Those are fun facts, especially the Somalia one, I’m going to look into that.
The public roads argument was hilarious.
I don’t think we have to worry about going off topic, this thread is pretty much a joke when read from the beggining.
Besides, unionrevolté has won the argument. …
The worst part for me was that two seconds of his beloved research proved he was difinitivly wrong. The federal government spends 2% of the budget on roads and medical research TOGETHER. Remember that whenever anyone uses the roads argument you could cut the budget by about 200% and still increase dramatically the amount going to the roads
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
**
I wonder if you’re ever going to do so.
ROFLMAO
viva la unioin reolte!
Yes, indeed.
This is priceless.
Hello again! It’s been a while, but i’m back! 
I’ve just published a text on my blog wich might interest you. I think we could translate the title this way : “Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms.”
Here is the original link in french : http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/2011/03/esquisse-dun-programme-liberal.html
And here is the poor translation from google : Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms
Maybe this will help you understand how we plan to change the world. =)
Thank you Unionrevolte, You’ve finally offered a very good explanation on how your society works. Now, we know exactly what to debunk.
Madam unioinrevolte,
How do you define capitalism?
What are the benefits of living in a society?
How much civic work will be required of us to reap the benefits of living in a society and what are the penalties for those that don’t voluntarilly submit to the revolution’s demands?
You desire 25 well trained individuals to oversee the new order. Can you imagine billions of people in free command of their own destinies?
I’m really good at cleaning toilets but look forward to operating on your brain.
Economically, we are ‘Liberal’ because we accept the law of the free market (supply and demand) to fix prices. However, we are ‘egalitarian’ because we advocate the abolition of the labor market and the adoption of a single income for all
This is a contradiction. When you set a “equal income for all” you are heavily tampering with the free market economy.
EDIT: Having a “social salary” will lead to inflation and thus prices of goods will grow. Since everyone has 1000$ a month or whatever, that amount will loose value. Prices in goods will be incredibly high, and thus your government will have to control them artificially. This leads us to the economic calculation problem.
In other words, what we demand is to separate the hardware-liberalism (goods) of liberalism-human (labor market) just as we once separated the power of the Church and the state.
Doesn’t make any sense. Explain “wage slavery” and why it’s “bad”. Goods and services are already separated, we pay a market price for goods.The market sets the wages. Throwing the Church/ State argument in there does not follow.
What we preach before-all, the democratization of the economy, and thus the destruction of monopoly capital. Any accumulation of capital and its management by a handful of individuals (even if elected) is the opposite of socialism and communism as we claim.
So far so good, I agree with you on this one. But monopolys are a result of government interference, without a state we wouldn’t have monopolies . Wihtout state intervention, monopolies can only exist if the products they are offering are superios to other products offered by the market.
Microsoft has a monopoly on Operating Systems because the competition is really low. The solution is competition, not a revolution.
We advocate the establishment of a voluntary system, where all are absolutely free to do whatever they want, provided they have fulfilled their civic work (minimum work required to reap the benefits of living in society)
So I’m free, but I still have to work for the “society”. This is a rip-off, atleast I know what to expect, I admire your honesty.
But Unionrevolte, who decides what’s good for society and what minimum work is? Is it going to be you?
Everything must obviously begin with a revolutionary overthrow of the established order.
Oh, dear.
The revolutionary overthrow (How to take power)
Interesting… I like “How to books” myself.
We advocate the establishment of a pyramid of revocable delegates formed groups of 25 individuals . If that were done in Quebec, with our 7.5 million citizens, it would make four levels of governance, all trained groups of 25 individuals elected at any time revocable.
See…? I knew we would get to this point. Earlier you said you wanted to remove the Government, now it is clear you want to replace it with some other type of government. All you are doing is changing the governmental structure and giving it a new name. Call it what you want, this is still a government, even if it’s ruled by 25 individuals democratically elected.
In France, it would be only 5 levels and 6 levels only if they included the 6.8 billion people around the world. Thus, the heart of global democracy, global democracy ANY, is based on groups the size of a school class, only 25 individuals!
WOW, smaller government!!@#!!@#!!
Who’s going to make that happen in France?
The stated goal should be to abolish the parliamentary system and replace it with this delegation is revocable. When OUR state revocable delegates represent more people than their State House, it will be legitimate to gain parliamentary power, to abolish it and replace it with this delegation.
