Organizing society in an uninhabitable island - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13668863
There's only 50 people, Boston... you'd split up the four redneck, two scoolteachers, the engineer, etc?

The concept of "competing societies" would be destructive with such a small population.
By eugenekop
#13669165
So let me understand this. We don't use violence as long as there are no significant economic gaps in the island society, however when these gaps appear then we start beating people up and taking their surplus and give it to the poor. Do I understand correctly?
User avatar
By Fasces
#13669168
yeah, dont act so outraged. you're the one who wants to reinstate chattel bondage on pain of starvation. we're not the bad guys here, not that you'll se it, but its ok. the world is laughing at the lolbetarians, not with them.

Haha says the chinaman.

Haha says the korean

Haha they're destroying THEMSELVES.
By Thompson_NCL
#13669194
Depends on what the resources are like. If there is ample, then I'd be favourable to the idea of sharing and working together. If there are limited resources, I'd be on the attack.
By eugenekop
#13669241
In western countries there are definitely ample resources, yet the welfare state is on constant attack. People who refuse to share their property are jailed. This sharing is usually very significant as well, 50% would be the norm. How can you justify it? How could the island evolve into the welfare state?
By Pants-of-dog
#13669250
Eugene, please define what you mean by a welfare state.

If I went around and built homes for everyone who was unable to make themselves one and the community fed me during that time, would that be a welfare state?
By eugenekop
#13669257
Eugene, please define what you mean by a welfare state.

If I went around and built homes for everyone who was unable to make themselves one and the community fed me during that time, would that be a welfare state?


No, that would be charity. However if you went with a shotgun and took half of the property of all the people on the island and then gave that property to your buddies while also giving some scraps to the poor, that would be a welfare state.
By Pants-of-dog
#13669266
So, if people communally decided that each should give according to their ability, and each should be provided for according to their needs, that would not be a welfare state?
By eugenekop
#13669321
So, if people communally decided that each should give according to their ability, and each should be provided for according to their needs, that would not be a welfare state?


It would be a welfare cooperative. A welfare state uses force to submit to its rule all the population. A welfare cooperative such as you describe is merely a voluntary contract between people. It is in my opinion an inefficient organization, but it is completely non aggressive, and therefore legal and moral.
By Pants-of-dog
#13669337
eugenekop wrote:It would be a welfare cooperative. A welfare state uses force to submit to its rule all the population. A welfare cooperative such as you describe is merely a voluntary contract between people. It is in my opinion an inefficient organization, but it is completely non aggressive, and therefore legal and moral.


Now, what if one person (let's call him Al) decides he doesn't like it and he eats from the communal pot but does no work all day. Would it be okay to force him to work?

Would it be okay to use force to keep him from eating from the communal pot?
By eugenekop
#13669342
Now, what if one person (let's call him Al) decides he doesn't like it and he eats from the communal pot but does no work all day. Would it be okay to force him to work?


No.

Would it be okay to use force to keep him from eating from the communal pot?


Yes.
By Pants-of-dog
#13669351
eugenekop wrote:Yes.


So, it is okay to use force to exclude people if they decide not to participate in the social contract?
By eugenekop
#13669437
Look, its very simple. Any cooperation between people that is voluntary is okay. Anything else is not.
By Pants-of-dog
#13669443
It seems that Al would be forced to cooperate (i.e. get back to work), starve, or leave if he was not allowed to approach the communal food.

You said this was okay. Is it okay, or would you define it as involuntary cooperation?
By eugenekop
#13669519
Why starve? He can gather his own food. He doesn't have to leave either. He just can't steal someone's else food.
By Pants-of-dog
#13669573
eugenekop wrote:Why starve? He can gather his own food. He doesn't have to leave either. He just can't steal someone's else food.


Let's ignore for now the very real problems that a single person faces in the wild that a group handles easily and assume that Al can actually feed himself.

So Al goes and makes another camp a little ways away from the rest of them. He is still close enough that he can hear people talk about what a douchebag he's being while he tries to sleep, but far enough away that no one can accuse him of trying to sneak some food.

He is close enough to share the same water supply. One day, he is (foolishly) pissing into the river (because he has not dug a latrine pit) upstream of where everyone else gets drinking water.

Does the community have the right to force Al to stop pissing there?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]