The Instigator
Rockylightning
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Gift economy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,302 times Debate No: 13129
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

Rockylightning

Con

My opponent is trying to start a gift economy movement. Please present your complete plan in round 1. I will respond in round two. I did not start this debate for competition, more for understanding and enlightenment. The best of luck!
FREEDO

Pro

=== INTRODUCTION ===

Well, I was a bit confused about how this debate is going to be done or what the point of it actually is. The forums are for casual conversation, not the debates.

Here's what I'm going to do:
The title of the debate is "Gift economy" so I am going to argue in favor of a gift-economy. However, Rockylighting has not explicitly expressed his opposition to a gift-economy so I think it's more proper to call his stance agnostic. As such, he has no burden of proof and does in no way need to disprove nor refute a gift-economy in-order to win. Again, the way this is set up; I am PRO and Rockylightining is Neutral. Competition is almost removed from the debate between the two of us. This means I have the all the burden in this debate to show how a gift-economy could feasibly work. If I fail to make a plausible case for a gift-economy then Rockylighting is the default winner. The way in which I need to make my case is to answer all of Rockylighting's questions, as well as throwing in any other commentary that I may wish to add. These questions may involve how I personally wish to institute a gift-economy.

=== DEFINITION ===

Gift-economy:

A money-less economy which is in contrast to a bartering system. One in which the acquiring of commodities or the using of services does not necessarily depend on simply a back-and-forth exchange between two individuals. Rather, it relies upon an agreement for everyone involved to receive what they want, to an extent, so long as they are putting service of some kind into the system in return. In other words, you may walk into a "shop" and take what you need so long as you have a job yourself which is of service to others and so long as you do not abuse the system, which would result in penalties.

------

Looking forward to this debate. Many thanks to the Instigator.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Con

==Refutations==

"involved to receive what they want, to an extent, so long as they are putting service of some kind into the system in return."

How do you monitor who's contributing? If some guy is making some weird collect able item (such as a wooden bird) then does he get as much free junk as he wants? Who determines whats contributing or not.

"a job yourself" what determines a job. A garbage man is obviously a job, but someone like a TV advertiser salesman, would they get access to this system?

=Clarification=

I would like freedo to clearly provide pros to a system like this and how it would work. Please explain how this system will be implemented, controlled, maintained, etc.

I turn the debate back to Freedo.
FREEDO

Pro

=== RESPONSES ===

//How do you monitor who's contributing?//

Excellent question. There's various ways that could be done.

A gift-economy doesn't have to take place in an Anarchy but that is the kind I advocate. In an Anarchy they would organize a way to do it themselves, so I couldn't really say. One way this could be done is by everyone being accounted for and listed along side their profession(s) so that each time you used a service or tried to take from a shop you would have to be validated.

That may be a good solution for some but, personally, I see that as unnecessary. I would suggest it operate simply upon communication. Staying a secret person and only socializing with people as far as using services and taking from shops would be unbearable for most. So it's inevitable that word will spread when some tries to abuse the system, especially in a society where spreading such information is encouraged. This would become continually easier to achieve in this modern era. Places that are less technological would usually make up for it in how small their local populations are.

Also, in a Anarchist society where things are directly managed by the people, public facilities would tend to be organized in more convenient locations for everyone. When everyone relies more heavily upon locality it would become even harder to avoid detection of abuse.

If the gift-economy were to become large scale or even global then the implementation of an ID system may become more necessary.

Finally, this gift-economy would most likely have to come about after a moral-transformation of society. If this is the case then less wide-spread abuse than today would be a given.

//If some guy is making some weird collect able item (such as a wooden bird) then does he get as much free junk as he wants? Who determines whats contributing or not.//

If it's service to someone then it's contributing. Even being a stay at home parent could be considered as such. Making wooden birds for people who happen to desire that would certainly count, although if that's all they're doing it probably wouldn't be considered enough unless that's about all they're capable of doing due to some physical disadvantage.

The maxim is: From each according their ability to each according to their need.

//A garbage man is obviously a job, but someone like a TV advertiser salesman, would they get access to this system?//

Lol, I don't see why many advertisements would exist in a money-less society. If there was truly need for one then absolutely.

//I would like freedo to clearly provide pros to a system like this and how it would work. Please explain how this system will be implemented, controlled, maintained, etc.//

IMPLEMENTATION:

Here's the tricky part of explaining myself because I clearly come off as insane.

Karl Marx argued that it could only be achieved through the temporary institution of a dictatorship which would eventually dissolve. I STRONGLY disagree. It is my position that such a system can only properly be introduced after a moral transformation of society through grass-roots movements. This will prove to be particularly difficult but I have a plan, however crazy it may seem.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" ~ Mahatma Gandhi

I think this is extremely good advice for this scenario. If I want there to be a gift-economy then I'm going to live as if there is one. If everyone around me were to do the same it would become true, since economic systems exist upon consensus.

What does this mean? It means I must deny the use of money. An incredible task, yes, but I think the shock value incorporated with it will play a large part in popularizing the idea. I shall travel all about and do much service and ask for no money in return. I shall rely on the good-will of others, just like the kind I am giving, for my basic needs. If it's true that my proposed system is completely unfeasible then that will be proven by people letting me starve to death. Call it a hunch, but I don't think that will be the case.

It may also be important to point out that I intend to include Pacifism and civil rights as a large part of my message.

