To me being truthful is more important than being nice. I don’t care whether this will make me a lot of facebook-type friends or not. I would ask your teacher what are choices that these children have. If he doesn’t know ask him what are countries with highest percentage of child prostitution. It’s either this or sweatshop or death in there. Ask your teacher if he is so concerned about these children then what he has done for them and if nothing then wtf is he doing here moralizing instead showing how things should be done through his actions and leading by example. Talk is cheap. He is fking hypocrite like most of people really.
@Anarcho :
“Will someone who’s productivity is many times greater then someone else’s recieve the same salary as the much less productive person(s)?”
Of course, why would a gold seeker would be paid more than a forester? Because gold is more expansive than wood you think? And what about the person who is trying to invent a machine to simplify the gold seeker’s work? Maybe (probably) this person is the same and will need the help of other people to invent his “machine”. But all of them have interest that the gold seeker’s work get easier and faster.
In a capitalist world, you would have workers and unions who will try to slow down the progress to keep their work and the State (whole society) will have to pay the cost of unemployment and social conflicts.
@DrewBrando:
“Describe a regular day in Anarcho-communist society?”
I will do it in the next message.
“Bill Gates owes everybody a million dollars. I don’t think it can get much more simpler then that.”
It’s a bit too simplistic in fact. It is not a question of a certain amount of money. We take off private profit. Bill Gates won’t give anything to anyone, except the present private profit made by “his” businesses (maybe there would be some exceptions about the domestic properties question)
@z1235 :
“pay me my social salary even if I only made three mud-pies a month”
Of corse! You don’t even have to make some mud-pies if you want. But what will you do after? Tell me what are your passions, your child’s dreams. 
The only condition to benefit of the ‘social salary’ will be to give the minimum time to the ‘social work’, wich represents (like we have talked before) the essential work that no one what to do, wich will be divided to each citizen and randomlly atribuated (with all information public and accessible).
"Then Bill Gates does owe you something then. But you also said that Bill Gates doesn’t owe you anything. Which is it? "
Look, I don’t know what you don’t understand here. He doesn’t own me something personnally, but the profit he made was made with social knowledge and social work, so the private profits he made should be returned to the society (wich reprsents the action and exchanges between every humans). Like I said, the profit should be distributed to EVERY terran.
“how did you, your revocable delegation, and your HAL computer become the executors”
We will democratically abolish private profit and ask that all exchanges made by the businesses becomes public information (just like corporations).
All profits made by all businesses will be deposite into a big social account and distributed each month between every humans. Someone that will refuse to return his profits will be judged exactly like someone refusing to pay the taxes today : fraud.
@Micah71381 :
“a strong belief in altruism”
In fact, we are encouraging altruism actions and exchanges. By definition, the ones that will have bad intensions will have limited impact.
“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)?”
Maybe, there are parasites everywhere and will probably always be. If they don’t want to cooperate, it will leave more space for the ones that do want to do something. And also, you need to keep in mind that everyone can become an investigator and everyone will have interest in denouncing the cheaters.
“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?”
There are already more innactive people in our society that ‘exploits the system’ (old people, labor unions, big burgess, unemployment, useless jobs, State officials, bureaucracy, state subsidies, etc.).
The development of machinery will also raise production since workers will have interest to replace their job by a machine and will no longer resist to progress. Also, the ‘democratic investment’ process will encourage citizens to invest in society projects that will then encourage people that want to work (business, research, groups, causes, organisations, church, anything…).
" It sounds like you believe the opposite though, that ideas and concepts are owned (be ‘the people’ in your case)"
Look, if you are an innovant and invent something because of the historical context, the object belongs to you, but if you want to sell this and make some profit with it, then the profit must be deposit into the social bank account or it is fraud.
You could be selfish and keep this knowledge only for you, we will not steal it in the name of humanity, we are not dump. But this individual would have all interest to share this new knowledge and make raise the ‘profit of all humanity’ and make his ‘social salary’ raise.
Also, if his new invention is a social-historical products, then someone will probably invent the same (or similar) technology soon. Maybe it will be longer, but hey, I think it’s better than steal it! 
“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.”
Of course! And you will be encouraged to build your own car locally! Look, no matter if it’s Toyota or YOU that sells the car, the profits are socialized.
