Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

- Self Sufficient Communities -

Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 6:56:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think having a large network of small self sufficient communities would be the best society structure for a nation to have.

The self sufficient communities would pull most of their structure from anarchist-communism and tribalism. Both of which are closely related.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 6:59:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So what you're trying to say is that you can co-exist peacefully with capitalist enterprises as long as they leave you alone and respect your property.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:26:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 6:59:44 PM, Sieben wrote:
So what you're trying to say is that you can co-exist peacefully with capitalist enterprises as long as they leave you alone and respect your property.

Sure, that sounds like a good plan. I don't see why not.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:28:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
City-states!

I do love my history and want to see a modern-replication of the classic Athens v. Sparta, except with machine guns and nuclear weapons.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:28:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:26:55 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 6:59:44 PM, Sieben wrote:
So what you're trying to say is that you can co-exist peacefully with capitalist enterprises as long as they leave you alone and respect your property.

Sure, that sounds like a good plan. I don't see why not.

Don't lie to the man.

At 6/24/2011 5:31:54 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 5:21:59 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 6/24/2011 5:15:06 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If communism doesn't force anything, there's nothing to stop markets from developing. :P

Except that everyone has everything they need, therefore no one would need to buy anything.

This.

And the fact that their would be no money to give you so you could accumulate wealth in an effort to try and become more powerful/wealthy than everyone else in the society.

Also, don't think that there would be no defense of the social system. Defense is the only way anything can survive against an offensive force. Your business would be a threat to the social system and therefor would have to be defended against by eliminating the threat.

Self defense 101.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:31:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).

You can be in your own little capitalist community then. It wouldn't matter. Just don't threaten the social structure of the other communities. Keep to your community. Anything else is a threat. Don't you advocate the non-aggression principle? Well, apply some of that knowledge to a self sufficient capitalist community and you should become happy with the result.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:37:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:31:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).

You can be in your own little capitalist community then. It wouldn't matter. Just don't threaten the social structure of the other communities. Keep to your community. Anything else is a threat. Don't you advocate the non-aggression principle? Well, apply some of that knowledge to a self sufficient capitalist community and you should become happy with the result.

Then you're not really advocating anarcho-communism as an overarching system. You're basically an AnCap who prefers commune living to market living. Furthermore, you can't designate X as being a threat just because you feel like it. If you're going to invoke nonaggression, you have to realize two things: 1) nonaggression presupposes property rights; 2) you're running into a double-standard, because asking capitalists to refrain from homesteading your commune requires depending on their respect for your property, while the whole point of communism is that private property doesn't exist. :P

That also ignores the fact that opening a business in a commune isn't aggressive unless the commune is privately owned and doesn't want businesses (which would be self-defeating for a commune), since opening a business doesn't inherently require harming other people. :P
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:48:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:39:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You could set it up like a neighborhood association type of thing where everyone signs a contract to relinquish their other property and submit to the rules of the commune, but you have to play by the rules of the capitalists to make that kind of arrangement possible. :)

Well. I'm actually trying to blend some unique concepts of social structure to make something that works efficiently on all levels. Quite a hard task really. I want to use this new structure in my book though.

A world where difference works on a small scale, but peace is the result on a large scale.

The whole point is that a network of self sufficient communities seems to be a very efficient social structure on a large scale, in my opinion. It leaves the possibility open for differing social structures co-existing on a small scale as long as they don't threaten each other's sustainability.

It's just an idea in the works right now. There are great minds on this website, I want to throw the idea out there so we can question it, refute it, or praise it.

I want to see where the strengths and weaknesses are. The pros and cons.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 7:51:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:37:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:31:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).

You can be in your own little capitalist community then. It wouldn't matter. Just don't threaten the social structure of the other communities. Keep to your community. Anything else is a threat. Don't you advocate the non-aggression principle? Well, apply some of that knowledge to a self sufficient capitalist community and you should become happy with the result.

Then you're not really advocating anarcho-communism as an overarching system. You're basically an AnCap who prefers commune living to market living. Furthermore, you can't designate X as being a threat just because you feel like it. If you're going to invoke nonaggression, you have to realize two things: 1) nonaggression presupposes property rights; 2) you're running into a double-standard, because asking capitalists to refrain from homesteading your commune requires depending on their respect for your property, while the whole point of communism is that private property doesn't exist. :P

That also ignores the fact that opening a business in a commune isn't aggressive unless the commune is privately owned and doesn't want businesses (which would be self-defeating for a commune), since opening a business doesn't inherently require harming other people. :P

Opening such a business for personal wealth is indeed a threat to communist social structure and would have to be dealt with accordingly. Exiling him/her to a capitalist community would seem to be a good solution. A solution that doesn't really involve punishment, but actually gives the person a better environment to thrive according to his/her personal ideals about society.

