|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 10, 2007 13:36:23 GMT -5
Well if ownership = control, then the state really is de facto owner of everything. That responsibility is needed to look after things and make them work over and above "ownership" leads me to believe that it's not a needed part of capitalism at all, or nothing like as relevent as important as usually thought. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_MassacreA capitalist is someone who wants to pay you less that you are worth to them so they themselves can keep the difference. The reason they can do this is because of the state. I never said anything about violence on the part of the other party. Me too. I suspect the figure is close to 100% of the population. That being the case, why not have a system in place that steals from everyone and saves the effort? The same goes for welfare payments. Why not give the immoral a little to save the effort of having to replace your household goods once a month? Not at all. I think it shines a light on the ones we have though. See comments about welfare/healthcare provision above. |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 10, 2007 14:25:01 GMT -5
Me too. I suspect the figure is close to 100% of the population. That being the case, why not have a system in place that steals from everyone and saves the effort?But isn't capitalism/land property just that system?!  ie "steals from everyone"... where everyone is every one is each and any individual considered as a whole &/or equals at the proverbial negotiating table (every and any where)? Me feels the point of this thread (or a severely critical and crucial one) is just here. Where does any 'one' (and then any/every "other" that agrees with that one) get the honorable authority to claim (en)title(ment) to land as privately exclusive, beyond the necessity (biological) aspects of life? [where by biological aspect one might see a "mere" extension of the biological body, the only truly natural/empirical-based exclusive property, and as an extension, very flexible?] How is it to be settled-- ie by what heir-authority-- whether those claiming land title/property are different than those claiming authority as settled elsewhere, say as The State? Where then-- of course-- the "defense" of said claim is not seen as (claimed not?) to be "violence", but... well, "defense, obviously! Duh!" So is it "defense" based upon first come, first claimed (the "as far as the eye can see-- or imagine factor)? Or is it "defense" based upon might (including majority) makes right? Or is it "defense" based upon equitable interest consideration? Or is it "defense" based upon investment? Or is it "defense" based upon [fill in the blank]? In other words, what if the theft of land is in (or goes back to) the very claim of property legal/title (as Paine, Proudhon, and others see it particularly with land)? What if that is the "stealing from everyone"? |
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 10, 2007 14:34:56 GMT -5
Note too, that relative to the "exclusive" claim is the fact that any "one" (individual) does not have land to claim (theoretical at birth, literally at "age"), a condition created by the "monopoly" of land owners, either literally or theoretical availability (Kings/Government backed claims/"territories"), past and present. [the created scarcity factor plus the beyond-necessity claim]
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 10, 2007 14:36:39 GMT -5
I would suggest considering the idea that it is your vision which is the problem. And by that I mean the vision that we are dealing with a static condition. If we instead view all of life as a process, a dynamic thing, then all of the questions above are not such a big issue.
Please try and give a look-see to things with this view in mind and see if it looks any different. I'm still not saying that I have a panacea, a "solution," for that too would be a static view. I think "the answer" is that there is not one, that there never can be one, because the questions are always in flux, and therefore the idea of a fairly-well-agreed-upon process of conflict resolution may achieve the highest level of success.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 10, 2007 14:42:10 GMT -5
Yeah, pretty much. I read somewhere recently what I thought was a very good point - that the original builders of our "system" i.e. the men and women with the ability, time, energy and power to build it by right* are long since gone.
The "system" is now run by the umpteenth generation of those people's descendants i.e. people who in a world without hereditary property rights wouldn't be allowed within a million miles of the responsibilities/powers they currently hold and have. Pretty much all the current crop of "elites" can manage to do is hold onto what they have and keep everything as near stasis as possible.
(I think I should point out I am not advocating any such system here, just checking some ideas out.)
Carnegie held that property shouldn't be passed onto children. I am coming to agree with him.
I also agree with the "defense" line of reasoning. That's why I think a heirarchy of values might be a better way to go about things. i.e. a human life is more important than property always or some such.
*i.e. The early industrialists, who built everything out of thin air for the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 10, 2007 14:52:47 GMT -5
How is law-- the laymen version-- that is not enforceable by aggressive violence any different from said "fairly-well-agreed-upon process"? (am I in real trouble if I can't even see this difference?!  ) For example, my post about defining "stealing"; we have (as we have to have) a static, basic definition for general agreement but it is open to personal consideration aka processing in each case. The definition is written (as law) but apart from using violence its naturally a process in any and every specific case, no? The process is in considering not only the valuable law (again, definitions being an example of law) but the facts of each matter specific, where the facts are always process aka personal/unique? I dunno, its almost as if the process aspect is simply inherent if its first "simply" agreed to never resort to violence? |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 10, 2007 14:54:04 GMT -5
I have to strongly disagree with your theory. The point I disagree with is the apparent view that it was all done in the past and passed down to incompetents who are now screwing things up and taking advantage of something they did not build.
If you really examine the nature of a free society (I will leave the loaded word "capitalist" out of it for the moment, as to me it simply means that you are free to act as you wish with your property), what you will find is that instead of there being a ruling class and a peon class, you have some people who rise from nothing to do great things and others who start off with a lot and proceed to squander it all and end up at or near the bottom. There is always a top and a bottom, but what is often not seen is that there is a constant migration of individuals from one to the other. It is not static.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 10, 2007 15:10:40 GMT -5
Oh I am not laying incompetence at their door. They are competent as you or I would be in the same situation. They just aren't the same caliber as their forebears. Most men and women could maintain an empire with training*, few can just pop one into existence from nothing.
That's one of the things about people - what one man can do, another can do. (Except for a very few talented folks who outstrip others through the odd alchemy of social circumstance, genetics, place in history etc.)
That you have a system where peons rise to become masters and masters fall to be peons doesn't alter my basic premise. In order to become "master" you have to think like "master", in the same way that women have to think like men to hold male positions.
And of course, this is an economic and/or political top and bottom. From say, an evolutionary perspective, for instance, people on welfare with half a dozen kids are actually winning over childless billionaires.....
*After all, as abhorrent as caste systems are, they still work after a fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Apr 10, 2007 15:19:42 GMT -5
One problem I have with the "owners look after things better than non-owners" argument is that those in "the state" think they own everyone/everything and they don't do such a good job. I wasn't talking about owning other people through the use of violent control. It was not my intent to blurr the distinction between people and objects which I must have done as implied by your response. The point is that very few, when there is a choice, choose to live in squalor. When one has an interest in some-thing they generally care for it far better than if they have no responsibility or interest in it. I agree with you the people DBA government think they own everything but they have no real responsibility nor interest in that ownership other than what can be taken from productive people through the least effort . . . in 2 words slavery and violence. In effect tragedy of the commons where "citizens" are the commons to exploit. Authority without responsibility or accountability. That is what exists today. That is why I myself could not dream of being in such a position. Few limits on power over others with little to no responsibility or accountability. I'd make Satan look like a pussy cat as would probably anyone else given that temptation. For current reference see the mass murder going on in the Middle east. The system in place assures this and those who are power hungry will naturally gravitate toward it and you get what we have plain and simple. For some reason those in power have been able to portray the image that they deserve respect. If you read The law of the Somalis you will find that there the image is opposite. Those that make bad decisions because of the want of power are never again asked or placed into a position of power. The system in fact discourages what the western world systems encourage. I don't know every detail behind the story of Rockefeller but from what I do know I don't doubt this. The problem with this analogy is that he could only do this because he worked closely with the government that enables this behavior. Examine the bucket, it is full of holes. Yes we could, and Maslow describes human motivation well. When one is worried about day to day survival where the next meal will come from, one has little else on the mind such as safety and security. When you're not worried about the next meal, but live in a war zone with bullets and bombs, there's little time to worry about friendship and/or sexual intimacy. etc etc. If we look to the major religious texts like Koran, Christian Bible, Torah, one will find how they have been used by rulers to dominate the people. They all talk about stealing, but also the poor. It suits the needs of rulers to talk about theft and how it is wrong but as with all things they fail to promote something all 3 texts agree upon. That if the poor who have no means of feeding themselves come into your field and eat of the bounty of nature to their fill it is not theft, for everyone has a basic will or "right" (if you will), to live. This is not considered theft. If they bring baskets to take that bounty and deny you a harvest then it is. Is it theft for someone to come eat of my garden I worked so hard to tend. No. If they ask I may even give them more than their fill or offer them a job so they no longer have to worry. 1. No, do you think so? 2&3 are asking the same thing only worded differently, here's my response to both. There are always alternatives if one puts their mind to it, but in the overview of the texts I gave is it really stealing? Under our current govern-mental system it would likely be considered theft; however, I see no problem so long as violence is not used against another human being. i.e. To take from your neighbor when you know that he only has 1 tomato and that is his only food for his family because he's not in any better situation than you, is wrong, but if you go to a river or stream and catch a fish with out a license where's the problem? 3. See #2. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 10, 2007 15:22:51 GMT -5
You twisted what I said. I did NOT say "masters." I said on top. By top, I meant successful. A top pianist is not in control, she is there because others have given her the respect that creates that position.
