Get a hold of this debate???

Economics Political Theory
61

Drew Brando, my basic thought on Direct Democracy, if I understand the term correctly, is that it is fundamentally unworkable due to the incentives it creates. First, in a world with billions of people, direct democracy can’t possibly work without significant division by geographic area. Obviously, beneficial laws in New York City may be disastrous in Sub-Saharan Africa.

But, even with division by geographic area, think about how much information is generated by such a system. The sheer amount of data generated will overload anyone attempting to make sense of it, and will provide an excellent smokescreen for anyone trying to use the system to their own advantage. Even if some kind of evidence is found, the mere distribution and persuasion necessary to translate that evidence into a change at the ballot box is prohibitively expensive. If such a system were to devolve into a roughly two-party system (as it probably would), how difficult would it be to convince a significant portion of one party that the evidence is real?

But it’s actually worse than that, because the arguments Hayek made years ago about governments attracting the worst people still stand. The people most active in such a system will still be the ones with the worst intentions, because, like all government apparati, they translate into power. Only now, they have direct control over anything they want. Democracy without limitations doesn’t result in freedom, it more often results in 60% of the people enslaving 40%, even if they don’t call it slavery.

The direct democracy people I’ve read posts from on this forum seem to want to sweep all potential problems under the rug with “transparency,” but this is foolish. Transparent government is not especially moral or just, because individual people are not always moral and just, and their time and attention are not infinite. Worse, the reluctance of the moral and just people to lord over everyone else will not stop the immoral and unjust from taking power.

Unionrevolte, the fact that you “do not see where [I] want to go with that” is due to the fact that you’ve totally missed my point. The point I was making was that the two types of graphite are indistinguishable. I can claim I made the graphite I’m selling either way. But aside from that, one of my points is that there are ways for “labor” to result in things of lesser value. That a person enjoys or wants to labor in a certain way does not guarantee that their labor will result in anything useful, and, since consumption is nonzero, if production doesn’t meet consumption, the result of such a system is a spiral into global poverty and starvation.

A good way to restate the problem is in the form of a question:
How can you objectively tell the difference between someone thinking really hard about better ways to manufacture goods but not doing very well (laboring with no results for now) from someone who simply tells you they are thinking really hard but they really aren’t?

One of these people, in your utopia, should be paid, and the other should not. But the two cases are indistinguishable, so how does your utopia prevent the latter case from getting paid for his non-labor?

Heck, labor time is a good. What you are suggesting is total price control of this good, a good that goes into every other good. How can that price control not adversely effect the way I determine the price of every other good? Jeez, what about service industries where the labor is the good? If I have to choose between picking up garbage and waving a cardboard banner outside of a restaurant in the Bahamas, and both jobs pay the same amount, where will I find garbagemen?

If I spend all my time making mud pies, I still get paid, right? I don’t have to sell the pies, right? I just get a few of them when everyone splits up all the goods. But I can still buy apple pies with the money I’m getting from my labors! That’s the problem! What if everyone does that? What if the number of people who does that exceeds the number of people who are making apple pies? …And what will the apple pie makers think when they see the guys making mud pies getting the same amount of stuff they’re getting?

I submit that the incentive structure created by total wage equality encourages the best producers to produce less, while providing no incentive for the worst producers to produce more. This incentive structure, repeated over many cycles of the market, will result in a constant downward spiral of productive capacity, until the only people still producing anything are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. And then they starve.

I said this in another thread, but: It may be possible to eke out a living by appropriating the kindness of people’s souls, but you may find that the standard is pretty low.

62

What we have against private property is that it uses PUBLIC historical knowledge and ressources to create PRIVATE profit and economic influence.

(I actually hold a patent on copyrighting. So take that for what you will.)

For example, Bill Gates, to invent Windows, he needed the work of MANY MANY humans and centuries of human knowledge.

(And he’d have to have a reason.)

Farther in this example, he needed metal and plastic molding, electronical circuit, electricity and computers.

(And a motive.)

He also needed the alphabet and some mathematical formulas heritated from Pythagoras.

(And…ah, hell…)

Did Bill Gates paid a humanity’s historical copyright to the descendant of Pythagoras and Thomas Edison?

(The majority of those “copyright” holders are dead. Who’s the lucky son of a bitch that got the estate? And…call me crazy here…but you’re using an example of something that falls under the heading of private property in defense of an ideology that is AGAINST private property. By your own definitions, no one has any “right” to receive anything for the use of that knowledge.)