Its a win win situation for everyone.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 8:28:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:48:33 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:39:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You could set it up like a neighborhood association type of thing where everyone signs a contract to relinquish their other property and submit to the rules of the commune, but you have to play by the rules of the capitalists to make that kind of arrangement possible. :)

Well. I'm actually trying to blend some unique concepts of social structure to make something that works efficiently on all levels. Quite a hard task really. I want to use this new structure in my book though.

Society isn't a magic wand, and you can't make it do whatever you want just because you're the one proposing the political theory.

A world where difference works on a small scale, but peace is the result on a large scale.

The whole point is that a network of self sufficient communities seems to be a very efficient social structure on a large scale, in my opinion. It leaves the possibility open for differing social structures co-existing on a small scale as long as they don't threaten each other's sustainability.

It's just an idea in the works right now. There are great minds on this website, I want to throw the idea out there so we can question it, refute it, or praise it.

I want to see where the strengths and weaknesses are. The pros and cons.

You still need to address the incentive problems I listed earlier.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 8:31:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 7:51:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:37:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:31:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).

You can be in your own little capitalist community then. It wouldn't matter. Just don't threaten the social structure of the other communities. Keep to your community. Anything else is a threat. Don't you advocate the non-aggression principle? Well, apply some of that knowledge to a self sufficient capitalist community and you should become happy with the result.

Then you're not really advocating anarcho-communism as an overarching system. You're basically an AnCap who prefers commune living to market living. Furthermore, you can't designate X as being a threat just because you feel like it. If you're going to invoke nonaggression, you have to realize two things: 1) nonaggression presupposes property rights; 2) you're running into a double-standard, because asking capitalists to refrain from homesteading your commune requires depending on their respect for your property, while the whole point of communism is that private property doesn't exist. :P

That also ignores the fact that opening a business in a commune isn't aggressive unless the commune is privately owned and doesn't want businesses (which would be self-defeating for a commune), since opening a business doesn't inherently require harming other people. :P

Opening such a business for personal wealth is indeed a threat to communist social structure and would have to be dealt with accordingly. Exiling him/her to a capitalist community would seem to be a good solution. A solution that doesn't really involve punishment, but actually gives the person a better environment to thrive according to his/her personal ideals about society.

What gives you the right to do it, exactly? The commune isn't anyone's private property, and the businessperson probably didn't sign a contract to live there. Both of those things would make your commune significantly less communistic. And who does the exiling? If people in the commune want to do business with him, they will. If they want to trade with each other, they will. Tiny markets are still markets.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 8:46:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Capitalism is a "threat" to communism that must be "dealt with." He's saying that they would use violence to crush all opposition but trying not to say it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 8:51:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 8:46:03 PM, Grape wrote:
Capitalism is a "threat" to communism that must be "dealt with." He's saying that they would use violence to crush all opposition but trying not to say it.

don't be silly grape. You don't have to use violence to crush all opposition. You only have to murder some billionaires, and the rest will give up on their evil capitalist ways through fear of death. Perhaps if Bill Gates was killed, and his head hung on a pole, this would be a good enough visual to provide incentive to get people to stop.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 9:11:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 8:46:03 PM, Grape wrote:
Capitalism is a "threat" to communism that must be "dealt with." He's saying that they would use violence to crush all opposition but trying not to say it.

He has outright noted it before, you bow to communism or are expelled by force.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 9:32:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 8:31:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:51:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:37:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:31:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).

You can be in your own little capitalist community then. It wouldn't matter. Just don't threaten the social structure of the other communities. Keep to your community. Anything else is a threat. Don't you advocate the non-aggression principle? Well, apply some of that knowledge to a self sufficient capitalist community and you should become happy with the result.

Then you're not really advocating anarcho-communism as an overarching system. You're basically an AnCap who prefers commune living to market living. Furthermore, you can't designate X as being a threat just because you feel like it. If you're going to invoke nonaggression, you have to realize two things: 1) nonaggression presupposes property rights; 2) you're running into a double-standard, because asking capitalists to refrain from homesteading your commune requires depending on their respect for your property, while the whole point of communism is that private property doesn't exist. :P

That also ignores the fact that opening a business in a commune isn't aggressive unless the commune is privately owned and doesn't want businesses (which would be self-defeating for a commune), since opening a business doesn't inherently require harming other people. :P

Opening such a business for personal wealth is indeed a threat to communist social structure and would have to be dealt with accordingly. Exiling him/her to a capitalist community would seem to be a good solution. A solution that doesn't really involve punishment, but actually gives the person a better environment to thrive according to his/her personal ideals about society.

