Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on May 14, 2003, 07:15:00 PM
-
John Ashcroft and John Brown III you suck. Bobby DuPont moreso as well. Free Ed Rosenthal. DuPont was on a "Taboo: Drugs" special the other day on television (TLC?) and it was the first time I actually saw that nerdy face on fornits: anonanon actually speak. Times are scary now with current legislation. The world is becoming the program and the government is more like staff. Since the 70's I could always purchase a bong under the guise of a vase, water pipe, etc. and now stores in my area have been closed and the shelves cleared. There used to be additional info at hightimes.com on why this is happening. Chong will now have be drug tested???? How fucking communistic is that? Our country should allow Chong the liberty to be who they are.
He is FUCKING CHONG, man!!!
:smokin:
-
that's all a good rant, except that communism isn't a bad thing. Real communism is awesome... now known as anarcho-communism. Authoritarian communism, also known as Marxism, is tyrannically horrible. So replace "communistic" with "tyrannical" and I'll be agreeing with ya.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-14 17:17 ]
-
On 2003-05-14 17:15:00, JDavid wrote:
"that's all a good rant, except that communism isn't a bad thing. Real communism is awesome... now known as anarcho-communism. Authoritarian communism, also known as Marxism, is tyrannically horrible. So replace "communistic" with "tyrannical" and I'll be agreeing with ya.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-14 17:17 ]"
:tup: I'd have to agree. The situation in Iraq, for instance would run remarkably with a communist government. (If done right) They have so much money over there.
-
I stick to the belief that communism as a form of government cannot work, because power always corrupts. I believe no one can be trusted with any power except their own power to run their own lives. Anti-government communism is different. It is only a means of production. It's basically a volunteer effort where the people in a community do their 2 hours a day at the utility plant, the agricultural farm, the hospital or in construction in order to have access to all of that in return for free. We can do it without a government. If the workers of the world understood anarcho-communism, we would end all war forever, no one would be homeless or starving, we'd have no more corporate rule, rent regimes or executives making 400 to 1000 times more than the workers, and so on.
We can't do this as a government because it will turn out like the USSR or North Korea. Those are monopolies over the means of survival and production. Monopolies are the worst manifestation of capitalism. North Korea is only one monopoly while the USA is a few thousand monopolies. That's the only difference in my mind.
Too bad Iraq is going to be under imperial corporate rule also. They get to live their 227 years of corporate tyranny now, just like u$.
On 2003-05-14 17:33:00, Mo wrote:
:tup: I'd have to agree. The situation in Iraq, for instance would run remarkably with a communist government. (If done right) They have so much money over there.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-14 20:40 ]
-
On 2003-05-14 20:40:00, JDavid wrote:
"I stick to the belief that communism as a form of government cannot work, because power always corrupts. I believe no one can be trusted with any power except their own power to run their own lives. Anti-government communism is different. It is only a means of production. It's basically a volunteer effort where the people in a community do their 2 hours a day at the utility plant, the agricultural farm, the hospital or in construction in order to have access to all of that in return for free. We can do it without a government. If the workers of the world understood anarcho-communism, we would end all war forever, no one would be homeless or starving, we'd have no more corporate rule, rent regimes or executives making 400 to 1000 times more than the workers, and so on.
We can't do this as a government because it will turn out like the USSR or North Korea. Those are monopolies over the means of survival and production. Monopolies are the worst manifestation of capitalism. North Korea is only one monopoly while the USA is a few thousand monopolies. That's the only difference in my mind.
Too bad Iraq is going to be under imperial corporate rule also. They get to live their 227 years of corporate tyranny now, just like u$.
On 2003-05-14 17:33:00, Mo wrote:
:tup: I'd have to agree. The situation in Iraq, for instance would run remarkably with a communist government. (If done right) They have so much money over there.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-14 20:40 ]"
I guess I really meant "if done right."
I like the way you think.
-
Yeah I did pick up on that when you first said it. I knew what ya meant. I just have no faith that it can be done right when any power is centralized. We've had centuries and centuries to prove that government works, and it only screws up every good idea out there.
I guess I really meant "if done right."
I like the way you think."
-
Interesting discussion. I've heard it said that China is a capitalistic economy with a communist government.
At the same time I've heard fierce opponents of the American Way describe the corporate elite of the US (who like to oppose government interferance) as Anarcho-capitalists.
Could it be that the two societies have more in common than we realise?
-
Yep, China is capitalist with one small group acting as the executives over everything inside China. That's how it goes when any country attempts to centralize communism. It winds up with the ruling class capitalizing off the working class through exporting, trading with other capitalist countries, while the people end up living in cubby holes working 16 hour days for 12 cents an hour. That's definitely not anarcho-communism.
It's amazing that it has taken place in China and Russia like it has because: what a huge abundance of land those two countries have! You'd think if anyone can quit restricting the people from having free land it would be them, but hell no. The government hordes it, denies the population access to use it (so does the U$) and reduces the people to living 4 to 6 people to a 12x12 dorm or something.
We could have free land in the US. The lower 48 states is 1.9 billion acres. The total population including Alaska and Hawaii is somewhere around 280 million. If we gave each person 1 free acre, totalling 280 million acres, that still leaves 1.6 billion acres open for natural habitat, roads, metropolitan type community buildings, factories and so on. Our government won't let this happen though. They want ya to be restricted from the land, work as a wage slave for a CEO and hand that money over to a land horder while the rich subdivision developers horde even more land, build house after house whenever they get around to it then put a quarter of a million dollar price tag on each one.
Anarcho-capitalists are an interesting and weird group. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron because their capitalism requires a government to enforce their property rights so that they can charge for rent, maintain ownership over the means of production and keep workers in a subservient role. Anarcho-capitalists want to keep the one thing anarchists want to get rid of the most... worker exploitation. The fact that a government is necessary in order for that to happen is what's boggling about why they use the anarcho- prefix. They call themselves "rational anarchy" when there's nothing rational about it. Oxymorons, worker exploitation and a required government is a giant mess.
I'd say anarcho-capitalism does resemble the USA, but the US is far too dominant over everything including corporations to really be anarcho-capitalist.
The only good thing anarcho-capitalists realize is that laws which enforce monopoly power need to be removed also. So, at least they are willing to capitalize in the face of fierce competition to drive prices down across any or all industries.
The Libertarian Party in the US are anarcho capitalists. I used to use them and their web site to show people why I think less government is better. I also used to think it was a good idea to transition from that to real anarchy, but I don't anymore. I think the whole party system is illegitimate because anytime anything is centralized, lobbyists will infect it and it will work like a virus against all of the people.
On 2003-05-15 05:12:00, Hamiltonf wrote:
"Interesting discussion. I've heard it said that China is a capitalistic economy with a communist government.
At the same time I've heard fierce opponents of the American Way describe the corporate elite of the US (who like to oppose government interferance) as Anarcho-capitalists.
Could it be that the two societies have more in common than we realise?"
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-15 07:07 ]
-
On 2003-05-15 06:54:00, JDavid wrote:
"Yep, China is capitalist with one small group acting as the executives over everything inside China. That's how it goes when any country attempts to centralize communism. It winds up with the ruling class capitalizing off the working class through exporting, trading with other capitalist countries, while the people end up living in cubby holes working 16 hour days for 12 cents an hour. That's definitely not anarcho-communism.
It's amazing that it has taken place in China and Russia like it has because: what a huge abundance of land those two countries have! You'd think if anyone can quit restricting the people from having free land it would be them, but hell no. The government hordes it, denies the population access to use it (so does the U$) and reduces the people to living 4 to 6 people to a 12x12 dorm or something.
We could have free land in the US. The lower 48 states is 1.9 billion acres. The total population including Alaska and Hawaii is somewhere around 280 million. If we gave each person 1 free acre, totalling 280 million acres, that still leaves 1.6 billion acres open for natural habitat, roads, metropolitan type community buildings, factories and so on. Our government won't let this happen though. They want ya to be restricted from the land, work as a wage slave for a CEO and hand that money over to a land horder while the rich subdivision developers horde even more land, build house after house whenever they get around to it then put a quarter of a million dollar price tag on each one.