Thank you for agreeing with what I said earlier.
For example, if Jean Charest was elected with only 2.5 million votes, just as our revocable delegation gathers more than 2.5 million such votes to become as legitimate if not more than the Quebec government of Jean Charest
For any of those who aren’t aware, Jean Charest is the Prime Minister of Quebec(Canadian province).
Unionrevolte, could you explain this part?I don’t really get it.
This delegation revoked, the state of the future, should not be eligible for economic power, it is individuals who have that power
Are you even aware that you are contradicting yourself? You are only making a government with less people. Democracy doesn’t give every individual power. Democracy oppresses the invidual by placing him at the will of the majority.
This delegation revoked, the state of the future, should not be eligible for economic power, it is individuals who have that power. The State of the future will be task of setting standards, for example: the number of safe lead in paint, order the abolition of the old parliamentary decree the abolition of profit and capitalism in its Overall, anything that sets standards and does not need economic power.
You are playing with words. You are saying the the “State of the future” will not have power only individuals will have power.That sounds nice but “The State of the future will be task of setting standards, for example: the number of safe lead in paint, order the abolition of the old parliamentary”. How do you define power? So I have power but 25 individuals will still decide what’s good and what’s bad for me./facepalm
*abolition of profit and capitalism in its Overall, anything that sets standards and does not need economic power.*
Whenever you get the time, explain profit.
The entire economy of the future will not be based on a state organization and arbitrary, but on individual initiative. No taxes, no taxes, no way for the state to accumulate capital.
This sounds nice, I hope you don’t contradict yourself, again, later on.
Overcoming of capitalism
If the goal is to destroy capitalism, we must destroy the means by which the accumulation of capital, whether private (bourgeois capitalism) or state (state capitalism).
Do you even understand capitalism? What the heck is “burgeois capitalism”? I thought you believed in a free market?
The nationalization of banks is therefore essential. However, these banks should not be managed by either the state or by groups of individuals. Its tasks should be reduced to its simplest expression:
-Fusion of all banks
-Abolition of banking services (loans, investments, mortgages, etc.)..
-All the tasks of deposits and withdrawals on the accounts may be made by a single computer.
But you said monopolies are bad? Who’s going to control that single computer? Who’s going to be in charge of banks?
Why do you want to remove banking service?
What is your problem with loans? Can I give loans in your system?
To prevent the accumulation of capital, it will abolish private profit. So we need a bank account where all social enterprises will deposit their profits (if any will be considered fraud or tax evasion and will be judged the same way that these crimes today)
Judged by who, you said there’s no state. This is opression.
I thought I was free, why can’t I keep my money?
To avoid that this system is transformed into state capitalism, social capital should NOT be run by elected officials or any other group of individuals, but it must be managed by all individuals themselves!
Apparently everybody is going to police eachother. If I don’t give in my profit everybody will arrest me?
-Invite all people who have no “bank account” of staff to open one.
-Creation of the single wage for all, where on a monthly period, the profit accumulated in the account office will redivides equally among all members of society.
Why should I work hard, make a 500grand a year, give it to the bank and only receive a crappy 3000$? I choose not to work, in these conditions.
So if you take the Canadian GDP and divide it by the number of Canadians, we could offer more than $ 3,000 a month to ALL Canadians. Similarly, if we take the global GDP and divide it equally among everyone on Earth could already provide about $ 950 per month ALL the land, women, men, children, elderly, disabled, all without discrimination !
This is scary, all this sounds so simple to you. You are just going to divide everyones work and give it out like that!!! If I’m going to live in your society, I want this job. I want to be the one who devides the PIB of the country to everyone else, deal?
Investment Democratic
A party to determine (say 20%) of single income to all citizens would be removed from its income “investment democracy”.
This doesn’t look good. I have a free salary but I still have to pay taxes?
But this is not the state or anyone else other than the individual himself to decide how it wants to invest this money.
You hide behind these labels. This is nothing but rhetoric.
For example, say we offer $ 3,000 per month for all Canadians. 20% $ 3000 = $ 600 investment in democracy for all.
YAY!!!DEMOCRACY!!!.WAIT!!!
NO!!! these are taxes, no matter what you call them. Same goes for you new and improved version of govenrment.
Thus, every individual, every month, may decide how it allocates its investment. It may invest $ 200 in the project of one of his friends, $ 300 in his own company and, say, $ 100 for research against cancer, or for arming the country, anything!