What gives you the right to do it, exactly? The commune isn't anyone's private property, and the businessperson probably didn't sign a contract to live there. Both of those things would make your commune significantly less communistic. And who does the exiling? If people in the commune want to do business with him, they will. If they want to trade with each other, they will. Tiny markets are still markets.

Well, defensive force and offensive force are two very different kinds of force first of all. Second, whoever starts the community sets the rules for all others who choose to join. If you don't like the rules, then leave. If you threaten the system, then you have become an offensive force to be defended against. The community has a right because it is the community's choice. The community rules wouldn't be there if the community didn't want it that way. If you go against the community's rules you would no longer be a welcome part of the community. It's really not a hard concept.

I may be using a communist basis for the community I would like to live in, but it could be any number of variations. Use your imagination. There are only basic rules which would apply to all. Live how you want in your community, but you can not become an offensive threat to the social structure of any other communities. The possibilities are endless as to the interesting diversity between communities. It gives everyone a place that they can fit into and call home. It gives everyone a place where their personal ideals can be in harmony with the community they live.

An about your incentive. Their is no incentive to live in a community that you don't like. As a matter of fact, you might be a burden and they don't even want you there anyway. If you don't like any of the communities, start one that you do like.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 9:34:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 9:11:07 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/24/2011 8:46:03 PM, Grape wrote:
Capitalism is a "threat" to communism that must be "dealt with." He's saying that they would use violence to crush all opposition but trying not to say it.

He has outright noted it before, you bow to communism or are expelled by force.

Fail.

You love to make assertions with no foundation. Nobody ever said anything about bowing to communism. You can choose to live there if you want to. If you like the social structure. If not, go somewhere else.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 9:47:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 9:32:33 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 8:31:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:51:58 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:37:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:31:01 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/24/2011 7:06:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Your argument isn't realistic. It's just a claim that X should happen, which is equivalent to me saying "the government should stop being corrupt, politicians should make informed decisions, and people should be altruistic". It doesn't take account of what real-world social, political, and economic optimality would look like. You can't even get past the incentive problems.

What's the incentive for me to join your commune if I'm not altruistic (meaning I don't get psychological pleasure just because of people being equal), and I'm not a poor enough egoist to where I might be tempted to support equality to secure a higher economic status than what I would have had without it (or I'm not a dumb enough egoist to realize that communes basically equate to subsistence living, which isn't good when I start to get the desire to advance beyond a quality of life norm that only allows you to have enough to meet your needs).

You can be in your own little capitalist community then. It wouldn't matter. Just don't threaten the social structure of the other communities. Keep to your community. Anything else is a threat. Don't you advocate the non-aggression principle? Well, apply some of that knowledge to a self sufficient capitalist community and you should become happy with the result.

Then you're not really advocating anarcho-communism as an overarching system. You're basically an AnCap who prefers commune living to market living. Furthermore, you can't designate X as being a threat just because you feel like it. If you're going to invoke nonaggression, you have to realize two things: 1) nonaggression presupposes property rights; 2) you're running into a double-standard, because asking capitalists to refrain from homesteading your commune requires depending on their respect for your property, while the whole point of communism is that private property doesn't exist. :P

That also ignores the fact that opening a business in a commune isn't aggressive unless the commune is privately owned and doesn't want businesses (which would be self-defeating for a commune), since opening a business doesn't inherently require harming other people. :P

Opening such a business for personal wealth is indeed a threat to communist social structure and would have to be dealt with accordingly. Exiling him/her to a capitalist community would seem to be a good solution. A solution that doesn't really involve punishment, but actually gives the person a better environment to thrive according to his/her personal ideals about society.

What gives you the right to do it, exactly? The commune isn't anyone's private property, and the businessperson probably didn't sign a contract to live there. Both of those things would make your commune significantly less communistic. And who does the exiling? If people in the commune want to do business with him, they will. If they want to trade with each other, they will. Tiny markets are still markets.

Well, defensive force and offensive force are two very different kinds of force first of all.

So? Businesses aren't using force on anyone by just setting up shop unless, you know, they're intruding on someone's private property by doing so.

Second, whoever starts the community sets the rules for all others who choose to join.

Why? If it's a commune, everything belongs to everyone. Unless, of course, you're planning to contradict yourself and argue that the commune is the private property of whatever individual is setting it up.