Of course not! If he did, it would have been INAFORDABLE to buy Windows…and a computer.

(Horrendous misunderstanding of the concept of assertion. How do you know what the price is?)

He’s work is a social and historical work.

(Yes. He did work. It benefitted society. It is also a part of history, being in the past. This is probably the most sensible thing I’m going to read here, isn’t it?)

If he wouldn’t have invented Windows, someone else would have.

(Prove it, smart guy.)

Maybe it would have been longer, but the historical conditions were there…

(But you can’t prove it. I mean, what if people DON’T build operating systems if there isn’t a profit to be made from it? Then what?)

We are not against the market, we are against the Labour Market

(Isn’t that a Chinese food mart in Tennessee?)

only because it is impossible to really judge what a good work is.

(That’s only impossible for a society as a whole to judge. I, personally, can make that call for any damn thing you name.)

Lots of people get paid to do some work that I qualify as negative forthe society.

(So this whole society is based off of YOUR opinion of good and bad?

On the other hand, lots of people do some positive work for the society, but doesn’t get paid for : read a book, take the time to eat better, to do some excercice, take the time to teach your child well, planting trees, doing journalism’s investigations, domestic work, take care of old peoples, regional engagement, etc.

(I don’t think any of those things are beneficial to society. Now what? What do you do now? You now have to prove to me that they are. Go on. I DARE you. I think you will find that the world is not quite as objective as you think.)

We are not even paid for the work we are doing right now, here in this forum.

(I don’t consider this work in anything but the physical fact of the amount of energy it takes to move my fingers to type, etc. We have another problem. Prove to me that arguing back and forth warrants payment.)

All of these ‘works’ are indispensable for whole humanity emancipation,

(Humanity’s emancipation (from SOMETHING) is dependant on technological progress? You mean we can’t just be free? We have to suffer oppression first? Hey, buddy…prove it. Yeah, I’m gonna keep saying that.)

but does not create any profit or richness into a capitalism’s economy.

(I like to think that sometimes people read my snappy retorts and go off and invest in something which conceivably reaps a profit. I deny your assertion. Prove that I am wrong.)

But we continue the debate even if there are some politicians that are paid for that job!

(You know…if that’s all that politicians were paid to do…I wouldn’t be so angry about the havoc it reaps on my paycheck…But putting that aside, are you suggesting that trolling is a job worth paying someone for? Because that’s totally cool. You’re allowed your opinion. I will now take bets that this goes right over his head. Who’s in?)

The truth is that we can all be politicians,

(Especially mutes.)

teacher,

(Especially the neurologically defunct.)

medic,

(Especially the blind, armless folk.)

journalist

(Especiall the…well, yeah. Anyone could do that shit.)

or anyting else and it is profitable for everyone not to leave the work of politics only to the politicians.

(But it is being left to them. Everyone’s a politician, potentially. So the ones who do it, are. In fact, all you did is state the obvious: People can do things.)

What do you do with people that are only good in things that cannot create richness in terms of profit?

(You pay them to do useless, unproductive things, at their leisure! Well, actually I’m not quite sure who’s doing the paying…hey, who’s handing out the paychecks in your society? This should be a hoot.)

You throw them away into the social garbages?

(Let’s see…lots of people take care of their parents. Lots of parents take care of children. We take care of the elderly, either at home or by paying a nursing home (yeah, who the hell is doing THAT with no profit motive…)…so, all in all, I’d say that, no, we don’t. News Flash: Parents have been known to raise autistic and other mentally handicapped children.)

We prefer to include them and encourage them to participate to the society the best way they can.

(Yes. Yes we do. At our own expense. So…are you suggesting we do otherwise?)

Worldwide centralisation was the mecanism of capitalism, decentralisation will be the watchword of tomorow.

(You…don’t know the meanings of words, do you? In ANY language, I mean. Capitalism is about centralization? I wasn’t aware the government had succeeded in taking over Wal-mart, try though they might.)

As a resume, we could say that we once seperated the church from the politic. We now want to seperate material-liberalism from human-liberalism.We are not against free liberal exchanges between individuals, we are against economic slavery!

(So it’s cool if I trade things for other things that society has said are worth less than what I have to trade? Takin’ bets again. Who thinks this loaded question will slip right by bucko here?)

@Drew Brando : “Does it mean I have the right to private property, the right of use and disposal of goods.” Of course you can have a ‘domestic property’, buy and and dispose of YOUR goods as you want.

