dREAMWORLDS -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:04:45 03/04/09 Wed
Author: Grumpy
Author Host/IP: 67-61-232-104.cpe.cableone.net / 67.61.232.104
Subject: dREAMWORLDS

Grumpy
Dreamworlds
Tue Mar 3, 2009 1:46PM
67.61.232.104

From Wikipedia: "Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism[1][2] or left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to anarchist forms of socialism in that they wish to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[5]"

Railing against human nature will not change human nature. Personal ownership of the necessities of life and the accessories thereto is such an innate part of being human that no society has ever tried to abolish it successfully. Theoretical forms of reorganized society that ignore the facts cannot succeed in changing human nature. The only way such a society can possibly work is to find a source of free energy that cannot be controlled by any form of organized society whether it be a neighborhood council, a workers' union, or a dictator, or even a freely elected democratic government. When everyone has immediate, personal access to all the energy they want to perform whatever work they wish to accomplish, no one will be able to control that individual.

"This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that �the exercise of power in any institutionalized form � whether economic, political, religious, or sexual � brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.�[7]"

Again, the abolition of authoritarian institutions is chimerical until no one is dependent on any outside source for energy. Control of energy is control of economic activity which is control of political activity. The only safeguard we have or can have is making such control as broad-based and democratic as possible. It is inevitable that there will be efforts to subvert the system, as it has been subverted under the current theories of capitalism. In its description of mercantilism, Wikipedia offers the following excerpt which I find applicable to the current attitude of corporate interests; "One notion mercantilists widely agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the working population; laborers and farmers were to live at the "margins of subsistence". The goal was to maximize production, with no concern for consumption. Extra money, free time, or education for the "lower classes" was seen to inevitably lead to vice and laziness, and would result in harm to the economy."

"While more state-based varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting state control of the economy and social engineering[citation needed], libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.[9]"

I fail to see any meaningful difference between a "socialist" government and a "democratic republic" government. Any ideology that pretends to overcome the cupidity, stupidity and greed of people is doomed to failure. The answer, of course, is to recognize man's nature, to establish mutually agreed limitations of the scope for greed and peculation, and to be eternally vigilant for the rise of snake oil salesmen who promise something for nothing, or proclaim the right to be rugged individualists answerable to no one.

Grumpy
Freedom of Choice
Tue Mar 3, 2009 5:30PM
67.61.232.104

If we choose to see the world through a glass, darkly, the view is pretty dismal. If we choose to see the world through rose-colored glasses, the world is a happy, carefree place.

If we see only our own personal space in the greater scheme of things, our personal space will be the world we live in. The broader our horizons, the more likely we are to see the world as it is, good or bad. If we concentrate only on the big picture, we lose sight of the individual's place in the big picture. (Can't see the trees for the forest.)

Our views of our world shape our responses to the world that is inhabited by everybody else.

You are responsible for your actions. You are responsible for how your actions affect others. You are responsible for how the actions of others affect your responses to the world you live in. You cannot control the actions of others, but you can refuse to participate in actions that do not contribute to the sum of well-being and enjoyment of life. You are responsible for aiding in the creation of conditions that allow growth in well-being and the enjoyment of life.

Every one of us is responsible for the lack of supervision of government and it's time to stand up and say I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. It's useless to say the government is run by a bunch of SOB's if, at the same time, you say your SOB is doing a good job. Distinguish carefully between what you want and what you would pay for it personally before you ask Congress to buy it for you. Taxation spreads the burden of paying for what you want to everyone whether it's what they want or not, so it behooves you to adhere to a high standard in asking your neighbors to agree with you that they need to help pay for what you want. If you're happy with the state of government, of course, then there's no need to stand up and complain, but there is the responsibility to defend your opinion.

Moving on, property and property rights are the nexus of many disagreements about government and the consequences of government activities. If you're a laissez-faire economist, the government has to right to tell you you can or cannot do or not do any particular thing with or about property, except insofar as government defense of your right to property favors your viewpoint. Government recognizes property rights (within limits), the right to buy and sell property (within limits) and the right to be secure in your possession and enjoyment of property (within limits). Goveernment defines property as belonging to several classes which entail different rights for the property holder. Real property (land, real estate) is the subject of the most protection and regulation.

Where and how did the concept of private ownership of land, a patch of earth, arise? I don't know, and I doubt that anyone living can say with any degree of certainty. What I can say, though, is that it seems to be as old as recorded history, and is probably older, based on archeological evidence. How did governments seize upon the right to decree, by law or by fiat, who could own property and under what conditions? That seems to be a natural outgrowth of the function of government. Fallow, unclaimed land, if left to the discretion of individuals, would prompt lawless behaviour in its acquisition, and disputes over who first settled, improved and owned the land would be a matter of contention for ages. To preclude such a state, governments sensibly claim all lands within their borders as originally public property held by the government for the public. From this, all else follows.

Grumpy
Ownership problems
Tue Mar 3, 2009 11:47PM
67.61.232.104

Except for nomadic peoples who have no interest in a sedentary way of life, individual ownership of land is an almost universal phenomenon, absent only in nations which claim state ownership of all property. Why is this the case? I submit that it is a survival strategy which at root acknowledges the fact that life depends on the land and what we can wrest from its bowels. The concept of ownership has been somewhat diluted by laws separating surface rights from subsurface rights in particular, and also by laws pertaining to eminent domain. Some nations, notably Great Britain, have laws that restrict the right to sell land at all, though I think that is fading. Ownership of land is intimately connected with our concept of home - "a man's home is his castle" - and family. Upon death, our "estates" are probated, the meaning of which is that title to the land is proven by the heirs to the "estate", whether land is involved or not.

To seek to deprive people of title to a patch of soil in favor of the community at large is not something that can be contemplated lightly by anyone who gives serious thought to the project. The benefits of communal ownership are not all that obvious to me. The problems are. For one, who would be tasked to determine how a patch of land would be used? Then, who would determine whether subsurface deposits of economic value existed on a particular patch of land, and why would anyone care? Further, if such deposits were known to exist, who would bear the expense of extracting them, and who would decide how, when and where they were put to use? In other words, what would replace the profit motive in a socialist, communal, libertarian-minded polity? Barter might work for a small, non-industrial community, but even there, it's more awkward than a monetary system, whether based on items of real value or merely notional value.

What, then, should we propose as the limits, and the duties, of government? What do we consider the basic duty of government to its masters, the people? The answer to that question can only be found by determining what people consider indispensable to a healthy, fulfilling life that rewards contributions seen as valuable to the community. If any part of the answer to that question cannot be provided by the individual acting alone, by default it should be a government function at some level, whether community, state or national.

Given the vast array of opinions available, I would be astonished if any general consensus on the question should be reached

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Dreamworlds -- Grumpy, 01:15:40 03/09/09 Mon