I do NOT agree that all people are the same, "what one man can do, another can do." I think that is totally false. No two people are alike, in ability, in desire, in willingness, in perseverance, in vision and so on. It is not a matter of training, circumstance or place in history, either. Those things are the "luck in the draw," but unless you have the requisite other factors, what is an opportunity to one is a hindrance to another.
There I just proved what an ass I am. I've given a long speech, a diatribe. Rather than leading you I've bludgeoned you. Oh well. I may learn. Or maybe not.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 10, 2007 15:40:52 GMT -5
BINGO! My whole position is a false choice leading to the conclusion I wanted to get to. (Or was aiming for, anyway.) My apologies. I never said that. I said what one man can do, another can do. Every able bodied human being can play basketball. (As an example.) Plenty of less than able bodied humans can also play basketball. Most able bodied and minded humans could be president, given the right training. How able they might be as players is another issue. No worries.  And don't be silly, you are not an ass. That's my job. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tharrin on Apr 11, 2007 11:51:18 GMT -5
What still hasn't been cleared up for me is what do you do about the people who lean toward dominating others, in your voluntary (peaceful conflict resolution) society?
I know that I or a group of me's are not going to alter the opinions of everyone on the face of the earth. So after you have made your peaceful, voluntary agreements, what, pray tell, do you do about those that don't give a rat's patoot about your society or its rules; for that matter can your society even have rules? If so, who is going to enforce them? If you have enforcers; you are going to have to have litigators of some fashion and then you will need the enforcers to force both parties to comply with the litigators decision.
Guess what? We will have exactly what we have now in another or similar form. There is going to have to be a shift in our collective paradigm to move away from the ownership model to get to where you say you want to be. A voluntary society cannot operate in the same way the present system does or it will become that system or worse.
If you are forcing people off the land because agreements between two parties states they own that land are those people being forced off the land doing it voluntarily?
The ownership model creates only two classes of people. Owners and those that do not own. The owners have the legal (or litigated right) to exclusivity to that piece of land.
How do you get non-owning people to voluntarily walk into the sea so you and the rest of the voluntary owners can have exclusive control of any land?
You truly have not explained how your voluntary society works while incorporating the concept called ownership.
I can go along with what Eye said about owning your usable things but even that can end up in disaster. I purchased my CD's but the content is owned by someone else. So I am already limited to the use of those CD's, involuntarily.
I stick with the theory nobody owns anything and what you possess; you do so by controlling the location of those things until such time as they move out of your control.
Does it mean I am going to come to the place you live and take your possessed items; no because I respect the fact you live there and that is what limits me. I voluntarily choose not to cross the threshold of the place you inhabit and take things in your possession. Is that not an honorable thing? Is that not a respectful way to deal with you?
Further more, if I am in a position that is better than yours, should I not help you (voluntarily) to survive? It is a behavior you have seen countless times during disasters, where people are helping people they don't even know voluntarily and based on their ability at the time.
Only when control in some form gets into the mix do we start treating each other like dirt. The present system uses laws to not only force people to respect our wishes but also to show them they are in an inferior position to ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 11, 2007 12:17:11 GMT -5
Tharrin,
I basically see that there can be two ways of dealing with each other: voluntarily or by force. I choose to act with respect and that means voluntarily.
Naturally there are those who do not operate that way. There always have been and there always will be. So are you suggesting that just because some people use force then I should not act respectfully and voluntarily with people? Am I to treat all people with the lowest common denominator? I choose not to look at the world this way.
But when I am faced with a threat then I must choose how to respond. I may choose to defend myself. I may choose to just let it go for several reasons. The choice is mine to make.
You say, "A voluntary society cannot operate in the same way the present system does or it will become that system or worse."
Tharrin, I cannot make sense of this statement. A voluntary system will be different, so OBVIOUSLY it cannot be the same. It must be worse? How do you figure? It will be worse to treat others with respect than to treat them with force? I simply do not follow.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Apr 11, 2007 16:16:45 GMT -5
wow Marc, i'm just finding out this particular show (1/27/07) had surfaced.
U hit the nail on the head and sparked it with trying not to degrade anyone when U said that many of the jury really don't know what's going on and are really just waiting for their jury duty to end so that they can go home. So, if a jury person is not on the same level with even vaguely understanding the chatter speech of the lawyers and judge, how does this become a jury of your peers?
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 11, 2007 16:47:17 GMT -5
"... but something is happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" - Robert Zimmerman
|
|
)
And don't be silly, you are not an ass. That's my job. ;D