(So I can just start bartering. I can shatter your whole system by exchanging things. Brilliant.)

“How do you plan on achieving your goal?” We will democratically and WORLDWIDELY overturn the capitalistic system with a free revocable delegation, inspirated from the Commune de Paris of 1871 and the two russian revolution.

(Yes, but how. Oh, do you think it will be fun to kill people, by the way? I mean, won’t that just be the best? C’mon, I kid, I kid…But no, really.)

All of the modern socialist’s revolution were made this way,

(Yeah…worked out great. Like that really successful one that…the one in..where they…shit.)

we need to expand this worldwide (and it is starting inFrance, Grece, Tunisia, Egypt, …).

(Egypt? My own pet project? Hah! Well, let me tell you that I have no problem with you thinking that Egypt is in the beginning stages of an uprise against capitalism. You just go nuts with that assertion, buddy. Except…can you prove that any of that is really starting in any of those places? Or are you just making an assertion again?)

You say “There’s nothing wrong with consuming, provided you pay for it. If I payed, I can buy whatever I please.” But if you individually consume more than the PIB of your country, it is over-consumation. What gives you the right, YOU, to consume more than what the society can offer?

(What gives you the right to tell me how much I can consume? It’s a two-way, subjective standpoint.)

A critical way of consuming is based on the exchange of information between the consumers, not on false advertising.

(So what measures do you propose that will absolutely prevent people from lying, and how can you prove that it works?)

“We already have Economi power”. Good thing for you, I also tried to start my own business…

(Can’t imagine that you failed, what with being such a rational and objective thinker…)

Anyway, we, canadians, are one of the country that benefit the most of the worldwide capitalism economy.

(BUT NOBODY BENEFITS WHEN THEY ARE SLAVES! No, really. I can’t flap my arms and fly, so I am not truly free. Therefore it is unthinkable that we should ignore this fact. We should revolt, until society agrees to find ways for me to fly by flapping my arms.)

Go tell this to someone that works 50$ per moth for you to get some nice shoes and shirts.

(But it was worth it. That’s why they did it. They’re obviously able to eat, because they keep showing up to work. Who works if they can’t afford anything? I make a lot more than 50 dollars a month, and I complain about working all the time but I keep doing it because I take responsibility for myself. I’m not a slave if I can walk away. But here’s the thing: I’m not going to freely exchange information about what I’m doing in your society. If you force me to, then you have enslaved me. So how’s that working out? Got something for that?)

I don’t think he really has ‘economic liberty’. What are your solutions? WORK EVEN MORE! HAHAHA PATHETIC! We offer TRUE solutions to each every terran, the solution to be really free!

(And those solutions are? Yeah, you got nothing. So…you’re suggesting here that taking responsibility for oneself is too much of a chore, and that having to work more is an atrocity. What is the upper limit for when it becomes unreasonable for someone to work more? I say ten minutes, tops. If people in your society have to work for more than ten minutes, they have no economic liberty. Get real, tough guy. How is it pathetic? Why are you laughing at the idea that someone who works harder for society to earn more for themselves is a good thing? Your idea just assumes that people WILL work hard for society, with no explanation as to why they shoul do so. There is less benefit to the whole in what you have to offer precisely because you are suggesting that people deserve things without contributing to what society demands. You have gained no ground, you have offered nothing anywhere that indicates how any of this will pan out, and, most terrifyingly of all, you seem to lack the capability to detect the difference between fact and opinion. That scares the hell out of me.)

Look, please keep on the subject. Quebec is not broked. If we would sold all of our hospitals, bridges, schools, etc. to the private entreprise, we wouldn’t have any dept. It is like a mortgage, you need to calculate the actives and the passives. Quebec is one of the biggest owner in Canada (according to the population).

63

Drew Brando, my basic thought on Direct Democracy, if I understand the term correctly, is that it is fundamentally unworkable due to the incentives it creates.

(But its DEMOCRACY! Anyone who says democracy is bad is just wrong! Automatically!)

First, in a world with billions of people, direct democracy can’t possibly work without significant division by geographic area. Obviously, beneficial laws in New York City may be disastrous in Sub-Saharan Africa.

(No! Because everyone votes, so the right decision is reached. Automatically.)

But, even with division by geographic area, think about how much information is generated by such a system.

(BUT WE HAVE COMPYOOOOOOOTERS!!!)

