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, 6 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9896
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith 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.

    [/quote]

    Additional shifts? But people already are ENTITLED to my work output. Selling trinkets? Why not just do that…a lot less stressful, and I’m ENTITLED to food, shelter, etc.

    In fact, why work at all?

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

    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.

    #9897
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    libertariandoc wrote:
    In fact, why work at all?

    Do you even read my posts at all? Like I said, if you want your share of the seastead’s communal resources (food, water, shelter, medicine) you need to perform your share of the work required to keep the seastead running.

    You are welcome to choose not to work, in which case you do not get your share of the communal resources. It would then be up to you to aquire wealth however you can to purchase the resources you need from the community.

    You can also work above-and-beyond your share of the work if you want to accumulate more than your share of the communal resources.

    So nobody is “entitled” to your work output. They “earn” it by performing their share of the work required to keep the society running.

    #9898
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:
    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

    So what? There is nothing wrong with individual ownership of property. I should have every right to keep you from using “my thing”. There should certainly be communal resources that are shared by everyone like public parks, public transportation, roads, etc. But I would never advocate ALL property being communal. I most certainly don’t want somebody walking into my bedroom when me and the wife are knockin’ boots, just because my house and bedroom are all owned by everyone!

    Individual ownership is healthy and allows us to be the individual creatures we are.

    Altaica wrote:
    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.

    That’s ridiculous. There is a huge difference between me locking my front door to prevent you from using my computer and me killing you because there is a chance you might someday come in my house and use my computer.

    #9900
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    In fact, why work at all?

    Do you even read my posts at all? Like I said, if you want your share of the seastead’s communal resources (food, water, shelter, medicine) you need to perform your share of the work required to keep the seastead running.

    You are welcome to choose not to work, in which case you do not get your share of the communal resources. It would then be up to you to aquire wealth however you can to purchase the resources you need from the community.

    You can also work above-and-beyond your share of the work if you want to accumulate more than your share of the communal resources.

    So nobody is “entitled” to your work output. They “earn” it by performing their share of the work required to keep the society running.

    [/quote]

    Clearly, you haven’t read, or understood, my question. Just how can a physician get anything extra by working extra shifts (as you claim)? If my services as a physician are an entitlement, then I can’t charge for them.

    So, why do it? Why go through a minimum of 7 years of post-university training and education, if my effort results in the same benefits to me that someone with no education (say) gets for selling those trinkets? Or to put it another way, why should I offer my medical services if I can get what I need by selling trinkets myself?

    Thanks but I doubt you will be seeing me in your communal seastead. I appreciate people who work hard, I give them what they deserve for that hard work, and think that I am entitled to the same.

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

    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.

    #9901
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:
    Altaica wrote:

    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.

    That’s ridiculous. There is a huge difference between me locking my front door to prevent you from using my computer and me killing you because there is a chance you might someday come in my house and use my computer.[/quote]

    On 20 November 2004, a camp of the Landless Workers’ Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra MST), called Promised Land in Felisburgo, Jequitinhonha Valley, one of the poorest regions in Minas Gerais State, was attacked. Five landless peasants, who were among those responsible for organizing the camp, were killed, and 20 others were wounded.

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Altaica wrote:

    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

    So what? There is nothing wrong with individual ownership of property. [/quote]

    There is a lot wrong with individual ownership of property then same stuff that is wrong with communal ownership of property.

    Why do you have such a hard time conceiving a world without everything having to be owned?

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Individual ownership is healthy and allows us to be the individual creatures we are.

    Ownership is never healthy.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #9916
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    libertariandoc wrote:
    Clearly, you haven’t read, or understood, my question. Just how can a physician get anything extra by working extra shifts (as you claim)? If my services as a physician are an entitlement, then I can’t charge for them.

    I did understand your question. I will say it again. A physician can get extra stuff by working extra shifts. By “extra shifts” that implies shifts that they are beyond what the physician performs to settle their obligation to the community.

    You work 8-hours a day, 5 days-a-week, as a physician. That is your job, and by performing your job you get your share of the communal resources, i.e. food, water, power, shelter, etc.

    Now let’s say you want to earn some money so that you can buy that new necklace for your wife, or a new rug for your house. You can work above-and-beyond your required duties to earn that extra cash. That might mean picking up a few extra shifts as a physician, or doing something on the side like selling flowers.

    I don’t know why that’s so hard to understand. The only people who are “entitled” to your work are the people who have also done their part.

    libertariandoc wrote:
    Or to put it another way, why should I offer my medical services if I can get what I need by selling trinkets myself?

    Because selling trinkets does not get you a share of the communal resources. Only jobs that directly support the society’s infrastructure count. Granted, this covers a lot of stuff…from tending to the aquaponics tanks to monitoring the electrical grid to repairing the concrete structure. But jobs that are “off the grid” like selling trinkets or writing books do not get you a share of the communal resources. Those jobs can be performed by “on the grid” workers who want to earn extra money or people who just don’t want to be part of the communal system and want to be on their own.

