1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




territory

Home Forums Community General Chat territory

This topic contains 23 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Carl-Pålsson Carl-Pålsson 4 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1222
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, “This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.” Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has a right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these sales multiply, and soon the people–who have been neither able nor willing to sell, and who have received none of the proceeds of the sale–will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor’s door, on the edge of that property which was their birthright; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, ” So perish idlers and vagrants!”

    #9848
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Yes. Property rights are important, else people invest their resources (time, effort, intellect, money) and anyone can come along and take it for their own purposes, without compensation to the owner.

    We call that communism when it happens. Never has worked out, never will.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #9851
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Joaquin Rochawrites that the Indians of the Tres Esquinas rubber station valued money notas a means of exchange but as a precious object; they would beat coins intosmooth and shining triangular shapes to use as nose rings or ear pendants. Yet, it would be nai’ve to suppose that the Indians lacked interest or under-standing of the terms of trade and of what the whites got for rubber in theoutside world. “You buy these with the rubber we produce,” said an Indianchief as one entranced, looking through Casement’s binocular.’ Casementwas told that the station managers would fix the quantity of rubber due fromeach individual according to the goods that had been advanced, and in thisconnection Father Gridilla relates an episode of interest from when he trav-elled up the Caraparana in 1912.

    It was at a time when thousands of Indians came to the rubber station of LaOccidente to deliver rubber. First there was a great dance lasting five days-the sort of event Joaquin Rocha a decade earlier likened to a harvest festival.Then the rubber was handed over and goods were advanced, Father Gridilla commenting “the savages don’t know money, their needs are very limited, and they ask only for shotguns, ammunition, axes, machetes, mirrors, and occasionally hammocks.” An Indian he described as a corpulent and ugly savage declined to accept anything and, on being pressed, replied, “I don’t want anything. I’ve got everything.” The whites insisted again and again that he must ask for something. Finally he retorted, “I want a black dog!” “And where am I going to find a black dog or even a white one if there aren’t any in all of Putumayo?” responded the station manager. “You ask me for rubber,” replied the savage, “and I bring rubber. If I ask for a black dog you have togive me one!”

    Relying on stories told him, Hardenburg wrote that the Indians received their advances with great pleasure, because if they did not, they were flogged to death.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #9855
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Yes. Property rights are important, else people invest their resources (time, effort, intellect, money) and anyone can come along and take it for their own purposes, without compensation to the owner.

    What is Property?
    Be sides it is well known that money is the only resource that people will not part with.

    libertariandoc wrote:
    We call that communism when it happens.

    We call it Mutualism.

    libertariandoc wrote:
    Never has worked out, never will.

    CREATING wrote:
    Many economists write, as assuming that it is a step forward in civilization when a barbarous people learns artificial wants. If a New Zealander, instead of being satisfied with a mat for his back, which, made by himself, will last him for years, betakes himself to an English coat, which he must buy with a price,—which indeed less effectually shields him from wet, and sooner wears out,—he does that which is convenient to the English trader, but to him is a very doubtful gain : perhaps rather he brings on himself colds, cough, and consumption. If a thousand Maoris did the same, the commerce might figure in a Maori budget, and a Maori economist might point to the new trade as a step forward in national prosperity. The Zulus, as described by Englishmen who have travelled in Zululand or lived in the midst of them in Natal, arc an upright, generous, faithful, honest race ; and strange to say, Englishmen, who have such experience of them, are found to corroborate the utterance of Cetewayo, ” A Zulu trained by a missionary is a Zulu spoiled”—that is, when trained in our habits they lose their national virtues. How can this be ? why should it be ? Apparently, because from us they learn artificial wants. While an apron suffices a Zulu fur clothing, and a very simple hut fox shelter, he can in many ways afford to be hospitable and generous. /A man with very few wants has all the feelings of superfluity and wealth while surrounded by possession* so slender that we count him very poor: and when with an amount of toil which to his hardihood is not at all severe, he can always calculate on providing for himself and family all that their simple habits need, he is not deterred from present generosity by studying for his own future. But if he learn to covet and count necessary a number of articles which requircfrom him threefold labour, he feels himself no longer rich, but poor ; then, instead of giving small favours gratuitously, he claims to be paid for everything; instead of being princely, he becomes mercenary and stingy. If he imitate the dress, he is liable to envy the wealth of the Englishman, and in schemes of laying up for the future he easily becomes avaricious, perhaps fraudulent. Such are the steps by which one may justly calculate that some or many barbarians degenerate from the normal goodness of their fellows. The artificial wants which they learn when housed with our missionaries, or imbibe from the crafty allurements of traders, are not (primd facie) a benefit at all, do not conduce to independence, to the sense of wealth, nor to the practice of virtue. They are simply a convenience to the European trader. If a Maori or Zulu chief frown upon such trade, which judgment does he deserve—to be scolded as barbarous, or to be praised as sagacious ? “With them, perhaps also with us, to account but few things necessary is a foundation for many virtues. Our economists often reverse the picture.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #9860
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    The purchaser draws boundaries, fences himself in, and says, “This is mine; each one by himself, each one for himself.” Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has a right to step, save the proprietor and his friends; which can benefit nobody, save the proprietor and his servants. Let these sales multiply, and soon the people–who have been neither able nor willing to sell, and who have received none of the proceeds of the sale–will have nowhere to rest, no place of shelter, no ground to till. They will die of hunger at the proprietor’s door, on the edge of that property which was their birthright; and the proprietor, watching them die, will exclaim, ” So perish idlers and vagrants!”

    Nice quote! And its even written in the same fiery rhetoric as so many of the blindly ideological, anti-liberal, anti-communitarian comments I’ve had the misfortune to read since I got excited about seasteading (mainly on Thousand Nations, not here). Not that I don’t sympathize with some of that, but it’s just nice to see the other side also represented.

    Sorry, I just had to get that out.

    Anyway, it’s become a ridiculous platitude that a society can’t exist without property, which is quite obviously incorrect. Native american culture was a clear example of this, and still is somewhat today I believe (I remember someone telling me about their native american friend who would sometimes just come over to their house and make himself dinner or borrow their stuff, regardless of whether they were even home or not. It didn’t seem at all unusual to him). Of course people like to make the argument that a technologically advanced society can’t exist without a sense of property, or that native americans still had a sense of property, just not as strong of one. I’m not sure about the second, but regarding the first it seems to me the fetish for property is a cultural thing, and not a fundamental one to our species. Our culture of consumerism ingrains the sense of property so deeply that its simply hard for people to imagine sharing things communally, much like its hard to imagine a society free of government institutions.

    The quote also points out the hypocrasy of some of the “pro-freedom” speech you hear from the right wing. Sometimes I strongly get the impression that its not so much about “freedom” as it is about “lowering my taxes.” In short, some people are mostly interested in economic freedom for themselves, regardless of other forms of social oppression that will bring to others. Consider the ridiculously high cost of living in the US… you have to make around $10,000 a year here just to scrap by, unless you want to really cut corners at the expense of being a social outcast, and even $10,000 a year is barely enough to pay the rent and feed yourself. I realize that’s pocket change to most, but that’s because they’re happily positioned in society to not have to worry about these things. For those of us with countless thousands in debt, or unable to find a job paying more than minimum wage, or with child support payments/kids/families to support, we end up working 40 – 60 hours a week most of our lives just to make someone else rich. No time for self-improvement, innovation, cultural advancement, etc. We become slaves to the rich (well, more likely corporations) in the same sense that a communist is a slave to the “greater good.” Of course, we are easily dismissed as lazy, worthless, stupid, under-achievers, etc., when in reality it is the social structures we were born into that have herded us down this path.

    Now, I’m not saying that this means ancap = bad, socialism = good, or anything like that. I’m just saying that some hypocrits would happily trade the freedom of everyone else to marginally advance their own quality of life (or in some cases their need for some kind of existential control of those around them), regardless of their political leanings within the current dichotomy. Its the same type of fallacy as arguing for more individual automony by giving more power to government institutions.

    Those reservations aside, I’d still take libertarianism (not necessarily ancap) over what we have now, that opinion being subject to revision after I’ve seen it in practice.

    #9861
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    I don’t know why we can’t have both…mix socialism with materialism.

    We all agree that everyone should have the basics they need for survival. Food, water, shelter, medicine. There should be a way to ensure everyone in a society has access to the basic human needs, but also allow an outlet for people to collect additional material wealth if they so choose.

    I envision a system where everyone’s normal day-to-day work is done for the collective good. The doctor helps the injured. The solar panel technician maintains the seastead’s power systems. The aquaculture technician works in the ponds. But this system does not prevent people from pulling additional shifts or working extra tasks to earn money that they can spend however they wish. You want that second big screen TV…pull a few extra shifts and earn it.