The sheer amount of data generated will overload anyone attempting to make sense of it, and will provide an excellent smokescreen for anyone trying to use the system to their own advantage.

(But there will be lots of volunteers, policing EACH OTHER! AUTOMATICALLY!)

Even if some kind of evidence is found, the mere distribution and persuasion necessary to translate that evidence into a change at the ballot box is prohibitively expensive.

(But we can vote the price down with DEMOCRACY! God, you are so wrong about everything. It’s like you’re just throwing words out there and pretending you’ve made an argument. In a completely unrelated question, does anyone know what “inner monologue” means?)

If such a system were to devolve into a roughly two-party system (as it probably would), how difficult would it be to convince a significant portion of one party that the evidence is real?

(But EVERYONE is watching EVERYBODY all the time! So it just works, since everyone knows. Automatically.)

But it’s actually worse than that, because the arguments Hayek made years ago about governments attracting the worst people still stand.

(Yes, but Hayek was a libertarian-anarchist-capitalist-big-business-loving-hater-of-the-poor, and he said things with words that talked about money, but he didn’t know what he was saying really, because he was wrong and made a mistake because I said so. I think this proves that his argument was inconclusive at best.)

The people most active in such a system will still be the ones with the worst intentions,

(It’s democracy, so everyone will be good. Automatically. How can it be bad when PEOPLE have the POWER?)

because, like all government apparati, they translate into power.

(POWER FOR THE PEOPLE! That’s the difference. So the corruption disappears, automatically.)

Only now, they have direct control over anything they want. Democracy without limitations doesn’t result in freedom, it more often results in 60% of the people enslaving 40%, even if they don’t call it slavery.

(HAHAHA YOU SAID DEMOCRACY DOESN’T RESULT IN FREEDOM, UNBELIEVABLE!@!@#$!@that’smyargument.)

The direct democracy people I’ve read posts from on this forum seem to want to sweep all potential problems under the rug with “transparency,” but this is foolish.

(Transparency is “foolish”? How do you think things will automaticallygetbetterjustlikeinthecapitalistsystem without transparency? After that, it works.)

Transparent government is not especially moral or just, because individual people are not always moral and just, and their time and attention are not infinite.

(But it’s society making decisions, not one person! I have totally destroyed everything you just said.)

Worse, the reluctance of the moral and just people to lord over everyone else will not stop the immoral and unjust from taking power.

(But they won’t be able to do anything BECAUSE EVERYONE VOTES!)

Unionrevolte, the fact that you “do not see where [I] want to go with that” is due to the fact that you’ve totally missed my point. The point I was making was that the two types of graphite are indistinguishable.

(BUT THE SOCIAL CONSCIENCE PERCEIVES THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF LABOR! AUTOMATICALLY!)

I can claim I made the graphite I’m selling either way.

(BUT SOCIETY WOULD SOON NOTICE BECAUSE EVERYONE POLICES EVERYONE! IT JUST HAPPENS!)

But aside from that, one of my points is that there are ways for “labor” to result in things of lesser value.

(HAHAHA ARE YOU SAYING THAT WORKING FOR SOCIETY MAKES SOMETHING LESS VALUABLE? BECAUSE I CLEARLY JUST MADE A COUNTER-ARGUMENT!)

That a person enjoys or wants to labor in a certain way does not guarantee that their labor will result in anything useful,

(People will do what is useful. Automatically.)

and, since consumption is nonzero, if production doesn’t meet consumption, the result of such a system is a spiral into global poverty and starvation.

(But you are just asserting that production won’t be greater than consumption, when anyone who really thinks logically knows that this will happen automatically.)

A good way to restate the problem is in the form of a question:
How can you objectively tell the difference between someone thinking really hard about better ways to manufacture goods but not doing very well (laboring with no results for now) from someone who simply tells you they are thinking really hard but they really aren’t?

(People will watch each other and root out those who are corrupt. Automatically.)

One of these people, in your utopia, should be paid, and the other should not. But the two cases are indistinguishable, so how does your utopia prevent the latter case from getting paid for his non-labor?

(I haven’t read all of something yet but I’m sure whatever it is that I’m reading on the subject explains it perfectly, precisely, and completely closes the loop for any counter argument. So you’re wrong.)

Heck, labor time is a good. What you are suggesting is total price control of this good, a good that goes into every other good. How can that price control not adversely effect the way I determine the price of every other good?

