I'm am a moderate socialist who still thinks with good will and stricter corporate regulations we could have a fair and just society.Revolution creates monsters who abuse the weakness in society when revolt occurs.
Any of these proposals would need revolt, no system collapses and is replaced with another without extreme action.
It wouldn't be stealing per se, simply exploiting. The group relies on contributions from its members. If a member doesn't contribute but uses resources, that group's survival as a whole is comprimised since it is consuming more than it produces. The necessary result is to expel the freeloader. This threat of expulsion is what keeps people from freeloading. However if groups are large enough that a person may retain some level of anonymity, and close together enough such that a freeloader may conceivably attach itself to another group, the survival advantage of the freeloader is, overall, enhanced over that of the group contributor.
If it provides them and makes social behaviour more attractive than antisocial behaviour. In natural anarchic groups (small, widely separated), this attraction is overwhelming. But in large anarchic groups that are close together, it isn't.
No - many people will be antisocial for the sake of advantage. Work less and yet have more is the goal of many.
No, within. The pirate reference was to Pirates of the Caribbean from which I stole the phrase "Take what you can, give nothing back". Just a gag. See above for how antisocials would naturally arise within a group.
Yes, the group will suffer and yes the group will exile him, but there are too many groups for his resources to end and the groups are too large to identify such antisocials. The only downside is if the group decides to kill him. But first they gotta catch him, another downside of large groups preserving degrees of anonymity.
Robin Hood steals because goods are not distributed equally. Pirates steal because the good weren't distributed to them. Economic crime has shown no signs of fair play - the poor who depend on credit cards are the biggest victims of credit card fraud.
Freeloader is the specific term in such a situation. It's someone who enjoys the benefits of a society's labour without contributing to it.
An anarchic co-operative is a nice idea. I wonder how far we can push it before it tends toward centralisation.
If a social group produces goods available freely to all, someone will emerge to take as much as they can without contributing. Enough of that will spell the end of the group. That's why I use the term freeloader rather than thief or pirate.
We can maintain it. The state isn't providing goods free of charge: it is providing them in payment for the land, produce and right to both that is no more one person's than another's. That's not free.
A welfare system protects the accidentally disadvantaged: the physically and mentally incapacitated, the unsupported dependents, etc. I'm not proposing a welfare system, I'm proposing that every citizen has basic dietary, housing and clothing requirements met in payment for the loss of their right to self-provide. The monetary system, as I've said already, is vouchsafed: people will work for personal wealth above these basic survival requirements. You try and stop them. In fact, almost nothing would change except the state would lose a certain stranglehold it should never have possessed.
By the way, I'm not advocating capitalist democracy either. This initiative could work on any platform. A study of the pros and cons of each political philosophy is not necessary. I apologise if I gave the impression of championing anarchism. That was not my intention.
My position is solely this: If the state system does not allow its members to provide directly for themselves without first fulfilling obligations to others, it is encumbant upon the state to meet basic necessary survival needs of its members.
Applause, applause, applause. I couldn't have said it better myself. We should have real self-government (anarchism and direct democracy), the collective ownership of the means of production, the equal distribution of goods and services, and the abolishment of the state and all coercive institutions.
If and when it becomes possible to create more of everything than everyone could possibly want, then this will be possible. Until then, there would have to be coercive institutions to prevent people from quarralling over limited resources, and from quarrelling in general. In fact, this is not possible at all, at least until people become universally peaceful and kind. Withou law banning murder for example, this utopia would very rapidly degenerate into a feudal society of warring clans and factions.
I understand what you're saying about freeloaders, but I still don't see how this is an argument against anarchist self-government. Can't this freeloading also apply to the current state governmental system if it provides essential goods to all citizens? Couldn't that also induce this anti-social behavior of non-contribution to industry? What evidence do you have that anarcho-communism wont work in large populations with high density ratios? I suppose this claim stems from sociology or psychology, correct?
Also, most people want a profession or role in society because it's a fact that most people don't like being idle and feeling insignificant. That's why they have volunteer work, and especially for people in retirement.
What you describe - the state providing essential goods and services to all citizens - is called a welfare program, and it's basically state socialism. Now I agree with your critique of the unfair demands of the state on the individual, but I disagree with your solution to those unfair demands.