Anarcho-capitalists are an interesting and weird group. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron because their capitalism requires a government to enforce their property rights so that they can charge for rent, maintain ownership over the means of production and keep workers in a subservient role. Anarcho-capitalists want to keep the one thing anarchists want to get rid of the most... worker exploitation. The fact that a government is necessary in order for that to happen is what's boggling about why they use the anarcho- prefix. They call themselves "rational anarchy" when there's nothing rational about it. Oxymorons, worker exploitation and a required government is a giant mess.
I'd say anarcho-capitalism does resemble the USA, but the US is far too dominant over everything including corporations to really be anarcho-capitalist.
The only good thing anarcho-capitalists realize is that laws which enforce monopoly power need to be removed also. So, at least they are willing to capitalize in the face of fierce competition to drive prices down across any or all industries.
The Libertarian Party in the US are anarcho capitalists. I used to use them and their web site to show people why I think less government is better. I also used to think it was a good idea to transition from that to real anarchy, but I don't anymore. I think the whole party system is illegitimate because anytime anything is centralized, lobbyists will infect it and it will work like a virus against all of the people.
On 2003-05-15 05:12:00, Hamiltonf wrote:
"Interesting discussion. I've heard it said that China is a capitalistic economy with a communist government.
At the same time I've heard fierce opponents of the American Way describe the corporate elite of the US (who like to oppose government interferance) as Anarcho-capitalists.
Could it be that the two societies have more in common than we realise?"
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-15 07:07 ]"
Good stuff. Such a pipe dream though. US really sucks in a shit load of ways. (I'm feeling eloquent today.) *sigh* If only...
-
What a bunch of panty-waste whiners! Why don't you try criticizing the government the way you do here in Chinia? Your family would recieve a bill for $.14. The price of the bullet you precious example of a government used to kill you. What about a muslim nation you say? Break the laws of the Koran and poof! The best thing that could happen is you'd go to jail. In some of them, they drag your ass in front of the Mosque on Friday and lop off your head with a scimitar. The taliban? They wouldn't even be nice to you before killing you. You are American, an infedel! They think they are doing you a favor.
Everything is bad, because I can't smoke dope legally. (Boo Hoo!) I'm having trouble buying a bong! (Sniffle, sniffle.) I'll have to make one myself. Maybe smoking dope does kill ones motivation to get things done.
Communism is based off the principle that there is one big pile of money and the wealthy people got there first and took more than their fair share. Well this is BS. Much research has shown wealthy people to be frugal, but hard working people who are willing to take risks. Most of these risks don't payoff. A few do. Wealthy people save their money and don't blow it on things. Matter of fact, I believe when they walk over a penny, their butt's go KA-CHING!
There are quite a few things I dislike about American society. I am not about to say that our form of government sucks though or that some other form of government is better. To be honest it is a good thing our government is large or those bozo's could be your boss. I can't think of any society that is more free than the US.
CL
-
On 2003-05-15 08:14:00, ClayL wrote:
"What a bunch of panty-waste whiners! Why don't you try criticizing the government the way you do here in Chinia? Your family would recieve a bill for $.14. The price of the bullet you precious example of a government used to kill you. What about a muslim nation you say? Break the laws of the Koran and poof! The best thing that could happen is you'd go to jail. In some of them, they drag your ass in front of the Mosque on Friday and lop off your head with a scimitar. The taliban? They wouldn't even be nice to you before killing you. You are American, an infedel! They think they are doing you a favor.
Everything is bad, because I can't smoke dope legally. (Boo Hoo!) I'm having trouble buying a bong! (Sniffle, sniffle.) I'll have to make one myself. Maybe smoking dope does kill ones motivation to get things done.
Communism is based off the principle that there is one big pile of money and the wealthy people got there first and took more than their fair share. Well this is BS. Much research has shown wealthy people to be frugal, but hard working people who are willing to take risks. Most of these risks don't payoff. A few do. Wealthy people save their money and don't blow it on things. Matter of fact, I believe when they walk over a penny, their butt's go KA-CHING!
There are quite a few things I dislike about American society. I am not about to say that our form of government sucks though or that some other form of government is better. To be honest it is a good thing our government is large or those bozo's could be your boss. I can't think of any society that is more free than the US.
CL"
Look out! Clay's getting his panties in a bunge! Chill dude, it's cool...! Here take a hit...(I'm kidding)
whatEVER Clay. Let people have their little fantasies. I personally said, "
Good stuff. Such a pipe dream though. *US really sucks in a shit load of ways. (I'm feeling eloquent today.) *sigh* If only..."
*I didn't say in all ways.
No harm in dreaming. Imagination makes good writers too.
Just cuz you don't Puff the magic Dragon...
-
PS - I just feel sorry for Tommy. Screw Ashcroft.
-
We're not advocating China. I was talking against China, using it as an example of why communism as a form of government is horrible.
All of the negatives in all countries are rooted in authoritarianism... hierarchies establishing themselves to force the population to work to the top tier's benefit. China, the Arab world, The United States, everywhere. I'm talking about removing authority, especially since in order to have authority, you must use force. The fact that it requires force, such as executions of Chinese political dissidents or infidels in the Arab world means that it is not natural.
Everyone knows that in the US we do not get tortured or indiscriminantly executed (except for in the past, the natives). No one is complaining about not being executed, but to consider that freedom is putting a serious limit on freedom. Our US government is only different in that it has discovered that torture and execution of dissidents is not necessary in order to gain what they want from us... capital. They get their capital from us through rent, mortgages, taxes, fines, etc and every bit of that is accomplished by threatening us if we do not comply. Wage slavery or enforced poverty is not a choice, it is a threat.
Check out some right-wing chat rooms sometime. Almost any time you strongly disagree with them and will not let them win an argument, they start talking about how you should be killed. That's an example of the genocidal force mentality that is required to hold such a system in place. It has not reached that point yet internally (except for against the natives) in the US, but that is where it is headed.
The US has already committed its genocidal rampage all over Central America throughout the 20th century, all in the name of capitalism. The only place the US has not decimated or at least severly interfered in Central America is Costa Rica. It is amazing that we do not have a Central American version of Al Qaida attacking us too.
The US are the ones who demanded that the World Bank and the IMF impose conditions on the 44 developing countries who were receiving unconditional investments since 1944. Now those 44 countries are in huge debt. All in the name of capitalism.
The US's tyranny is mostly abroad, but once the foreign conquests have been milked for all they are worth, the tyranny will grow even tighter internally unless we smash the state first.
If everyone had capital, there would be no need for the capitalist system. In order for one person to be rich, many, many other people must be poor. Anarchists could be considered "against wealth", but actually we want wealth to become obsolete and pointless by making each person as wealthy as possible without enforcing extra privileged status at the expense of others. Anarchists are against hording and restricting the means to survival in order to capitalize on it. The reason is: it puts a small group of people in power over the masses as the population is put into the subservient role in order to have the restrictions to the means of survival temporarily removed. I just don't see anything that justifies forcing people to serve the bourgeoise... to use other people's lives to the ruling class's benefit, and to do it with the threat of police or military action with or without torture. I think this is a much better idea than China.
On 2003-05-15 08:14:00, ClayL wrote:
"What a bunch of panty-waste whiners! Why don't you try criticizing the government the way you do here in Chinia? Your family would recieve a bill for $.14. The price of the bullet you precious example of a government used to kill you. What about a muslim nation you say? Break the laws of the Koran and poof! The best thing that could happen is you'd go to jail. In some of them, they drag your ass in front of the Mosque on Friday and lop off your head with a scimitar. The taliban? They wouldn't even be nice to you before killing you. You are American, an infedel! They think they are doing you a favor.
Everything is bad, because I can't smoke dope legally. (Boo Hoo!) I'm having trouble buying a bong! (Sniffle, sniffle.) I'll have to make one myself. Maybe smoking dope does kill ones motivation to get things done.
Communism is based off the principle that there is one big pile of money and the wealthy people got there first and took more than their fair share. Well this is BS. Much research has shown wealthy people to be frugal, but hard working people who are willing to take risks. Most of these risks don't payoff. A few do. Wealthy people save their money and don't blow it on things. Matter of fact, I believe when they walk over a penny, their butt's go KA-CHING!
There are quite a few things I dislike about American society. I am not about to say that our form of government sucks though or that some other form of government is better. To be honest it is a good thing our government is large or those bozo's could be your boss. I can't think of any society that is more free than the US.
CL"
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-15 10:51 ]
-
Clay, all I can say to your post is that I will never accept "Not as bad as _______ dictatorship" as a proper standard of conduct for our country.
There is something very wrong with the way things are going here lately. And I think it has a whole lot to do with the fact that the same people who brought us Straight, Inc. currently occupy the offices, halls and lobbies of power within our government and the IVth Estate. And they believe in all it stands for to such an extreme degree that they put their own kids through it 30 years ago and still to this day! Wasn't Mel and Betty's grandson in PFC recently? Any idea what kind of place Noelle Bush is in right now?
On 2003-05-15 10:01:00, JDavid wrote:
"We're not advocating China. I was talking against China, using it as an example of why communism as a form of government is horrible.
All of the negatives in all countries are rooted in authoritarianism... hierarchies establishing themselves to force the population to work to the top tier's benefit.
I don't know how you reconcile Communism with freedom. Maybe we're defining the term differently. I don't think it's possible to have peace without property rights. As libertarian as the native nations were, they still had the occasional war over hunting and trading rights, among other things. In a 4 mile/hr world, they still deemed it worthwhile and necessary to hold a Great Council each year to sort things out peacfully.
On 2003-05-15 10:01:00, JDavid wrote:
Everyone knows that in the US we do not get tortured or indiscriminantly executed (except for in the past, the natives).
That's just not true. We were tortured. I don't think we ever had it so bad as some people who suffer under our authority structure, though. Check out the November Coalition.
http://november.org/graphs/ (http://november.org/graphs/)
Would you trade your worst oldcomer for a smelly, 300lb thug named Tiny with AIDS and Hep-C and a burning desire to share? I wouldn't.
On 2003-05-15 08:14:00, ClayL wrote:
Everything is bad, because I can't smoke dope legally. (Boo Hoo!) I'm having trouble buying a bong! (Sniffle, sniffle.) I'll have to make one myself. Maybe smoking dope does kill ones motivation to get things done.
No, that's not it. It's the capree and arbitrariness about it. John Ashcroft and John Walters hate people who smoke pot. And so you and I are forced to pay for some number of investigators and all that attends to spend 2 years investigating, arresting, prosecuting and punishing glass blowers and store clerks just for providing accessories that pot smokers like!
Often enough, these sting and raid operations result in the summary execution of some guy who didn't get the memo that, on this day, he was supposed to lay down and not resist the thugs who bust down his door and do a home invasion because, on this day, they happen to be a SWAT team, authorized by John Ashcroft's gang, not some other gang.
The fact is, when a decorative and expensive glass bong is not convenient, a coke bottle and tin foil will do. No one is going to have a hard time burning whatever they want to burn just because some artistic bong makers are being harassed by our government.
But here's the bigger question. We know that an awful lot of people like to smoke pot. We know this because there's so much of it around and so many references to it in popular culture. What major rock station doesn't do a 420 Pause for the Cause? Tommy Chong is not famous and successfull in spite of the fact that he smokes(smoked) pot. He's famous and successful because he's a symbol for smoking pot!
So... if we have a functional representative form of government, how is it that this government is spending $40 Billion this year--more than the year before and, likely, less than next year--to prevent an activity that is obviously well supported by the people?
On 2003-05-15 08:14:00, ClayL wrote:
Communism is based off the principle that there is one big pile of money and the wealthy people got there first and took more than their fair share. Well this is BS. Much research has shown wealthy people to be frugal, but hard working people who are willing to take risks. Most of these risks don't payoff. A few do. Wealthy people save their money and don't blow it on things. Matter of fact, I believe when they walk over a penny, their butt's go KA-CHING!
Well, what we've got going now is a system where about half of everything you and I earn goes to government in one form or another. The problem is not hard working people who've earned their wealth getting better access to the honey pot. The problem is with people who are able and willing to gain access to our earnings through coercion, not hard work and frugality.
Check it out: This is what government costs.
http://www.atr.org/cogd2002/ (http://www.atr.org/cogd2002/)
We're still waiting for the 2003 report to come out cause the congress critters are not done fighting over how much to steal or who gets to keep it.
On 2003-05-15 08:14:00, ClayL wrote:
There are quite a few things I dislike about American society. I am not about to say that our form of government sucks though or that some other form of government is better. To be honest it is a good thing our government is large or those bozo's could be your boss. I can't think of any society that is more free than the US.
CL"
"
I think the problem is that our form of government has not been enforce in this country since the New Deal.
Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die
-- Malachy McCourt
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American P.O.W. 10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
-
I bet in the 4 mph world they were not aware of the abundance of land. Awareness of the abundance is the key. 1.9 billion acres in just the lower 48 states. Also, once an anarcho-community is established, direct democracy, community descision making is the idea for resolving who builds what and where. Those two things combined are the key to peace without an official version of land ownership: awareness of the abundance and direct democracy. Then add self-defense on top of it and the public awareness that the family occupying certain land is prepared to defend it.
Communism as a means of production, anarcho-communism, is an option where people can have and produce the means of survival without restrictions. The idea is that a community can get together and form hospitals, build houses, conduct agriculture and run utility plants free from a capitalist system. If people wanted to join in, they get all that for free just for doing their part which is often guessed to be approximately 2 hour work days. It would be their choice in which industry they wanted to participate in anarcho-communism. There would be no such thing as "overstaffed" because the more people you've got, the less each person works. That's what I mean by free communism.
Anyone who wants to conduct expanded trade in an anarchist world could do that too. It's called market socialism. That's where I think technology, automotive, entertainment and other non-vital industries will be. This is all good & fine as long as people do not have to worry about their success as a capitalist trader in order to survive. Market socialism is how you get an even bigger, phatter house with 3 cars in an anarchy.
Official land ownership only means the wealthy can horde it and put a huge price on it after they plunk a house down on it. The purpose of that is to capitalize on people's survival, of course. To make sure you have to serve the ruling class in order to aquire land. This is land that no one created, so aside from the detail that someone bought the land (currently), who had a right to put a price on it to begin with?
A few weeks ago, I came to the conclusion that if we do reduce the US government down to Libertarian size, that's nothing but starting over back to 227 years ago except that it would not even take as long as 227 years to get this bad next time around. It will all happen all over again unless we completely get rid of centralized government.
Yeah Straight was a form of torture, but that's corporate/private/capitalist torture... and a good example it is of what people will do to others for capital gain. I had the government on my mind while I was writing the "we aren't tortured" part not corporations. Yep, it is scary that our current covernment is very closely aligned (or tightly intertwined) and involved with the very same people who committed the Straight violations.
-
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
"I bet in the 4 mph world they were not aware of the abundance of land.
Are you kidding? Of course they knew. They may not have marked and measured it in exactly the same ways. But they had plenty of contact with each other through their own travels and through traders and knew very well how the land laid, how much hunting and forraging a particular area could take, etc.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
Also, once an anarcho-community is established, direct democracy, community descision making is the idea for resolving who builds what and where. Those two things combined are the key to peace without an official version of land ownership: awareness of the abundance and direct democracy. Then add self-defense on top of it and the public awareness that the family occupying certain land is prepared to defend it.
I think the Iroquois Alliance had a pretty good thing going. Each tribe sent a rep and his support party to the council each year. Only men could be chosen to go but, in most tribes, only women could vote on who to send. This alliance exsisted for at least several hundred years and extended, at times, from Nova Scocia down at least to the Creek lands in Georgia and possibly further. There simply was no direct democracy. Any policy or other decision that applied to the entire alliance was made by the 50 or so men who were sent to represent their own tribes.
Francis Parkman's Conspiracy of Pontiac is a great read on Iroquois history and self government.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
Communism as a means of production, anarcho-communism, is an option where people can have and produce the means of survival without restrictions. ....
Well, I won't argue with you over the details. But suffice it to say that, as long as it's truely voluntary, I don't mind sitting back over here and watching yet another communist experiment fail. Hopefully, we'll have plenty of stuff to trade to anyone willing to provide as much labour as the market will bear for it whenever ya'll want to give up and get some good grub. :wink:
Just don't try and sell it in these hills. Yinzers have no patience left for this kind of Utopian dream.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
Yeah Straight was a form of torture, but that's corporate/private/capitalist torture...
Oh no. You forget how law enforcement, the judiciary and legislature have cooperated in these ventures. The Seed was started with a $2M grant from NIDA along with a couple of other Synanon based programs. Straight took federal funding from Law Enforcement Assistance Agency and free endorsements from sitting presidents, vice presidents, their wives, legislators and various other characters from the pages of officialdome.
Today, DFAF gets about 30% of their funding from the Cat in the Hat (last I heard, anyway... that figure may have changed since.) And the piss testing industry, of which their members and affiliates are the dominant players, gets around another $6Bn almost entirely from government mandated programs. Who knows how much else they get in how many other ways either directly from the general fund or by way of legislatively mandated spending?
Straight is/was no more a private venture than Dyncorp is.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
and a good example it is of what people will do to others for capital gain. I had the government on my mind while I was writing the "we aren't tortured" part not corporations. Yep, it is scary that our current covernment is very closely aligned (or tightly intertwined) and involved with the very same people who committed the Straight violations.
"
Same as it ever was. Just that, at age 18, I really didn't sweat the details and find out about all this crap. I was young and idealistic and thought I could just wander off into the wider world and never have to deal with those sadistic lunatics again. I didn't know, at the time, that they were the ones making all these stupid laws and policies and pushing their Hitler Jugund programs in the schools. Now I know. That's the difference.
Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
-
On 2003-05-15 16:56:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
"I bet in the 4 mph world they were not aware of the abundance of land.
Are you kidding? Of course they knew. They may not have marked and measured it in exactly the same ways. But they had plenty of contact with each other through their own travels and through traders and knew very well how the land laid, how much hunting and forraging a particular area could take, etc.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
Also, once an anarcho-community is established, direct democracy, community descision making is the idea for resolving who builds what and where. Those two things combined are the key to peace without an official version of land ownership: awareness of the abundance and direct democracy. Then add self-defense on top of it and the public awareness that the family occupying certain land is prepared to defend it.
I think the Iroquois Alliance had a pretty good thing going. Each tribe sent a rep and his support party to the council each year. Only men could be chosen to go but, in most tribes, only women could vote on who to send. This alliance exsisted for at least several hundred years and extended, at times, from Nova Scocia down at least to the Creek lands in Georgia and possibly further. There simply was no direct democracy. Any policy or other decision that applied to the entire alliance was made by the 50 or so men who were sent to represent their own tribes.
Francis Parkman's Conspiracy of Pontiac is a great read on Iroquois history and self government.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
Communism as a means of production, anarcho-communism, is an option where people can have and produce the means of survival without restrictions. ....
Well, I won't argue with you over the details. But suffice it to say that, as long as it's truely voluntary, I don't mind sitting back over here and watching yet another communist experiment fail. Hopefully, we'll have plenty of stuff to trade to anyone willing to provide as much labour as the market will bear for it whenever ya'll want to give up and get some good grub. :wink:
Just don't try and sell it in these hills. Yinzers have no patience left for this kind of Utopian dream.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
Yeah Straight was a form of torture, but that's corporate/private/capitalist torture...
Oh no. You forget how law enforcement, the judiciary and legislature have cooperated in these ventures. The Seed was started with a $2M grant from NIDA along with a couple of other Synanon based programs. Straight took federal funding from Law Enforcement Assistance Agency and free endorsements from sitting presidents, vice presidents, their wives, legislators and various other characters from the pages of officialdome.
Today, DFAF gets about 30% of their funding from the Cat in the Hat (last I heard, anyway... that figure may have changed since.) And the piss testing industry, of which their members and affiliates are the dominant players, gets around another $6Bn almost entirely from government mandated programs. Who knows how much else they get in how many other ways either directly from the general fund or by way of legislatively mandated spending?
Straight is/was no more a private venture than Dyncorp is.
On 2003-05-15 14:29:00, JDavid wrote:
and a good example it is of what people will do to others for capital gain. I had the government on my mind while I was writing the "we aren't tortured" part not corporations. Yep, it is scary that our current covernment is very closely aligned (or tightly intertwined) and involved with the very same people who committed the Straight violations.
"
Same as it ever was. Just that, at age 18, I really didn't sweat the details and find out about all this crap. I was young and idealistic and thought I could just wander off into the wider world and never have to deal with those sadistic lunatics again. I didn't know, at the time, that they were the ones making all these stupid laws and policies and pushing their Hitler Jugund programs in the schools. Now I know. That's the difference.
Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"
You do know your enemy Lady. You're the shiznit! (that means 'da bomb' in "shizzle")
http://www.asksnoop.com (http://www.asksnoop.com)
-
Government ownership and private/corporate ownership are equally destructive in regards to all resources. I sure don't see any Yinzer groups offering up any solutions. Even Anti-Flag can't come up with anything better than the Green Party. They're Yinzers: http://www.thetartan.org/97/4/pillbox/2046.asp (http://www.thetartan.org/97/4/pillbox/2046.asp)
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-15 18:38 ]
-
Jdavid:
Let's say this thing of yours flys. Just how do you propose taking Ted Turner's million+ acres away? I live on 120 acres and I am not having 119 other families move in with me. The only way i can see this happening is with super-strong authoritarian government intervention. There would be bloodshed and civil war. If there is one thing that angers a person more than someone trying to take their home, I cannot think of it.
This also forgets two things I have found to be true.
1. Some people don't like to share.
2. Most people don't respect things they don't own.
Ginger:
I cannot agree with you more in thinking the schmuckavelli's in DC already have asscess to way to much of my money. I have never seen anything mentioned in the Constitution about Entitlements or Social Security. I think the Commerce Clause has been interpreted far to broadly and the Federal Government has itself in far more things than the founders EVER intended. I am espicially fond of the way the tax system sets up the fewest to pay damn near all the taxes and for most people to pay no taxes and they go even better. The gov't charges everyone to much tax and then, if we jump through enough hoops, offers to "refund" the over-charge. Making things look to the unwashed masses that they are getting something from the gov't. When in reality, the gov't has used the unwashed masses money for an entire year. Kind of like taking, upon threat of prison, an interest free loan. I can guarantee the Founders, wealthy men all, did not have this in mind when writing the Constutition.
Before I said I have some issue with my government. I'll bet you can guess this is one of them?
CL
-
It's not a "thing of mine", it's the most popular idea among anarchists... a horizontal society instead of a vertical one especially since vertical society does not have enough room for everyone. Evidence that there is not enough room in capitalist heirarchical society is: abortion crisis, suicide, huge debt, murder & homelessness. There is no such thing as overpopulation, only overcrowded systems.
Take Ted Turner's acres away by removing the state which enforces the deeds on that land. He doesn't need it for anything but profit, and profit will be obsolete. What's he going to do when there is no police force? Hire a militia to guard it for him? Why would the people of a militia care to guard his land (for an income) when they can get all the means of survival for free from the anarcho-communites?
Unfortunately, the current system is set up to where people with loads of money can buy up 120 acres and seal it off from the world, so if a revolution occurs tonight, it is unfair that such a person lost that investment when the state falls. It won't take long for the people to realize that we did not create the Earth, so it is not ours to set up borders on it. It's just a rearrangement of concept.
If anarchy was already the way things are working, people would know beforehand that buying 120 acres is not something we do, especially since there would be no police force to help enforce the deed and seal it off from the world.
I hope people will be aware of the fact that there is enough land for 20 acres per family though. That's how it is right now, and population doesn't grow so fast to where that will change anytime soon.
If the 120 acres is out in the middle of nowhere, the land and the occupants of it will be left alone until civilization spreads, reaching that 120 acres.
The deal is that you can try to horde land in anarchy, but if you're successful in guarding it with a militia or a gang, the community would cut you off from everything they provide... utilities, medical, construction, agriculture, defense equipment, and so on unless you were an agricultural establishment; in that case the community would actually help ya guard it. Many anarchists are all for guarding wildlife reserves also, if that is what your land is.
There is no reason to take people's homes. Only the current government finds reasons to take people's homes. The resources are so abundant that taking someone's house would be about the most useless and pointless thing anyone could attempt in anarchy. We just need to get the restrictions taken off the building of homes. Remove the restrictions and the supply flourishes to the point there is no more "demand" in market terms. Without such restrictions, and without this artificial market demand for houses, I can't think of any reason for a civil war.
Anarcho-communities would be organized about all of this. Think of zoning laws, except they would not actually be laws. They would just be maps of where we can build stuff agreed upon by the local majority.
People wouldn't have to like to share in this anarchism social idea. It takes very little time or effort to be considered an active participant of an anarcho-community. I think boredom would be the main problem. Boredom with having nothing to do with the other 14 hours of your days (while awake). That's not a bad problem at all. That's why I think market socialism will be very popular. People venturing outside the community to participate in expanded trade since they would have so much free time.
My response to your #2 is that I think people disrespect things as soon as they do own them. I think respect comes when people realize they cannot own it. Possessions and property are two different things. Anarchists will own possessions, but they won't own land or any of the means of survival. All people who want access to all of it will operate a tiny portion of it. That's a good deal.
I think it's something to evolve to. I know the masses right now are too stupid to conduct themselves without being ruled by authority. 70% of the current US is approving of King George, the War on Terror, the support for the genocidal apartheid Israeli money laundering outfit, the War on Drugs, the War for Oil, Ascroft's roundups & detentions of bong makers and immigrants, World Bank / IMF skyrocketing third world debt, globalization. The brainwashed masses are just cheering it on while similar fools are serving in the military for China, North Korea and Iran. There's no way in hell I'd want to have to trust these sheep in an anarcho-community, but I do have all the confidence in the world in the anarchists I know.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-16 07:50 ]
-
*sucking in hard*........EAR!!!
-
I would submit that things like abortion, suicide, huge debt, murder & homelessness are much more readily explained by factors other than the painful convolutions of this geo-political structure. This utopian view is indeed twisted. Why would someone work their ass off to provide for everyone else and get nothing in return for the part of their life they spent producing the goods? There is another word for this: stealing.
Obviously the crack heads that think up this kind of nonsense have never turned the earth or workesd to produce the things they can now go to the grocery store, mall or shopping center to buy. There would be no 14 hours of free time. All the family's time would be spent in producing enough to eat and providing for the basic necessities.
Further, you are under some mistaken impression that people are going to willingly give up their property to the greater good. You are also under the impression that these same people will rely on some kind of police structure to enforce their rights. This is not so, I think Thomas Locke said that governments govern only with the consent of the governed. Also this consent is where just governments derive their power from. Locke is only expanding on much earlier concepts.
My point is, that when governments fail to govern, then power falls back to the people. What would be protecting my property would be me, a good scope and rifle. I could probably scrape up heavier weaponry if necessary. As a matter of fact I can tell you how to make a nuclear bomb and could probably put one together if it came to that.
Something really bothering me, how do you get the governments to magically disappear?
Lastly, if people respect things they cannot own, how do you explain litter in our national parks. or on the road side for that matter? How do you explain poachers? How do you explain cigarette burns in the backseat of your car or the furniture of your house?
CL
-
Clay - 2 points
Ginger - 2 points
JDavid - 0
Mo - 0, but.....EAR!
PUFF-PUFF-Give! :lol:
-
One main point of what I am saying is that this capitalist system is doomed. It cannot possibly survive forever. It will fall because the population excluded from the system who are unable to survive or remotely succeed in such a system are already massive in numbers. That is the world's poverty class. One step up from them is the working class. Once the working class starts to intensely feel the heat is when the revolution will occur. What are you going to do then? All states and governments will fall. Who is planning or designing a hope for life after that happens? No one is except the anarchists. It's either figure out what the anarchists are saying and why they say it or perhaps it will be chaos.
This is not only something I want to happen, it is something that will happen regardless of who likes it. The ruling class won't like it. The land horders won't like it. I will like it though. Removing people from power over others is the greatest thing imaginable to me.
Evolution is inevitable. People will not be buying the scam of vertical society forever.
Governments magically disappear when the masses stop supporting them. A major part of it is the masses refusing to send them money.
National parks are government owned. Just as susceptible to neglect as anything private/corporate owned. Maybe the litter problem would go away without capitalist motivated marketing, advertising and excessive packaging.
I am sure people do not intentionally burn the seats in your car or your furniture. We can't use accidents as a method of calibrating respect and ownership.
That's real impressive to hear you would execute people with a rifle for attempting to negotiate you to relinquish a sector of your so-called sovereign territory. Reminds me of Israel. Reminds me of what happened to the natives of North America. I doubt anarchists would waste their time attacking. You'd just be sitting in the middle of your 120 acres without capitalist allies forcing people to provide your gang with utilities, food, medical and the rest of what the local community produces. We'd wait for you to come out & try to steal it from us.
I bet you're still paying for that land anyway. If that is the case, you don't own it afterall... the ruling class does and you are serving them by sending them money for it.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-16 10:15 ]
-
CL, this is OT a bit, but, you might be the only one I know that can answer this or at least interpret what the hell this guy is saying...
When you look closely at your enterprise IT architecture, what do you perceive as the speed bumps on the road to productivity?
Peter Coffee of EWeekly says:
What I see is a need for higher throughput for encryption accelerators for VPN performance, XML accelerators for Web services transactions, solid state hard disks and in-memory databases for interactive data analysis tasks, and graphics accelerators for image processing and 3-D visualization.
Holy bejeewilikers, what the hell is he talking about? LOL...
MG8 :smokin:
What would the role of the computer be in this anarchist world?
On 2003-05-16 09:10:00, ClayL wrote:
"I would submit that things like abortion, suicide, huge debt, murder & homelessness are much more readily explained by factors other than the painful convolutions of this geo-political structure. This utopian view is indeed twisted. Why would someone work their ass off to provide for everyone else and get nothing in return for the part of their life they spent producing the goods? There is another word for this: stealing.
Obviously the crack heads that think up this kind of nonsense have never turned the earth or workesd to produce the things they can now go to the grocery store, mall or shopping center to buy. There would be no 14 hours of free time. All the family's time would be spent in producing enough to eat and providing for the basic necessities.
Further, you are under some mistaken impression that people are going to willingly give up their property to the greater good. You are also under the impression that these same people will rely on some kind of police structure to enforce their rights. This is not so, I think Thomas Locke said that governments govern only with the consent of the governed. Also this consent is where just governments derive their power from. Locke is only expanding on much earlier concepts.
My point is, that when governments fail to govern, then power falls back to the people. What would be protecting my property would be me, a good scope and rifle. I could probably scrape up heavier weaponry if necessary. As a matter of fact I can tell you how to make a nuclear bomb and could probably put one together if it came to that.
Something really bothering me, how do you get the governments to magically disappear?
Lastly, if people respect things they cannot own, how do you explain litter in our national parks. or on the road side for that matter? How do you explain poachers? How do you explain cigarette burns in the backseat of your car or the furniture of your house?
CL"
-
To insult anarchists is to insult the only ideas out there for life after capitalism dies. To insult anarchists is to express your preference that people just perish when there is no longer a ruling class to serve. What is this? Serving a ruling class is the only reason people have a right to be alive? Do you recommend the masses just commit suicide when all heirarchies fall? If not, what the hell are you going to do? Establish another government which restricts access to the means of survival? Establish another central power after centuries of such organizations have done nothing but fail and violate all people all across the world?
Let's see what you geniuses propose for after the death of capitalism.
On 2003-05-16 09:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Clay - 2 points
Ginger - 2 points
JDavid - 0
Mo - 0, but.....EAR!
PUFF-PUFF-Give! :lol:
"
-
On 2003-05-16 06:28:00, ClayL wrote:
Just how do you propose taking Ted Turner's million+ acres away?
. . .
Ginger:
I cannot agree with you more in thinking the schmuckavelli's in DC already have asscess to way to much of my money. I have never seen anything mentioned in the Constitution about Entitlements or Social Security. I think the Commerce Clause has been interpreted far to broadly and the Federal Government has itself in far more things than the founders EVER intended. I am espicially fond of the way the tax system sets up the fewest to pay damn near all the taxes and for most people to pay no taxes and they go even better. The gov't charges everyone to much tax and then, if we jump through enough hoops, offers to "refund" the over-charge. Making things look to the unwashed masses that they are getting something from the gov't. When in reality, the gov't has used the unwashed masses money for an entire year. Kind of like taking, upon threat of prison, an interest free loan. I can guarantee the Founders, wealthy men all, did not have this in mind when writing the Constutition.
Before I said I have some issue with my government. I'll bet you can guess this is one of them?
CL"
Well yeah. But it's not really just a few wealthy people paying all the taxes and expenses. It's everybody. Think poor people don't pay the gas tax cause they don't own cars? The people who sell them food and clothing pay it, as does the post office, city governments and all the rest. Don't pay property tax because you rent? Where do you think the land lord gets the money to pay it?
I don't know exactly how Ted Turner got his millions of acres. But I strongly suspect he hasn't been hurt by the FCC regulations that make it impossibly expensive to get and keep a broadcast license while making it easier for already wealthy broadcasters to buy out struggling smaller stations. Ted Turner's product is just not good enough to explain his wealth. He didn't get it all on merit and, I suspect, without the legislated monopoly, he wouldn't be able to hang onto so much of it in a true free market.
There's an excellent example of how that works going on in So. Florida right now. The Citrus industry is about the most powerful lobby in the state. They own everything from prisons to contracts for cleaning products to the county school districts. They're in trouble right now because Brazil is kicking their collective butts in the juice market.
So what do they do? They lobby the FLDA and USDA to spend billions on a propaganda and cutting campaing to erradicate privately owned citrus trees. Now, if you live in So. Florida and want citrus products, you have to buy them. Most of the privately owned trees have already been taken without due processor just compensation and it is a federal felony to try and sneak one in and replant.
In a free market, the citrus industry would just take the hit, cut their losses and a whole lot of citrus land would become available to other players at reduced prices. But in our Socialist Utopia, their investment is secured by armed officers who WILL arrest anyone who tries to stop them from taking their private property "for the greater good".
Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself
--Jimmy Carter
-
Replying to Ginger's Florida message...
Your Florida citrus conquest is what I am talking about when I say capitalism is doomed. Capitalism requires markets to be continuosly expanding, and when the market cannot be expanded, one corporation must conquer other corporations and take their markets. This leads to monopolies. Next, monopolies start taking over other monopolies. That leads to imperialism. Imperialism is the stage in which capitalism IS dead because no remnants of the free market exist in imperialism.
See, capitalism is vertical. The more exclusive (smaller) the top tier becomes, the smaller the included working class becomes. That creates a larger and larger poverty class as the executives and the working class of the old days fall into the poverty class.
We can kill capitalism before it reaches the point of imperialism, or we can kill the imperials once they establish their ownership over everything. No one knows how it's gonna go down yet.
-
On 2003-05-16 10:56:00, JDavid wrote:
"To insult anarchists is to insult the only ideas out there for life after capitalism dies. To insult anarchists is to express your preference that people just perish when there is no longer a ruling class to serve. What is this? Serving a ruling class is the only reason people have a right to be alive? Do you recommend the masses just commit suicide when all heirarchies fall? If not, what the hell are you going to do? Establish another government which restricts access to the means of survival? Establish another central power after centuries of such organizations have done nothing but fail and violate all people all across the world?
Let's see what you geniuses propose for after the death of capitalism.
Well, when the last Great Empire became over-extended and fell apart, we had an era known as the Dark Ages or Midieval Times. We don't know a whole lot about what was going on then because our history books are a history of nations and wars. But we know one thing for sure; people lived, loved and died, resurected old traditions and medicines and, eventually, started out again trying to take over the world like Pinky and the Brain or some James Bond villain.
Mean time, the farmer plowed his fields, some parts of the old culture were kept, safe and sound (Latin language and the Arabic number system, for example, being the basis for much of our speaking and writing to this day)
When the current order of things falls apart, there will be no central, uniform order of things. There also won't be a population of 6 billion+. Lots and lots of people will not make it into the next few generations. The ones who make it will be the ones who do the best job of deciding what to leave in, what to leave out and how best to innovate and make do with what they have. I hope some of mine are among them.
In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
More: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800 ... ensexx.htm (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/paine/CM/sensexx.htm)
(Interesint, isn't it, that the first link that comes up on the Google search Thomas Paine Common Sense is in the Netherlands?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
--Edmund Burke
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American P.O.W. 10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
-
And the only way I see that we can avoid this cycle "started out again trying to take over the world" is if the ideas of anarchists continue to spread from generation to generation until the day comes to live in an anti-heirarchical world.
-
On 2003-05-16 11:30:00, JDavid wrote:
"And the only way I see that we can avoid this cycle "started out again trying to take over the world" is if the ideas of anarchists continue to spread from generation to generation until the day comes to live in an anti-heirarchical world.
"
*SUCKING REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HARD NOW...**...hold!.......*COUGH!!!*
Good idea....EAR!
-
JDavid wrote:
"I bet you're still paying for that land anyway."
I hate to disappoint you but, no. The land is mine. Also it is not execution but a God given right. You know, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing that Jefferson put in the Decleration of Independence. Locke referred to Liberty as Property though. The very old English principle that a man's home is his castle.
I would not call this view evolution, but regression. Back to the caveman days where the strongest ruled.
I'm not saying that if people respected my stuff accidents wouldn't happen. I am saying that if people respected my stuff they'd be more careful so accidents wouldn't occur so frequently.
The thing is, with everybody sitting on their asses 14 hours a day there would be no utilities, food, medical or any production from the local community.
What I'm really interesed to know is, what is this ruling class you keep referring to? I tend to believe that there are wealthy people and there are people that are dirt poor. Nobody makes either work or give their services away for nothing. Hmmm.... Come to think of it...
Your entire premise is FOS! What you are talking about relies on a barter system. I'd like to remind you that a barter system is very rudimentary capitalism. I'll grow this vegetable and give it to you for that shirt. You can have this pig, if you cure my child.
CL
-
What I see is a need for higher throughput for encryption accelerators for VPN performance, XML accelerators for Web services transactions, solid state hard disks and in-memory databases for interactive data analysis tasks, and graphics accelerators for image processing and 3-D visualization.
encryption accelerators for VPN performance= Techno babble for better security for Virtual Private Networking. You know all the talk about telecommuting? This is it. What they are doing is creating a tunnel connection through a public network establishing a private connection between the user PC and the local area network.
XML accelerators for Web services transactions,= Speeding up the back-end database transactions for website data.
solid state hard disks and in-memory databases for interactive data analysis tasks = Giant sized RAM chips that are non-volitile that can be used as hard disks. No moving parts, MUCH faster I/O.
and graphics accelerators for image processing and 3-D visualization. Really groovy cool video cards that allow for really zippy refreash times. Would allow for 3-D presentations.
CL
-
One other thing. I believe the "ruling class" doesn't change. Just the type of people in it. In the 1960's computer people were the pasty geeks that you needed an interpreter to speak with. Now they are among the wealthiest people in the world. The same thing, disgustingly in my opinion, is happening with professional atheletes, some of whom are exceedingly bright. There will always be someone willing to pay what the market will bear.
CL
-
Ginger:
I agree, but don't mind those taxes as much as income tax. Everyone feels the "pain" of those taxes, not everyone pays income tax and most people actually pay very little income tax if at all. I mean the government needs some money if nothing else than to keep those bone heads from finding real jobs and then really messing things up.
Ted earned most of his money, in the beginning through advertising. Then he struck a deal with the fledgling cable industry and called the station a superstation. He did well again by founding CNN.
I tend to think protectionist measure turn and bite ones own ass in the long run and the Citrus Mafia will have to find this out on their own. I was reading an article the other day about the go've use of Iminient Domain and FL has one of the worst records out there. Espicially using it to take peoples property and then give it to private concerns. I think CT was the greatest offender though. The abuse of this clause has become so rampant in some states that there is a ground swelling backlash and even attempts to pass laws limiting the governments power.
I think free markets are the best thing in the world. I again think the is an unlawful use of the commerce clause.
CL
-
If a man's home is his castle, you approve of mortgage companies and rent regimes being practically the only ones who own men's castles? Rather than having the freedom to build your castle yourself, you approve of having to serve the wealthy so they will allow you to build it or should you have the freedom to just go build it? Would you rather build it yourself or do you need to restrict access to the means of survival so that the Mexican construction workers will have to serve you by building your house so they can aquire temporary access to the means of survival by getting paid?
Property is theft.
Yeah, regression from your status of enforced privilege. That is what it is indeed, and I'm looking forward to the dethroning all capitalists.
You think equality (anti-heirchical) society means that only the strongest will rule? Uh well, who rules now? The greediest, heartless and most manipulative group on the face of the planet is who rules now. You like that though, I already see. No need to announce that you approve of it.
That is short sighted to jump to the conclusion that the strongest will rule in an anarchy. What in the world are they going to rule? How is the strongest person or group going to manage to take over a community's entire communist-oriented production of all of the essentials in order to force people to obey them? If they succeed, they would either be conquered shortly afterwards by the self-defending masses or the masses would just leave the community and go empower some other anarcho-communism. It is too fluid for any small group to conquer and maintain the conquest once anarchy is established.
Yeah, well let's keep government in place so they can defend your furniture from cigarette burns, even though they already failed because the furniture is already burned.
What makes you think people need to be forced (by capitalism) to provide utilities, medical, food and construction? People want all of that, and they are willing to do what it takes to get it. Once capitalism is dead, people will continue to operate and produce, and it has nothing to do with bartering. Bartering is more like in the market socialism areas of trade, external yet coexisting with anarcho-communism. No one in an anarcho-communism is going to keep tight trading tabs on anyone. It is from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Actually, I think the 2 hour work day is a high estimate. A town near me has 18,000 people. If I do some complicated economic math, I might find that each person would have to do maybe an hour every two weeks for the entire community to have full, unrestricted access to all the means of survival for that community. I will do the math later.
The ruling class is anyone who is free from living under mortgage & rent plus collecting taxes (government), collecting rent, collecting mortgage payments, or sitting at the top tier of a corporation making 400 to 1000 times more than the workers of that business. To clarify who the ruling class is in one lump: they are the people who are living off of other people's need to survive while not producing anything. Not producing anything does include those executives mentioned earlier, because the workers produce, not the executives. Those are the people who are sitting on their asses all day every day.
I think your entire premise is full of shit. Your premise offers nothing more than the sorry world we live in right now, and it's a premise that does not improve. It is doomed.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-16 16:41 ]
-
Clay -You're a geek/wizard. (Just like Jonathan ::heart:: )
Ginger -You're the Ruler :nworthy: (UNTOUCHABLE)
::deal:: JDavid -Your ideas sound good, until you apply them to the world WE live in.
Anon -You hit a nerve! Stop using the word communism out of proper context. Look what you started!!! hehe :smokin:
Me = Howard Cosell/Patricia Arquette/ and a *honey bear bong. :wink:
*See True Romance
-
Well, what is it you think will prohibit it from working in the world we live in? What is it that will prohibit mankind from production once all restrictions are removed? Restrictions are an artificial method of creating scarcity, which is to boost the demand only for the gain of those who placed those restrictions. Those restrictions are what drive people to commit most crimes, because the abundance in order to render such crimes obsolete is not available. The abundance has been hijacked by capitalists.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-16 16:37 ]
-
On 2003-05-16 16:35:00, JDavid wrote:
"Well, what is it you think will prohibit it from working in the world we live in? What is it that will prohibit mankind from production *once all restrictions are removed? Restrictions are an artificial method of creating scarcity, which is to boost the demand only for the gain of those who placed those restrictions. Those restrictions are what drive people to commit most crimes, because the abundance in order to render such crimes obsolete is not available. The abundance has been hijacked by capitalists.
And most likely always will be. I'm not on any political side. (I'm sure that's obvious) I just don't see things changing THAT drastically ever. I do believe in dreaming though.
*When might that be?
-
You say it most likely always will be, but you didn't give a reason you think that. You're giving too much credit to the capitalists. The people who are holding the capitalists in power are the working class. They greatly outnumber the ruling capitalists. The ruling capitalists' numbers are always shrinking while the working and poverty class numbers are always growing. It's only a matter of time before the working class refuses to support them anymore.
On 2003-05-16 16:48:00, Mo wrote:
And most likely always will be. I'm not on any political side. (I'm sure that's obvious) I just don't see things chang*When might that be?
ing THAT drasticly ever. I do believe in dreaming though.
-
On 2003-05-16 16:59:00, JDavid wrote:
"You say it most likely always will be, but you didn't give a reason you think that. You're giving too much credit to the capitalists. The people who are holding the capitalists in power are the working class. They greatly outnumber the ruling capitalists. The ruling capitalists' numbers are always shrinking while the working and poverty class numbers are always growing. It's only a matter of time before the working class refuses to support them anymore.
On 2003-05-16 16:48:00, Mo wrote:
And most likely always will be. I'm not on any political side. (I'm sure that's obvious) I just don't see things chang*When might that be?
ing THAT drasticly ever. I do believe in dreaming though.
"
I just do. I'm not going to debate it. It seems what is realistic, that's all.
-
I think it is extremely unrealistic.
-
On 2003-05-16 16:35:00, JDavid wrote:
"Well, what is it you think will prohibit it from working in the world we live in? What is it that will prohibit mankind from production once all restrictions are removed? Restrictions are an artificial method of creating scarcity, which is to boost the demand only for the gain of those who placed those restrictions. Those restrictions are what drive people to commit most crimes, because the abundance in order to render such crimes obsolete is not available. The abundance has been hijacked by capitalists.
Well, the way our system of government was set up was based on a large body of history and philosophy from the Magna Carta to the experiences of the Iroquois alliance, among other things. The big challenge is to figure a way to throw in some of our resources to address common problems, like restricting thieves from just coming in and taking the harvest, leaving the farmer and his family to starve.
That's not what's going on here today. Today, there's little practical restriction on theft provided one wears a suite and tie and does it in such a way as a good banking lawyer has something to work with. And there's every restriction on making a living. Don't believe me? Just try going into some ordinary business without getting permission and paying licensing fees from the government.
Want to know why goods and services generally suck and are too expensive for a lot of people to afford? No competition in those arenas. As long as you can do what has to be done to keep that official looking license hanging on your wall, nothing else matters very much. Every ounce of effort dedicated to appeasing the gods of regulation :nworthy: is taken away from competing in the fields of quality and price.
Now, under your plan, what's to stop someone from taking your house once you've built it. As a matter of fact, we're having sort of a rough time these days. How about if I pack up my husband, two kids, dog and office and just move right in to your house. You'll just have to scoot over and get used to late night TV because we need the house for awhile. What? It's your house? You don't want to share? I thought not.
"I predict, Sir, that you will die either by hanging or of some vile disease."
"That all depends, sir, upon whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
--Disraeli to Gladstone
-
OK, thanks. I still have a little struggling to do reading that, but it makes a lot more sense now. There was some reason I never got into computer stuff. I love to smash them and put their components in acid for gold recovery purposes, but, not able to read and understand all that other jargon etc...
I would like to know from both sides here how computers would factor into the world of now and the way it will be for eons and eons, and the anarchist one. Would I be able to choose my ISP?
The way the Gumment is now, if you don't do what they say, best watch out, might end up being tried as a terrorist or something. I think that carries the death penalty, but I could be wrong.
MG8 :smokin:
-
On 2003-05-16 17:48:00, JDavid wrote:
"I think it is extremely unrealistic."
I know this. Why not agree to disagree? Sound like a plan to you? :grin:
Have a great weekend everyone.
*kissie* *kissie*
-
But in anarcho-communism we could go out & build two houses in no time together, and not have to live under mortgages for 30 years. It would be too easy to build houses to steal them from other people. That's part of the community. Plus, part of the community will be stockpiling and/or creating building materials in order to do such things.
Now, under your plan, what's to stop someone from taking your house once you've built it. As a matter of fact, we're having sort of a rough time these days. How about if I pack up my husband, two kids, dog and office and just move right in to your house. You'll just have to scoot over and get used to late night TV because we need the house for awhile. What? It's your house? You don't want to share? I thought not.
-
But you are agreeing when you said the ideas are good. ::bangin:: I disagree that you're disagreeing because I think you agree, so we could just agree to agree.
I'm not being serious. I don't really expect anyone to instantly agree with me. Maybe you'll agree months down the road or somethin'. Just saying "sounds good" is good enough for me.
On 2003-05-16 18:47:00, Mo wrote:
I know this. Why not agree to disagree? Sound like a plan to you? :grin:
Have a great weekend everyone.
*kissie* *kissie*"
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-17 09:26 ]
-
On 2003-05-16 20:09:00, JDavid wrote:
"But you are agreeing when you said the ideas are good. ::rainbow:: I love this board. Such diversity yet we are all unified. (and we aren't even gay)har har, get it?
Stay real -
________________________________________________
"Free love messes with my life..." -Bongwater
-
JD, building houses is not that difficult. After all, we've been doing it for thousands of years, we've pretty much got it down. The trouble comes in when the farmer who was planning on using that patch of land, after letting it rest a couple of years, comes back to find you squatting on it or when the hunter goes hungry because all the banging and racket has driven off his prey.
If we're all going to live together in relative peace, we have to have some form of agreement about what you can and can't do with property. The best way we've come up with is to attach ownership to property. If what I do with my land hurts someone downstream, I can be held responsible. It has to be that way or else we have to reduce world population by about 90% in order to avoid conflicts of interest like this.
On the other hand, if we just sit tight and let the maniacal nuke owners do what they will, we might have this problem solved without lifting a finger. Here's to all of us making it out the other end. ::cheers:: You can lead a camel to water but you can't make it stink (any more than it already does)
-- Job
-
::cheers::
-
That's why I say an awareness of the abundance is essential. If someone is squatting on part of the reserved agricultural turf, and you go tell them there is another 1.6 billion acres out there, they will probably feel kinda ridiculous for acting like this particular patch was his last chance at having a place to live. This is especially possible when a neighborhood attempts to solve the problem by actually inviting the nuissance squatter to come on over & build a house with them.
That is true that building houses is not that difficult. So why do you have to spend 30 years paying for it? The answer is: Artificial restrictions which create demand in conjunction with land hording by those who can afford to rapidly develop it and put huge prices on those developments. That needs to end. That is a system which will break probably long before we smash the state unless people just go generation after generation thinking it's ok to have to work your entire life to pay for a place to live. Population does expand, so that is creating even more demand for dwellings (apartments or houses) on top of the artificial demand. How out of reach do things have to get before the masses realize the bourgeoise scam which lies beneath it all?
People can deal with construction problems without official land ownership. It's too easy to steer clear of disputes if people would just try dealing with each other instead of heading off to court like 2nd graders going to tell the teacher.
The biggest land disputes come when a capitalist organization wants to plunk a business down in a residential area. That won't be a problem at all in an anarcho-communism because there is nothing to capitalize on and no reason to capitalize. Plus, the neighborhoods would have much greater power to prohibit it from happening because the courts will not be there to force eminent domain to their preferred customer... the corporation. I have read some eminent domain cases. Those are not "majority rules" cases; they are "the majority of money rules". We need to remove courts from having that kind of preferential power so that the majority can rule again.
Hold people responsible for their actions directly. Land ownership gets in the way of combating destructive behavior (against the community) more than anything.
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-17 21:20 ]
-
The problem I see is that humans are inherently selfish. People generally look out for themselves before they look out for someone else.
I want my acre to be on a bluff over looking a river. Give some other poor sole the acre in the 5 year flood plain. You can have an acre in the desert. I?m not worried about the ?biggest land disputes? I?m worried about the small ones. If you decide to Why do you get to work at the power plant and I have to work at the sewage plant? You go work in the hot sun, picking citrus, while I sit on my butt in an air conditioned room monitoring the power plant. Who decides all this?
-
Here's one I can't even explain:
"virtualized, commoditized IT environment?"
CL
-
Each person decides on their own which area in which they want to produce their part. It is no major issue either because in a town of 18,000 most people will only work maybe one 8 hour day out of an entire month to pull their community duty. If you don't want to study anything, be a sewer worker or do the garbage hauling. Jobs like those will be more swamped with people than the jobs that take more to learn, so that means more people. More people = less hours. To do something complex like become a surgeon, people would only let ya work on them if you have become qualified to do it (and we don't need government-approved qualifications either, the fact that they graduated and their reputation is qualification enough). Those jobs will probably be less saturated, so they'll work more hours. Still, jobs of that level will not require 40+ hour work weeks from each person because surgeons will be busting through schools much more easily once schools are no longer capitalist-exclusive and the students aren't having to work shit jobs to get through their years in school. See the competition doesn't exist in this scenario. There is always more room for more people because more people cuts back on everyone's hours. Everyone can work anywhere they want because it just means cutting back on everyone else's time they have to spend there without damaging people's "income" like it would today. No one needs income living like this, but if they want one, they can get into market socialism.
Being selfish works just fine in anarcho-communism. You have more freedom to be selfish in such a society than you do now. Being selfish feels pretty good in the current system, but I think selfishness would just be really boring in anarcho-communism. People could do that though. It wouldn't harm a thing as long as they weren't intruding on others or stealing. The rulers of today are selfish, they are intruding and they are stealing from others.
If an anarcho community is going to go to the trouble of establishing itself with utilities, agriculture, construction and so on, they aren't going to do it on flood plains. There's plenty of good land to do it on. The people who will live on flood plains will probably be the people who hate society and want to live in exile. There's no reason to live on a flood plain unless you just wanted to for some weird reason.
What does government do to solve "small" land disputes? Nothing that the people couldn't do on their own. Especially if you consider how people will not be clinging to a piece of land for dear life since they never sank any money into it in the first place in anarcho-communism. Without artificial restrictions, the solutions are more fluid.
On 2003-05-19 08:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The problem I see is that humans are inherently selfish. People generally look out for themselves before they look out for someone else.
I want my acre to be on a bluff over looking a river. Give some other poor sole the acre in the 5 year flood plain. You can have an acre in the desert. I?m not worried about the ?biggest land disputes? I?m worried about the small ones. If you decide to Why do you get to work at the power plant and I have to work at the sewage plant? You go work in the hot sun, picking citrus, while I sit on my butt in an air conditioned room monitoring the power plant. Who decides all this?
[ This Message was edited by: JDavid on 2003-05-19 15:30 ]