Truth To Power wrote: In your dreams. You don't even have a way to measure competence, because your system can't generate useful prices.
ComradeTim wrote:I don't see why not.
Because value is how much the person who wants the item most would have to pay to buy it from the person who wants it second most, and you have no market in which to generate such information.
Communities tell workplaces how many resources and commodities they need. Workplaces inform communities what resources they have and what they are able to produce. Prices can be worked out between them based on labour time, skill, availability.
No, they can't.
Communities allocate said goods to the people. What's the problem here?
The problem is that the system you describe generates directives
, not prices
Truth To Power wrote: There are lots of people who aren't drooling morons who are nevertheless less competent than the most competent, but more likely to be elected by the drooling morons than the most competent.
This is inherent to all systems.
No, it's only inherent to all voting
systems. The market finds the most competent and elects them to manage resources through the price and profit systems.
You seem to be arguing from a dictatorial standpoint. Why should we allow free elections, if an unelected dictator could allocate positions better than those stupid peasants?
It's quite possible that an unelected dictator could do that (Plato's ideal, beloved of socialists ever since), the problem is we don't know if he can or not, and there is no way to find out.
Is this what you want? If not, why should people put up with dictators in business if they don't politically?
Because in a geolibertarian society (not a capitalist one), a business owner is only a dictator over his own property, not other people's rights.
Truth To Power wrote: So you will have wasted resources.
Fairness is more important than efficiency.
That's not true, and in any case you will also have unfairness, probably even more of it.
Truth To Power wrote: It is, but only one part, and not the most important part. Steve Jobs had appalling people skills, and could never have been elected to a position of responsibility in any of your industrial Gulags.
Is that a bad thing?
Truth To Power wrote: I see: you prefer to have the power-seekers in charge of production rather than the producers. Thought so.
Get a grip man. The producers are never in charge.
Producers are never in charge in your socialist Gulag, that's for sure. They are sometimes in charge in capitalist societies (I have worked with some), and geolibertarian institutions would put them pretty consistently in charge -- of production
At the moment and in your world, ass kissers and nepotists are put in charge.
No. You are simply making a claim about my proposed system based on zero (0) fact and logic. We can see how ass kissers and nepotists get to be in charge under capitalism. But you haven't explained how they could get to be in charge in a geolibertarian society. And you won't be doing so.
In mine, the worker's choice of leader is.
We've seen what happens when the workers' choice of leader is in charge: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
Truth To Power wrote: How long do you think that will last when the politicians have all power?
Not long, as can be seen today under capitalism and would be seen once your peudo-capitalsim is implemented.
Again, you are making claims about my system with no factual or logical support. You just claim it is the same as capitalism, but I have already proved it is radically different. In fact, because it does not commit the shared capitalist and socialist error of conflating land and capital, my system is more different from capitalism than socialism is.
Truth To Power wrote:Where their mental illness can kill people more easily. Brilliant.
Think it through.
Truth To Power wrote:You mean, just like now....?
Think it through.
Truth To Power wrote:So, only the people you think merit votes would get them.
Are you trolling? Obviously the mentally retarded can't vote.
And the Commissars decide who is mentally retarded....
Truth To Power wrote:I.e., enslaved.
That's my question answered.
Too bad you
have no answers:
Truth To Power wrote:No you wouldn't. Every socialist fancies himself in charge.
Truth To Power wrote:Except that the people in charge of the records at the Ministry of Truth might have something to say about it....
Absence of answers noted.
Truth To Power wrote: By the one who initiated and manages the production process.
Like Hitler initiated the Holocaust, without the consent of the "produced".
What? Are you really claiming that an entrepreneur dealing with people by mutual consent to mutual benefit is analogous to Hitler exterminating millions? REALLY???
Truth To Power wrote: And your claim to be entitled to a social circle at the expense of society will get you nowhere.
Truth To Power, bolded parts by me wrote: How much wealth should society have to sacrifice just to provide you with the type of employment you wish to pursue, in a location and at a wage that satisfies your demands for "equal" opportunity?
This system is for everyone in society.
No, it's not. It's for the Commissars. We know how that one turns out.
Thats like saying "how much wealth should society have to sacrifice just to provide society etc".
No, that is the Collective fallacy, like saying, "The national debt doesn't matter, because we owe it to ourselves."
As stated before wages are a capitalist construct to rob workers of their rightful due so that capitalists can be enriched.
As stated before, no, they are not. What capitalism does is remove people's liberty to pursue alternative opportunities (i.e., their liberty to use natural resources), and that is what makes wage labor exploitative under capitalism. Geolibertarianism doesn't remove people's access to other opportunities, so wage labor becomes a voluntary transaction to mutual benefit.
i advocate the end of wage labour.
Then you advocate the poverty that comes with the end of division of labor and specialization.
Truth To Power wrote: No, because you have no idea what managers actually do for a living, and because you still refuse to know that slavery-like employment conditions are forced on you by the institution of private property in land, not employers. The only difference between private ownership of land and ownership of slaves is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.
What do managers do to your mind then?
Employers had capital, when I did not.
So go and earn some.
This needs to be rectified by distributing capital equally.
I.e., by taking from others what they have justly earned, and giving it to you, who have not earned it. Thought so.
You have a funny idea of what "rectify" means....
Truth To Power wrote:No, I am saying that someone who has capital has more to contribute to production than someone who doesn't, and to the extent that he makes a greater contribution to production, he earns a commensurately bigger share of production. This isn't rocket science.
Under capitalism, yes. Under socialism no-one has more capital than anyone else, until they earn more by hard and productive work.
Nope. Socialism takes their earnings and gives them to those who haven't earned it.
Good second sentence though.
All my sentences are good.
Truth To Power wrote:No. Not because Randy inherited capital from his slave owner ancestors or because John's ancestors were slaves, but whether or not their ancestors owned or were owned as slaves, because the nature of their ancestors has nothing to do with what Randy and John are currently contributing to production and the rewards they are thus earning, and deserve to get. You are merely ASSUMING, without evidence, that Randy got his capital through his ancestors' crimes, and that John is without capital because his ancestors were the victims of crimes. You have no way of knowing how they got their capital, whether they got it unjustly, and you have not explained how it could have been gotten unjustly through geolibertarian institutions, nor will you ever be explaining it.
Why should anyone begin with more capital than anyone else?
Because someone else decided to give their own justly owned capital to them.
Have they earned it, without working?
Because in a geolibertarian system, the person who DID earn it, by commensurate contributions to production, has a right to dispose of it as he wishes. It is his rightful property.
Has the person without capital been a poor worker?
Can you explain this to me?
Are you willing to know facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil?
Truth To Power wrote: The bed is still Procrustean. Read Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron" to see a perfectly accurate description of your ideal society.
Yes. Of course. Eradicating privilege in capital is the same as the situation decribed.
no privilege in capital. That is very much the point. There is privilege in landowning, and in banksters' issuance of debt money backed by government, and in IP monopolies, and in limited corporate liability, and in restrictions that prevent competition among privileged workers such as lawyers, doctors, and certified union workers, and in a hundred other things, but NOT in capital, because unlike privilege, ownership of capital DOESN'T VIOLATE ANYONE'S RIGHTS
Truth To Power wrote: There is no such right. People can only have a right to what they would have if others did not take it from them: life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. Total equality of opportunity is not only physically impossible, but something that others would have to provide, so it cannot possibly be a right.
An individualist perspective.
Because as a matter of objective fact, human beings are individuals.
There are no individual rights, only social rights.
That's just false as a matter of objective fact.
Capital is the product of society, not any one individual.
That's also just false as a matter of objective fact. Capital is produced by the specific individuals who contribute labor and capital to its production. Claiming that "society" produced capital is simply your attempt not to know that fact, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
When one person dies, his capital becomes the property of society to be given out equally.
In point of fact, it does no such thing, nor could it rightly do so.
Truth To Power wrote: Ah, no, he does not. His observation was probably correct as a matter of fact (as Googling slave and master will confirm), but that in no way implies that all the slaves in his society were natural slaves, or all the masters natural masters.
To have the idea that anyone is a natural slave, is tantamount to the same.
No, it is not. As a matter of objective fact.
Truth To Power wrote: You have no evidence that any such thing happened, and unequal opportunity would never cause half the pointless waste your system has caused everywhere it has ever been tried.
So only the privileged can be great scientists?
That's just you making up another silly strawman unconnected to anything I have said.
The capitalist in you is showing, let him out, revel in him.
Think, really think about how many outstanding minds have been wasted on manual labour because of capital privilege.
None, because there is no such thing. I can surmise that millions of outstanding minds have been wasted because of landowner
privilege, and millions more because of socialist Commissar privilege, and probably millions more because of bankster privilege, IP monopoly privilege and union privilege. But no outstanding mind can ever have been wasted because of capital privilege, because the producer's ownership of the fruits of his labor is not a privilege. It is a right.
To stay within the ancient Greek theme, the example of Meno's slave from one of Plato's Socratic dialogues highlights this tragic waste of potential.
Which didn't occur in a geolibertarian society.
Truth To Power wrote:Garbage. Slavery is compelled labor.
So, someone who was bought by a master and chained up in a room and forgotten about isn't a slave? Weak.
They are a captive, a victim of crime, and maybe a slave under law; but in fact, unless they are forced to work, they aren't really a slave.
Truth To Power wrote:I advocate treating criminals in a way that minimizes violations of rights. In most cases, that means asset forfeiture, with incarceration reserved as a preventive measure for habitual criminals. Capital punishment turns out to be very costly, and wastes a potential source of both labor and information on other crimes.
So, if a manager in your society embezzled from his workers, he would get a slap on the wrist instead of re-education and labour?
I don't call asset forfeiture a slap on the wrist, and neither do real criminals. They typically fear loss of the proceeds of their crimes almost as much as incarceration. Sometimes more. But how to handle white collar crime is a difficult question. In most cases incarceration is not appropriate. It's just expensive. Such people are capable of being productive and contributing to society, but can't be trusted not to take advantage of others.
I can see why white collar crime is so prevalent.
White collar crime is so prevalent precisely BECAUSE asset forfeiture is rarely used, or applied very lightly.