas Jefferson? Now, who creates these supposed "objective" laws? The people themselves or "reprentatives" that act on behalf of everyone else (lol)? Who creates the laws? Legal scholars would probably be the best ones to draw them up and submit them for ratification, I suppose, but I don't see that as a cast-iron requirement. I imagine other folks would have some good ideas for laws, too. Who RATIFIES them? They could be ratified either through representatives or through society-wide referenda where each citizen may vote. Neither method is incompatible with Capitalism. And who in a Mutualist society decides when it is appropriate to take action against a malefactor? The people as a whole or their representatives? Or just the individual who feels he has been wronged (presuming the "wrong" was not sufficient to kill or incapacitate him, of course), in addition to however many cronies he can convince to join him? Once they (whoever "they" may be) decide it is appropriate to take SOME action, who decides WHICH action is appropriate? Is the penalty for murder the same no matter what the composition of the posse on a given day may be? What legal (though I guess "legal" is a misnomer in a society where laws are decided on the spur of the moment) protections are available to the accused? Who is in charge of seeing he receives them? What recourse does he have if he feels he has not received them? For that matter, how is a potential malefactor to even know that he is in fact a malefactor if there are no laws he may consult before embarking on a course of action? A mutualist community would not advocate judicial revenge or any such trite nonsense. Like I said, we would advocate self-defense and disassociation. If there are no prisons, how are the predators (rapists, murderers, et al) prevented from repeating their unsocial acts? When you use "disassociation" in this context, is it synonymous with banishment? Yes, militias as needed. Who maintains the weapons the militia uses? Who trains them in their use -- particularly the more complex ones such as warships and fighters and bombers? Who decides when to replace obsolete ones? Who builds the weapons? How are they paid for? Self-defense training and awareness for immediate problems. So gun ownership is a given, then. That's good. Corporations. You are of course aware that the modern legal fiction of corporate "personhood" is not essential to Laissez-faire Capitalism. Since a corporation is nothing more than a group of people acting in co-operation for the purpose of doing business, clearly Mutualism would allow such a group to own property jointly. Or rather, to use or occupy property jointly, I guess. Are they allowed to sell their property? "Personal use and occupancy" is a phrase from the writings of Benjamin Tucker. Look into his ideas. Damn. Does this mean you are unwilling to explain the concept in a nutshell? Do I have to wade through the collected works of Benjamin Tucker before I can find a concise thumbnail? Give me a break, please. Workers. Worker and consumer cooperatives. Individuals. How do the workers raise the capital required to build something like a mass transit system or a shipyard? Who decides which of the workers and consumer co-op members will handle the various tasks necessary to organize and maintain an endeavor as complex as a mass transit system? What form does the profit the individuals receive take -- currency? Does each individual in the mass transit system receive the same amount of profit? How is the acceptable profit margin determined -- do all the individuals of the mass transit company vote on what bus fares should be, for example? You will not find many free individuals lining up to "consent" to have a boss or a owner in a mutualist community... But no one is prevented from attempting to be one, right? .... nor will you find many individuals wishing to work away for nothing more than mere wages. No, I understand now that they wish to work instead for an identical share of the expected profit, and are willing to absorb an identical share of the losses if things don't go as planned. These Mutualists are certainly substantially more willing to take a risk than the average working man of today with a family to support, I'll give them that. Nor will you find many individuals wishing to trade with you in order to create and/or maintain your business. But no one will prevent me from attempting to persuade others to work for me or to buy from me. If I fail at either task, my tough luck. Got it. Just do not expect much business or to be able to compete with freedom. Fair enough. Just wanted to be sure I had the freedom to attempt to persuade others to do business with me. Perhaps you should try something more of a mutualist, cooperative, non-properitary nature such as Mozilla. Sadly, Mozilla won't run under my OS. At least it's free. Oh, wait a minute -- Netscape and Explorer were free, too. Oh, well. I must admit I find it a bit bizarre no one has taken the time to fix that site. Don't they want as many people as possible to access it? You know -- spread the word? I tell you truthfully that in the six years I have had internet access, this is the very first site I have been unable to access. Okay, from what I have seen so far, it appears that Mutualism is basically Laissez-faire Capitalism with less freedom of action permitted in the way one makes one's living (even ways which do not involve the initiation of force against others -- a puzzling contradiction of the stated Mutualist ethos) , and far less (in fact almost none) protection from human predators, domestic or foreign. Not the kind of society I'd want to live in, but whatever floats your boat, I guess. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
DoctorJ  Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 3 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
I agree, this is exactly how it should be. But why isn't it? I live in an extremely capitalist city- a place where money comes to operate unrestricted by taxes and red tape. The politicians here are far from impartial, in fact, they tend to fight for the interests of the money that financed their campaigns. Oftentimes, the voices of regular opinions are ignored while the politicians spend tax money on things like Stadiums and Hotels and Convention Centers. The police here are incredibly corrupt. They tend to victimize the poor and underscrutinize the rich. The courts enforce laws selectively depending on race and class. In your opinion, pinky, why is this? What causes the system to cease being impartial? I would say coercion and greed. But cant this take place in a capitalist society just as easy as any other kind? I'm certainly seeing a lot of it here, and my town is a megacapitalist haven. with all due respect of course I await your opinion. btw... I really agree with the Ideas in your post, I just dont see it as a realistic situation, under ANY kind of government/economic system.
