[Kman]

Just as the libertarians do.

Libertarians want the people to govern the people, your accusation that they want to create some sort of special elite is nothing but unfounded slander.

Ultimately, his ideal was the Ward Republic, which is basically an agricultural soviet.

None of those quotes support anything remotely similar to soviet agriculture, Jefferson wanted decentralized government IE a union where states had alot of power and the central government in Washington only took care of a few select issues, that is not the same as communism where an all powerful state employs everyone in society and dictates how things are run.

It's also why the Democratic Party as we know it today developed - in opposition to the same interests only this time on the side of the industrial workers.

The democratic party of today have nothing to do with the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, I will give you some quotes by Jefferson to prove myself:

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

The important thing to remember though, is that Jefferson opposed capitalism as we currently understand it.

No he didnt and the only way you could come to that conclusion is if your wearing your rose tinted commie glasses while reading his opinions.
As I said earlier he was a little hesitant about the growth of manufacturing sector but later on he abandoned his hesitation and supported it fully.

[The Immortal Goon]

Libertarians want the people to govern the people, your accusation that they want to create some sort of special elite is nothing but unfounded slander.

And so do communists, what's your point? The method in which they ask for such things and what best way to do so is what is significant. The Libertarians want the capitalists in charge of a capitalist society - just as Hamilton did.

None of those quotes support anything remotely similar to soviet agriculture, Jefferson wanted decentralized government IE a union where states had alot [sic] of power and the central government in Washington only took care of a few select issues, that is not the same as communism where an all powerful state employs everyone in society and dictates how things are run.

1. Soviets in Russia were industrial in nature (aside from the peasant's soviets, which were a whole other relic that America didn't have to deal with)
2. I was making a comparison, not making a law. My last statement should have driven this home if this wasn't obvious
3. Again, context - which I provided and you have not - is important here.

The democratic party [sic] of today have nothing to do with the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, I will give you some quotes by Jefferson to prove myself:

Again, my last statement - in addition to what I wrote directly about what you're addressing - should have made this staggeringly obvious.

No he didnt and the only way you could come to that conclusion is if your wearing your rose tinted commie glasses while reading his opinions.
As I said earlier he was a little hesitant about the growth of manufacturing sector but later on he abandoned his hesitation and supported it fully.

Well, I guess if you say so with absolutely no evidence to the contrary, no context to the contrary, and no explanation - it must be true!

[Figlio di Moros]

Libertarians want the people to govern the people, your accusation that they want to create some sort of special elite is nothing but unfounded slander.

And so do communists, what's your point? The method in which they ask for such things and what best way to do so is what is significant. The Libertarians want the capitalists in charge of a capitalist society - just as Hamilton did.

Yes, most libertarians seem to ignore the necessary results of their society; both being government "by the people" naturually create different oligarchies as a result of their existance. Libertarian society provides the means of control to fall to the bourgeosie(sic?) class, which will inevitable create a libertine plutarchy. Socialist societies will devolve into oligarchies, as well; however, the means by which they exert control will be more diverse, based on the form in which it arises.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

what you seem to be forgetting here is that communism does not seek to eliminate classes, it seeks to envelop all the classes into the proletariat class. So to say that socialism will result in oligarchy is asinine, because the ruling class (the proletariat) would never cede their power to another class.

[Figlio di Moros]

And you seem to be under the impression that any large-level operation wouldn't require hierachal direction. You're quite a bit more fatuous than libertarians if you believe "the proletariat" can exert control over a global system with no sub-division.

[Nets]

C_M is ignoring the "planner class" that would control resource allocation.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Pictured above: two people that don't understand socialism.

[Figlio di Moros]

Didn't you hear? They're unnecessary in an amonetary society...

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

C_M is ignoring the "planner class" that would control resource allocation.

Or you know, I could just be thinking that computers can be used for something other than porn and video games.

[Nets]

You can't just throw out "computers" as a buzzword. Do you have any idea how complex and how sensitive that program would be?

Writing econ simulation models for computers restricted to even discrete time and a world with known preferences and a world with only a handful of goods is incredibly hard already, I honestly can't even imagine the program you suggest.

A program that numerically solved the hundreds of thousands of equations necessary to define an equilibrium allocation of goods in a real economy, I honestly can't see running in anything less than several times the age of the universe.

Hell, I am writing software right now that tries to find optimal bids in certain auction mechanisms, which is infinitely simpler than the model needed here, and it is still very difficult.

I'd love to be proved wrong on this, a macro computer model of that sophistication would be incredible. I just don't believe any program can accurately capture the variety of consumer preferences.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Now hold on here. You said:

C_M is ignoring the "planner class" that would control resource allocation.

Which does not imply that the "planner class" would decide who gets what, but that they would literally control the resources and send them to who they want. The idea that there would be some kind of unchecked minority that decides who gets what and would abuse that power to their own favor is ludicrous to me. Much in the same way that a worker at a company would be bound by bourgeoisie laws and be imprisoned for abusing his position, any "resource allocator" would be bound by revolutionary law and punished for abusing his position.

What I meant when I said that, "I could just be thinking that computers can be used for something other than porn and video games," is that the use of a key card and a computer could easily replace the credit card as the method of exchange a grocery store, and a swipe would be good for such and such resources every two weeks. That wouldn't be too hard to do with computers, since it essentially what we already do.

The "resource allocator" would have no control over the distribution of goods, he would be wholly separate from that process. I suppose what you are thinking of is someone who advises the different sectors how much they should be producing. Now, that might seem like a difficult job in a capitalist society, but we're not talking about capitalism, are we? Someone's literal intent can be gaged in a non-capitalist society, because they are not bound by monetary means and the cost-benefit analysis. Thus the "demand" part of determining supply would not be unnecessarily complicated. Because, correct me if I'm wrong here, demand in a capitalist society is not determined by desire, but desire, means, and intent to purchase. Well in a non-monetary society the last part would become obsolete for obvious reasons. The means would turn from "individual means" to "collective means" and would be societally determined. The desire of course can easily be found out by asking them "what do you want?"

Now, I'm sure that all that is a lot more difficult than I'm actually making it out to be, but think about it this way: it's a job that lets you deal with numbers where the only real difficulty is that you have to walk around a few months a year to compile data. I'm sure that math oriented people who are attracted to economics would easily love to be in that position. In addition to that, you are utilizing your own labor and there is no exploitation involved. You would not be dealing with "who gets what?", you'd be compiling numbers and hopefully coming up with some kind of way to predict need.

Is it perfect? Well I highly doubt it. But it's better than just saying: LOL THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE CASED CLOSED ON SOCIALISM.

[Figlio di Moros]

We're not talking about socialism, many forms of socialism and Technocracy understand the necessity for some hierchical direction, even if the means of production are "commonly owned". The difference is that you seem to be under the impression even the "planner class" would be eliminated, which simply isn't a practical solution.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Eventually it would be eliminated, but it's impossible and even undesirable to eliminate all of capitalism at once. That would be stupid.

Anyway, nice job not addressing anything that I said. You typify the sort of reaction that I was talking about:

LOL THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE CASED CLOSED ON SOCIALISM.

[Nets]

Which does not imply that the "planner class" would decide who gets what, but that they would literally control the resources and send them to who they want. The idea that there would be some kind of unchecked minority that decides who gets what and would abuse that power to their own favor is ludicrous to me. Much in the same way that a worker at a company would be bound by bourgeoisie laws and be imprisoned for abusing his position, any "resource allocator" would be bound by revolutionary law and punished for abusing his position.

I understand that it would work like that in theory, but I am skeptical that the planners who make the final decisions wouldn't be corrupted by that power. In theory, the Eastern Bloc was supposed to function the same way but you can't deny that the ruling oligarchies who set production targets and allocated resources weren't corrupted by that position straddling the economy. Especially when we break the delineation between 'societal' and 'individual' wants; I am fearful that the wants of those in charge of planning would become the wants of 'society', without remedy.

What I meant when I said that, "I could just be thinking that computers can be used for something other than porn and video games," is that the use of a key card and a computer could easily replace the credit card as the method of exchange a grocery store, and a swipe would be good for such and such resources every two weeks. That wouldn't be too hard to do with computers, since it essentially what we already do.

Having a card with credits on it for certain goods or what not is basically money.

The "resource allocator" would have no control over the distribution of goods, he would be wholly separate from that process. I suppose what you are thinking of is someone who advises the different sectors how much they should be producing. Now, that might seem like a difficult job in a capitalist society, but we're not talking about capitalism, are we? Someone's literal intent can be gaged in a non-capitalist society, because they are not bound by monetary means and the cost-benefit analysis. Thus the "demand" part of determining supply would not be unnecessarily complicated. Because, correct me if I'm wrong here, demand in a capitalist society is not determined by desire, but desire, means, and intent to purchase. Well in a non-monetary society the last part would become obsolete for obvious reasons. The means would turn from "individual means" to "collective means" and would be societally determined. The desire of course can easily be found out by asking them "what do you want?"

Now, I'm sure that all that is a lot more difficult than I'm actually making it out to be, but think about it this way: it's a job that lets you deal with numbers where the only real difficulty is that you have to walk around a few months a year to compile data. I'm sure that math oriented people who are attracted to economics would easily love to be in that position.

The problem is defining the function that takes in survey data as an argument and outputs a vector of production targets for the macro economy. Defining this function would require thousands of "choices" by the planners along the way, thousands of decisions colored by their own prejudices and what not. There could be endless disagreement as the proper form of such a function; why some desires are weighed more highly than others, why some goods are deemed socially beneficial and others aren't, etc.

I just can't imagine any sort of comprehensive planning could ever meet consumer demands for non-durable goods, even if restricted to a 1 million person state let as you propose. It would be great at building power plants and tractors, terrible at making consumer goods. I know how to spend my money better than you know how to spend mine for me, my neighbor knows how to spend his own money for himself better than I do for him. Why not just endow everyone with sufficient income and give them choice, and let markets arise to accommodate them.

At the end of the day, with a few notable exception (defense, health, education, etc.) it is far more efficient and has far more social surplus (in the economic sense) to let markets sort these things out. c

In addition to that, you are utilizing your own labor and there is no exploitation involved.

This is really the crux of our disagreement, everything else is subsidiary: I do not accept the the Marxian conception of "exploitation". I don't equate profit or capital gains with exploitation. At the heart, this really is an irreconcilable difference between us.

Is it perfect? Well I highly doubt it. But it's better than just saying: LOL THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE CASED CLOSED ON SOCIALISM.

I don't think it is fair to dismiss criticism of the functioning of such a system as "LOL THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE CASED CLOSED ON SOCIALISM." These are real concerns that I and others have. I know it was in response to Fig, but still.