@Terrigan :
“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.”
I think we have answered this already. There will be NO economic State. The whole economy will be in the hands of the individuals. Only we need the State to fix some social standards (like the amount of lead into the paint, the speed limits on the roads or mesures to surpass capitalism like we are discussing in these lines).
And since these decisions are made by the revocable delegation (wich we should descibe soon), it is necessary the opinion of the majority of the population (they are revocable anytime) so the majority of the population becomes ‘inspector’ and ‘agent’.
“Heck, “economic power” isn’t even a meaningful term. Do you mean money? Wages? Property? What exactly is “economic power?””
Domestic property has a different treatment. But for the rest, they are translated in term of money and salary, yes.
‘Economic power’ is the economic influence you have : the influence to make someone work for you in the job that you will want, the influence to invest in a project that you think is good, anything that requires a capital investment. You could also say Economic power = economic influence. Democracy is not politic, it is economic.
"Who gets to make these decisions? Who actually hands out the money? "
The politic decisions are made democratically by the revocable delegation, and the economic decisions are made by the individuals : personal expenses and democratic investments.
“Why is it beneficial for brain surgeons to spend one day a month cleaning public toilets or whatever?”
-It makes them aware that they need the work of other peoples for them to spend some time into their ‘brain surgeons’ work
-It gives them a better overview over the society and the human work and knowledge
-It makes him socialize with different people encouraging links and exchanges between peoples
-It makes him do some physical exercise or different brain excercise
-If no one wants to do the work, why shouldn’t he participate too? Who is he to avoid this kind of work?
-Nothing tells me that no one will want to clean the public toilets for the social salary. I know plenty of people who are happy in their job of cleaning.
“You state repeatedly that there is no organization which fixes the prices of goods, but labor time is a good”. But labor time gives different production depending on different factors. Also, there is a competition between workers that pulls down salaries. As long that there is poverty and unemployment (wich are constantly raising), there is a tend to lower the salaries.
“By whom?” The salaries will be devided and distributed by computers with this simple formula: PIB / Number of people = salary to each people. It is simple : you take the amount of profits made in a month and you divide it by the number of humans. Childrens (under 14y) could get a lower salary, of course.
If we would do this in Canada, we could offer about 3000$ per month to EACH canadians (womens, men, childrens, old people, handicapped). If we would do this WORLDWIDE, we could offer about 950$ to each terrans. Just keep in mind that about 1/3 of the terrans right now only live with 50$ per months. Just think about the possibilities! Just think about THEIR possibilities!
They will surelly make the whole planet’s PIB and salary raise…
“How will they know I’m an unproductive jackass?”
Why would they care? What is a jackass exactly? Who can judge that? If you have money (social work) then it’s because you do your minimum social work. Then you are FREE to do what you want. It is simple, no? Maybe it is too much for you guys…lol
“just because someone volunteers to do the doling out doesn’t mean they’ll do it right”
If he is volunteer, then it’s because he wants to do it. If he doesn’t know how, i’m pretty sure he can learn. And if he doesn’t want, I’m pretty sure that social pression will make him give up and try something else. Do I have to remind you that he doesn’t earn anything more to do this work if he is a volunteer? He is FREE to leave his work and go do something else whenever he wants.
@boniek :
“To me being truthful is more important than being nice”
I agree with you. But being truthful is the best way to be nice. Don’t you think?
Now do you see how I can pretend that WE are TRUE liberals? Your liberal economic system is based on some borders and some kind of slavery that forces the ones that have hard time to do the job that no one wants. Our structure is based on the freedom of movement**, the libe**rty and the equality of investments of each humans. Your system is based on the appropriation of other’s work and knowledge, our system is based on the FREE unity and cooperation between them. Your economic system is based on a pyramidal way of distributing the responsibilities and the richness, where the ones on top have more liberties and influence than everyone under and making every human against each other. Our system is based on the respect of the difference between every humans, their complementarity and their mutual help.
The system you are defending has nothing to do with “liberty” or “liberalism”, because it defends the liberty of only a fraction of the individuals.
http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com
André Franc-Shi
So the brain surgeon should waste his valuable time, when he could be saving lives, and clean toilets.