(Because it doesn’t count. Or counts backward. Or something. We’ll take an average of the amount of education needed for the job and add it to truth.)

Jeez, what about service industries where the labor is the good? If I have to choose between picking up garbage and waving a cardboard banner outside of a restaurant in the Bahamas, and both jobs pay the same amount, where will I find garbagemen?

(People will pick up garbage automatically.)

If I spend all my time making mud pies, I still get paid, right? I don’t have to sell the pies, right? I just get a few of them when everyone splits up all the goods. But I can still buy apple pies with the money I’m getting from my labors! That’s the problem! What if everyone does that? What if the number of people who does that exceeds the number of people who are making apple pies? …And what will the apple pie makers think when they see the guys making mud pies getting the same amount of stuff they’re getting?

(I don’t see where you are going with this. That makes me smarter than you.)

I submit that the incentive structure created by total wage equality encourages the best producers to produce less, while providing no incentive for the worst producers to produce more. This incentive structure, repeated over many cycles of the market, will result in a constant downward spiral of productive capacity, until the only people still producing anything are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. And then they starve.

(FINE IF YOU PREFER SLAVERY! BUT I DON’T WANT TO BE A SLAVE SO LET’S ALL DO EVERYTHING THAT I PERSONALLY THINK IS THE RIGHT IDEA!)

I said this in another thread, but: It may be possible to eke out a living by appropriating the kindness of people’s souls, but you may find that the standard is pretty low.

(Your hate for the human spirit is proof that you do not understand logic.)

64

Hi guys,

I’m a regular from Le Québecois Libre (Martin Masse’s Libertarian site). Union Révolte was a “regular” on our site for a while. Debating with this person is useless. You may find the best arguments in the world, they will never sink in with him. He will typically avoid questions he is not able to answer. For example, he will never be able to answer the question as to how absolute equality can be enforced without coercition. He repeats slogans and has a few statistics that he handpicked and likes to share with everyone. He uses lots of fallacies such as the straw man, red herrings and so on… After a while, his comments were deleted from the site. He has what I would describe as being the"pope’s syndrom". He believes that all that he says is absolute truth and that no one can prove him wrong. If you want more psychological information on this personnality type, please see the Enneagram type 1. http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp

Here is the part you where you will recongnize our troll :

Because of this, Ones often persuade themselves that they are “head” types, rationalists who proceed only on logic and objective truth. But, the real picture is somewhat different: Ones are actually activists who are searching for an acceptable rationale for what they feel they must do. They are people of instinct and passion who use convictions and judgments to control and direct themselves and their actions.

65

Hi Steven, welcome to the forums,I think unionrevolte got the picture since he is not answering.

@valject

I like to think that sometimes people read my snappy retorts and go off and invest in something which conceivably reaps a profit.

Lol

66

Hi guys,

I’m a regular from Le Québecois Libre (Martin Masse’s Libertarian site). Union Révolte was a “regular” on our site for a while. Debating with this person is useless.

(No worries, friend. I assure you this person is nobody of any noteworthiness to myself. I simply enjoy watching the logically defunct thrash about. It amuses me no end.)

67

Worldwide anti-capitaliste revolution for a better world.

That quote cracks me up.lol

Why does Lew Rockwell turn down invitations?
68

@Felipe : “What is “historical copyright”?”. I thought it was clear. Presently, the copyrights are of about 70 years.
We will expand this to the last 30 000 years of human history. The “historical copyright” is for the use of universal human knowledge (writing, molding, numbers, mathematic formulas, etc.).

“Only if the market forces would have demanded such an invention”. Why that? Why would it have been the market and not the laziness or curiosity?
Many scientist work only because they are curious, not especially to invent something that their boss will make money on it, for the market. Just talk to the astronomers… From my opinion, you volontary stay locked in your dogmas.

“The Free Market does a pretty god job at that.[fix a value to the work]” So you say the domestic work has ZERO value? Why would a wife (or husband) staying at home to take care of the child, the house and prepare the supper shouldn’t be paid for the work done?
Considering the other person ‘is allowed’ to work because the other is staying home, it is TOTALLY unfair that only the one wich leaves the house get paid for he’s social work (yes, staying home can be considered as work, even if you just teach childs, read books, make some exercises, cook suppers, neat the house, clean the laundry, or anything else).
This example could also be used with old peoples or any ‘excluded’ person wich we consider today as ‘economic garbages’ and ‘parasites’. These people are usefull you know, and they could be even more!