    The real issue is that you believe your labor is worth more than anothers. Do you feel a person who spent “7 years of post-university training and education” is entitled to more than a person who grows food, or fixes the electrical grid?

    To be fair, I am still tweaking this system. I wouldn’t be opposed to a simple tier system so that certain people, who perform jobs that are “harder”, get more of the communal pool than others. The problem is how you rank those jobs. It might be “harder” to be a doctor, but you get a lot more excitement and satisfaction than the poor guy who has to clean the public toilets. So should the doctor get “more” than the toilet guy? What about the person who collects the garbage? How do you rate who deserves more?

    In my opinion it’s easier to just have two tiers. One for everyone whose work is involved in the infrastructure of the society, and another for everyone else.

    #9918
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:
    On 20 November 2004, a camp of the Landless Workers’ Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra MST), called Promised Land in Felisburgo, Jequitinhonha Valley, one of the poorest regions in Minas Gerais State, was attacked. Five landless peasants, who were among those responsible for organizing the camp, were killed, and 20 others were wounded.

    So what?

    Altaica wrote:
    There is a lot wrong with individual ownership of property then same stuff that is wrong with communal ownership of property.

    Why do you have such a hard time conceiving a world without everything having to be owned?

    There are huge differences between “individual ownership of property” and “communal ownership of property”. That’s like night-and-day. I am not advocating communal ownership of property…your pants are your pants and my hamburger is my hamburger. I just feel that everyone deserves a pair of pants and a hamburger as long as they do their part.

    The reason there is no way to have a “world without everything having to be owned” is because there is a limit to the amount of resources available. Sure, if you have some world like Star Trek where anyone can just use a machine to instantly create anything they want then the idea of property becomes moot. But even in Star Trek people had their own apartments, their own “stuff”. Nobody just walked into Captain Picard’s room, sat down at his table, and started using his stuff. Well, except Q but that’s a different issue.

    You would really have no problem if I just walked into your house right now, helped myself to food from your cabinet, and sat down on your couch and started watching porn? Even if you could just instantly replicate new food to replace what I took, or make a new TV so you could watch something in another room, it’s the principle of the matter.

    And there’s nothing wrong with that. I shouldn’t just take your stuff without asking…that is rude and uncivilized. Why do you have such a hard time with the idea that you can’t just take my stuff?

    #9919
    Avatar of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    The reason your plan is incomprehensible is that the work that I do as a physician, in your worldview, is somehow an entitlement to others. That means that I am obliged to give it to them.

    Arguments that I can work ‘extra shifts’ begs the question: For whom? People are, you say, ENTITLED to what I have to offer. Therefore if they need more of it than I can provide in an 8 hour shift, they are still ENTITLED to it. What exactly do I trade it for? More food? I eat enough already. More housing? From where? Do I move into the housing of the person I help for a week? A month? More what?

    And while I have a great deal of respect for the people who provide sanitation services (clean water and trash pickup has done more for lifespans than all of medicine has), who decides what is a fair rate of exchange? Me? You? Some central party?

    Right now, imperfect as it is (and about to get far, far worse with obamacare) the market makes those decisions. If I want to get more stuff, I work an extra shift or two, and I get ‘money’. I take that ‘money’ and exchange it for whatever I want, and a lot that I don’t want (taxes). Utopias have failed (every single time, and every scale they’ve been tried) because of these issues, communism has consistently failed (every single time it’s been tried) for these reasons.

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

    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.

    #9923
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    The reason there is no way to have a “world without everything having to be owned” is because there is a limit to the amount of resources available.

    At any given time, yes, the amount of resources is finite. But the potential amount resources that can be produced is practically limitless. And that is one of the reasons why private property is good: If people get to keep what they produce, they will produce more. And they still have the option of giving stuff away, should they want to.

    Libertariandoc’s example of the doctor being forced to work is not really applicable to your average welfare state. The coercion lies in the taxation, not in being forced to do any particular work. Physicians usually swear to upheld the Hippocratic oath, too, of course. But that is presumably entirely voluntary.

    By the way, I believe Obama should do away with regulation if he wants to improve the healthcare situation in the U.S. A monolithic government-imposed insurance system is not going to work very well. Sweden is often mentined as a shining example of successful social democracy and state-run healthcare. Well, I live here and I can tell you that it sucks. The care itself is probably pretty OK, if you receive it. But there are queues and waiting lists for pretty much everything, including seeing a GP, and the service-level of teh caregivers is pretty much zero, because the single-payer system gives them no incentive to compete fro customers. You are way better off with an entirely private health-insurance, which can be had for a very reasonable fee for anyone who has a full-time job. And if they did away with the state-run healthcare and lowered the taxes with the money saved, everyone would be able to afford it.

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate