Create Your Own Government!

Esper said:

We simply provide all the necessities (food, shelter, medicine, education, etc.) to everyone and then when everyone has what they need we can all work for what we want in a collaborative way. We'd just have to move to a different mindset where a person in need gets what they need regardless of the circumstances.

Click to expand...

Money is just an exchange medium. Societies from all over the world with varying degrees of technological development end up making different forms of money. Money is the natural consequence of wanting to exchange things without bartering. Since any society will want to exchange things, and since nobody would want to be limited to bartering, money's going to come about.

Providing necessities to everyone might work, but there are lots of sticking points. How do you provide shelter to everyone in a way that's both fair and satisfactory? I can understand that it's reasonable to enforce standards in a healthcare context and education, but how would we do that with housing? Who gets a bachelors vs a two bedroom apartment? Who gets a semi-detached vs a detached house? What about people who want a more collective housing? We can extend the same issues to food as well. How do you provide the necessities of food in a way that will be equitable to everyone? I think in those scenarios, where it's much less likely for there to be a one-size-fits-all approach, the market does a better job of providing people with what they need.

All these concerns seem to ignore that right now, in a world of money, there are people who have inadequate food, shelter, medicine and so on. So if you're someone lacking in these basic necessities then why wouldn't you want to try out a system that gives you basic survival at the expense of someone having to live in a smaller house than the one they're used to?

But anyway, I'm not saying I have all the answers. I just don't believe that because money has been used in many (but not all) societies throughout history that it is therefore the best system that could possibly exist.

Esper said:

All these concerns seem to ignore that right now, in a world of money, there are people who have inadequate food, shelter, medicine and so on. So if you're someone lacking in these basic necessities then why wouldn't you want to try out a system that gives you basic survival at the expense of someone having to live in a smaller house than the one they're used to?

But anyway, I'm not saying I have all the answers. I just don't believe that because money has been used in many (but not all) societies throughout history that it is therefore the best system that could possibly exist.

Click to expand...

But people have always lacked food, shelter, medicine, and so on, wouldn't you agree? Why do you think that scarcity necessarily is caused by money, and doesn't exist for some other reason?

If you're lacking in anything, of course you'd want to try out anything that'll treat you better, with some exceptions based on ethical considerations. But that doesn't mean that the system would work, nor would it mean that the system is just.

Like I said before, money is a natural consequence of wanting to exchange for something but not having the specific item the other person wants. For example, cigarettes are often exchanged as currency in the US Prison system. If you want a can of oysters from someone, but all they want are envelopes, for example, you're out of luck if you don't have envelopes unless you have another way of providing something that they will accept. That's all money is - something that is generally accepted as value for something else. You would have to ban money to eliminate it, because if you don't, people are limited to bartering and that's not a happy outcome.

Kanzler said:

But people have always lacked food, shelter, medicine, and so on, wouldn't you agree? Why do you think that scarcity necessarily is caused by money, and doesn't exist for some other reason?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying scarcity is caused by lack of money, I'm saying that a system that uses money doesn't cure scarcity since we've still got scarcity. Therefore, unless you believe that we're living under the best possible conditions, money isn't necessarily the best system.

Kanzler said:

If you're lacking in anything, of course you'd want to try out anything that'll treat you better, with some exceptions based on ethical considerations. But that doesn't mean that the system would work, nor would it mean that the system is just.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't mean that that it couldn't be just or couldn't work either. One can also argue that our current system doesn't work and isn't just.

Kanzler said:

Like I said before, money is a natural consequence of wanting to exchange for something but not having the specific item the other person wants. For example, cigarettes are often exchanged as currency in the US Prison system. If you want a can of oysters from someone, but all they want are envelopes, for example, you're out of luck if you don't have envelopes unless you have another way of providing something that they will accept. That's all money is - something that is generally accepted as value for something else. You would have to ban money to eliminate it, because if you don't, people are limited to bartering and that's not a happy outcome.

Click to expand...

I don't believe money is natural unless you assume that ownership and property are also natural. I'd argue they're not. A prison isn't the best example because there are very strict outside forces regulating how society in prison can function, essentially enforcing a system of money/barter through force.

And with the oysters and envelopes example, if one didn't always expect to get something in return for everything they give, if one lived in a society where they felt secure in knowing that their needs would be met regardless of how much they give or don't give, then if someone asks you for oysters you can just give them to the person without getting anything in return from them, but later on you'd get something you ask for from them or someone else. With money you place a specific value on things that isn't going to match how each person values it. Something's value is going to change based on how much that thing is wanted or needed and money systems aren't going to reflect that as accurately or as quickly.

Esper said:

I'm not saying scarcity is caused by lack of money, I'm saying that a system that uses money doesn't cure scarcity since we've still got scarcity. Therefore, unless you believe that we're living under the best possible conditions, money isn't necessarily the best system.



It wouldn't mean that that it couldn't be just or couldn't work either. One can also argue that our current system doesn't work and isn't just.



I don't believe money is natural unless you assume that ownership and property are also natural. I'd argue they're not. A prison isn't the best example because there are very strict outside forces regulating how society in prison can function, essentially enforcing a system of money/barter through force.

And with the oysters and envelopes example, if one didn't always expect to get something in return for everything they give, if one lived in a society where they felt secure in knowing that their needs would be met regardless of how much they give or don't give, then if someone asks you for oysters you can just give them to the person without getting anything in return from them, but later on you'd get something you ask for from them or someone else. With money you place a specific value on things that isn't going to match how each person values it. Something's value is going to change based on how much that thing is wanted or needed and money systems aren't going to reflect that as accurately or as quickly.

Click to expand...

1) Value is subjective, and money expresses this subjective value the best. The value of a product is the aggregate subjective valuing of an entire population. Value changes, you are right, but how does money not reflect this accurately or quickly?

2) We have to be discriminatory because of scarcity. Some people will always have something at the expense of another (wealth is still different- fixed pie fallacy), so we have to have property rights and a market to allocate resources.

3) Property, resources, etc. have value because of scarcity as well. For example, beachfront properties are worth more because there is less available beachfront property. While something more abundant is worth less.

4) We trade and invest to acquire skills that increase our own productivity or expand our wealth.

5) Basically ownership and property is natural because scarcity is natural. To deny ownership is natural is to also deny self-ownership - that is - that you dont own your own body. Because your body is also subject to scarcity and choice.

6) This is how resources are allocated. Based on the value of different things, including labor. Which is why a CEO makes more than a janitor- one has labor that is valued more than the other. To remove money, remove property rights, and remove discrimination will result in misallocation of resources and a severe lack of any kind of rational economic calculation. The notion that people will produce without anything in return or invest without any gain is utopian. The notion that needs and wants can somehow be met without any kind of calculation or measure is utopian. impossible.

Also ima get back to monarchy later. Im just writing shorter and quicker stuff atm.

Esper said:

I'm not saying scarcity is caused by lack of money, I'm saying that a system that uses money doesn't cure scarcity since we've still got scarcity. Therefore, unless you believe that we're living under the best possible conditions, money isn't necessarily the best system.

Click to expand...

Money cures scarcity to the extent it facilitates trade, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect it to do anything else than what it says on the box. Just because money doesn't cure all the economic ills doesn't mean that we should do away with it since it's performing another function (facilitating exchange) just fine.

Esper said:

It wouldn't mean that that it couldn't be just or couldn't work either. One can also argue that our current system doesn't work and isn't just.

Click to expand...

Right, but at this point all you're suggesting is a hypothetical of a hypothetical - there may exist yet another system (whose details are unclear) that could work better than the one we have. Unless you've got a more concrete suggestion, I don't know how much further this specific discussion can go from "the current system has flaws and injustices".

Esper said:

I don't believe money is natural unless you assume that ownership and property are also natural. I'd argue they're not. A prison isn't the best example because there are very strict outside forces regulating how society in prison can function, essentially enforcing a system of money/barter through force.

Click to expand...

That's not the point - the point is that prisoners figure out a way to use currency where they would otherwise be forced to barter, just like every other society. There's not a lot of money circulating in a prison, but some people have surpluses of things that other people want, so they figure out a more efficient way to trade things instead of bartering. Barter is the "natural" way of exchange, but societies build the concept of money on top of that because nobody wants to be limited to bartering.

What does money have to do with ownership and property? Money is just any medium that is readily accepted to exchange for something else. I don't really understand your point here. So what if money isn't natural? The point is that we don't have to wait for two people to have exactly what the other wants for an exchange to occur.

What does it matter the "unnaturalness" of ownership and property anyways?

Esper said:

And with the oysters and envelopes example, if one didn't always expect to get something in return for everything they give, if one lived in a society where they felt secure in knowing that their needs would be met regardless of how much they give or don't give, then if someone asks you for oysters you can just give them to the person without getting anything in return from them, but later on you'd get something you ask for from them or someone else. With money you place a specific value on things that isn't going to match how each person values it. Something's value is going to change based on how much that thing is wanted or needed and money systems aren't going to reflect that as accurately or as quickly.

Click to expand...

But people don't have to buy from you if they don't think the price you suggest matches what you offer. I'm not sure what other system you would suggest that would reflect the "value" of something more accurately or quickly.

I'm not too educated on the stuff on the right-hand side, it's mostly guesswork. But the words and the pretty diagram look sort of in line with what I think so I'm cool with it.

I like customisation games/quizzes/things like this, although I don't know how to post the entire result unless it's with a screenshot.

No, I will not explain my reasoning to my choices because there's just too many of them lol

Reyzadren said:

I like customisation games/quizzes/things like this, although I don't know how to post the entire result unless it's with a screenshot.

No, I will not explain my reasoning to my choices because there's just too many of them lol

Click to expand...

How can religious libertarianism even be a thing? o.O
Doesn't libertarianism's dislike for governing bodies extend to religious organisations?

gimmepie said:

How can religious libertarianism even be a thing? o.O
Doesn't libertarianism's dislike for governing bodies extend to religious organisations?

Click to expand...

lol I have no idea how Religious snuck in. It's probably one of those sliders that I messed up or missed.

As for Libertarianism though, that's an accurate description of my political choice, though I wasn't specifically aiming for it while using the website.

Esper said:

We simply provide all the necessities (food, shelter, medicine, education, etc.) to everyone and then when everyone has what they need we can all work for what we want in a collaborative way. We'd just have to move to a different mindset where a person in need gets what they need regardless of the circumstances.

Click to expand...

Isn't that, in essence, very similar to communism?

Hands said:

Isn't that, in essence, very similar to communism?

Click to expand...

I suppose? Except I envision it in a way where it doesn't waste resources in wars, fighting against capitalism, etc. and with more emphasis on meeting the needs of communities.

Esper said:

I suppose? Except I envision it in a way where it doesn't waste resources in wars, fighting against capitalism, etc. and with more emphasis on meeting the needs of communities.

Click to expand...

Sorry I just realised how snarky my first comment looked, I meant it in a good way like, isn't the spirit of communism something similar? I like your idea more, I constantly question where physical money even came from and how much better we'd all be without it in our lives.

Hands said:

Sorry I just realised how snarky my first comment looked, I meant it in a good way like, isn't the spirit of communism something similar? I like your idea more, I constantly question where physical money even came from and how much better we'd all be without it in our lives.

Click to expand...

Oh, no, I didn't think you were. Just that you were trying to figure out if what I was describing was communism by another name.

But, yeah, I don't think communism as an idea is all bad. Needs to be updated just like any system does, just like the capitalism of Adam Smith and those people can't be a point-for-point blueprint for the world now.

Esper said:

Oh, no, I didn't think you were. Just that you were trying to figure out if what I was describing was communism by another name.

But, yeah, I don't think communism as an idea is all bad. Needs to be updated just like any system does, just like the capitalism of Adam Smith and those people can't be a point-for-point blueprint for the world now.

Click to expand...