Why can’t I invest money my own way? Also what war, I thought this brought peace? Why do we need to arm ourselves?
More capitalism, more means of oppressing the People by the People.
Amen.
In this way, each individual becomes his only official, banker, investor and politician. If, for example, you have a project to build solar panels, you will have your own Democratic guaranteed investment, meaning that you can invest your entire $ 600 in your own business if you want (all profits collective will revert later).
Gee thanks, I can invest the whole 600$. Thank you master. What’s that? I have to give in the profits later?
I feel like this is one of those contracts with hidden fees.
By cons, if this investment is not enough, you’ll need to go to ‘sell’ your project to others to convince them to invest part or all of their investment in YOUR democratic project.
I love how you say “sell”. We can’t sell in this socialist mouvement since we don’t own anything to begin with, but I still have to convince others to invest their taxes, I mean 600$.
I’ll tell them to invest it and all the profit will be given back to the community. That is incredible. I wonder what we will do with the rest of the money.
This is the democratization of the economy! And so the only way the free market can exist at the same time that democratization of the economy. No need to “organize” the economy by the state, individuals organize themselves according to their own needs.
I understand, you won’t organize anything. You will just make a few adjustments like minimum life salary, who owns what, who does what and where with their money, police everyone if they refuse to pay, arrange certain prices etc…
Is not this exactly the real liberalism than trying to talk with Adam Smith’s theory of “invisible hand”. Here there is no arbitrary economic organization, aside …
Atleast we agree on that, but your still holding out.
Basically, there will be oppression.
That’s what all this is about.
Work Location
The civic work is the only obligation of the individual to enjoy his life in society.
I can’t enjoy my life if someone else tells me what to do and what not to do.
If the person refuses to do civic work, he was invited to take care of himself alone, without social assistance and thus no single income for all
I’m totally cool with that. I’ll go live somewhere else with other people who share my goals. But somthing still bugs me. I want you to give me an honest answer to this question.
If I refuse to be part of this and start my own business will you still take away my “profit” and share it around? I get that I will be punished and not offered a “social salary”, but can I atleast enjoy the fruits of my labor or do those belong to society too?
The civic work jobs is essential, or not enough people want to participate. For example, if garbage system has only 10 individual so it would take 15, five individuals will work as street to the garbage collector for a period to be determined (say one month).
Who decides? This sounds like hardcore central planning.
These individuals will be selected randomly by a computer, according to the criteria necessary for the job (age, region, etc..).
Just join the Zeitgeist movement, their leader has the technology and the money to make this happen. There’s alos the Venus project if you’re interested.
That set aside.
What about the economic calculation problem?
For such a distribution system to work, it is ESSENTIAL that all information handled by these computers social 'is full at all times available and public, to avoid favoritism or any form of fraud.
You keep saying that there will be no dictatorship. But your system will naturally lead to totalitarianism. Who handles these computers? It is impossible for a huge number of people to democratically work, it’s too chaotic. You said it yourself, that this society is organized and isn’t exactly like Adam Smith predicted.
I say you find people who share your beliefs and live in a cummune with them, this way those who are not interested will continue being capitalists. That’s what a voluntary system is all about. I’m sure there’s many who subscribe to your ideal world. Why don’t you all join together , and establish your own commune. This way those who are not interested, can continue living in this “oppresive capitalist system designed by and made for pigs”.
Unionrevolte meant that the whole society forms the pyramid, a group of 25 people promoting a delegate to the next level, until at the top there is a group of smaller than 25. A classic MLM, if you ask me 
What’s a MLM?
Wasn’t he implying that our society will be ruled by 25 people?
Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms.
(Sketch of a foolish design of a totalitarian state, where the state simply isn’t called the state! Newspeak at its best! Double-plus good!)
We claim of liberal egalitarianism, and it’s not for nothing! Economically, we are ‘Liberal’ because we accept the law of the free market (supply and demand) to fix prices.
(Whew. Well, that’s a relief. He accepts the law of the free market. I guess that means he’s a voluntaryist. Phew, well I guess I won’t need to spend any time debunking this guy, he’s on my side!)
However, we are ‘egalitarian’ because we advocate the abolition of the labor market and the adoption of a single income for all.
(… … Oh boy.)
Thus, we do not oppose the law that sets the price of bread and other goods, but one that sets the price of human labor.