Freeloaders are already at work - they exploit the state welfare system, for instance. I'm not advocated a new welfare system, like I said. Every person has their necessary survival needs minimally met (this needn't and probably shouldn't take the form of money, but it could) and those people are not obliged to to anything. The same people currently mass-producing children to stay out of work will probably continue to do just that, and at maybe less expense to the taxpayer.
The crucial point is that it is to the advantage of the individual to not freeload in a capitalist democracy. Most people are driven by materialist gain rather than laziness, so most will work of their own volition. However, in an anarchism, it is only to the advantage of the individual to contribute if the alternative is less fruitful. Self-provision is generally less fruitful, but mass exploitation is not. The size and number density of social groups determine which is whice. Few small groups - better to contribute. Densely packed large groups - better to freeload.
Yes, most people might still want to contribute for, say, self-worth or hobbyism. And most people might conform to their groups laws. But many won't.
A welfare program is aimed at specific people who are disadvantaged. I'm talking a nationwide stipend, say weekly. It's the only thing that exact balances the cost to the individual: state provision - self provision = balance. Another way is to give the means of produce back to the individuals, as per anarchism or communism. The difference is that while an anarchism is inherently just, I can't see it's feasibility unless population levels are significantly reduced. State provision of necessary survival goods is feasible and just.
This still ignores the point I made about the vast majority of citizens not having to work in an automated industry. That settles the problem of non-contributors.
Your argument is not an argument against anarchism itself. This is an argument against a resource based economy or any non-monetary economy, an economy where goods and services are distributed equally and free of charge. That type of economy can be statist or anarchist.
With disregard to the fact that we can automate the industries, and for the sake of discussion, where's the sociological evidence that people will behave this way in large population densities where goods and services are distributed equally and free of charge?
Your proposal for the state to provide essential goods free of charge to every citizen is the ultimate form of welfare statism; it's basically state-socialism.
Good point, my apologies. There is still the issue, though, of fair distribution. An anarchism cannot overproduce the way a centrally governed state does because there exists competition for resources between self-ruling groups. So, yes, lack of contribution is removed as a problem, but not exploitation. Resources are not infinite, whether they are produced manually or automatically.
My argument for the unfeasibility of anarchism was based on necessary contribution to the social group as well as distribution of goods. The feature of anarchism in high population levels is that antisocials need not fend for themselves like they do in natural anarchies. But if contribution is not essential, the danger posed by exploitation is simply one of resources, yes.
It seems unreasonable to suggest that where goods are delivered equally nobody will ever try to take more than their fair share. This seems to fly in the face of all experience. If people weren't this way inclined, movie stars earning $40M a year would redistribute their wealth. There are always people who want more than they need, and more than their neighbour has. You don't need a chart to show this.
The name is irrelevant to me. The justice is all that matters. I don't see that the argument "that's just socialism" is any more valid than the argument "that's just Utopianism" that you complained of earlier. You can call it Mickey Mouse-ism... what it is is what interests me.
Resources would be effectively managed in a resource based economy. A lot of resource based economics deals with complex details of engineering, effective manufacturing, and recycling systems. Societal values have a lot to do with exploitation and the economic materialism we witness in a monetary based economy.
It is reasonable to believe that people will be greedy and economic materialists if all you've known is an economy based on cyclical consumption, power, financial wealth, and the monetary exchange of goods and services. It is the monetary system that induces the misplaced values of our society.
I'm not really using the term socialism as an argument against your proposal. I'm just letting you know what it's called, and I've only had to repeat that because you were dodging the term. I understand how the misconception of terms and the connotations that are associate with it can be used as an invalid argument against a proposal; I use terms like anarchism and communism . . . lol. You don't think that people try and use the misconception of those terms to belittle my arguments?
there are those who insist there is more than enough to support everyone who is currently on the planet. but as i see it, too many people have excessive wants and demands on the resources, too many want to hoard rather than use and recycle, and yes it will only work when/if people become universally peaceful and kind. once again-the ego rules. that is where the battle begins i think. win that one, and the rest is clear sailing...utopia.