“If you could just avoid the violation of private property and the mass famine in the process that would be just nifty.” Heum…there’s something I don’t understand, please develop.

“I cant recall a single socialist “revolution” involving a democratic process.”. When I was talking of France, Grece, Tunisia and Egypt, I was talking about the modern citizen’s democratic edification wich has started into these countries. We have many contacts with liberal-egalitarist and other revolutionary organisations. Like I said before, capitalism will be surpass worldwidely.

“What gives you the right to tell anyone what to do with their property?” What? Again, I think there is something you don’t understand, or that you don’t want to understand. What you buy belongs to you, you do what ever you want with your property.

“Great! What solutions?” Damn, can you read this debate? Please read it again!

“Your definition of Private Property is too ambiguous, please clarify.” Private Property is what ever you can buy or create yourself : your TV, your car, books, food, what ever! Simple, no?

@Drew Brando : “Keep in mind that Society is a non-thing”. Look, you don’t teach me anything here. Society means the actions and interactions between each individuals. When I said “negative for the society”, I was meaning negative for the actions and interactions between most of the individuals. Like I said, humans are socio-historical ‘products’.

“If someone pays them to do it then it is usefull”. Does that means that the things that people can’t buy is unusefull? Look, I might seem an idiot tp all of you, but please don’t treat me like one. I know that if someone is buying something, it is necessary usefull for HIM, c’mon…
But if someone buys a 20th car and the other is buying 1 tractor to work in the field and replace his work and the work of others, there is something more usefull than the other for what I call the society (the action and exchanges between MOST of the people). The more it creates exchanges, the best it is, no? Do you deny that?

“It’s not usefull to pay someone to “take care of old people” because there are way too many people who want to volunteer”. OMG, are you saying old people get the help they deserve according to the working life they offered to the society (do I have to define 'society again?). I think these people should get alot more gratification.

“you are under the impression that profit is “bad”” Of course I am not! I am against the way profit is managed. Big difference here.

"ou throw them away into the social garbages? " I was not talking about recycle, I was talking about old people that we throw away to social garbage (povrety) because they have become useless in a capitalistic way.

“wage slavery” is not necessary a bad thing if it is because the country doesn’t make enough richness. Again, we are against how the work, responsabilities and the profits are managed…

“I’m sorry, for some reason, this is funny and frightening in the same time. I’ll let someone else elaborate on this point.” Look, you cannot deny the fact that there is no international democratic structure. If there were, you can be sure that the south countries would reform the economic’s structure. We will be the ones who will create the first international instance in the whole human’s history.
It is the only way to democratically and legitimatly surpass capitalism. You must not me scared, it will not be worse than France’s 1789 or modern Egypt’s revolutions.

“Every society started somewhere” Yes, true, antic slavery to feodal and modern slavery, but why continue to the futur economic slavery. Look, we want to eliminate slavery, EVERY KINDS, and not just on the paper, like the USA did…

“we donated around 520 trillion dollars”. To who did you donated this? With wich conditions? To some corrupted States, ruled by tribal dictators, with no conditions at all. The truth is that our gouvernments have been accomplices to that tragedy. The gold is to insure cheap ressources and good working labor for less than 50$ per month. But this will change…it is changing already, African will soon be burning from north to south.

We do NOT have “Free Education” in quebec. “Free Education” is when the students get a worker’s salary for the knowledge they are gaining.

@z1235 : Personally? I didn’T give Bill Gates a shit (exept buying windows but this is okay). I didn’t say he took something to me, I said he took ALOT of social and historical work from the whole society. I said he didn’t paid the human’s historical copyrights because this would have been inafordable.

“who elected you to represent and fight”? No one, I am just sharing my opinions. But the worldwide revocable delegation is building faster and faster. It is this democratic instance (that we have not developed yet) that will have the final words…

@Steven76ca and @Valject : Good to see you have followed my invitation, but I would have prefered you contribute to the debate. You use the EXACT same strategy than in your lampoon ‘Le Québecois Libre’. Please evolve and grow up!

"I think unionrevolte got the picture since he is not answering. ". Sorry, I have 4 childrens, a small business and yesterday was a WONDERFULL day here in Quebec, I had to do something else than sitting in front of my computer.
Now since I am alone against you, I cannot go that fast. I will take a break and come back later. Now please manage me and stop to make me repeat. :stuck_out_tongue:

http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/2011/02/funny-debate-starting-with-some-people.html

69

If Gates doesn’t owe you anything, who does he owe something? Name names, please. Provided that you do have this list, have you asked anyone from the list whether they too feel that Bill Gates owes them something?