| |||||||
|
Rhizoid carbon unit  Registered: 01/22/00 Posts: 1,739 Loc: Europe Last seen: 9 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
From the mutualist FAQ:
It's also says somewhere else that mutualists believe in free markets and the use of money in trade. So the only connection to socialism seems to be that some mutualists still believe in the long obsolete labor theory of value, and that the others "retain some cultural attitudes". I don't care how mutualists label themselves. If they allow free markets and private property and want to eliminate coercive power, then they are really no different from libertarians, regardless of "cultural attitudes" and whatnot.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
... very good questions.
| |||||||
 iglou enthusiast Registered: 03/08/02 Posts: 295 |
| ||||||
|
Ah. I get it. There are only Anarchists and Statists in your worldview. Fair enough. I was just surprised to see someone refer to Libertarianism as Statism. That's a first for me.
Consider the long, cozy history that so-called "libertarian" or "laissez-faire" capitalism has had with the State, and you'll see that my analysis is quite dead-on. I refer everyone who is interested in this connection to the essay The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand. And ad hoc posses formed on the spur of the moment; posses which may be composed entirely of relatives of the victim, will be impartial? If you say so, man. What "posses"? I have not mentioned such a thing. You have. Why the standard Anarchist visceral knee-jerk snarling Rand-bashing towards anyone who favors Laissez-faire Capitalism? Rand didn't invent Capitalism, you know, nor is she even its most eloquent proponent. Are you not a Randroid, excuse me, "Objectivist"? That comment was directed toward you. Why not attack Frederick Bastiat or Adam Smith or John Locke or Thomas Jefferson? I find Adam Smith to be one of the more intellectually honest thinkers; at least he had the courage to critize wage labor and the worker/owner relationship. Of course, right wingers never mention nor quote Smith then. Legal scholars would probably be the best ones to draw them up and submit them for ratification, I suppose, but I don't see that as a cast-iron requirement. I imagine other folks would have some good ideas for laws, too. Who RATIFIES them? They could be ratified either through representatives or through society-wide referenda where each citizen may vote. So baically, more "representatives." That's what we need: more separation between those who make decisions and those who are affected by said decisions. I think we need more individuals being responsible for themselves and in control over their own lives and the life of the community rather than handing over decision-making power to the elite "legal scholars." Representative democracy is a joke that has made all of us out of the governement loop the fools. Mutualism is not devoid of rules. In fact there are many rules (actually, a better term would be agreements). The difference is how such agreements are born and how they are active. And who in a Mutualist society decides when it is appropriate to take action against a malefactor? The people as a whole or their representatives? Or just the individual who feels he has been wronged (presuming the "wrong" was not sufficient to kill or incapacitate him, of course), in addition to however many cronies he can convince to join him? Decisions of a particularly large magnitude would be in the hands of the open spokescouncils, as everyone else is affected. Decisions of individual self-defense would be in the hands of the individual, his or herself. If there are no prisons, how are the predators (rapists, murderers, et al) prevented from repeating their unsocial acts? When you use "disassociation" in this context, is it synonymous with banishment? Banishment and cutting all economic ties would keep this individual at bay. Self-defense would remove immediate threats. Militias as delegates of the open spokescouncil would deal with larger threats as well. Who maintains the weapons the militia uses? Who trains them in their use -- particularly the more complex ones such as warships and fighters and bombers? Who decides when to replace obsolete ones? Who builds the weapons? How are they paid for? The militia members themselves, with the help of the community. Who else? You are of course aware that the modern legal fiction of corporate "personhood" is not essential to Laissez-faire Capitalism. "Oh, that's not essential to capitalism. This is not essential to capitalism." Nice backdoor. Corporation would be a major part of laissez-faire capitalism and you know it. Look at your history, look at what you advocate in the contemporary world. Look at the boss-worker corportist hierarchy that you embrace. Do I have to wade through the collected works of Benjamin Tucker before I can find a concise thumbnail? It'll do you good to read something other than The Fountainhead 
How do the workers raise the capital required to build something like a mass transit system or a shipyard? Free trade coupled with mutual banking. Who decides which of the workers and consumer co-op members will handle the various tasks necessary to organize and maintain an endeavor as complex as a mass transit system? The workers and community members themselves as they know the job better than anyone. Certainly not some elist boss far removed. What form does the profit the individuals receive take -- currency? Does each individual in the mass transit system receive the same amount of profit? I would advocate labor notes, although some mutualist would not. How much you receive is determined by how much labor you put forth coupled with rotating positions between empowering jobs and less sexy jobs. Sadly, Mozilla won't run under my OS. Mozilla FB works with Windows, Linux, MacOS X, OS/2, Solaris, BeOS. I must admit I find it a bit bizarre no one has taken the time to fix that site. Don't they want as many people as possible to access it? You know -- spread the word? I tell you truthfully that in the six years I have had internet access, this is the very first site I have been unable to access. You probably need to update your browser. Works fine for everyone else.