That is the problem right there, in boldface. Yes, we probably could provide for the 'bare neccessities' of everyone on the planet. But, have you met any people? People are not satisfied with the bare neccessities. As long as there are people some will attempt to make their lives more comfortable by commanding or consuming more resources than they have at their disposal. Thus, the only way to bring about this equality is to force those 'greedy' people not to take more than 'their share' as set by society. The idea that people will voluntarily share everything and not quarrel over things that they each want for themselves belong with the idea that some day people will become universally kind and peaceful. Pure fantasy. A political theory based on these assumptions is hopeless and, in my opinion worthless. I don't mean any offence; the ideas are interesting, but simply not compatible with any reality that could concievably come into being. Now, humanity will probably be here for some time, so maybe we'll have evolved and become more social and peaceful in the next 100,000 years, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Let me say also, just for the record, that I think a society like that, without conflict essentially, is not only impossible, but revolting. I like humanity with all its flaws and ambitions and even its tendency toward violence. Love and hate are closely related, as are all the strong passions. If you neuter mankind, you will deliver him over to a fate worse than anything I can imagine: boredom.
the abolishment of the state and all coercive institutions.
I was mostly referring to this statement by hue-man that I assumed you agreed with.
Pure anarchy, the absence of any non-voluntary rules or arrangements, is impossible. Either people must never conflict with each other, which will not happen, or people will conflict with each other and, in the absence of any societal institution that's recognized to have the authority to settle disputes, those conflicts would escalate and instead of anarchy, there would be factions and warlords. That is why I propose libertarianism. It is the closest to the impossible ideal of complete individual autonomy without destroying the very conditions under which that autonomy ie possible: i.e. being free from the coercive influence of others who might be stronger than yourself.
That is the problem right there, in boldface. Yes, we probably could provide for the 'bare neccessities' of everyone on the planet. But, have you met any people? People are not satisfied with the bare neccessities. As long as there are people some will attempt to make their lives more comfortable by commanding or consuming more resources than they have at their disposal. Thus, the only way to bring about this equality is to force those 'greedy' people not to take more than 'their share' as set by society. The idea that people will voluntarily share everything and not quarrel over things that they each want for themselves belong with the idea that some day people will become universally kind and peaceful. Pure fantasy. A political theory based on these assumptions is hopeless and, in my opinion worthless. I don't mean any offence; the ideas are interesting, but simply not compatible with any reality that could concievably come into being. Now, humanity will probably be here for some time, so maybe we'll have evolved and become more social and peaceful in the next 100,000 years, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Let me say also, just for the record, that I think a society like that, without conflict essentially, is not only impossible, but revolting. I like humanity with all its flaws and ambitions and even its tendency toward violence. Love and hate are closely related, as are all the strong passions. If you neuter mankind, you will deliver him over to a fate worse than anything I can imagine: boredom.
Hmmm. This is sounding much less like self-rule and more a network of smaller centrally governed substates. Okay, I'm in your anarchism and I decide that I and maybe some friends and family should get at least twice as much as everybody else. What stops me?
I don't buy it. I'm-alright-Jackism is inherent. Look at other primates squabbling over resources. Look how primate groups treat freeloaders (monkeys are merciless with antisocials).
There's also the same effect in children who haven't yet been raised to that level of economic savvy. If you give a cake to one brother and tell him to share it with the other brother, he'll cut two-third for himself, one-third for his brother. Do the same with classmates and the ratio increases. Humans serve themselves first, their loved ones second, and scraps for all others.
I'm not dodging the term; it just won't stick. State socialism usually refers to government-owned means of production, which is clearly not what I have argued for, since I have no argued for any change (or retaining) of ownership. If the means of production are still owned largely by landowners and corporations, and we still operate by and large within a free market, with one simple additional produce distribution regulation, that does not constitute a socialist state.
An anarchist political state (which again I emphasise I have not argued for) does not necessitate caring and sharing - it simply demands self-government. What Hue-man is arguing for is a very specific thing: seemingly a co-operative quasi-anarchist technological Utopia. A technological Utopia (free distribution of goods based on automated production and therefore no especial entitlement based on contribution) does not demand an anarchist state (self-rule), nor does the vice the versa.
If you like humanity with all its virtues and flaws and don't wish it to be neutered, though, your more pro-anarchism than you admit. The key principle of anarchism is that, for better or for worse, the most just form of government is simply allowing people to work it out for themselves and not being restricted by centralised regulation, be it of goods or of behaviour. Anarchism, in its broadest sense, is simply the opposite of totalitarianism. Beyond that you're considering specific anarchist philosophies which usually undermine the most basic anarchist principle of lack of compulsion (which is necessary for self-rule, else it isn't self-rule).