(We only oppose the law of supply and demand for a good (labor) that enters into every other good! Shit, well I guess we’ll only indirectly control the prices of all goods into which labor enters… so… all of them.
Seriously. So the price of labor-intensive goods will necessarily skyrocket, and the price of non-labor-intensive goods will necessarily plummet. If you can get any goods. Because it totally won’t discourage people from mass production (e.g. non-labor intensive goods) or anything. Totally. And the discouragement from mass production won’t prevent the mass of goods from reaching the mass of people or anything.)
In other words, what we demand is to separate the hardware-liberalism (goods) of liberalism-human (labor market) just as we once separated the power of the Church and the state.
(What the hell does that even mean? The analogy doesn’t work. See, this is what happens when you fail to recognize that labor comprises an endless number of goods, each varying in value, just like physical goods. Or if you huff paint. That can do this, too.)
What we preach before-all, the democratization of the economy, and thus the destruction of monopoly capital.
(Because destruction is the most important part of any functioning economy. Like how in World War 2 all of the blown-up buildings in Europe turned it into an economic powerhouse overnight, while the United States, largely undamaged, languished in a decades-long recession. Seriously, what the fuck?)
Any accumulation of capital and its management by a handful of individuals (even if elected) is the opposite of socialism and communism as we claim.
(You don’t actually mean this. You mean the accumulation of per-capita capital, that is, the accumulation of greater capital-per-person in group A as compared to that of group B.)
We advocate the establishment of a voluntary system,
(Oh man, here it comes.)
where all are absolutely free to do whatever they want, provided
(Snerk!)
they have fulfilled their civic work (minimum work required to reap the benefits of living in society).
(And if they don’t, then get with the head-shooting! My favorite part of any socialist revolution! Actually, my favorite part is when the leader of one of the losing factions gets killed by an icepick-wielding assassin while in exile overseas. I heart you, Trotsky.)
Everything must obviously begin with a revolutionary overthrow of the established order.
(Woo! Kill everyone who doesn’t voluntarily join our voluntary organization!)
The revolutionary overthrow (How to take power)
(In five easy steps:
Congratulations! You’ve taken power!)
We advocate the establishment of a pyramid of revocable delegates formed groups of 25 individuals.
(But you can never revoke that there are delegates. Never. Don’t be silly.)
(…Jesus Christ, it’s a political pyramid scheme!)
If that were done in Quebec, with our 7.5 million citizens, it would make four levels of governance, all trained groups of 25 individuals elected at any time revocable.
(But you’d have to get all 25 people together to vote. And that could be made tough by inconvenient labor assignments, perhaps!)
In France, it would be only 5 levels and 6 levels only if they included the 6.8 billion people around the world. Thus, the heart of global democracy, global democracy ANY, is based on groups the size of a school class, only 25 individuals!
(It’s like high school, only with cliquish groups of jerks who try to force their will upon you! So, it’s high school!)
The stated goal should be to abolish the parliamentary system and replace it with this delegation is revocable.
(But remember, the existence of the delegation is not revocable, and any suggestion that it might be will result in what the Soviets called “nine grams” in the back of the head. Fun times.)
When OUR state revocable delegates represent more people than their State House, it will be legitimate to gain parliamentary power, to abolish it and replace it with this delegation.
(And if they resist, we kill 'em!
…Wait a minute. So this majority could be arrived at by simply murdering everyone who voted for members of the State House? You really could kill 'em!)
For example, if Jean Charest was elected with only 2.5 million votes, just as our revocable delegation gathers more than 2.5 million such votes to become as legitimate if not more than the Quebec government of Jean Charest.
(And if Jean Charest or anyone else disagrees, bam! Guillotine.)
This delegation revoked, the state of the future, should not be eligible for economic power, it is individuals who have that power.
(But the delegation consists of individuals. Do you need to give up all ownership to have political power? Or will it be possible to simply wield power in such a way as to make it seem as though those in power control nothing, when in reality they control everything? What is the matrix?)
The State of the future will be task of setting standards, for example: the number of safe lead in paint,
(Because I can’t think of ANY way to use standards to make my friends more wealthy, and my enemies less so.)
order the abolition of the old parliamentary decree the abolition of profit and capitalism in its
(There’s a sentence end missing in the Google translation, but I think you wanted to end this sentence with the word “entirety.” Assuming that…
If this delegation can order the abolition of profit, that implies they can judge that certain actions taken by individuals or groups as “profiting” and thus as worthy of censure, possibly punishment. That is fucking terrifying.)
Overall, anything that sets standards and does not need economic power.
(This is a NULL SET. Even the example you use, that of lead in paint, needs economic power. Power to prevent individuals from manufacturing, selling, or buying paint with too much lead in it. So, we need:
That’s three giant organizations of people (working their civic labor, I guess) for that one standard. And all of those people could be spending that time more productively. Imagine the level of bureaucracy needed to enforce a million such standards, some in unknowing conflict with others. The “civic labor time” required to do this rapidly approaches all of everyone’s time. And you say there’s no economic power there!)
The entire economy of the future will not be based on a state organization and arbitrary, but on individual initiative. No taxes, no taxes, no way for the state to accumulate capital.
(No taxes, it’s just that everything I produce gets confiscated once a month or however often in order for me to get “money” which will either:
a) make me better off than I was with the stuff I produced (leech)
b) make me worse off than I was with the stuff I produced (producer)
If I’m a leech, then I’m getting free money for producing things nobody wants.
If I’m a producer, then I’m strongly encouraged to spend more time relaxing on my porch with a drink next month.
That’s, of course, assuming that not all of my time is spent in “civil labor.”)
Overcoming of capitalism
If the goal is to destroy capitalism, we must destroy the means by which the accumulation of capital, whether private (bourgeois capitalism) or state (state capitalism). The nationalization of banks is therefore essential.
(Because a nationalized bank will have NO economic power.)
However, these banks should not be managed by either the state or by groups of individuals.
(They will be managed by individuals only! And none of these individuals will cooperate! This is going to be the most bug-filled bank software ever!)
Its tasks should be reduced to its simplest expression:
-Fusion of all banks
(Bank fusion will be used as a limitless source of cheap energy.)
-Abolition of banking services (loans, investments, mortgages, etc.)..
(Jackassery. That’s all I have to say about that. Well, actually, no it isn’t. I was eating delicious Starburst candy as I read the above line, and, upon reading it, I choked and spit all over my computer.)
-All the tasks of deposits and withdrawals on the accounts may be made by a single computer.
(Well, we were gonna call it “Deep Blue,” but keeping with your whole socialist theme, I guess we can call it “Deep Red.” Who programs Deep Red? Does he have any economic power? Is programming Deep Red part of “civil labor?” If so, can I sign up for that job? Really, I have everyone’s interests in mind.)
To prevent the accumulation of capital, it will abolish private profit.
(Oh boy, how do we do that?)
So we need a bank account where all social enterprises will deposit their profits
(So, it’s less of a bank, and more of a warehouse? You realize that some of these profits will be invested in the production of capital equipment? How do I divide up an automotive factory? What parts of the car are profit? Do I just need to figure my profits per car and remove parts equalling that value and send them to the bank?)
This is Unionrevolte’s parenthetical sentence: (if any will be considered fraud or tax evasion and will be judged the same way that these crimes today).
Mine: (Oh boy, so now we need an Internal Revenue Service, only with head-shooting power! Also, shooting filthy capitalists will be part of “civic labor.”)
To avoid that this system is transformed into state capitalism, social capital should NOT be run by elected officials or any other group of individuals, but it must be managed by all individuals themselves!
(I imagine a propaganda poster: “The blood is on YOUR hands!”)
Therefore:
-Invite all people who have no “bank account” of staff to open one.
(10 IF REFUSE THEN HEADSHOOT
20 GOTO 10)
-Creation of the single wage for all, where on a monthly period, the profit accumulated in the account office will redivides equally among all members of society.
(So profits are okay if they’re all squandered in less than a month?)
So if you take the Canadian GDP and divide it by the number of Canadians, we could offer more than $ 3,000 a month to ALL Canadians. Similarly, if we take the global GDP and divide it equally among everyone on Earth could already provide about $ 950 per month ALL the land, women, men, children, elderly, disabled, all without discrimination !
(Oh my God. You do realize that the “P” in GDP is NOT “Profit!” It’s “Product!” Put another way, imagine a profit margin of 10%… which is bigger than a lot of companies make. Now you’ve got a Canada wage of $300 a month, or a world wage of $95 per month!)
