Turning Point,
Do you agree man owns himself and his actions? Denying this is enslavement.
So land was issued by decree in your examples? Can you claim someone's body by decree?
I find it interesting you referred to the USSR and revolutionary China. Are these examples of what you wish to achieve?
Turning Point wrote:And eliminating the police, however ineffective and/or corrupt, and replacing it with a private security force (basing itself off of protection of local communities in exchange for money) would be better in the long run?
Making communities safer is not appealing to you? Remember, I live in the situation we are talking about. My defense agency has saved me from about 2 burglaries so far; they detained the criminal, secured the situation, all before the police
arrived. At $50 a month.
Imagine 20 of these agencies competing against one another, the efficiency created.
Turning Point wrote:At least where I live (in the United States), private schools aren't cheap and a far from being affordable for the vast majority of people. Most attend public schools, while concerning private schools only those with a decent income can afford to send their family members to private schools.
Well, it's very cheap to create a private school. Let's say a teacher's salary averages $40,000 a year in the U.S. 20 kids per class, so that's $2,000 per student per year. And as I said, rising technology would further diminish this cost, saving book fees etc. I'm sure most American families could afford <$2000 for a year's education; remember, no longer paying taxes would increase the median income tremendously.
Turning Point wrote:And a charitable organization is supposed to provide for the poor in the absence of affordable, public schooling in this ideal society?
"Affordable public schooling"? Public schools are terribly inefficient and drive up costs.
Regarding your question; is it not true people give charity, voluntarily, today? Americans give about $220B to charity (
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... y/1728027/) and with more disposable income in absence of taxes the number will further increase. Many hospitals and schools would also be charity run and admit people for free.
Turning Point wrote:Currently private institutions (be they high schools, colleges, etc.) cater to only those who can afford the education with few exceptions. To be honest I've known people who've come from private (high ) schools. The difference between what they and their family have at their disposal (not just income-wise but also in access to technology i.e. computers, cellphones, access to better teachers, private tutors, etc.) and what the average student at a public school has is staggering; Many people I've known coming out of public schools could only dream of owning their own computer, having their own private tutor, and/or receiving a one-on-one teacher-to-student education, etc.
Technology's quality is increasing and prices are decreasing. Most Americans access the internet. Private education would only improve, even at the cheap level, scholarships would be very present, as would bursaries. Talented poor kids would manage to overcome their poverty more effectively than today, instead of being stuck in a cycle of poverty and ending up depending on welfare.
Don't tell me what U.S public students have is bad; I live in the third world and see what it means to be
really badly off and underprivileged.
Turning Point wrote:The crux of the matter is that private schools inevitably give one a higher advantage that public schooling simply can't provide for.
This is a separate issue; but if all education was private the rock-bottom option would be better than today.
Turning Point wrote:If every last school was privatized in this ideal society, who's to say that it will be affordable for the vast majority of students who under the present society would more then likely be crammed into a 40-50+ class (or classes) staffed by one (or possibly two if students are lucky) underpaid teachers?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is unlikely, privatized education would improve teacher quality, and give more value for money.
Turning Point wrote:Your ideal society seems to assume that be it through private charity or other means private schooling would be made accessible to the many and not the few as-is the case currently.
If Indian slums can arrange private schooling, I could only imagine the U.S incorporating the latest technology into their private schooling, bringing down costs, improving education quality and
decreasing (relative) poverty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei Murasame wrote:History shows me that this does not happen. In the United Kingdom, the market was created and defended by the aristocracy who appropriated lands by writing up land titles for themselves and marching columns of soldiers over anyone who disagreed. In Japan, the market emerged by having the Imperial court, or a Shogunate, choose a bunch of people who they would recognise as merchants, and listen them on how to build an economy. Oh, and also lots of security agencies, which back then were just heavily armed families.
Who's going to defend internet trade? Who established it? The blackmarket for marijuana, who established it? A free market = trade unobstructed by 3rd parties. You make shoes, I make bread. There's a floating silver-backed currency that values your shoes at 1 silver coin. I need shoes so I sell my excess bread and then use some of the revenue gained to purchase your shoes. We both gain. Who defended that market? Who created it? A market requires a supplier and a desire (demand) of a product.
Rei wrote:Well, both, since you can't have a market without private property. PDAs are basically the same as feudal warlords, they are one step away from becoming a state, since their wealthy clients can one just absorb them.
PDAs work within the prevailing, respected legal framework of the society. They rely on being reputable and efficient to maintain business. It is unprofitable to go to war, or slip up in detaining people.
Rei wrote:Fair enough. But they might not be able to dislodge the large capitalist companies that have the advantage of having accumulated a lot of wealth in the preceding period. If Co-ops played by the rules set out by capitalists, they'd be defeated purely on the fact that a giant company can stay in business selling items at a loss to undercut you, for longer than a co-op can survive while being undercut.
What is capital, Rei? Savings. Delayed consumption. If workers pool their delayed consumption, I do not see a problem in raising capital. After all, wage slavery is unethical and criminal according to some people here, so let's rather invest in a co-op rather than use our money on something that "exploits" workers.
But, capitalist mode of production is an efficient way of organizing capital, so it's unlikely co-ops would be more efficient and provide greater returns to equity. But, hey, each to his own.
Rei wrote:Barriers to entry, basically. Can a co-op defeat Mitsubishi while accepting the 'do not use political force' rules of the game, if Mitsubishi can borrow money from itself (many large manufacturing companies operate their own little banks for just such a purpose) and operate at a loss to defeat the co-op as soon as it opens its doors for sales?
Why don't the co-op workers boycott Mitsubishi cars? Capitalist mode of production puts the power in the consumers hands. Don't like the fact that Mitsubishi exploits workers and raises artificial capital? Don't buy their products. That will, literally, force them to restructure their business or go bankrupt. And if people continue to buy their cars; well, who are
you to say that
I cannot shop there.
Rei wrote:Knowing that, I can understand why the leftists - if they were to have a problem with such companies - would understand that they would have to use some kind of political force to promote a co-op, if none of these companies agree to transform any part of themselves into co-ops.
These companies are alive because of workers everywhere consuming their products. As stated above, capitalist mode of production is more democratic than anything imaginable in this respect.
Rei wrote:I don't know, since I don't know if it's possible to really have a society where no one is in charge of anything.
What about a voluntaryist society where everything is voluntary? No council communism, vanguard party, republican government. No one telling you what to do other than abiding to a legal framework put in place to protect you from your own demise and savagery.
The appeal of cinema lies in the fear of death. - Jim Morrison