The "bare necessities" was my argument, not hue-man's who argues for general distribution of goods, not the bare necessary goods, and I am not arguing for an anarchist or Utopian solution. Capitalist democracy is where we're at - as far as my argument is concerned that is where we can remain.
As for the family wanting twice as much as everybody else, that would make no sense because there are no legal limits on how many goods you can buy. You are the owner of the means of production just like everyone else in the community.
I'm not saying that humans aren't naturally self-interested, of course they are. I'm simply saying economic materialism and excess cyclical consumption is a result of the socio-economic system.
Also, I'm sure you know that unlike gorillas or even chimps, humans are way more influenced by their environment than by their genes.
You're right; it's not full on state socialism, but the policy is a socialist one, just like social security and medicare/medicaid, and I'm not knocking those policies.
The term you were dodging was welfare, and I'm telling you that what you're proposing is the ultimate welfare system, and I'm not knocking it based on principle alone. I just don't believe that it's the best proposal for the unfair demands of the state.
Can you answer the question I asked you? What if people didn't want to pay for a tax-based system that paid for the equal distribution of essential goods? Wouldn't that also be an unfair demand of the state?
A utopia is a perfect society with no problems whatsoever, and everyone is happy and gets along all of the time. I don't believe that that's possible. My idea is for a better, more just society, not a perfect society.
Glad you asked.
First, a feudal system is not entirely decentralised, insofar as there still exists a central government - a monarch. Latterly the monarch was the head of the feudal system.
Second, the national infrastructure of the feudal system is that resources and their means of production are owned by some form of elite - the aristocracy. The aristrocracy owned the land and directly or indirectly on behalf of the aristocracy those who lived off it laboured it. This could be indirectly, e.g. on behalf directly of vassals. The fruits of those labours make their way up the hierarchy in the form of homage. The means of those labours made their way down the hierarchy in terms of grants.
But while the labour begins with the peasants, the grants end with the vassals. In this way the feudal system denies the peasant the means of self-provision - in order to live and get back access to food and shelter (at the discretion of the landowners), the peasant was obliged to labour for the vassal or directly for the aristocracy.
rved might survive because the Lord gives him food in return for serfdom.
That is the key similarity - the removal of the means of self-provision from the individual into the state system, here the government and the feudal hierarchy.
Nowadays this basic principle still applies. The means of production are held by, for instance, the farmers, the banks and the corporations, as is the produce, again by the farmers and the corporations.
Still self-provision is criminalised - we cannot go and hunt a sheep, cut down a tree or otherwise build shelter in a field because all of these things are privately owned by a modern day aristocracy. We labour the land, albeit in a very different way where the land itself is rarely but a location, and once and only once this obligation is fulfilled we are given a wage which we hand back to the aristocracy in exchange the food and shelter that, naturally, we have equal right to.
Again the homages work their way up from til to HQ to IR, now called profit and taxes.
The system is still modelled on the feudalistic principle of owning production (obviously there are other, e.g. military, aspects of feudalism - I'm not comparing to those) and still works by the same coup - remove the possibility from the individual of providing for himself, thus forcing him to work, directly or indirectly, for the state.
Actually the head of the feudal system was God. And divine authority was interceded through the pope, to the King, which is one of the fundamental parts of the feudal system- the Kings power is reliant on things outside of the centre. It was when Kings seperated themselves from the popes authority, centralised their nations and set up the divine right of kings that the feudal system failed. Henry VIII destroyed the feudal system in England.
Overly simplistic. There were many free peasants, as well as a large middle class, and homage and grants is an overly contractual description of the lord-vassal relationship. Rather it was a form of hierarcharised gift-exchange.
There were many self-sufficent communities, such as monastries, all over europe. The feudal system rested on real assets, such as land, rather than abstract banking systems- a reverse of the current situation.
But the state didn't exist. Rather small local authoritys, such as knights, lords, monastries and bishoprics owned land and employed serfs. The central authority, the King, required the loaylty, and relied on, his vassals to give him power, and lacked the ability to enforce it without them- contary to the state today. Also the King could not operate without the support of the Church, an entirely seperate power structure, operating on an entirely differant level. The technological level, and the overlapping power structures, prevented any central governance of asset ownership. It is not insignifant that the end of the middle ages coincided with enclosure.