If you don't like the rules, then leave. If you threaten the system, then you have become an offensive force to be defended against.

That's just a sh*tty definition of force that has nothing to do with actually being a threat.

The community has a right because it is the community's choice.

Or they could just, you know, not do business with him. Doesn't avoid the problem of private property, either. If no one actually owns anything, the businessman can do whatever the hell he pleases.

The community rules wouldn't be there if the community didn't want it that way. If you go against the community's rules you would no longer be a welcome part of the community. It's really not a hard concept.

If you don't own the land, you can't set rules for the land. I have just as much right to say "I can set up my business" as you have to say "no you can't". Impasse.

I may be using a communist basis for the community I would like to live in, but it could be any number of variations. Use your imagination. There are only basic rules which would apply to all.

Only because you define it so that the rules apply to everyone. That's not a coherent social theory, though.

Live how you want in your community, but you can not become an offensive threat to the social structure of any other communities.

Businesses aren't hurting anyone by setting themselves up. You're just throwing out a new definition of "offensive threat" to patch everything together.

The possibilities are endless as to the interesting diversity between communities. It gives everyone a place that they can fit into and call home. It gives everyone a place where their personal ideals can be in harmony with the community they live.

So, you're not really an anarcho-communist.

An about your incentive. Their is no incentive to live in a community that you don't like. As a matter of fact, you might be a burden and they don't even want you there anyway. If you don't like any of the communities, start one that you do like.

So, you're not really an anarcho-communist.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 9:57:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cody: You seriously aren't able to comprehend the idea of what a community of like minded people is? Of course you would be a threat to a communist community by setting up a business for profit within the community. It would be a threat to the entire communist social structure. Are you not able to comprehend that?

The community's land is definitely owned by the community. I never said that it wasn't. Their would be boundaries/borders. Who would let you walk into their communist community and build a business for profit? You wouldn't even be able to start building it, because you wouldn't be welcome there as soon as you started such a thing.

It's about the community and the community's rules. Please try to learn what the topic is about here.

You would go build your business in a capitalist community or set up a new community in an area outside of existing community borders. Nobody is saying that you can't set up shop. You just can't set up shop in a community that doesn't want you there.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 10:10:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 9:57:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Cody: You seriously aren't able to comprehend the idea of what a community of like minded people is? Of course you would be a threat to a communist community by setting up a business for profit within the community. It would be a threat to the entire communist social structure. Are you not able to comprehend that?

I already dealt with your stupid definition of what a "threat" is. It's not actually anything aggressive, which means that communists using violence to expel the businessman are guilty of initiating force against the peaceful capitalist. Your society sucks.

The community's land is definitely owned by the community. I never said that it wasn't.

Pretty sure communists don't believe in property. You didn't say it because it's inconvenient to your argument.

Their would be boundaries/borders. Who would let you walk into their communist community and build a business for profit? You wouldn't even be able to start building it, because you wouldn't be welcome there as soon as you started such a thing.

Unless there is private property, which communists can't have if they want to be communists, you can't make or enforce a rule telling me to keep my business out. You can try to remove me by force, but I'll shoot you in the face for aggressing against my formerly-peaceful self.

It's about the community and the community's rules. Please try to learn what the topic is about here.

I didn't sign a contract. I just moved in and started building within a couple of weeks.

What's really interesting is that you're going to have borders, overarching political norms, presumably a peacekeeping force to keep businessmen and their ilk out, and all that wondrous stuff that makes your anarcho-commune seem a lot like a communist government. :P

You would go build your business in a capitalist community or set up a new community in an area outside of existing community borders. Nobody is saying that you can't set up shop. You just can't set up shop in a community that doesn't want you there.

Why not? If I buy a shop in a particular neighborhood, and turn it into a pornography store, they may not want me there, because no one on the block likes porn. Doesn't mean they have a right to dismantle my store and kick me out.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 10:18:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 10:10:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

It's about the community and the community's rules. Please try to learn what the topic is about here.

Wait. I'm confused. What is the topic? You say its anarcho-communism, but it looks like you're advocating territorial legal monopolies.

http://en.wiktionary.org...

First two definitions are...

The body with the power to make and/or enforce laws to control a country, land area, people or organization.

A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory.

So are you advocating anarcho communism or a state?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 10:54:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Look at the post topic.

SELF SUFFICIENT COMMUNITIES

That's the topic here. A network of self sufficient communities. Each community has it's own border and each community sets it's own rules. Your definitions for communism, socialism, democracy, republic all mean very little in this topic. A community can take concepts from any social structure to form it's own.