You seem to be speaking for people other than yourself when you ask (in their name but not yours, apparently) that Gates acknowledge his “debt” to them.

Oh, ok. Thanks for the heads up. So Gates owes something to (1) this delegation and/or (2) to the people it represents, then? But you’re part of neither as Gates owes you nothing, right?

Z.

70

@z1235 : C’mon, I am starting to think you just don’t want to understand our point (when I say ‘we’ or ‘our’, it is the liberal-egalitarists).

Look, the VIA-RAIL in Canada was built with asian slaves. I am not pretending we should get all the names and pay our dept, I am saying we own asia an historical dept. Not to some individual in particulat since they are all dead… Another example, acetaminophen was invented in Middle East. Did we ever paid anything for it? Of course not, our corporrations make money with this knowledge without paying anything to Middle East citizens. And these are only examples but, like I said, we could also include the alphabet knowledge into this and mathematic formulas. In this way, Bill Gates doesn’t own anything to specific people, but to the whole descendants of Adam and Eve, in other words, to the humanity.

71

unionrevolte, thanks for clarifying. So “we” owe everything to “ourselves”, then? And “we” picked you (or “our” revocable delegation) to take everything from us (including Bill Gates) and give it back to “us”? How am I doing so far?

Just curious, do “we” owe anything to the cows that have given us milk all these centuries? Or is the revocable delegation already working on this case too? If not, I’d like this to be placed on the next congress’ agenda, thanks.

One more thing… (1) Bill Gates doesn’t owe you anything, (2) Bill Gates owes everything to humanity, => (3) You are not part of humanity?

Z.

72

One more thing… (1) Bill Gates doesn’t owe you anything, (2) Bill Gates owes everything to humanity, => (3) You are not part of humanity?

This one is easy, obviously the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Look, it’s really easy to pick up stuff like that :slight_smile:

73

@Terrigan : You say “direct democracy can’t possibly work without significant division by geographic area”. Please explain why. If you give equal economic power to each people, they are free to invest it in whatever they want, no matter the geographic area. This is direct democracy : all economic power to the individuals. Direct democracy is antagonist to representative democracy governments.

You pretend “The people most active in such a system will still be the ones with the worst intentions”. Are you talking about the liberal-egalitarist system that I am trying to explain? Why would they have the worse intentions? And what ‘worse’ intentions, what’s that? You think there will be more murders? Please explain.

“One of these people, in your utopia, should be paid, and the other should not.” NO NO NO, I am not saying that, please read again. The only persons wich will not be paid will be the ones that refuse to do the minimum social work (the work that no one wants to do that will be divided between everyone).

“What you are suggesting is total price control of this good” Look, what do you don’t understand? There will be no states or any organisation to fix the prices. Only the laws of market (offer and demand) will fix the prices, NO STATE, NO ECONOMIC GOVERNMENT.

“service industries”? This doesn’t create richness, but it favorise the production of richness. You pay for what it cost (like I said, we destroy the labor market so you cannot fix a price on a service). But you still get paid for it since you participate in the exchange and production of richness in your own way.

“If I spend all my time making mud pies, I still get paid, right?” Yes, of course, if you love doing this… and you’re not even forced to sell them!
“What if the number of people who does that exceeds the number of people who are making apple pies?” Well this is social responsability. Eventually, you will get a social pression to do something more usefull.
You know, encourage others to work IS a work, and in the futur, it will be paid. :wink:
I don’t know for you, but I prefer doing something more usefull wich I can get more satisfaction and gratification than mud pies. But hey, if you do the minimum social work, you are free to do what ever you want!
The people from the futur will be as wise as the people from the past were : they will know they have all the interest in the world to participate to the production and make raise the ‘social salary’. Most of the people forget that today since they are disconnected from the economic reality

@z1235 : I am part of the human society. This is why I will have my social salary each month that I will make the minimum social work, like we previously talked of.
About the ‘WE’, ‘ourselves’ part, I am not sure to understand what you mean, but I’m pretty sure you understand me. Please ask clear questions.

http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/

74

Damm it lol, unionrevolte Valject already predicted your answers.

You fail to explain anything in detail and don’t really answer my questions.

Your answers are mostly :“Because I say so, democracy is good, don’t you understand?”

Please explain your points.

