Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minarcho-Socialism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:58:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes, you knew it would happen again sooner or later and I have no doubt in my mind that it will happen again. I have officially changed my political stance to Minarcho-Socialism.

Minarcho-Socialism:

A minimal government in place that does only two things which are enforce a certain property model and insure that nobody initiates force against another based, in-part, by this model.
The only difference Minarcho-Socialism has from conventional Minarchism, be it a large one, is that it does not enforce a Capitalistic property model(individual ownership) but a Socialistic one(public ownership of the means of production).

Now one thing you might say, in some desperate attempt to assure me "Minarcho-Socialism" is an oxy-moron, is that a Minarchy does not enforce Capitalism, just voluntary exchange. No one is forcing people to have individually owned production means. This is correct but it is also correct that Minarcho-Socialism does not force people to have publicly owned production means. Rather, what they both do is enforce a certain model to have as a BASE. In conventional Minarchy everyone starts out with individual ownership and can then change from there if they please. In a Minarcho-Socialist society it starts out with a publicly owned means of production but can be changed if the people so voted(directly). They naturally have a tendency to stay very close to the base.

Now if you may, tear me to pieces and burn me alive. Thank you.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:00:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Any bets on how long until he espouses dictatorship of the proletariat? He's already announced that he is supportive of at least a minarchist government - that is a big, big step.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:01:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, how can a minarchist government be minarchist if it has the large role that it does, voluntary though it may be?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:04:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:01:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
Also, how can a minarchist government be minarchist if it has the large role that it does, voluntary though it may be?

It's the same as classical Minarchy except the means of production have a base of shared ownership.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:04:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:00:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
Any bets on how long until he espouses dictatorship of the proletariat? He's already announced that he is supportive of at least a minarchist government - that is a big, big step.

I'm pretty sure he already supports the idea of Dictatorship of the proletariat, just in a minarchist form. :P
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:04:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:58:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Yes, you knew it would happen again sooner or later and I have no doubt in my mind that it will happen again. I have officially changed my political stance to Minarcho-Socialism.

Minarcho-Socialism:

A minimal government in place that does only two things which are enforce a certain property model and insure that nobody initiates force against another based, in-part, by this model.
The only difference Minarcho-Socialism has from conventional Minarchism, be it a large one, is that it does not enforce a Capitalistic property model(individual ownership) but a Socialistic one(public ownership of the means of production).

So you're forcing a system of public ownership *coughVarious CommunistLeadersE.G.PolPotStalinLeninCough*


Now one thing you might say, in some desperate attempt to assure me "Minarcho-Socialism" is an oxy-moron, is that a Minarchy does not enforce Capitalism, just voluntary exchange. No one is forcing people to have individually owned production means. This is correct but it is also correct that Minarcho-Socialism does not force people to have publicly owned production means. Rather, what they both do is enforce a certain model to have as a BASE. In conventional Minarchy everyone starts out with individual ownership and can then change from there if they please. In a Minarcho-Socialist society it starts out with a publicly owned means of production but can be changed if the people so voted(directly). They naturally have a tendency to stay very close to the base.

If EVERYONE voters for private means, and then amalgamate and form a company, then the whole system has gone and f*cked itself hasn't it? You're then back to square one. Unless you intend to enforce a system of this not happening.

Also, define public ownership. And how are you paying for the protection required to make sure people don't hurt each other? Do you intend to seize private property and turn it into public property?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:05:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:01:43 PM, Volkov wrote:
Also, how can a minarchist government be minarchist if it has the large role that it does, voluntary though it may be?

Sho nuff. If "the public" can just vote to change the entire foundation of economics within the social structure - and the government has the power to make it happen - you can't honestly call it minarchy.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:05:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:04:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's the same as classical Minarchy except the means of production have a base of shared ownership.

But is that shared ownership not regulated and, I don't wan to say "enforced" but there it is, by the government? Does this not increase the scope of government power beyond what minarchists desire?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:05:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:04:26 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:00:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
Any bets on how long until he espouses dictatorship of the proletariat? He's already announced that he is supportive of at least a minarchist government - that is a big, big step.

I'm pretty sure he already supports the idea of Dictatorship of the proletariat, just in a minarchist form. :P

?
Define it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:07:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Public ownership of the means of production causes said capital to be abused. See the tragedy of the commons.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:07:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:05:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
?
Define it.