| |||||||
|
iglou enthusiast Registered: 03/08/02 Posts: 295 |
| ||||||
|
I don't care how mutualists label themselves. If they allow free markets and private property and want to eliminate coercive power, then they are really no different from libertarians, regardless of "cultural attitudes" and whatnot.
There is a great difference between right and left libertarians. Here's another essay that demonstrates such difference: Libertarian Property and Privatization: An Alternative Paradigm.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
there are sooo many inconsitancies in what you just posted... i'd respond to it, but i'm fairly certain pinkshark will, and that he'll do a better job.
i'll be waiting for that one...
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ writes:
I agree, this is exactly how it should be. But why isn't it? Because in any system using the democratic process to select politicians with the power to tax the populace, those who wish to be elected find the easiest way to be elected is to promise goodies to the voters. The fact that the rules must be broken in order to deliver these goodies is ignored by both the politicians and by those who vote for them. The majority of voters manage to convince themselves that the benefit they will receive outweighs the cost of the extra tax that will be charged to them. They figure that somehow, the burden will always be carried by "those other guys". But cant this take place in a capitalist society just as easy as any other kind? If politicians are allowed by the populace to exceed the limitations on their powers, yes it can. This is why Thomas Jefferson believed the government would have to be revamped (even perhaps overthrown) every two decades or so. He (and many others) foresaw the inevitable demand that government do more than merely protect the rights of the populace, but also to solve their problems. This is why nowhere in the Constitution do the words "solve" or "problem" appear. There was essentially nothing wrong with the Constitution and Bill of Rights (with the notable exceptions of the Interstate Commerce clause and the clause allowing the government to mint currency) as they were written -- the problem was (and is today) forcing politicians to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. btw... I really agree with the Ideas in your post, I just dont see it as a realistic situation, under ANY kind of government/economic system. One cannot let "the perfect" by an impediment to establishing "the good". Perfection is impossible in endeavors involving humans, especially large groups of humans. Laissez-faire Capitalism cannot solve the multitudinous problems man faces -- no system of government can. It is however the best system ever devised for allowing people to solve problems themselves or in co-operation with others. The principle is to protect everyone from coercion by human predators so they are free to expend their energies on bettering their situation. I was toying with the idea of how best to prevent politicians from exceeding their authority, and this one struck my fancy -- 1) make it a treasonous offence for anyone sworn to protect the Constitution (i.e. every elected politician) to attempt to subvert it. 2) make the penalty for treason death. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
RandalFlagg Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
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. I don't want to. I asked you to give me a very quick summary of it yourself. Just whip up a quick sentence or two(or more if necessary) that gives me a rough idea of what you are advocating. For example, in America we have a free market economy that is subject to control by a democratically elected government. Mutualists offer mutual banking and the lack of state privilege so that all can compete on a market. Lack of state privilege? Does this mean that there will be no state to protect people's property? And there will be no state to enforce policies that protect the general populace(such as anti-monopoly laws, consumer protection laws, worker safety laws, etc..)? And if you are concerned with the state interfering in the economy, then you are free to vote for representatives(if you live in a democracy) that will pursue policies which you agree with. 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. Human behavior and motivations are vastly complex. Man is capable of extreme altruism and extreme selfishness. My point is not that Man is compelled to act selfishly at all times, it is that he will act selfishly sometimes. This means that a communal society that has no state interference in the economy, will likely to experience problems. Even more problems than we experience today in a regulated and capitalist-oriented industrial society. I say create the conditions that bring out the "goodness" in man, and evolve past those conditions that foster negativity. You may be able to bring about some more goodness in Man, but you will never be able to eradicate the bad. It just takes one greedy action by one person to mess things up if there is no state to enforce economic order. Take Anthropology 101. Not all socieities have nor desire states These societies always have very very small populations. A stateless society will not work on a large scale with a large amount of people. Without a state to regulate things and ensure the common defense, it would only take one intelligent person to gain control of the resources or one warlord to come in and conquer you. nor do they have rampant crime rates as the industrial world. There is a reason for this. Look into it. In my opinion, the main reason for crime is financial gain. Most of the people who commit crimes for financial gain do so not because they are starving, but because they are envious of people who have more than they do, and they want to get it without having to work hard for it. This class envy will always exist as long as there is disparity. Disparity will always exist if you allow people to engage in free-market economics. People in advanced free-market societies are constantly exposed to images of wealth and power, therefore people in these societies have a much higher likelyhood of being seduced by those things. Which means that if you live in a free-market oriented industrial society, there will be a large amount of crime. This is something I am willing to live with as long as I have access to the things I want, voting rights, and civil rights. 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. How long do you think freedom would last if there was no state to enforce order? Without a state to put controls on the economy, monopolies will arise quickly. Economic stratification would occur much faster and at a much larger rate that in modern day America. 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? What does history tell of us tiny little communities that are not linked by a powerful state? They get overrun.
| |||||||
|
DoctorJ Registered: 06/30/03 Posts: 8,846 Loc: space Last seen: 3 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
your comments about politicians are dead on.
but what about lower level authority figures? Police, for example. Or the courts? How do we limit the influence of money on say, the police's decision to pull someone over? Or the Judge's decision to let someone off with probation and community sevice as opposed to the maximum penalties? I have committed so many "crimes" in this life that people often ask me how I get away with it all. The answer is simple. Prosecuting me is not economically viable. If a detective is investigating me for the purpose of getting a warrant on my house, he's going to come up with some interesting facts: my father is a wealthy attourney, who happens to know most of the people in the DA's office, not to mention every judge in the county. Not only that, I have distinguishing traits that put me in the "misguided rich kid" category, as opposed to the "worthless ghetto fuckup" category (ie- employment, school enrollment, good credit, etc...) All this adds up to a very expensive, highly unprosecuteable case. Why would the detective and the DA waste time on me when they could go after poor immigrants with no connections or even basic understanding of their rights? In terms of limited city budgets, it makes no economic sense. I believe this makes a difference in the street level, too. I used to drive a beat up old '86 Toyota- got pulled over all the time, searched without cause most of those times. Now, I drive a 3 year old car with a prominent university's parking decal in the back window. Rarely get pulled over, never been searched in this car. In a capitalist system, how do we prevent money from influencing the selective enforcement of the law?
| |||||||
|
Rhizoid carbon unit Registered: 01/22/00 Posts: 1,739 Loc: Europe Last seen: 9 months, 13 days |
| ||||||
|
Hmm, good question... How do we prevent it in a non-capitalist system?
| |||||||
|
z@z.com Libertarian Registered: 10/13/02 Posts: 2,876 Loc: ATL |
| ||||||
Same damn thing used to happen to me. Almost got me arrested more times than I can count. -------------------- "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
DoctorJ writes:
but what about lower level authority figures? Police, for example. Or the courts? How do we limit the influence of money on say, the police's decision to pull someone over? Or the Judge's decision to let someone off with probation and community sevice as opposed to the maximum penalties? How would we address these issues under any political system? The problems you raise exist in every socio-economic system in which there are police and courts. These problems would not exist under iglou's Mutualist society, but only because there would be no "police" and no "courts". Of course, members of temporarily-convened "posses" and ad hoc "tribunals" are also susceptible to bribery, but hey! -- at least there would be no corrupt cops and judges. I leave it to you to decide whether the problems caused by a few corrupt cops and judges ignoring traffic offenders is worse than the problems caused by vigilante justice. In a capitalist system, how do we prevent money from influencing the selective enforcement of the law? By imprisoning the police and judges convicted of accepting bribes. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last 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 |
9,524 | 143 | 09/13/12 05:36 PM by Mr.Al |
|
|
Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
Evolving |
7,168 | 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 |
6,805 | 71 | 10/25/08 10:37 AM by zouden |
|
|
Socialist nirvana ( 1 2 3 4 ... 17 18 ) |
 zappaisgod |
11,596 | 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 ) |
 Asante |
9,432 | 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 |
3,123 | 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 4,012 topic views. 2 members, 35 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||