75

@ Unionrevolte

I’m still waiting for a reply to my two questions but I’ll condense it into one. Will someone who’s productivity is many times greater then someone else’s recieve the same salary as the much less productive person(s)?

76

Also Unionrevolte, let’s sweep aside your vague responses to my questions.

Can you describe your ideal society? How is it going to work? How are you going to put it in practice?

What will happen after ? Describe a regular day in Anarcho-communist society?

Side note, what is Capitalism?

77

unionrevolte,

Will the revocable delegation (and their computer) pay me my social salary even if I only made three mud-pies a month? How about one? What if I only did push-ups, swam, and had sex ten times a month, as these just happen to be my true talents? Social salary, still?

Then Bill Gates does owe you something then. But you also said that Bill Gates doesn’t owe you anything. Which is it?

Actually, I’m quite sure that I don’t understand you. You have yet to answer a single question directly. Which part of “we” and “ourselves” don’t you understand? If the whole humanity owes everything to the whole humanity (i.e. to itself), who exactly owes what to whom, and how did you, your revocable delegation, and your HAL computer become the executors for this humongous debt reconcilliation scheme? Is your middle name Jesus, perchance?

Z.

78

Bill Gates owes everybody a million dollars. I don’t think it can get much more simpler then that.

79

@unionrevolte It seems that your argument for this society has two parts. One is a strong belief in intellectual property rights and the other is a strong belief in altruism.

Re altruism: Do you think no one in the world will try to exploit your system and reap the benefits without working (or at least with minimal work)? Do you think the number of people exploiting the system will be low enough that the remaining real producers will be able to support them?

Re intellectual property rights: As for intellectual property rights, copyright, etc., I am personally of the opinion that you can’t own an “idea”. Anything that can be copied without damage to the original should not be considered private property. It sounds like you believe the opposite though, that ideas and concepts are owned (be ‘the people’ in your case). If there are no intellectual copyrights then there is no debt to society to be repaid. This includes everything from the formula for medicine to a business method to computer software. I could even make a car that is nearly identical to a Toyota Corolla and call it my own and sell it without any problems.

80

Unionrevolte, Half the time you sound like you’re advocating some kind of stateless free market system, and the other half of the time, you posit the existence of social institutions that require the existence of a massive, coercively-funded surveillance state.

  1. You advocate giving equal “economic power” to all individuals. The only way to do this is to take from those who have too much economic power and give it to those who have to little. You would need some kind of massive paramilitary force to do this. Heck, “economic power” isn’t even a meaningful term. Do you mean money? Wages? Property? What exactly is “economic power?”

I inferred that the power-hungry would naturally gravitate toward positions in this paramilitary force. If you don’t think bad people will look for ways to satisfy their aggressive impulses legally, then I don’t know what to tell you.

  1. You keep saying that those who do the minimum necessary social labor get paid. Who gets to make these decisions? Who actually hands out the money? How do they get these positions? How do you determine the minimum necessary social labor? Why is it beneficial for brain surgeons to spend one day a month cleaning public toilets or whatever?

  2. You state repeatedly that there is no organization which fixes the prices of goods, but labor time is a good, and you are definitely suggesting this price be fixed. By whom? Only some kind of massive paramilitary force could do this. If you don’t think labor is a good, then I don’t know what to tell you.

  3. Your assertion that service industries are unproductive is an idea which died out before Marx was born. I don’t know what to tell you about that.

  4. Your reliance on social pressures is absolute nonsense in a modern economy. Massive levels of population density mean that I can walk two blocks to find a store where none of the people there know me. How will they know I’m an unproductive jackass? In order for them to know, you would need some kind of massive surveillance system to obtain, condense, and provide such information to shopkeepers. And who would make sure they pay attention to it?

Do I need to get a bar code tattooed on my arm “for identification purposes?”

  1. But you keep saying I’ll get a salary as long as I do the minimum social work. Where is this money coming from? In any case, to do this you, at least, need an organization that can collect and dole out money. Is it gold nuggets? Who does the minting? Is it paper money? What prevents it from being depreciated, and who enforces legal tender laws? The only way to do all of this is with some kind of organization with coercive power. Call it what you like, it is still a state.

Money doesn’t just appear when people do minimum social work. Neither do things of value, unless you start grabbing all industries under the umbrella of minimum social work.

Worse, just because someone volunteers to do the doling out doesn’t mean they’ll do it right, and bribes can go a long way toward obscuring chicanery.