Investment Democratic
A party to determine (say 20%) of single income to all citizens would be removed from its income “investment democracy”.
(Totally not a tax. Actually, I think Google translate is shitting itself here.)
But this is not the state or anyone else other than the individual himself to decide how it wants to invest this money.
(And if he wants to, say, spend less on food, and invest the difference, well then FUCK HIM!)
For example, say we offer $ 3,000 per month for all Canadians. 20% $ 3000 = $ 600 investment in democracy for all.
(It sounds so great when you put it that way. $600 that I have to blow on some kind of silly “investment.”)
Thus, every individual, every month, may decide how it allocates its investment. It may invest $ 200 in the project of one of his friends
(Project: You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours)
, $ 300 in his own company
(Project: I really like Beluga Caviar)
and, say, $ 100 for research against cancer
(Project: Give cancer cancer!)
,
(All wonderful ideas… waitaminute…)
or for arming the country,
(What the fuck?!)
anything! We have here the essence of democratic participation and equal proportion between each individual. Alongside this political economic system, any theory about “participatory democracy” or “proportional democracy” will be embarrassed by his weakness.
(Google Translator shitting again? Hell, I don’t even think I can tell for sure at this point!)
What is important to remember here is that there is more concentration of capital, but it is divided equally among all individuals. More capitalism, more means of oppressing the People by the People.
(Huh?)
In this way, each individual becomes his only official, banker, investor and politician. If, for example, you have a project to build solar panels, you will have your own Democratic guaranteed investment, meaning that you can invest your entire $ 600 in your own business if you want (all profits collective will revert later).
(…so why would I invest in something that will work?)
By cons, if this investment is not enough, you’ll need to go to ‘sell’ your project to others to convince them to invest part or all of their investment in YOUR democratic project.
(So if I can convince people to give me their investment money so I can buy steak or something… "Sorry, your investment didn’t pan out, but don’t worry, we all still get paid nearly as much this month as last month!)
This is the democratization of the economy!
(This is the socialization of all gains and losses.
I want you to think carefully about what kind of incentive structure this creates.
If you invest well and produce something people want, we take it away.
If you invest poorly, and produce something nobody wants, we give you stuff from others.
What kind of society does this create?)
And so the only way the free market can exist at the same time that democratization of the economy.
(This is an assertion without an argument behind it. Don’t think you can slip this nonsense by me. Socialization of all gains and losses and equalization of the prices of all types of labor is precisely the opposite of a free market.)
No need to “organize” the economy by the state,
(Except that all gains and losses will be spread to all people by the bank system. That totally doesn’t count as “organiz[ation]”, because I said so.)
individuals organize themselves according to their own needs. Is not this exactly the real liberalism
(No. More Newspeak.)
than trying to talk with Adam Smith’s theory of “invisible hand”. Here there is no arbitrary economic organization, aside …
Work Location
The civic work is the only obligation of the individual to enjoy his life in society.
(The “civic work” is everything the delegation decides is necessary. Sometimes it includes foot-rubs for delegates… if you’re lucky.)
If the person refuses to do civic work, he was invited to take care of himself alone, without social assistance and thus no single income for all.
(But I can still organize and cooperate with other “pariahs.” If I have the drive and ability to produce profit, why the fuck should I join your society, when I can just work with others who produce profit?)
The civic work jobs is essential, or not enough people want to participate. For example, if garbage only 10 so it would take 15, five individuals
(All suspiciously named “Patsy.” It’s a bug in the program.)
will work as street to the garbage collector for a period to be determined (say one month). These individuals will be selected randomly by a computer,
(Trust us!)
according to the criteria necessary for the job (age, region, etc..). For such a distribution system to work, it is ESSENTIAL that all information handled by these computers social 'is full at all times available and public, to avoid favoritism or any form of fraud.
(Because open records mean that no fraud ever occurs. Because records can’t be falsified. And everyone will have time to search the records for chicanery. And that will be part of the civic work… which will produce more paperwork to be checked… which calls for more civic work… which… oops. Divided by zero.)
lol, I have to head to school. But this is hilarious.
Wait, Unionervolte, how do these 25 delegates operate? And how much power do you plan on giving them? Do you see yourself as one of chosen one? Since, you happen to be one of the founding fathers.
I wish more people from your website offered their opinion on this.
I have a feeling you used the calculator to reach this conclusion.