CONTROL/MAINTENANCE:

Depends on what you mean by control. Having any centralized authority directing it is exactly what the movement does not need.
As for how it's going to run without it; just like any other social movement, like the anti-war movement or the animal-rights movement or the environmental movement or any meme in society, it would operate from the bottom up, starting with every individual.
In an Anarchy every individual would be directly involved in the decision making process in everything involving things that effect the way they live and function with society.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Con

"One way this could be done is by everyone being accounted for and listed along side their profession(s) so that each time you used a service or tried to take from a shop you would have to be validated."

How do you monitor who is abusing the system?

"that word will spread when some tries to abuse the system"

Not a reliable way to keep people in check.

"When everyone relies more heavily upon locality it would become even harder to avoid detection of abuse."
Explain

"If it's service to someone then it's contributing."
So I can carve one wooden bird per month...give it away. Then I can have all the food I want.

"I clearly come off as insane."
Every new idea is born drowning.

"If I want there to be a gift-economy then I'm going to live as if there is one. If everyone around me were to do the same it would become true, since economic systems exist upon consensus."
People would simply take advantage of your services. People love free labor.

"Having any centralized authority directing it is exactly what the movement does not need."
Agreed.

Sorry for the delayed response. Back to you!
FREEDO

Pro

=== RESPONSES ===

//How do you monitor who is abusing the system?//

In that method of the system one could not take out of the system without first having their identity validated. Your identity would include the information on whether you are a contributor or not and possibly what specifically you are contributing. There could possibly be several levels of contribution which would each allow you more to take.

//Not a reliable way to keep people in check.//

In a localized system it would be quite easy. Especially in this era of communication technology.

//Explain//

If the system was organized so that an individual station was put in each housing group area for the certain people in that area then it would be easier to keep track of people since they use things locally. It's easier because everybody knows each other and their jobs.

But again, like I said before, this would be in the context of some relatively small commune-like gift-economy popping up somewhere. In a scenario where it was larger, or even global, an identification system may become more necessary. Or it may actually work to keep out abuse some other way that I haven't thought of. The specific way it works isn't set in-stone for an Anarchy, the best solution is collaborated upon by everyone involved. And it doesn't even need to take place in an Anarchy, though that's what I would personally prefer and what would probably be most likely if it did happen.

//So I can carve one wooden bird per month...give it away. Then I can have all the food I want.//

Haha no, most likely not. The amount of contribution which qualifies would have to be decided upon. In an Anarchy it would be collectively collaborated by everyone involved.

//People would simply take advantage of your services. People love free labor.//

It's true that people love free labor. But the human mind has been hard-wired by evolution with Altruistic tendencies. Helping others makes us happy. This is precisely why I'll go through with this; it makes me happy and other people will find happiness in helping me. [1,2,3,4,5]

I don't think we should live in a system where our own success often depends upon the demise of others.

===ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT ===

The implementation and sustainment of a gift-economy has succeeded before:

It is called the Spanish Revolution.

Here are a few words from the French Anarchist historian Gaston Leval who was an active participant in the Spanish Anarchist Revolution:

"In Spain during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties (republicans, left and right Catalan separatists, socialists, Communists, Basque and Valencian regionalists, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganized and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high salaried managers, or the authority of the state.
Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They coordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity...
This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other."
[6]

This bold new system of the Spanish Revolution was wildly successful until stamped out by much larger enemy forces.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://www.psychologytoday.com...

2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...

3. http://happinessblog.com...

4. http://www.livescience.com...

5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Rockylightning

Con

Sorry for the delayed response.

\\\Your identity would include the information on whether you are a contributor or not and possibly what specifically you are contributing. There could possibly be several levels of contribution which would each allow you more to take.\\
Its basically simplified currency then. If you are granted a certain amount of "Take" value for a certain amount of "give" value, it's basically a dumbed down version of currency.

\\In a localized system it would be quite easy. Especially in this era of communication technology\
Who would monitor it? A government?

\\If the system was organized so that an individual station was put in each housing group area for the certain people in that area then it would be easier to keep track of people since they use things locally. It's easier because everybody knows each other and their jobs.\
Good explanation.
We dictate to people what jobs they are given and we tell them where to work?

\\The amount of contribution which qualifies would have to be decided upon. In an Anarchy it would be collectively collaborated by everyone involved.\
But what if carving wooden birds is the only thing you know how to do? Would you be sentenced to starvation?

\\It's true that people love free labor. But the human mind has been hard-wired by evolution with Altruistic tendencies. Helping others makes us happy. This is precisely why I'll go through with this; it makes me happy and other people will find happiness in helping me. [1,2,3,4,5]\
Best of luck.

\\Spanish revolution\
The moral of the story is that the people were crushed. They had no means of defending themselves. Please address this.

VOTERS NOTE:
I have no sources because my position is purely rebuttal.

Thank you for this debate and now to the rebuttal!
FREEDO

Pro

FREEDO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
twas
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
This was a terrible debate.
Posted by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
you won this? sht
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
I'll take you up on this, Freedo. Shall I send you the challenge or would you like to initiate?
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
no problem.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
I'm so sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the timer.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
darn
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
interesting
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Sorry, I've been busy. I'll try hard to get it tonight.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
please don't forfeit
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
RockylightningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
RockylightningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
RockylightningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
RockylightningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
RockylightningFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12