    This system would also allow people to work completely off-the-grid. You don’t want to take part in the social system? Fine, you are welcome to purchase your food and medicine on your own.

    There’s no reason why we need to lock ourselves into absolutes. It’s not socialism vs capitalism. The beauty of the seastead idea is that we can pick and choose the bits and pieces from all these social systems and build something new.

    #9863
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Well, you’re welcome to try and help yourself to my property…at the same risk Native Americans suffered: That someone might object and then fight (and spare me the BS about ‘counting coup”….there were more than enough bloody wars even among the Lo!)

    However, being a selfish individualist, I’m not going to support looters or parasites.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #9866
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    I don’t know why we can’t have both…mix socialism with materialism.

    It’s well know that you can’t enslave someone by taking away what they have. You must command what they covet inorder to command the person.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    We all agree that everyone should have the basics they need for survival.

    Except for libertariandoc

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    Food, water, shelter, medicine. There should be a way to ensure everyone in a society has access to the basic human needs, but also allow an outlet for people to collect additional material wealth if they so choose.

    Once the society thinks one’s “property” is not ‘that which one is using’ but ‘that which belongs to one’ the society becomes corupt with greed.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    It’s not socialism vs capitalism.

    It is Anarchism vs Materialism.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #9870
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:
    It’s well know that you can’t enslave someone by taking away what they have.

    Yes you can. It’s called “indentured servitude”. Look it up.

    Altaica wrote:
    Except for libertariandoc

    Now I don’t want to put any words in libertariandoc’s mouth, but I think he would agree that nobody should starve to death. He just doesn’t want anyone taking the food he worked for without his permission. I’m sure he would generously donate his extra food to help a starving friend, or give some extra water to a thirsty child. But it should be his choice to give his property away or not.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong…

    Altaica wrote:
    It is Anarchism vs Materialism.

    What? Why can’t you have anarchism and materialism? That doesn’t make any sense.

    Look, think of it like a household. My wife and I both have full-time jobs. Do I only purchase food for myself, or pay for only the electricity I use? Of course not. Both of our incomes go into a central account, from which we pay for the things the household uses. We both work together so that the household can exist. Now that doesn’t mean all our property is communal. She knows not to use my gaming PC without my permission, and I don’t touch her laptop without asking her first. I have my clothes, and she has her clothes. We work in a mutual way for the greater good of the household, but we still maintain some distinct property. Mutualism and materialism can co-exist.

    A seastead society could work in the same fashion. Everyone does their job so that the society can survive. Soldiers defend the colony, aeroponic technicians grow the food, etc. But your TV is your TV. Your clothes are your clothes. If you want to work extra hard and earn extra money so you can buy more things for yourself, that’s fine. You have mutualism, socialism, and capitalism all co-existing. I don’t see why this would cause a problem…

    #9871
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    A right to medicine?

    I spent a lot of effort and personal resources (time, money) in becoming a physician. Why should someone have the right to that effort? Because if someone has a ‘right’ to medicine then thney have a right to my work.

    What do I get for that effort? Why does someone have the right to enslave me (take my work, and either not reimburse me or decide what reimbursement I get)?

    There is no such thing as a ‘positive’ right – the very notion means that someone is entitled to the productivity of others. There are negative rights: I have the right to the government/state NOT screwing with my right to life, liberty, the ability to work to earn what I want. Everyone else has exactly the same right. I have no more right to Altaica being forced to wash my house windows (or whatever he’s qualified to do) than he has to my efforts on his behalf.

    If I choose to donate my services altruistically (and I do) thats my choice for whatever personal reasons I may have. If I am forced to provide medicine to someone then it is theft, and I have a preemptive, positive and permanent way of dealing with thieves.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #9873
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    libertariandoc wrote:
    What do I get for that effort? Why does someone have the right to enslave me (take my work, and either not reimburse me or decide what reimbursement I get)?

    You get to live in the community and get your share of the free food, water, shelter, and medicine. Everyone chips in to keep the community running by performing their own special tasks based on their skills, and everyone benefits.

    I take this one step further and think that people can work beyond their normal duties if they want to have more than the communal average. This takes the best part of socialism (everyone has the basics for survival) and adds in the good parts of capitalism (those who want to work harder so they can have more stuff are welcome to do so).

    Nobody is enslaved. You are welcome to leave whenever you want.

