Libertarian Socialism - I don't understand...

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
You know the best way to avoid hijacks? Not making assertions about a topic that isn't related to the current discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know the best way to make French toast? Beat the eggs thoroughly, and sprinkle with cinnamon before serving.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So your goal is a society where people don't have anything they enjoy; everyone just has a crap apartment, food, and long lines of health care. Sounds like fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your goal is a society where people are left in the dust if they lack appropriate funds; many are without homes, food, or health care. Sounds like fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing that requires anyone to be neglected or left in the dust. Nobody will use force to prevent you from helping those who you feel need and deserve it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Holla. You're an ACer. Congratulations. How does it feel?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I don't know that I'm quite there yet. I'm one of those poor confused souls who haven't yet figured out how AC provides a criminal justice system equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC doesn't provide a criminal justice system. It also does not provide Wiis. It provides nothing. People provide all the stuff.

Chomsky makes the complementary mistake when he talks about the horrors that will appear if AC is "implemented". But AC is not implemented. It is un-implemented.

These are not just semantic nit-picks. It's indicative of a flawed conceptual model of who's doing what. It's the same sort of poor thinking that someone is using when they talk about tax cuts as government spending increases.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

AC doesn't provide a criminal justice system. It also does not provide Wiis. It provides nothing. People provide all the stuff.

Chomsky makes the complementary mistake when he talks about the horrors that will appear if AC is "implemented". But AC is not implemented. It is un-implemented.

These are not just semantic nit-picks. It's indicative of a flawed conceptual model of who's doing what. It's the same sort of poor thinking that someone is using when they talk about tax cuts as government spending increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn-

Excellent post.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


If you assume cheaters exist, it is not advantageous to cheat as everyone will die due to lack of basic goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong from a game thoery standpoint. If you assume there are cheaters you also have to cheat or you will be supporting those cheaters at your expense. Assuming cheaters means you must cheat, lest you are left as the only non cheater (working your ass off and getting little in return). If you assume there are no other cheaters then again you should cheat because the first cheater reaps greater benefits than all subsequent cheaters so everyone has the incentive to cheat.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't think ppl would necessarily die

[/ QUOTE ]

From Thomas DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America", chapter 3 titled The Pilgrims.

The first american settlers arrived in Jamestown in May of 1607. There, in the Virginia Tidewater region, they found incredibly fertile soil and a cornucopia of seafood, wild game such as deer and turkey, and fruits of all kind. Nevertherless, within six months, all but 38 of the original 104 Jamestown settlers were dead, most having succumbed to famine."

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Holla. You're an ACer. Congratulations. How does it feel?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I don't know that I'm quite there yet. I'm one of those poor confused souls who haven't yet figured out how AC provides a criminal justice system equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC doesn't provide a criminal justice system. It also does not provide Wiis. It provides nothing. People provide all the stuff.

Chomsky makes the complementary mistake when he talks about the horrors that will appear if AC is "implemented". But AC is not implemented. It is un-implemented.

These are not just semantic nit-picks. It's indicative of a flawed conceptual model of who's doing what. It's the same sort of poor thinking that someone is using when they talk about tax cuts as government spending increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mea Culpa. I did actually mean to say: "How people in AC provide..." but didn't actually type it and I did already slam Chomsky for saying AC was "implemented" so I do see where you're coming from. Thanks for pointing it out tho, gotta be more careful with my language. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't think ppl would necessarily die

[/ QUOTE ]

From Thomas DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America", chapter 3 titled The Pilgrims.

The first american settlers arrived in Jamestown in May of 1607. There, in the Virginia Tidewater region, they found incredibly fertile soil and a cornucopia of seafood, wild game such as deer and turkey, and fruits of all kind. Nevertherless, within six months, all but 38 of the original 104 Jamestown settlers were dead, most having succumbed to famine."

[/ QUOTE ]

Were the first american settlers in Jamestown in an LS type of system? I was referring to LS when I said I didn't think ppl would necessarily die.

I'm English so I never got taught this stuff. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Propertarian]

WII comment: Marx clearly used the term "needs" in a very broad sense: so broad that he might as well have been saying "preferences" instead.

On Chomsky's politics: I haven't read very much of his stuff.

WII comment: Marx clearly used the term "needs" in a very broad sense: so broad that he might as well have been saying "preferences" instead.

On Chomsky's politics: I haven't read very much of his stuff.

On Libertarian socialism in general: I think extreme libertarian socialism it is as utopian as extreme libertarian capitalism. The more I read about evolution, the more absurd any political theory which has "dramatic change in human conduct and attitude" as a prerequisite appears.

These things can "work" to some degree in very small societies in which everybody interacts with everybody else in the society on a daily basis.

[Osprey]

What happens if you're a player, and have say, 12 kids, but you're not the world's best worker? Your family unit is consuming more than you're producing... Are you subsidized by the collective? How many people can be subsidized by the collective? What happens when you can no longer work; are you supposed to take enough for your future needs when you were working?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you assume cheaters exist, it is not advantageous to cheat as everyone will die due to lack of basic goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think ppl would necessarily die, they would just do enough to ensure their base survival but this would be a very unpleasant situation for all concerned.

Also, if you're teetering on the edge - just having enough for survival, then if something unfortunate happens, eg lack of rain for crops etc then you might indeed all be screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]