Get a hold of this debate???

Drew Brando:

I honestly have no idea how I can formulate a good argument for this debate without hurting my classmates feelings.

Last month I wrote a paper on child labor and why it's good for "third world countries", and my History teacher read it infront of the class and demonized me.

 

To me being truthful is more important than being nice. I don't care whether this will make me a lot of facebook-type friends or not. I would ask your teacher what are choices that these children have. If he doesn't know ask him what are countries with highest percentage of child prostitution. It's either this or sweatshop or death in there. Ask your teacher if he is so concerned about these children then what he has done for them and if nothing then wtf is he doing here moralizing instead showing how things should be done through his actions and leading by example. Talk is cheap. He is fking hypocrite like most of people really.

@Anarcho :
"Will someone who's productivity is many times greater then someone else's recieve the same salary as the much less productive person(s)?"
Of course, why would a gold seeker would be paid more than a forester? Because gold is more expansive than wood you think? And what about the person who is trying to invent a machine to simplify the gold seeker's work? Maybe (probably) this person is the same and will need the help of other people to invent his "machine". But all of them have interest that the gold seeker's work get easier and faster.
In a capitalist world, you would have workers and unions who will try to slow down the progress to keep their work and the State (whole society) will have to pay the cost of unemployment and social conflicts.

@DrewBrando:
"Describe a regular day in Anarcho-communist society?"
I will do it in the next message.

"Bill Gates owes everybody a million dollars. I don't think it can get much more simpler then that."
It's a bit too simplistic in fact. It is not a question of a certain amount of money. We take off private profit. Bill Gates won't give anything to anyone, except the present private profit made by "his" businesses (maybe there would be some exceptions about the domestic properties question)

@z1235 :
"pay me my social salary even if I only made three mud-pies a month"
Of corse! You don't even have to make some mud-pies if you want. But what will you do after? Tell me what are your passions, your child's dreams.  :)
The only condition to benefit of the 'social salary' will be to give the minimum time to the 'social work', wich represents (like we have talked before) the essential work that no one what to do, wich will be divided to each citizen and randomlly atribuated (with all information public and accessible).

"Then Bill Gates does owe you something then. But you also said that Bill Gates doesn't owe you anything. Which is it? "
Look, I don't know what you don't understand here. He doesn't own me something personnally, but the profit he made was made with social knowledge and social work, so the private profits he made should be returned to the society (wich reprsents the action and exchanges between every humans). Like I said, the profit should be distributed to EVERY terran.

"how did you, your revocable delegation, and your HAL computer become the executors"
We will democratically abolish private profit and ask that all exchanges made by the businesses becomes public information (just like corporations).
All profits made by all businesses will be deposite into a big social account and distributed each month between every humans. Someone that will refuse to return his profits will be judged exactly like someone refusing to pay the taxes today : fraud.

@Micah71381 :
"a strong belief in altruism"
In fact, we are encouraging altruism actions and exchanges. By definition, the ones that will have bad intensions will have limited impact.

"Do you think no one in the world will try to exploit your system and reap the benefits without working (or at least with minimal work)?"
Maybe, there are parasites everywhere and will probably always be. If they don't want to cooperate, it will leave more space for the ones that do want to do something. And also, you need to keep in mind that everyone can become an investigator and everyone will have interest in denouncing the cheaters.

"Do you think the number of people exploiting the system will be low enough that the remaining *real* producers will be able to support them?"
There are already more innactive people in our society that 'exploits the system' (old people, labor unions, big burgess, unemployment, useless jobs, State officials, bureaucracy, state subsidies, etc.).
The development of machinery will also raise production since workers will have interest to replace their job by a machine and will no longer resist to progress. Also, the 'democratic investment' process will encourage citizens to invest in society projects that will then encourage people that want to work (business, research, groups, causes, organisations, church, anything...).