The idea.

The self sufficient nation of self sufficient communities.

Responsibilities.

The nation.

- To enforce the borders and rules of and between it's internal communities.

- To defend it's own border from other nations.

The communities.

- To develop and live through a system of rules that is of the majority throughout the community.

- To respect the rules and borders of other communities.

- To defend itself from any offense towards it's social structure.

- To exile any members of the community that do not follow the rules set by the community.

Exile - To be sent to the nations base with the option to join the nations defense force or be relocated to a community that is more to the citizen's liking. No member can relocate to a community in which it he/she has been exiled, unless the community allows it.

Borders - The borders of a community will not be moved or adjusted unless an agreement is made by all communities involved.

I'm still working on the rest... But you can get an idea of what it looks like.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 12:18:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here's an idea: Justin_Chains gathers up a bunch of fellow communists, and they all go settle on a piece of land. They claim public ownership of that land, so that all members of his party have an equal share in the land, and they set up their communist utopia, having agreed beforehand not to set up any businesses. They have a social contract that all members sign, which states that setting up capitalistic mechanisms is illegal and punishable by being exhiled. Anyone who joins this community must sign the social contract.

Therefore, a man cannot set up business in the community, because either he signed the social contract, and therefore gave up his own right to start a business, or he did not, so he isn't a part of the community and doesn't actually own the land on which he is setting up shop.

This seems consistant with both Cody's and Justin's ideas. Any problems?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 4:43:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 12:18:31 AM, mongeese wrote:
Here's an idea: Justin_Chains gathers up a bunch of fellow communists, and they all go settle on a piece of land. They claim public ownership of that land, so that all members of his party have an equal share in the land, and they set up their communist utopia, having agreed beforehand not to set up any businesses. They have a social contract that all members sign, which states that setting up capitalistic mechanisms is illegal and punishable by being exhiled. Anyone who joins this community must sign the social contract.

Therefore, a man cannot set up business in the community, because either he signed the social contract, and therefore gave up his own right to start a business, or he did not, so he isn't a part of the community and doesn't actually own the land on which he is setting up shop.

This seems consistant with both Cody's and Justin's ideas. Any problems?

At 6/24/2011 7:39:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You could set it up like a neighborhood association type of thing where everyone signs a contract to relinquish their other property and submit to the rules of the commune, but you have to play by the rules of the capitalists to make that kind of arrangement possible. :)
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 1:54:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 12:18:31 AM, mongeese wrote:
Here's an idea: Justin_Chains gathers up a bunch of fellow communists, and they all go settle on a piece of land. They claim public ownership of that land, so that all members of his party have an equal share in the land, and they set up their communist utopia, having agreed beforehand not to set up any businesses. They have a social contract that all members sign, which states that setting up capitalistic mechanisms is illegal and punishable by being exhiled. Anyone who joins this community must sign the social contract.

Therefore, a man cannot set up business in the community, because either he signed the social contract, and therefore gave up his own right to start a business, or he did not, so he isn't a part of the community and doesn't actually own the land on which he is setting up shop.

This seems consistant with both Cody's and Justin's ideas. Any problems?

Sure, that sounds like a good plan. Thanks for the good idea. I think I will include that concept in the final structure, the one that I end up using in my book.

To Cody: the signing of contracts as a concept is not owned by capitalism. All of your definitions for what capitalism is, what socialism is, what communism is, etc. Let it go. Those definitions won't mean much in an environment where each community can decide it's own social structure. Social structures would get new names.

And I don't try to put a label on myself as being an anarchist, socialist, communist, etc. Not yet at least. I'm trying to think of an entirely new structure, one that will probably have to have a new name created for it...as it will include concepts from many different social structures.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 1:58:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 1:54:12 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:

I'm trying to think of an entirely new structure, one that will probably have to have a new name created for it

Well its a territorial monopoly on law. Most people call that a state. You stipulate that your communities must be small and democratic, so why don't you just call it "small democratic states"
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2011 2:08:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/25/2011 7:53:25 AM, Puck wrote:
Look up Kibbutz.

That was very interesting to read about such communities. I took extra notice on the fact that the history shows capitalist actions are what started it's decline and downfall. That aligns very well with my own personal ideals about capitalism.

Logic shows what happens during capitalism. It automatically creates an imbalance of resources and influence. The really awesome thing is that in the community network that I speak of, different social structures will be tested over and over again until the most efficient ones become known as "the best" or "most pleasurable". It would be interesting to see what social structure really is the most efficient towards happiness for the majority of humanity within the network.