Dr. Terrigan…do you think these people understand that, and here I try my best to exercise maturity, that if everyone makes the same fuck wages it doesn’t matter if you have one fuck dollar or a fuck million?
But here I am being rhetorical. Truth of the matter, one of these egalitarians was recently talking with me about Egypt, and through the course of the discussion something happened inside this person’s head to seriously…SERIOUSLY ask me if I had anything to do with the earthquakes in Japan. I…don’t even know how to respond to that. You can’t just say “no”, because just being asked raises SO many questions. Really? Oh, yes. I found a giant, coily octopus off the coast of Japan, wound it up real good, and then BAM! Yep. All me. What the hell?
Hello again! It’s been a while, but i’m back!
(Yes. You’re here, posting this, courtesy of the profits that helped provide you with internet access. Not just yours. The profits of MANY. O: )
I’ve just published a text on my blog wich might interest you. I think we could translate the title this way : “Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms.”
(Alternately titled: “The Big Book of Central Planning Hopscotch”)
Here is the original link in french : http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/2011/03/esquisse-dun-programme-liberal.html
(Using logical deduction:
You noticed that most people, if not all, have responded in English.
Based on that, you made the assumption that not all will understand the French version.
Therefore, you found it prudent to run it through google translations.
I commend you for using honest to effing god deductive methods here. However, the part you failed at was the inclusion of the original text. You may be wondering why this is a failure. After all, are we not supposed to cite sources? Well, you see, you don’t have to post the original, because we ALREADY BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE READ SOME BULLSHIT IDEAL FROM WHENCE YOUR POSTION STEMS. It matters little if we have to debunk the original, or a translated version. Hell, it doesn’t matter if you wrote it yourself. It is, and will be, as it has for centuries, debunked.)
And here is the poor translation from google : Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms
(Come now. At least on the surface the bad translation is funny.)
Maybe this will help you understand how we plan to change the world. =)
(We already know. You’re going to wreck everything. You’re talking about dictating the actions of every individual, but then you say that you aren’t really dictating, and they are making all the choices, but then you say these…these THINGS…that clearly indicate someone is wielding power and forcing people to conform. And you BELIEVE this, despite the blindingly obvious contradictions, and you would gleefully spray bullets for the sake of this nonsense. You’re like a cult of one. Hey, how does your society deal with people that would happily shoot others for a belief, by the way? Or is it okay, as long as they believe the right things?)
(Yeah, that’s right. I’m even attacking the innocent post here.)
Sorry, I had to see kids to their beds, and then forgot to reply.
What’s a MLM?
I was half-jokingly referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing
Wasn’t he implying that our society will be ruled by 25 people?
No, from various implicit evidences I understood the population will be divided into cells of size 25, each delegating one person to form a higher order cell, until at the top we have a cell of size less than 25 (an interesting question is whether the members of the highest order cell should elect a single “delegate” to rull them all). Thus, we have a pyramid (or a tree with branching factor 25).
I see many issues with the latest unionrevolte post, but just two interest me.
How does this pyramid grow? Top-down or bottom-up? Do you start with “temporary” Central Committee of 25, each of whom recruits their own cell of 25 followers (thus reference to MLM) or do you go around asking people to form the basic cells and to elect their delegates?
What is the proposed plan on how to deal with people who refuse to convert to this pyramid or desert after conversion?
I recommend you read some Turgot, Say, or Bastiat before trying to consider yourself a fre market advocate
I don’t think the aggressive attitude in this thread is conducive to discussion. For starters, swearing at him, calling him names, etc. will lead readers to believe our (the austrian/libertarian) stance is logically unsound and we have to resort appealing to riddicule in order to win an argument. Also, he is unlikely to come back and discuss (or maybe even read) this thread if everyone is just being “mean” rather than constructively discussing ideas.
I do not personally agree with his stance for a number of reasons but that doesn’t mean I am going to rudely yell at him as my means of proving him wrong. We will get a lot further by arguing points logically and calmly.
Read the whole thread. Seriously, we’ve tried the logical approach already. My first few responses were thus. At this point, he’s calling for violent subjugation of those who don’t wish to join his “voluntary” society, though he doesn’t like to put it that way. Honestly, I’m more interested in milking the ridiculous statements he’s making for laughs at this point, as his arguments have already been rendered threadbare by the responses he’s gotten. It’s not ad hominem if I attacked the arguments, too.