She probably can't define it, because its such a contradictory idea.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:10:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:04:38 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Now one thing you might say, in some desperate attempt to assure me "Minarcho-Socialism" is an oxy-moron, is that a Minarchy does not enforce Capitalism, just voluntary exchange. No one is forcing people to have individually owned production means. This is correct but it is also correct that Minarcho-Socialism does not force people to have publicly owned production means. Rather, what they both do is enforce a certain model to have as a BASE. In conventional Minarchy everyone starts out with individual ownership and can then change from there if they please. In a Minarcho-Socialist society it starts out with a publicly owned means of production but can be changed if the people so voted(directly). They naturally have a tendency to stay very close to the base.

If EVERYONE voters for private means, and then amalgamate and form a company, then the whole system has gone and f*cked itself hasn't it? You're then back to square one. Unless you intend to enforce a system of this not happening.

You're entirely correct, it would be fucked. But that's very unlikely of happening. The reverse could also happen in a classical Minarchy.

Also, define public ownership. And how are you paying for the protection required to make sure people don't hurt each other?

Since the police would be owned publicly the people would decide.

Do you intend to seize private property and turn it into public property?

Good question. I don't believe in violent revolution except in extreme cases.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:13:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:10:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:04:38 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Now one thing you might say, in some desperate attempt to assure me "Minarcho-Socialism" is an oxy-moron, is that a Minarchy does not enforce Capitalism, just voluntary exchange. No one is forcing people to have individually owned production means. This is correct but it is also correct that Minarcho-Socialism does not force people to have publicly owned production means. Rather, what they both do is enforce a certain model to have as a BASE. In conventional Minarchy everyone starts out with individual ownership and can then change from there if they please. In a Minarcho-Socialist society it starts out with a publicly owned means of production but can be changed if the people so voted(directly). They naturally have a tendency to stay very close to the base.

If EVERYONE voters for private means, and then amalgamate and form a company, then the whole system has gone and f*cked itself hasn't it? You're then back to square one. Unless you intend to enforce a system of this not happening.

You're entirely correct, it would be fucked. But that's very unlikely of happening. The reverse could also happen in a classical Minarchy.

Err....Actually, 5 factories working in harmony pwns 5 different factories working in the same market.


Also, define public ownership. And how are you paying for the protection required to make sure people don't hurt each other?

Since the police would be owned publicly the people would decide.

User fees would mean publicly observed wouldn't be observed by some of the public

Taxes required the initiation of force.


Do you intend to seize private property and turn it into public property?

Good question. I don't believe in violent revolution except in extreme cases.

So, violence is your only means to take people' private property and turn it into collectivised land? Do you know what type of clusterf*ck that creates?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:13:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:05:36 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:04:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's the same as classical Minarchy except the means of production have a base of shared ownership.

But is that shared ownership not regulated and, I don't wan to say "enforced" but there it is, by the government? Does this not increase the scope of government power beyond what minarchists desire?

There is no more government here than in a classical-Minarchy. Everything is the same except beginning ownership. And yes, it does enforce it, just as classical Minarchy enforces Capitalistic property rights.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:13:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can safely tell you Freedos new ideology is riddled with flaws an is another pathetic cry for attention. Ignore.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:15:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:08:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
The real question is, how does this minarchy plan to make everything public without initiating force?

It's called revolution.

There's two ways it can happen.

1. Violence

2. Cultural change

I much prefer the latter.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:13:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is no more government here than in a classical-Minarchy. Everything is the same except beginning ownership. And yes, it does enforce it, just as classical Minarchy enforces Capitalistic property rights.

But the difference is that "capitalistic property rights" are enforced only to the point that it will run up against individuals and their rights, and starts off with the idea that it isn't the government that enforces those rights, it is the individuals.

Your "minarcho-socialism" enforces past individual rights and puts the government in charge of a whole host of things, essentially making the government the enforcer of rights, rather than individuals. That isn't minarchy.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:17:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Freedo, the idea that 309,723,000 people will work in harmony for the common interest is complete BS. And a cultural change? Have you been outside of California?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:18:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:15:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:08:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
The real question is, how does this minarchy plan to make everything public without initiating force?

It's called revolution.

There's two ways it can happen.

1. Violence

2. Cultural change

I much prefer the latter.

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win"

Hmm...I guess that quote rules out Freedo's possibility of being a Marxist. Good news.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:18:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Dakota, you wanted me to explain how it isn't decentralized: so, briefly, here you go.

Your idea of centralization means that power is situated in either an authoritarian dictator, or some sort of horrific, inefficient bureaucracy - essentially, unilateral or institutional centralization. You think that by turning ownership of property over to a democratic vote, power will be decentralized.

