Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A New Way to Do Things

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

A fundamental thing to understand about this new economics is that it turns jobs into commodities.

For jobs that everybody wants, people may actually pay to have. For some jobs there would be no, or very little, money transaction for the worker. For jobs that nobody wants, people would be payed to do them.

Nobody hires you to do them. Not an individual authority, nor a collective one. It transcends this. There is no authority, no organizer, it is spontaneous order.

People do jobs because they want to do them, not because they have to.

They don't have to because everything they need to survive is already accounted for.

They want to because they either like to try the job, since it's interesting or because they get paid.

It's important to note that this system still incorporates money, it is not a resource economy, even though it is just as radical.
Not everything is free, that causes clear problems.

If you wish to gain more, than you do one of those paying jobs. Anyone of them you feel like at the moment.

It's the abolition of work.

You'll never work a day in your life if you love what you do.

This system gives you the freedom to make sure you always do what you love.

Now rip me to pieces, please.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 11:41:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 11:37:54 AM, badger wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Now rip me to pieces, please.

can't, it's genius.

10/10
President of DDO
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 11:45:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

HA HA HA HA HA!

*SCOFF*
kfc
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 12:02:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

And how everyone is going to agree to be nice and cordial without a gun barrel staring them down.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 12:39:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are you finally going to debate me on this? We better do it quick before you change your mind again and decide to become an anarcho primitivist or something.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 12:46:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.


One that works?

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

Who allocates the resources? Who solves interpersonal dispute, how is punishment meted out when bob the builder decides to become a surgeon.


CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Oh... so not anarchy then.


Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

So some people would be richer than others, thus creating a hierachy?


A fundamental thing to understand about this new economics is that it turns jobs into commodities.

For jobs that everybody wants, people may actually pay to have. For some jobs there would be no, or very little, money transaction for the worker. For jobs that nobody wants, people would be payed to do them.

Nobody hires you to do them. Not an individual authority, nor a collective one. It transcends this. There is no authority, no organizer, it is spontaneous order.

People do jobs because they want to do them, not because they have to.

They don't have to because everything they need to survive is already accounted for.

They want to because they either like to try the job, since it's interesting or because they get paid.

It's important to note that this system still incorporates money, it is not a resource economy, even though it is just as radical.
Not everything is free, that causes clear problems.

If you wish to gain more, than you do one of those paying jobs. Anyone of them you feel like at the moment.

It's the abolition of work.

You'll never work a day in your life if you love what you do.

This system gives you the freedom to make sure you always do what you love.

Now rip me to pieces, please.

It's brilliant... no wait... it's absurd... well its one of them... either way its not anarchy!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:03:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

They don't have everything provided for them. They have basic needs provided for. Isn't that what you're for too? And it's not Marxism because it's not authoritative and there's plenty of individual ownership.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:03:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 12:02:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

And how everyone is going to agree to be nice and cordial without a gun barrel staring them down.

Intelligent criticisms only, please.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:04:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:03:58 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 12:02:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

And how everyone is going to agree to be nice and cordial without a gun barrel staring them down.

Intelligent criticisms only, please.

If you're joking, I apologize.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:05:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 12:39:37 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Are you finally going to debate me on this? We better do it quick before you change your mind again and decide to become an anarcho primitivist or something.

I have a long list of debates I need to do with people. I'll get to you eventually. :)
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:10:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:03:21 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

They don't have everything provided for them. They have basic needs provided for. Isn't that what you're for too? And it's not Marxism because it's not authoritative and there's plenty of individual ownership.

Marxism isn't authoritarian. Haven't you read Marx? He says the state will "wither away". It has just never gotten to that point.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:11:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 12:46:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.


One that works?

I have no clue.
I entwine no faith in politics nor anything else.
By theory it should work though.
It should be tried at least.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

Who allocates the resources? Who solves interpersonal dispute, how is punishment meted out when bob the builder decides to become a surgeon.

The commune does. Just like a government does now. An Panarchist commune is the same exact thing as a government except it is entered into by voluntary contract.


CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Oh... so not anarchy then.

No force or coercion is exhorted here.


Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

So some people would be richer than others, thus creating a hierachy?

People being richer than others does not mean they are higher in hierarchy.
It's only that money and more primarily ownership of property can be coordinated in such a way to place them higher in hierarchy. Which this abolishes. I may argue to a much higher degree than any other branch of supposed anarchy.


A fundamental thing to understand about this new economics is that it turns jobs into commodities.

For jobs that everybody wants, people may actually pay to have. For some jobs there would be no, or very little, money transaction for the worker. For jobs that nobody wants, people would be payed to do them.

Nobody hires you to do them. Not an individual authority, nor a collective one. It transcends this. There is no authority, no organizer, it is spontaneous order.

People do jobs because they want to do them, not because they have to.

They don't have to because everything they need to survive is already accounted for.

They want to because they either like to try the job, since it's interesting or because they get paid.

It's important to note that this system still incorporates money, it is not a resource economy, even though it is just as radical.
Not everything is free, that causes clear problems.

If you wish to gain more, than you do one of those paying jobs. Anyone of them you feel like at the moment.

It's the abolition of work.

You'll never work a day in your life if you love what you do.

This system gives you the freedom to make sure you always do what you love.

Now rip me to pieces, please.

It's brilliant... no wait... it's absurd... well its one of them... either way its not anarchy!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:14:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:10:23 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:03:21 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

They don't have everything provided for them. They have basic needs provided for. Isn't that what you're for too? And it's not Marxism because it's not authoritative and there's plenty of individual ownership.

Marxism isn't authoritarian. Haven't you read Marx? He says the state will "wither away". It has just never gotten to that point.

I have read much of Marx and Engels. They propose a dictatorship of the proletariat as a step to eventually reach true Communism. I personally hate Marx as a political philosopher. He was sworn enemies with Mikhail Bakunin, who was an Anarcho-Communist, and one of my biggest heroes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:16:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:14:58 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:10:23 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:03:21 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 11:59:38 AM, Volkov wrote:
Brilliant, Freedo.

Now just explain how everyone has everything already provided for them, and how this isn't utopian Marxism.

They don't have everything provided for them. They have basic needs provided for. Isn't that what you're for too? And it's not Marxism because it's not authoritative and there's plenty of individual ownership.

Marxism isn't authoritarian. Haven't you read Marx? He says the state will "wither away". It has just never gotten to that point.

I have read much of Marx and Engels. They propose a dictatorship of the proletariat as a step to eventually reach true Communism. I personally hate Marx as a political philosopher. He was sworn enemies with Mikhail Bakunin, who was an Anarcho-Communist, and one of my biggest heroes.

All Dictatorship of the proletariat really means is that the proletariat will exercise political power and make decisions rather than the bourgeoisie.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:18:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:11:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 12:46:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.


One that works?

I have no clue.
I entwine no faith in politics nor anything else.
By theory it should work though.
It should be tried at least.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

Who allocates the resources? Who solves interpersonal dispute, how is punishment meted out when bob the builder decides to become a surgeon.

The commune does. Just like a government does now. An Panarchist commune is the same exact thing as a government except it is entered into by voluntary contract.

If someone has the authority to do this it gives them power over people.



CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Oh... so not anarchy then.

No force or coercion is exhorted here.

So if I don't want a license I dont have to get one, and I can still be a gynacologist?



Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

So some people would be richer than others, thus creating a hierachy?

People being richer than others does not mean they are higher in hierarchy.
It's only that money and more primarily ownership of property can be coordinated in such a way to place them higher in hierarchy. Which this abolishes. I may argue to a much higher degree than any other branch of supposed anarchy.

Any sort of economic imbalance can I will be used to create a social imbalance.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:23:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:18:21 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:11:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 12:46:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.


One that works?

I have no clue.
I entwine no faith in politics nor anything else.
By theory it should work though.
It should be tried at least.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

Who allocates the resources? Who solves interpersonal dispute, how is punishment meted out when bob the builder decides to become a surgeon.

The commune does. Just like a government does now. An Panarchist commune is the same exact thing as a government except it is entered into by voluntary contract.

If someone has the authority to do this it gives them power over people.

No, people only have authority over themselves. The abolition of authority is not the abolition of organization.



CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Oh... so not anarchy then.

No force or coercion is exhorted here.

So if I don't want a license I dont have to get one, and I can still be a gynacologist?

Yes absolutely. But join a different commune. This one is shaped around being practical and issuing licenses for specific jobs.



Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

So some people would be richer than others, thus creating a hierachy?

People being richer than others does not mean they are higher in hierarchy.
It's only that money and more primarily ownership of property can be coordinated in such a way to place them higher in hierarchy. Which this abolishes. I may argue to a much higher degree than any other branch of supposed anarchy.

Any sort of economic imbalance can I will be used to create a social imbalance.

Well aren't you just the expert on Anarchism. No, more money for luxury as opposed to survival does not cause hierarchy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:26:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:03:21 AM, FREEDO wrote:
They don't have everything provided for them. They have basic needs provided for. Isn't that what you're for too? And it's not Marxism because it's not authoritative and there's plenty of individual ownership.

What I am for =/= what you're for.

I work within the bounds of "equality of opportunity." You, like Marxists and socialists and etc., work within the bounds of "equality of outcome." Two different justifications and two different routes.

And Marxism is not meant, in the end, to be authoritarian. And how can you have individual ownership or property when everyone can do everything and anything they want or think they should do?

You know what... it's almost Zeitgeistian.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:34:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:14:58 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I personally hate Marx as a political philosopher. He was sworn enemies with Mikhail Bakunin, who was an Anarcho-Communist, and one of my biggest heroes.

You hate Marx because your hero didn't like Marx. What great logical reason to oppose Marx!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:34:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:23:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:18:21 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:11:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 12:46:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.


One that works?

I have no clue.
I entwine no faith in politics nor anything else.
By theory it should work though.
It should be tried at least.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

Who allocates the resources? Who solves interpersonal dispute, how is punishment meted out when bob the builder decides to become a surgeon.

The commune does. Just like a government does now. An Panarchist commune is the same exact thing as a government except it is entered into by voluntary contract.

If someone has the authority to do this it gives them power over people.

No, people only have authority over themselves. The abolition of authority is not the abolition of organization.

The organisation you are suggesting requires authority. Who is held accountable if someone does not get their share, what if someone claims that someone else accidentally or fraudulently got a double share?




CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Oh... so not anarchy then.

No force or coercion is exhorted here.

So if I don't want a license I dont have to get one, and I can still be a gynacologist?

Yes absolutely. But join a different commune. This one is shaped around being practical and issuing licenses for specific jobs.

And if I refuse to leave?

Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

So some people would be richer than others, thus creating a hierachy?

People being richer than others does not mean they are higher in hierarchy.
It's only that money and more primarily ownership of property can be coordinated in such a way to place them higher in hierarchy. Which this abolishes. I may argue to a much higher degree than any other branch of supposed anarchy.

Any sort of economic imbalance can I will be used to create a social imbalance.

Well aren't you just the expert on Anarchism. No, more money for luxury as opposed to survival does not cause hierarchy.

Wait, but money/resources are to assigned based on the value of the occupation right... okay... so if money/resources can be transferred.... well there you go.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:37:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:26:40 AM, Volkov wrote:
You know what... it's almost Zeitgeistian.

Not really. Zeitgeist abolishes the monetary system.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:38:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:37:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Not really. Zeitgeist abolishes the monetary system.

I guarantee Freedo's system does the same in some way.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:42:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:38:58 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:37:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Not really. Zeitgeist abolishes the monetary system.

I guarantee Freedo's system does the same in some way.

Freedo: "It's important to note that this system still incorporates money, it is not a resource economy"
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:43:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:42:49 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Freedo: "It's important to note that this system still incorporates money, it is not a resource economy"

Hm, good point. But, I dare you to ask him whether "money" really means the same thing as it does now, mainly capital.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:49:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:34:40 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:23:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:18:21 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:11:22 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/18/2010 12:46:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:56:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
An Entirely New Branch of Anarchy.


One that works?

I have no clue.
I entwine no faith in politics nor anything else.
By theory it should work though.
It should be tried at least.

Yes, I thought of this.

Yes, I am prepared to be laughed and scoffed at.

I had been thinking of this for quite awhile but haven't really embraced it until this point because it seems too radical to work.
"This point" being right now while I'm typing this thread.

Anarchy is the abolition of hierarchy.

There have been many who think they know what that means.

Some claim simply getting rid of government achieves that.

Others claim that we must also decentralize power in the work-place in the form of direct-democracy to abolish hierarchy.

I started with the former and evolved into the latter.

But now I'm not sure whether either of them are adequate for abolishing hierarchy.

So the random thought came to me one day:
"What if everyone could work wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and they all did it for free."

Who allocates the resources? Who solves interpersonal dispute, how is punishment meted out when bob the builder decides to become a surgeon.

The commune does. Just like a government does now. An Panarchist commune is the same exact thing as a government except it is entered into by voluntary contract.

If someone has the authority to do this it gives them power over people.

No, people only have authority over themselves. The abolition of authority is not the abolition of organization.

The organisation you are suggesting requires authority. Who is held accountable if someone does not get their share, what if someone claims that someone else accidentally or fraudulently got a double share?

No, it does not. The system only "enforces" things to the extant that you agreed upon the system by contract to begin with. You really don't understand Panarchy.





CRAAAZYY RIGHT?!!

It's needless to say baffling to imagine. But I tried nonetheless.

The original statement doesn't describe the complete idea I have now. Indeed, there are ticks that had to be worked out.

Firstly, it's not absolutely any job. Some require certain talent. So licenses would be needed for some.

Oh... so not anarchy then.

No force or coercion is exhorted here.

So if I don't want a license I dont have to get one, and I can still be a gynacologist?

Yes absolutely. But join a different commune. This one is shaped around being practical and issuing licenses for specific jobs.

And if I refuse to leave?

Refuse what? lol

Secondly, it isn't all for free. This is a complete redefining of economics. A new means of deciding pay would be in order. Pay would be apportioned solely according to how low the demand is for the job.

So some people would be richer than others, thus creating a hierachy?

People being richer than others does not mean they are higher in hierarchy.
It's only that money and more primarily ownership of property can be coordinated in such a way to place them higher in hierarchy. Which this abolishes. I may argue to a much higher degree than any other branch of supposed anarchy.

Any sort of economic imbalance can I will be used to create a social imbalance.

Well aren't you just the expert on Anarchism. No, more money for luxury as opposed to survival does not cause hierarchy.

Wait, but money/resources are to assigned based on the value of the occupation right... okay... so if money/resources can be transferred.... well there you go.

I don't get what you're saying here.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2010 12:49:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2010 12:34:02 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/19/2010 12:14:58 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I personally hate Marx as a political philosopher. He was sworn enemies with Mikhail Bakunin, who was an Anarcho-Communist, and one of my biggest heroes.

You hate Marx because your hero didn't like Marx. What great logical reason to oppose Marx!

Correlation=/=Cause
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord