What would be your idea of a perfect society?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are free to leave that would make them homeless wouldn't it? Will they still be eligible for food if they "choose" not to participate?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very interesting question, and I suppose it depends on where you expect to get the food from.

Do you expect your neighbors to provide it -- without you paying for it and without you being willing to do anything to assist in providing it?

If not that way, then how do you propose to provide it?

In my view, nobody owes you a living. If you're willing to work, you get the benefit of what you help in producing. If you want to sit on your ass and do nothing, then you'd better have a Plan B. What that Plan B is is up to you.

Of course, yes, it still is possible for someone who will not work and who will not pay for food to go hungry. I didn't make that rule, that's just Reality 101.

As far as I can tell, guaranteeing everyone at least a piece of land is a very good starting point for not being forced to labor for someone else.

Secondly, guaranteeing everyone who *does* work that there will be a way for them and their families to get the full benefit of what they produce -- well, I don't see how anyone can honestly object to that, either.

If your fantasy, however, is to sit in your parents' basement and never have to work and spend 20 hours a day posting Murray Rothbard quotes to the internet (all on someone else's dime, of course) ... well, yeah, you might not like my ideal society then. If it matters to you, I don't much like yours, either [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, I think my ideal maximizes people's free choices, minimizes the ability of other people to force people into dependence and deprivation, and offers the best opportunities to the next generation. I think that's a pretty good starter for this discussion.

So far, all anyone else here has been able to do is accuse me of being a communist/subversive/(fill-in-the-blank). Which, although it may rally the rightwingers, is not an actual refutation or counterargument.


q/q

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
You state this:

No rent, no landlords, no homelessness, and the real estate speculators can kiss my ass.

but say you are free to leave.... does that not make you homeless?

[/ QUOTE ]

The deal is simple:

If you are willing to accept a package of civic responsibilities, you get a package of civic benefits in exchange.

You are completely free to decline, in which case you are on your own. Maybe you have a better plan, in which case you're free to pursue it. And if all else fails, you're completely free to leave and find a country that works differently.

What's the problem?

[ QUOTE ]
(by the way... who gets the oceanfront property?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for starters, who's actually working there?

[ QUOTE ]
And you state this:

That's the baseline -- everyone has a home, food for their kids, decent healthcare and a liveable community, and they have some basic civic responsibilities to go with it.

Do I get to eat, get medicine, schools etc if I choose to opt out of Utopia? Or am I just a wandering homeless man who will starve in the streets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again: if you aren't willing to work, and you're not willing to pay for those services, what are you expecting? Free ponies?

If you're willing to take part in providing those services, you get all of them.

It's entirely your choice.


q/q

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]

In my view, nobody owes you a living.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It would start with everyone owning land, by law -- subject to a minimum threshold of public accountability in its use.

No rent, no landlords, no homelessness, and the real estate speculators can kiss my ass.

Beyond that, there would be a basic public service requirement -- determined by what is necessary to maintain the basic health, education and welfare of the community.

That's the baseline -- everyone has a home, food for their kids, decent healthcare and a liveable community, and they have some basic civic responsibilities to go with it.

Beyond that, you can do as much or as little as you like, and your standard of living will rise or fall accordingly.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anybody else's head just asplode?

[AWoodside]

Say I want to sell my state-provided land to Borodog so I can send my kid to Germany to get a cutting-edge cancer treatment only being done in Berlin, am I allowed to do this?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]

It would start with everyone owning land, by law -- subject to a minimum threshold of public accountability in its use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What if I don't want to be a landowner and would rather live with a friend? Are you going to drag me off in chains?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my view, nobody owes you a living.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It would start with everyone owning land, by law -- subject to a minimum threshold of public accountability in its use.

No rent, no landlords, no homelessness, and the real estate speculators can kiss my ass.

Beyond that, there would be a basic public service requirement -- determined by what is necessary to maintain the basic health, education and welfare of the community.

That's the baseline -- everyone has a home, food for their kids, decent healthcare and a liveable community, and they have some basic civic responsibilities to go with it.

Beyond that, you can do as much or as little as you like, and your standard of living will rise or fall accordingly.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anybody else's head just asplode?

[/ QUOTE ]

non-integrated thought FTW

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Say I want to sell my state-provided land to Borodog so I can send my kid to Germany to get a cutting-edge cancer treatment only being done in Berlin, am I allowed to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, great setup.

If I say "yes", then nobody is guaranteed land-ownership, because medical circumstance can force them back into landlessness.

But if I say "no", then I'm denying a child life-saving cancer-treatment.

Either way, I'm an evil man (I'm probably a communist too, apparantly).

Anyway, way to go.

But while we're thinking about this, I'm curious: what do you propose doing about the 43 million Americans who are in this exact same position right now -- except that homelessness and poverty are virtually guaranteed if their kids get that same rare cancer?

(note: my actual solution would be to have full medical education be part of the educational package for my country, so that kids with cancer wouldn't have to go to Germany to get treatment, because great medical care would be available right in their own communities, at no cost).

AFAIC, anyone who is willing and capable of being a doctor should have every chance to become one -- and this is also a matter of public interest. Failure to recognize this is the reason why your hypothetical child has to choose between homelessness and surviving cancer.


q/q

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? What if I don't want to be a landowner and would rather live with a friend? Are you going to drag me off in chains?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not.

It's your choice, it's entirely up to you. I'm just saying that your right to make that choice should be guaranteed. If you change your mind, that choice will still always be there. As long as you're willing to accept the responsibilities that go with it, you will always have land that is yours.


q/q

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? What if I don't want to be a landowner and would rather live with a friend? Are you going to drag me off in chains?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not.

It's your choice, it's entirely up to you. I'm just saying that your right to make that choice should be guaranteed. If you change your mind, that choice will still always be there. As long as you're willing to accept the responsibilities that go with it, you will always have land that is yours.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? What if I don't want to be a landowner and would rather live with a friend? Are you going to drag me off in chains?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not.

It's your choice, it's entirely up to you. I'm just saying that your right to make that choice should be guaranteed. If you change your mind, that choice will still always be there. As long as you're willing to accept the responsibilities that go with it, you will always have land that is yours.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I sell off my land to buy crack, then when I smoke it I change my mind, I get more land?

This plan is flawless!