In reality, you're only recentralizing power in a collective. Specifically, it's centralization within what you call "the public". You're taking political omnipotence and putting it into the hands of a collective, rather than in the hands of a politician or a bureaucrat; and, god knows that collectives, possessing neither volition nor even the capacity for rational thought, are far less reliable.

It comes down to this: rather than jeopardizing rights through government edict or by the stamp of a bureaucrat, you're suggesting that we jeopardize rights via a democratic vote; and, you do this with only the hope that, somehow, the self-contradicting notion of the public consciousness is able to solve the ethical and economic crises that are certain to arise. You distrust hierarchy run by the individual mind, and presume to escape it by abandoning ALL of the power, which was previously distributed along the hierarchy, into the hands of a hive mind, all the while hoping that a small political elite doesn't emerge to manipulate and control the public into voting away the rights of every constituent individual.

Like most of your political ideologies (if they can be so-called), you have only the hope that nothing goes wrong.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:19:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:13:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Taxes required the initiation of force.

It isn't force because the people who share ownership of it voted for it.


Do you intend to seize private property and turn it into public property?

Good question. I don't believe in violent revolution except in extreme cases.

So, violence is your only means to take people' private property and turn it into collectivised land? Do you know what type of clusterf*ck that creates?

How the fvck did you derive that from what I said? I DO NOT advice violence.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:20:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:17:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:13:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There is no more government here than in a classical-Minarchy. Everything is the same except beginning ownership. And yes, it does enforce it, just as classical Minarchy enforces Capitalistic property rights.

But the difference is that "capitalistic property rights" are enforced only to the point that it will run up against individuals and their rights, and starts off with the idea that it isn't the government that enforces those rights, it is the individuals.

Your "minarcho-socialism" enforces past individual rights and puts the government in charge of a whole host of things, essentially making the government the enforcer of rights, rather than individuals. That isn't minarchy.

Everything collectively owned is run directly by the people who own it. The people are the government.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:20:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:19:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It isn't force because the people who share ownership of it voted for it.

Just like how forced collectivisation in agriculture isn't really "forced," because the sovnarkom voted for it!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:20:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:19:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:13:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Taxes required the initiation of force.

It isn't force because the people who share ownership of it voted for it.

300,000,000+ people live in the U.S.. God f*cking luck getting them to agree.



Do you intend to seize private property and turn it into public property?

Good question. I don't believe in violent revolution except in extreme cases.

So, violence is your only means to take people' private property and turn it into collectivised land? Do you know what type of clusterf*ck that creates?

How the fvck did you derive that from what I said? I DO NOT advice violence.

"I don't believe in violent revolution except in extreme cases." - Then what's your alternate?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:21:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:17:46 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Freedo, the idea that 309,723,000 people will work in harmony for the common interest is complete BS. And a cultural change? Have you been outside of California?

I went to Nevada once but nobody was there.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:21:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:19:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:13:10 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Taxes required the initiation of force.

It isn't force because the people who share ownership of it voted for it.

100% of them voted to be taxed? 100% of them have agreed upon the rates? Or, is it possible that "the public", which translates to "a sum of individuals greater than or equal to 51% of the population", has the political pull to disregard the rights of the other 49% or less?



Do you intend to seize private property and turn it into public property?

Good question. I don't believe in violent revolution except in extreme cases.

So, violence is your only means to take people' private property and turn it into collectivised land? Do you know what type of clusterf*ck that creates?

How the fvck did you derive that from what I said? I DO NOT advice violence.

You hope that cultural change is possible. Realistically, your only recourse with any guarantee of a return is the use of force.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:22:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:20:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Everything collectively owned is run directly by the people who own it. The people are the government.

Then this is not minarchy, it's communism's idealistic end-goal. If the people are the government, and the government can enforce its edicts through a simple, undefined and probably unlimited vote, then it isn't minarchy.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:23:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:22:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:20:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Everything collectively owned is run directly by the people who own it. The people are the government.

Then this is not minarchy, it's communism's idealistic end-goal. If the people are the government, and the government can enforce its edicts through a simple, undefined and probably unlimited vote, then it isn't minarchy.

Yea, it seems he wants to go to communism by skipping some of the crucial steps such as revolution.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 5:24:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 5:21:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/13/2010 5:17:46 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Freedo, the idea that 309,723,000 people will work in harmony for the common interest is complete BS. And a cultural change? Have you been outside of California?

I went to Nevada once but nobody was there.

Go to Texas. Those people will really want worker collectives.
If one person dissents, then can something not be passed, such as the use of taxes?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.