    All I’m really doing is removing the middle-man. Instead of you getting paid in dollars, and then you spending those dollars on food, water, shelter, and health, you are just getting the food, water, shelter, and health straight away. Any dollars you earn above and beyond what you owe to the community are yours to keep and do with as you please.

    #9874
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Aha. You’re not even a communist…you’re a utopian. OK, fine…good luck with that.

    But, just how do I earn that extra dollar, when you seem to think that people are ‘entitled’ to the products of my labor? Sell trinkets? Catch fish (oh, wait: People are entitled to food, too).

    Take your vitamins, stay out of drafts, wash your hands…I don’t know many physicians who want to play your game – at least once they have graduated from medical school and join the real world.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I won’t be wronged. I won’t be insulted. I won’t be laid a-hand on. I don’t do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

    #9886
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    libertariandoc wrote:
    Aha. You’re not even a communist…you’re a utopian. OK, fine…good luck with that.

    Thanks! I don’t see any reason not to design a seastead society around a utopian ideal. Why in the world would I want to design a new society based on rampant capitalism and wanton materialism? There are already plenty of places like that in the world, and look how good that’s turning out for the species.

    libertariandoc wrote:
    But, just how do I earn that extra dollar, when you seem to think that people are ‘entitled’ to the products of my labor?

    Like I said in my previous posts, you would do extra work to earn those extra hours. This could be in the form of additional shifts, side jobs (selling trinkets), consulting…anything above-and-beyond your normal duties to the seastead. If you want just the basics then you just do your job. If you want more, then you work more. Simple as that.

    #9894
    Avatar of Melllvar
    Melllvar
    Participant

    I like your vision a good bit, i_is_j_smith. I think a key part to making a society like that work out is making the means of producing the basic necessities as cheap as possible, preferably with some kind of automated and renewable system. There would still have to be some maintenance and oversight, but hopefully that could be cut down to a trivial level relative to the size of the population. If such a system was able to produce a small amount of exports too, the exports could be sold to another nation and the proceeds used to pay a for-profit company that manages the system for the entire community. Just an idea.

    It also seems that our world may eventually evolve to a point where capitalism is no longer a stable system, and something more socialist or communist (or just more like what you were saying) is actually more stable. This would be because of the rise of automated technology, particularly with advanced robots and true AI. At some point it may get to where there are no jobs left that are not automated with machines, and only high level jobs (PhD level research and stuff) are the only ones profitable to work. At some later point (true AI), it may get to be where there are no jobs humans are qualified to work, and everything is done by machines. At this point the entire capitalist structure would break down, as I see it, and we would have to either all die out in favor of the new machine world, or else adopt a social structure more similar to the one you were talking about (or pure socialism, communism, etc.).

    That’s just one possible future as I see it though, I’m certainly not committing to that being how things will unfold.

    #9895
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    Please correct me if I’m wrong…

    Well you could read some basic Economics books like The Theory of Money and Credit
    or for something more specific Henry George’s Progress and Poverty Where he explains why want increases with increase of wealth and why poverty existed notwithstanding widespread advances in technology and even where there is a concentration of great wealth such as in cities. He talks about how technological and social advances increased the value of land and, thus, the amount of wealth that can be demanded by the owners of land from those who need the use of land. In other words: the better the public services, the higher the rent is (as more people value that land).The tendency of speculators to increase the price of land faster than wealth can be produced to pay has the result of lowering the amount of wealth left over for labor to claim in wages, and finally leads to the collapse of enterprises at the margin, with a ripple effect that becomes a serious business depression entailing widespread unemployment, foreclosures, etc. Silvio Gesell’s The NATURAL ECONOMIC ORDER for how it distroys capitalism

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    If you want to work extra hard and earn extra money so you can buy more things for yourself, that’s fine.

    if “you WANT to work extra hard”? It’s only materialism that keeps you from working as hard as you want.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    You have mutualism, socialism, and capitalism all co-existing. I don’t see why this would cause a problem…

    Like libertariandoc said a Price System and mutualism don’t mix and you can’t do ponzi scheme(of as Michael Ende put it the Money-go-Round) without a Price System.

    But my main consern is that is you have to much attachment to things. you start to think of property not as “keeping other from interfering while you are using some thing” but as “keeping others from using my thing” Once people get the idea that they have a right to keeping people from doing acts that interfers with their accumalating stuff, they start to feel they should have a right to keep people from doing things that MIGHT SOMEDAY interfer with thier accumalating stuff.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate