First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
hmmmm...;-) (none / 0)
"Then you should have that right... coupled with all the options possible when you wnated to stop again :)"

I still would have made choices that would have been (probably) bad for me. So in hindsight I think it was a good idea that it wasn't too easily available. Maybe you should have some freedoms only if you are determined enough. That's why we all do our best to keep people from commiting suicide. I somebody would tell you that they want to commit suicide you wouldn't just say that that's their freedom, you would do your best to convince them otherwise, even though you would have to accept it if they can show that they are really determined.

"you can still impress a girl even if you have no money"

Not me, I've got nothing else going for me;-)
And I'm poor :-(

"What I said was there would be no competition over territory or resources or..."

That's naive again, unless you find a way to make all territories equal. No matter how much technology advances, not everybody acn have a nice, quiet, big house in a beautiful environment with good weather. Some accomodations will have advantages and people will compete for them. The same goes with other possesions. Not everybody can own a masterpiece by Hirst or Bacon. People will always find possesions to compete about, that is independent from technology.

"All compagnies will hereby..."

That would totally eliminate private ownership. How about the employees have 51% of the company's shares?

Here is the thread by HistorybyDay. He is indeed basicly talking about a trickle up economy.

"(see here what I mean)"
Yeah, I already saw it and we discussed there. I think our tiny differences are still very much the same, but I might reread it some time soon.

"I completely see it as a natural part of my socialist libertarian views so maybe one day I'll write a post about it :D"

I'm looking forward to reading and commenting it. There probably won't be many others commenting, because it is too far left for most here to even consider it. Even though Milton Friedman, one of the most "right-wing" economists, has calculated and fought for it. Sometimes even reasonable positions make strange bed-fellows.;-)

"Cenk is to much in love with Capitalism and the profit-motive"

The old difference again. I'm totally convinced that unconditional basic income won't harm the profit motive. Sure you can survive and live on it, but then you can't buy an expensive car from it. If your neighbour has a good car you want a better one. Well, maybe not you, since you seem to be one of the few people who are even less motivated by money than me, but most people think like that. When they have enough to survive they still want more. Let's be realistic. We both live in countries where you don't really have to work. If you make it right you can live from unemployment benefits, without being to much threatened by having to work. Still most people prefer to work and some are just too afraid to not work. The ubi would just exterminate that fear and more people would risk self employment or creative careers.

Banks:

"I would much more prefer to give that power to the workers and costumers if at all possible"

Nationalisation is the first necessary step. How should the workers own the bank? How do you decide who owns how much?
Maybe the solution would be to let the banks be organised by the regional and not the central government?
They are owned by the state, but organised by the city. Ok, even owned by the city to get you on board. Ain't i generous?;-)

About the troll allegations:

Chinese Democracy says that whenever he disagrees with me and some others like EveningStarNM say it occasionally. I think the reason is that sometimes I challenge people on their views by analogies that show how stupid their positions are and they assume the analogies are my position. I also like to challange people when I have the feeling that they hold positions, because these positions are part of the "liberal" worldview, without having really reflected on them.  Or when people use really weak arguments and I challenge those arguments just to show how weak they are. All that combined with occasional sarcasm and irony makes some people believe I'm a troll. But some people here just believe everybody outside the liberal mainstream is a troll.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/10/2010 09:51:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
I still would have made choices that would have been (probably) bad for me
Yes for you and that's the rub :)
You can't make general rules based on individual cases... it always end bad...

If everything that might get someone in trouble should be illegal then nothing will be legal :)

Not me, I've got nothing else going for me;-)
And I'm poor :-(
I seriously doubt it my friend :)

That would totally eliminate private ownership. How about the employees have 51% of the company's shares
Well under Technocratism there is no private ownership... everything is free... and all production will be automated so no workers nesseccary so no owners... :)

But under Libertarian Socialism where the workers will own the compagnies... they will have to own 100% of the compagny... if they 'only' owned 51% and some other owner owns 49% then he/she would decide 100% because the chance that the 500 workers will all agree to go against the 49% owner (and thereby raise the 51% need to go against him/her) is not very likely :)

Here is the thread by HistorybyDay. He is indeed basicly talking about a trickle up economy
Yes and a consumer economy is a kind of trickle up economy... but it's the only kind that doesn't work... any economy based on people buying and things they don't need and throwing out the stuff that still work (like we have now) is NOT sustainable and will ALWAYS crash eventually :) - the only economy that have ever worked and will ever work is a trickle up production based economy :)

I'm totally convinced that unconditional basic income won't harm the profit motive
I don't believe it will either... but the capitalistic propaganda is hammering that notion in everybody's head every day... profit is the ONLY thing that can motivate anybody to do anything... and every 'hand out' underminds the profitmotive so it just makes people sit on their couches and do nothing and society comes to a halt :)

Now both you and me knows that's not true... but a die hard capitalist like Cenk woun't realize that until he gets deprogrammed :)

Nationalisation is the first necessary step. How should the workers own the bank? How do you decide who owns how much?
Well let's look at history...

In the 70'ies a lot of worker owned compagnies sprang up all over Europe (and a few in the US)... in Denmark we only have 2 (that I know of) that still exist... a publishing house owned by the authors they publish (and that works like I described in my attempt at a law)... and a school owned by the teachers working there...

Now all those compagnies started from the ground up... but there is nothing to stop making a law that transfers ownership to all existing compagnies to it's workers (well there is a lot to stop it but it should be possible)... :D

But one thing unites them all... no nationalization nesseccary :)

The workers in the bank (or compagny) would 'own' 1 vote each and then every 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years,... <whatever they decide> they would vote for the next board of directors (among themselves)... and noone can be on the board a second/third/fourth/etc. time until everybody had a turn :)

Maybe the solution would be to let the banks be organised by the regional and not the central government
No... better but still bad :)

Chinese Democracy says that whenever he disagrees <rest of paragraph> 
Ah CD and Star :) - yeah they have accused me too of being a troll (or sockpuppet of first one person then another) :)

Don't worry I don't see you as such :D

And don't let them intimidate you :)

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/11/2010 12:26:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedom above all? (none / 0)
What about my freedom to drive fast? If I would be a good driver and sure that I don't harm anyone. Just because in some individual cases accidents happened shouldn't be a reason to infringe my right.

And I have to say again that I don't want drugs to be illegal, I just want them to be expensive, so people have to consider a little longer before they use them and they can't totally waste their lives if they want to afford them.

"Well under Technocratism there is no private ownership"

Technocratism is a nice ideal, but people are too stupid and driven by primitive urges, which makes it impossible to realise. Still it's a good goal, like world peace.
I also have the feeling that you want to infringe my freedom to personal ownership.

"the only economy that have ever worked and will ever work is a trickle up production based economy"

The people on the top of the economic ladder are the producers, it's them against the average Joe, the consumer. Sure sustainability is important, but the first fight is about who needs more support the consumers and poor people or the owners/producers who are the rich people. So the first step would be to help consumers and profit from the trickle up effect.
You're probably right about Cenk and "people like him". Especially in America people will need many more decades to realize that social security doesn't kill motivation.

"In the 70'ies a lot of worker owned compagnies sprang up all over Europe"

Sure, but those companies require that the people are more motivated by idealism than by profit. Some can pull that off, but never the society as a whole.

"The workers in the bank (or compagny) would 'own' 1 vote each and then every 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years,... <whatever they decide>  they would vote for the next board of directors (among themselves)... and noone can be on the board a second/third/fourth/etc. time until everybody had a turn"

I'm just imagining a company that is based mainly on physical labour and has social consciousness which means they employ some people who are seriously mentally handycapped. It wouldn't be to good for the company when all the clever people had their turn and the "retards" take over
Funny to watch? Sure! Good for the company? Less so.
It also seriously sounds like you want to take away my personal freedom to own something. That has never worked well.

What's your problem with my bank solution? The power would be extremly decentralized and regulated by the people. On a local level people can really vote against the people who make bad descissions, because it is much simpler to offer an alternative.

"Ah CD and Star :) - yeah they have accused me too of being a troll (or sockpuppet of first one person then another) :)"

Really, you too? Well that just proofs that they consider everybody out of the American liberal mainstream a troll. They have never called me a sock-puppet, but I would be interest to know who's sock-puppet you were supposed to be. might be interesting to read something by those persons.

They have never called me a sock puppet. Now I'm somehow insulted by that.:-(

Well, there attacks never had a chance to intimidate me, if anything they motivated me and showed that my thoughts are somehow creative and progressive.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/11/2010 01:06:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
What about my freedom to drive fast? If I would be a good driver and sure that I don't harm anyone. Just because in some individual cases accidents happened shouldn't be a reason to infringe my right
First off freedom is not unlimited... or you could say 'then what about my freedom to kill you'... and nobody want's that :)

There's an old saying that I live by that says 'your freedom to swing your arms wildly stops where my nose begins'... meaning that you have the freedom to do what ever you like as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples freedom... and if it does then your work out a compromise... there are other people in the world and their right to freedom and life and happiness and... is just as important as yours and mine (but that's my ONLY limit on freedom) :)

So let's take your example :)
Personally I think people dying in trafik is a problem and it needs to be fixes... that said the most ineffective solution I could possibly come up with if I tried would be speed limits... I really can't think of a more ineffective way to deal with the problem... why don't you just demand from the car makers to build cars that can't crash??? (maybe build in a sensor that stops the car if speed and distance and direction indicates that you are about to hit something or someone and build the cars so if you do hit something (a person jumping out in front of you etc.) the car catches you and is soft to land on so they don't die from the impact or <come up with their own solution>... this is a technical problem and a technical problem can NOT be effectively solved by legislation)... I'm not saying... I'm just saying...

Speed-limit (limit on freedom) = 37.261 deaths by accidents in the US in 2008
My solution (no limit on freedom) = 0 deaths by accidents in any year

Now you choose...

So my answer is... your freedom to drive as fast as you want stops when you become more likely to injure and kill someone than not by your speed... and with no real solution (like mine) you can't drive as fast as you want because the likelyhood of you injuring or killing someone rises as you drive faster with the technology utilized at this moment...

Technocratism is a nice ideal
Isn't it though :D

but people are too stupid and driven by primitive urges, which makes it impossible to realise
Seriously dude... you must have had a terrible childhood to be this distrustful of you fellow man :)

Sorry... but all kidding aside... you might think that (and even I sometimes looses faith in my fellow man... usually when I watches to much FOX) :D hehe - but everytime I walk outside I'm reaffirmed in my beliefs... you should try watching a few documentaries that show the good sides of humanity just once in a while... just to balance out all the negative sides you see in the news :)

Here's a few surgestions just to get you started:
Us Now (part 1 here)
Slacker Uprising (part 1 here)
Start with those 2 and work your way back to humanity from there :)

I also have the feeling that you want to infringe my freedom to personal ownership
Personal ownership is not a freedom (even though it has been sold as such in Capitalism)...

Freedom is freedom to act and think... so if I want to take a walk I can or if I want to believe in an invisible skygod that listens to me and helps me I can...

Personal ownership is nothing more than saying this is mine so it is not yours... nothing more and nothing less... that's not freedom for you... that's infringing on everybody elses freedom with no freedom benifts for you...

The people on the top of the economic ladder are the producers
Well that used to be the case... but today? seriously???

The people on top today are the bankers and people on wall street and NIETHER produces ANYTHING other than more money for themselves just for the moneys sake... nothing comes out of a bank or wall street that has ANY production value for anybody outside the banks and wall street...

So that's a false argument :)

it's them against the average Joe, the consumer
Ah no that's a strawmans argument... it's not the owners against the consumer... it's the system against the people (I know that corporations only see people as consumers but I'll like to content that we are so much more) :)

Consumers is an artificial construct made by corporations to justify their existens... if people don't want to buy their product then they go out of bussiness... so to stay alive (no matter how asinine and useless their product is) they use advertising to create a consumer in us (an artificial need in people) so they'll buy their product anyway... don't tell me you need a new car every 5 years or a new tv every year or the latest jacket when you have 5 in the closet already... but we want them because it signals the status and lifestyle that those compagnies have artificially instilled in us through adverticing :) - but consumerism is NOT a natural state for humans to be in... it is one forced upon us by the system...

The system is Capitalism in and low/no scarcity world and as I have explained before Capitalism is not equiped to deal with that kinda world... Capitalism needs a high scarcity world to exist...

This is why we destroy the large food surplusses that the US and the EU produces every year instead of feeding the billions of starving people around the world (because if things are in abundance they get cheaper bordering on free so by doing so would drive down market prizes and the farmers couldn't make a living and the system would collaps)... so we create a false scarcity (thereby killing millions of people every year) to save the system...

This is why we burn 2/3 of the diamonds mined instead of using them to build better technologies to better mankind (because if things are in abundance they get cheaper bordering on free and it would be more expencive to mine the diamonds than they can sell them for and the whole system collapses so we would get no diamonds at all)... so we create a false scarcity (thereby depriving everybody of cheap superiour technoligies) to save the system...

This is why we... <substitute everything you can think of)... so we create false scarcities to save the system... and all to the detriment of true progress, the common good and the people...

What noone seem to surgest is why don't we change the system instead of hurting people with false scarcities and false wants? why do we keep this unsustainable system alive when it hurts everybody but the very few at the top???

I'm not saying... I'm just saying... :D

And a wise man once said... it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society :D

Sure sustainability is important
Yes it's the only important thing in the equation... period... now I know the profitmotive is being hailed as the only important thing today... but it really isn't and we will ALL realize this when we have to pay the prize of the unsustainability of the current system when ALL the economic systems crashes later this year (if the propaganda maschine that is PR doesn't sell it to us (and we buy their pitch) as a failure of a few bad apples but instead tell the truth... that it's the failure of the system as a whole)...

So the first step would be to help consumers and profit from the trickle up effect.
Not the consumers (see above) but the people... but yes :)

Sure, but those companies require that the people are more motivated by idealism than by profit. Some can pull that off, but never the society as a whole
I disagree :)

When you live in a system that promotes and hailes egocentrism and greed and profit above all at every turn you are off course going to get most people being mainly egocentric and greedy and out to make a profit... how is this a surprise for anyone...

That doesn't mean that it's the only way people will ever behave... it just mean that this is the only way people will ever behave in that system...

So the question is how do we get people to be altruistic and help each other and coorperate for the commen good of everybody incl themselves?

You change the system so it promotes those natural things in human nature and remove the need for the other things in human nature...

As I have written many times now... human nature is comprised of 2 desires -protection of self (egocentrism) and protection of others (altruism)...

So since we live in a world of false scarcity thereby actually having abundance if we wanted... everything becomes free (or close to) so you have NO incentive to be egocentric... there is no need to protect yourself if you are not in danger... and that leaves altruism and helping everybody else... and in that system this discussion would not even be possible :)

My idea of that society is Technocratism but feel free in offering up your own solutions... as long as we agree that it's the system that needs changing and the problem that needs solving is to minimize egocentrism and further altruism...

It also seriously sounds like you want to take away my personal freedom to own something. That has never worked well
First off... owning something has nothing to do with freedom (see above)...

Second off... the only reason it never worked is because if you have high scarcity (not enough to go around... false or otherwise) then you need to protect yourself by making sure that what you have gotten for yourself you get to keep so you can live a happy and fruitful life...

If there's not enough for everybody then it becomes a game of musical chairs and when everybody have grapped enough for themselves (the music stops) then somebody haven't got any (is left without a chair) and die... so if any of the have nots come and take some of the things you need from you and there is nothing else to go around then you become a have not and die... so you need to protect what's yours to protect yourself... so you need to make laws that says that what you have you own so noone can take it from you... that's why we need ownership in a high scarcity world...

But if you suddenly find yourself in a world of abundance where if someone takes you things you just get new ones because there is plenty then you don't need to own anything... there is nothing to protect...

Example:
Let's say someone comes into your house and opens the tap and drinks some water... do you call the police and get them arested for stealing?
No that would be stupid (and the police would laugh in your face) because water is in abundance and therefor close to free and even though he took some of your water (your property) if you are thirsty you just open the tap again and drink some yourself... so since water is in abundance you don't feel you own water because there's plenty to go around... (no feeling of ownership)...

So why would that be different for anything else if everything you needed and wanted were as abundant as water?
And the answer is... it wouldn't be any different... and you wouldn't need to own anything...

What's your problem with my bank solution? The power would be extremly decentralized and regulated by the people
I'll agree with you that it's a better solution than the state owning them... :D

More decentralization of power = always better solution (always = I can't think of a single instance where that's not the case... not to say that they don't exist but I just can't think of one) :D

Which makes my solution even better since it's even more decentralization :D

But even though that your solution would solve many of the problems I described and if you could garanty that it would never reverse to state owned banks I could live with it...

The problem is that the local governance is subject to the state rule... so what's to stop the state (in your solution) from changing their mind at a later date and say we now own the banks (if they don't like how the local governance run them or they just feel like it)?
And what's to stop the local governance from censoring themselves in how they run the banks to the wants of the state so the state doesn't do that thereby running the banks as the state would have done anyway?

Answer those and we'll have a discussion on your solution :D

On a local level people can really vote against the people who make bad descissions
Not if everybody they can vote on want to run the bank as the state would have anyway (see above) or the state takes back the banks (see above)... then they don't have a real choice (kinda like the vote for the american presidency) :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/12/2010 11:42:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]

First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)