Can you summarize the arguments in favor of division of labor [which claim your way of doing it will kill off most of mankind and leave the rest living in caves], and then your refutation of these arguments? One place to look is Human Action, page 157 and on, available free here.
If you would kindly summarize and then refute what he writes, you will take a giant step toward winning many of us over.
Otherwise, you will strike some of us, flasely no doubt, as asserting and emoting but not proving your case.
@Smiling Dave : “winning many of us over”
I am not trying to convince anyone from here, there are other people wich are alot easier to convince. I think, for most of you, your ‘opinion is done already’ (if we can say that in english). I am explaining what is socialism, since I have read alot of confusion from the libertarians between social-democracy and socialism. Social-democracy is based on the State while real socialism is State-abolitionist. Now you will know your modern opponents will be the liberal-egalitarist. :0)
I don’t care if you think that “the notion of poverty refers only to those people who are unable to take care of themselves (Page 157)”, I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call “poor” and “unable to take care of themselves”.
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.
I don’t care if you think that “the notion of poverty refers only to those people who are unable to take care of themselves (Page 157)”, I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call “poor” and “unable to take care of themselves”.
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.
C’mon UR
How many people in Canada starved to death before we had an income tax.
The poor are perfectly able to take care of themselves.
As long as they are given a chance that is.
Not much opportunnity in a socialist state.
Or NON-State as the case may be.
I’m really passionate about a 100ft yacht in the Caribbean stocked with unlimited food and drinks, with a young all-blonde girl crew. I’ll vote for your candidacy in the revocable delegation if you can guarantee me this. What a revelation. Where have you been all my life?
Wait a moment here. You can’t just slip in fine print conditions like this out of nowhere. You are saying I’d have to catch a plane from my yacht and go clean some toilets somewhere because your (sorry, our) HAL computer picked me in some lottery? That’s going to crimp my style. I have to think about this proposal. Btw, what happens if I don’t agree to your bargain/deal?
But we agreed that YOU (with your actions and exchanges) had NO contribution whatsoever to Bill Gates’ profits. Since he doesn’t owe you personally anything, why twisting your panties in a bunch over what he may or may not owe somebody else? Did this “society” (which apparently doesn’t include you, since Gates doesn’t owe you anything) ask for your help or advice regarding their supposed claim to Bill Gates’ profits? Or you’re just going to claim Gates’ profits in their name whether they asked you to or not?
Is this abolishment of profits and disclosure of all information going to be done by asking the people/businesses nicely, or is the revocable delegation also going to allow some “convincing” by yelling and guns? I’d prefer nicely, thanks.
So who would want to build a business, work hard to make profits only to have them immediately relinquished to HAL? I wouldn’t. But that’s OK. I’ll take my 100ft yacht (which you promised me) over profits any day. So no problem here.
Well today it’s the state that “judges” whoever refuses to pay taxes. You said there’d be no state. You’re tricky with these fine prints, tovarisch. I feel like you’re trying to con me into something that’s completely different from what you advertise it to be.
Z.
Oh God,!! He`s back, this should be fun.
This time I`ll only answer the questions directed at me. With a few exceptions of course.
-
How are you going to take out private profit? and who is going to do that? and by what means, violence?Also who makes the exceptions?
-
I just love how you say" It’s a bit simplistic. it is not a question of a certain amount. We take of private profit". Priceless.
Please answer my previous posts if you wish to continue debating with me. If you’re into nitpicking in order to post it on your site to make the debate look as if you won , then I’m not interested.
“The system you are defending has nothing to do with “liberty” or “liberalism”, because it defends the liberty of only a fraction of the individuals”
I personally found this quote hilarious. First, you fail to explain Adam Smith and why your system has a lot in common with him. Then you go off redefining liberty has you please.
Liberalism defends the liberty of everyone, that’s my argument. I’m not going to offer you an explanation, why??? because you fail to explain any of your arguments, and because there are sources on this website that can explain them to you.
I wonder what Valject has to say about this new post.lol
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.
I’ll laugh if I ever end up like that , but hey what the heck.
Old people did not offer anything to society that wasn’t payed for. They got what they deserved, it’s not like anyone enslaved them all their life only to free them later and make them feel abused. Seriously, they got payed for the work they offered.Society doesn’t owe them anything, they already got payed.
If my Grandfather worked as a mechanic all his life , I can assume he got a paycheck. I can also assume that he planned his retirement, if he didn’t tough luck. What do you propose?
If you want a better retirement, you better find a way to get one. No one is responsable to pay you more then what you are offering.
There has been much scientific research on altruism and generally it has been found that it doesn’t exist. Humans are egocentric by nature. Many things that are perceived as altruistic are in fact not altruistic at all but rather egocentric. If you disagree with these claims we can debate it more or you can look for the research yourself, either works for me. However, if you are basing an entire society on the assumption of altruism I think you first need to prove that altruism exists, and in large enough quantities for your society to succeed.
As a brain surgeon in your society, are you suggesting that I do brain surgery on my own dime in my own time? That is, I have to do my share of farming and toilet bowl cleaning but once I have met my quota if I want to do brain surgery I can’t get paid for it? Or are you suggesting that once my quota is met then I can go do brain surgery in my free time and charge whatever I want for it?
In your society are you forcing people to participate or can people choose to not participate in your society and live in peace without being provided for by the state and without contributing to the state? If people can live without the benefit of the state what is stopping brain drain (all of the well educated people breaking from society)? If this happens then you will end up with only the uneducated left contributing to your society meaning you have no architects, no doctors, no engineers, to managers, etc. You have janitors, assembly line workers and farmers left. If all you have are these people how are you going to get the resources necessary to outsource the other services (doctors, engineers, managers, etc.)? The people left in your society are not producing enough on their own to afford outsourcing these things.
My guess is that with regards to that last part you are relying on altruism and hoping that the well educated voluntarily choose to stick around and support the society?
The problem, of course, is that you can never eliminate the phenomenon interest (what Marxians and businessmen call profit), i.e., the fact that (a) future goods are necessarily valued less relative to consumer goods (all other things equal), and (b) the period of production must be factored into entrepreneurial calculations. Bohm-Bawerk explains,
And this is precisely what we saw, and continue to see, in the failed communist experiments of the 20th and 21st century. The Soviets managed to produce a lot of steel, which inflated their GNP figures, but only at the expense of consumer goods, such as food, clothing, etc (the fact that there were bread lines which extended around entire city blocks, and Levi jeans were worth their weight in gold). Thus, the socialists quest to eliminate interest (profit) is entirely impossible; you cannot forcefully eliminate natural human preferences, the fact that if you value a good at all, that you must necessarily prefer it sooner rather than later.
Socialism, therefore, can only succeed in eliminating the explicit expression of interest, namely the opportunity cost between current and future goods, and varying methods of temporal production.
I don’t know what Unionrevolte is saying, he seems to contradict himself. On one side of the argument, he says that his society is more liberal and follows the TRUE Adam Smith. Then all of a sudden he says that you are forced to give in your money. To whom? Societaaay@!@!@!ofc.!!!
From what I understand, he wants to abolish “private profit”. Everyone must give in their “private profit” to…he hasn’t said to whom yet…oh well carry on. Everyone places they’re profit in a pot, failure to comply will result in capital punishment, probably death or tickle me with a feather, who knows? You are free as long as you do your minimum work, whatever that is.
Who decides what minimum work is? who redistributes the wealth? Who makes the magic happen?Who punishes whom? All these are mysteries of TRUE Socialism, maybe some things are best left unanswered.
I’m still waiting for him to describe a day(a week would preferable) in a anarcho-communist world. It should be a wonderfull treat. I honestly can’t wait.
@ Unionrevolte,
I would suggest you read up on price/wage controls and their effects on the market.
emphasis mine
There it is, the gun to our heads. Thanks for showing your true colors.
The greatest part of the whole social anarchism/market anarchism debate is that it is a null point. If at any point there ever is a revolution that ends government completely, both systems posit that they are natural occurrences. Ergo, we will either fall into line as commune-dwellers, of our own volition, or we will become a society of free trade, of our own volition. At this base point is the crux of the issue, though. The anarcho-socialist always has to include the threat of force at some point to maintain control, yet they are also the first to posit that anarcho-capitalism is actually slavery. They say that anyone can be a capitalist, as long as they don’t infringe on the freedom of the commune-dwellers. Well, by definition, they wouldn’t. And the claim, albeit dubious, that the anarcho-socialist will also not try to infringe on the capitalist community puts both ideologies on an equal footing in a stateless society. Ergo, unless anarcho-socialists actually intend to go to wary against anyone pursuing freedom in the manner of capitalist, all the remains is to let freedom take its course to determine which society will thrive. It is an emphatic point of the libertarian that they would do nothing to overrun a commune, save for trying to sell them something. There is no emphasis on the part of the anarcho-socialist on this point. They simultaneously claim that a market society is fine if they do not interfere with the commune, yet insist that “measures” must be taken to ensure that everything the commune requires is taken care of. Usually they start by suggesting the voluntary nature of things, but it ultimately progresses into angry mobs attacking “wreckers” and exiling people to…where? The free-market city down the way?
We shall see, if the state ever disappears, which side raises arms against the other. I would hazard it to be the side that thinks the means of production shouldn’t be owned by any one person.
“I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call “poor” and “unable to take care of themselves”.
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.emphasis mine”
There it is, the gun to our heads. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Yes, but it’s even better than that. He expects us to take this prediction of the future on his ASSURANCE. Yet anyone could make any random assertion and it would carry as much weight. He doesn’t explain why or how, he doesn’t specify the extent of “surpass”, or even explain what surpassing means in this instance. He doesn’t tell what group he considers, and here I paraphrase, “dominant”, nor does he question his own choice of words in saying that there is a group considered unable to take care of themselves. If they aren’t dead, they must be doing something right. If they are, they’re not contributing to any revolution. If they are currently being helped, and then revolt, how is there immediate rectification of their lack of ability to care for themselves. Name the day that will come. Don’t even be specific. He asserts the “day will come” as if appeal to one’s own imagination is argument that can convince anyone of anything. He makes a claim at a definite outcome without being able to give any conditions leading to this, explain WHY this is the exact outcome, or really explain what that outcome means. I mean, there would be no poor people if everyone died, too. It goes nowhere. It’s pathetic, and that is being generous. I don’t even have to offer a counter-argument from another viewpoint, because there is nothing here that stands on its own to be knocked down. I can just tear his own words apart ceaselessly, and never have to go on the offensive. And then he even adds emphasis! Like if I told people that the moon is made of cheese, only put it in bold print, the bold print somehow makes it an argument. I’ve had conversations with Russians that made more sense than this. And that’s not to say anything bad about Russians, it’s just that I DON’T SPEAK RUSSIAN. So…whatever the hell, I guess. This is the “Go Fish” equivalent of argument.
According to his website it seems that he won the debate(http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/2011/02/funny-debate-starting-with-some-people.html), in the commentaries..
There’s also some fun things in the website like: “Joseph Schumpter was aware that capitalism must be removed and replaced”“The libertarians fight with us againts the bourgeoisie” and all sorts of creepy things. I think this debate was useless yet quite fun to read in ones spare time.
This was pretty fun to read . I’m still waiting for that description of “Unionrevolte Utopia”.
I’ve been reading unionrevolte’s posts just now, and I have to say, these are some prety fun things one can say. I can’t believe I didn’t laugh when I read them the first time.
I feel like that a lot… There’s this one person I debated off and on for a while and I never fully realized how much of a joke he was until reflection upon the matter…
For fear of getting off topic…
Favorite quotes:
“Government is the people”
“If it weren’t for [legal tender]… we’d be using shoes as money”
“A loan shark is an example of a free market bank”
(In response to a personal story where I told him about my relatively poor friend who pays at least a fifth of his income in taxes) “Well doesn’t your friend use the roads?”
“The government puts trillions of dollars into medical research every year”
“You need facts to back up your argument, you never have any facts”
(after I cited the fact that one economist judged that, since the abolition of the Somali Government, the “country” has increased in 14/15 factors, the only odd one out being education)
“Well I’m sorry but education is important to some of us, just imagine an artist that might have been educated and brightened up his community”
And then the statement that just made me laugh, which will eternally and forever take the cake and which made me disparage of the common man and assured me he was a joke:
“higher taxes means a freer market”