Communism is the worst economic system possible. It attempts to ignores scarcity and cannot preform rational economic calculation after the abolition of private property because all market signals, cost/benefit analysis, etc are completely removed. Meaning the production and distribution of goods is nearly impossible... even if the goods are created. Without a personal stake, work ethic will naturally decrease and parasitism increase. A common objection to this claim would be that working would be culturally and socially enforced; however, if everyone is under the same incentives and disincentives, such a culture cannot sprout. Without a personal stake, investments and saving is completely discouraged. Both are imperative to any kind of economy.

Assuming communism works, the system is inherently violent upon conception because it requires the proletariat uprising against the bourgeoisie, and Marx outlines the necessity for killing off all the bourgeoisie because they cannot help themselves but promote exploitation, materialism, and other negative virtues.

In addition, communism cannot decipher between "petty" bourgeois and bourgeois, meaning a bourgeois individual that acts similar to a proletariat will still be killed as a result of his position within the hierarchy.

Communism will inevitably result in the destruction or theft of property, first through war with the bourgeoisie. After the proletariat's successful uprising, previously private property is publicized. Marx attempts to make a distinction between personal and private property, where personal property is something like clothes and private property is generally something like capital goods or something used to produce. However, there are many items that can be used as both- the best example being a computer. Is it fair to forcefully collect all belongings that belong in this grey area?

So finally a communist nation is established. Communism is traditionally run via direct democracy. On a large scale, and assuming this is not an anarcho-communist scenario, (which, according to Marx, is the final stage) then the form of government would most likely be republicanism with local central planners. This does NOT negate the economic calculation issue.

With direct democracy or republicanism, according to the Iron Law of Oligarchy, democratic governments (such as the two listed) will ALWAYS form an oligarchy. So now, if all of the violence and economic issues have not created an oppressive authoritarian state as they usually do, then now we have a guaranteed authoritarian state. A system where the rulers subjugate the ruled, looting the nation for any leftover value and leaving the masses to starve. Note that this would occur in the long term, not right away.

And what do oligarchies do? War! War is to the health of the state. In fact, the spreading of communism is its goal. Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that communism is a "world revolution."

With these innumerable problems with communism, how do you suppose we solve or update them?

I highly doubt that Marx advocated for the killing of anyone in his political writings.

Kanzler said:

I highly doubt that Marx advocated for the killing of anyone in his political writings.

Click to expand...

All from the Communist Manifesto (which i have downloaded and read more or less)... should i cite page numbers and provide a link to the pdf? I dont mean to plagiarize here. And ya, i got nothing from Das Kapital because its a pain to read and I'm not gonna be that guy to cite a source about literature without being at least somewhat familiar with the piece first.

Destruction of property and physically attacking humans:

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."

"At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages."

"Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots"

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

I think its clear that the communist revolution is violent and deadly. As for Marx calling off all of the bourgeois:

1) Learned in my political theory class Marx advocated the killing of all o the bourgeois

2) "The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country"

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

-Meaning the bourgeois spread their mindset to the population, including the proletariat. They infect society. If the revolution does not kill all of the bourgeois, this mindset can and will spread.

Yeah, I'm gonna be honest and say I didn't really read any of that. I know communism isn't perfect, that's why I said it needed to be updated. It's the core idea that I'm down with, the idea of community/communalism/other words starting with com-. As opposed to capitalism, which in its current form is causing lots of awful things in the world today.

Esper said:

Yeah, I'm gonna be honest and say I didn't really read any of that. I know communism isn't perfect, that's why I said it needed to be updated. It's the core idea that I'm down with, the idea of community/communalism/other words starting with com-. As opposed to capitalism, which in its current form is causing lots of awful things in the world today.

Click to expand...

Isn't communism minus the obvious flaws socialism?
I've always felt kind of like that.

gimmepie said:

Isn't communism minus the obvious flaws socialism?
I've always felt kind of like that.

Click to expand...

They're similar, but socialism is fairly different. Socialism in it's purest form revolves around public ownership. The state owns the means of production and the people own the state. Capitalism can exist within Socialism and vice versa, however capitalism cannot exist within Communism.

The socialism we have now in the west is quite limited, although a lot of European countries and Great Britain have a lot of socialist elements.