" It sounds like you believe the opposite though, that ideas and concepts are owned (be 'the people' in your case)"
Look, if you are an innovant and invent something because of the historical context, the object belongs to you, but if you want to sell this and make some profit with it, then the profit must be deposit into the social bank account or it is fraud.
You could be selfish and keep this knowledge only for you, we will not steal it in the name of humanity, we are not dump. But this individual would have all interest to share this new knowledge and make raise the 'profit of all humanity' and make his 'social salary' raise.
Also, if his new invention is a social-historical products, then someone will probably invent the same (or similar) technology soon. Maybe it will be longer, but hey, I think it's better than steal it!   ;)

"I could even make a car that is nearly identical to a Toyota Corolla and call it my own and sell it without any problems."
Of course! And you will be encouraged to build your own car locally! Look, no matter if it's Toyota or YOU that sells the car, the profits are socialized.

@Terrigan :
"Unionrevolte,  Half the time you sound like you're advocating some kind of stateless free market system, and the other half of the time, you posit the existence of social institutions that require the existence of a massive, coercively-funded surveillance state."
I think we have answered this already. There will be NO economic State. The whole economy will be in the hands of the individuals. Only we need the State to fix some social standards (like the amount of lead into the paint, the speed limits on the roads or mesures to surpass capitalism like we are discussing in these lines).
And since these decisions are made by the revocable delegation (wich we should descibe soon), it is necessary the opinion of the majority of the population (they are revocable anytime) so the majority of the population becomes 'inspector' and 'agent'.

"Heck, "economic power" isn't even a meaningful term.  Do you mean money?  Wages?  Property?  What exactly is "economic power?""
Domestic property has a different treatment. But for the rest, they are translated in term of money and salary, yes.
'Economic power' is the economic influence you have : the influence to make someone work for you in the job that you will want, the influence to invest in a project that you think is good, anything that requires a capital investment. You could also say Economic power = economic influence. Democracy is not politic, it is economic.

"Who gets to make these decisions?  Who actually hands out the money? "
The politic decisions are made democratically by the revocable delegation, and the economic decisions are made by the individuals : personal expenses and democratic investments.

"Why is it beneficial for brain surgeons to spend one day a month cleaning public toilets or whatever?"
-It makes them aware that they need the work of other peoples for them to spend some time into their 'brain surgeons' work
-It gives them a better overview over the society and the human work and knowledge
-It makes him socialize with different people encouraging links and exchanges between peoples
-It makes him do some physical exercise or different brain excercise
-If no one wants to do the work, why shouldn't he participate too? Who is he to avoid this kind of work?
-Nothing tells me that no one will want to clean the public toilets for the social salary. I know plenty of people who are happy in their job of cleaning.

"You state repeatedly that there is no organization which fixes the prices of goods, but labor time is a good". But labor time gives different production depending on different factors. Also, there is a competition between workers that pulls down salaries. As long that there is poverty and unemployment (wich are constantly raising), there is a tend to lower the salaries.
"By whom?" The salaries will be devided and distributed by computers with this simple formula: PIB / Number of people = salary to each people. It is simple : you take the amount of profits made in a month and you divide it by the number of humans. Childrens (under 14y) could get a lower salary, of course.
If we would do this in Canada, we could offer about 3000$ per month to EACH canadians (womens, men, childrens, old people, handicapped). If we would do this WORLDWIDE, we could offer about 950$ to each terrans. Just keep in mind that about 1/3 of the terrans right now only live with 50$ per months. Just think about the possibilities! Just think about THEIR possibilities!
They will surelly make the whole planet's PIB and salary raise...

"How will they know I'm an unproductive jackass?"
Why would they care? What is a jackass exactly? Who can judge that? If you have money (social work) then it's because you do your minimum social work. Then you are FREE to do what you want. It is simple, no? Maybe it is too much for you guys...lol

"just because someone volunteers to do the doling out doesn't mean they'll do it right"
If he is volunteer, then it's because he wants to do it. If he doesn't know how, i'm pretty sure he can learn. And if he doesn't want, I'm pretty sure that social pression will make him give up and try something else. Do I have to remind you that he doesn't earn anything more to do this work if he is a volunteer? He is FREE to leave his work and go do something else whenever he wants.

@boniek :
"To me being truthful is more important than being nice"
I agree with you. But being truthful is the best way to be nice. Don't you think?  ;)

 

Now do you see how I can pretend that WE are TRUE liberals? Your liberal economic system is based on some borders and some kind of slavery that forces the ones that have hard time to do the job that no one wants. Our structure is based on the freedom of movement, the liberty and the equality of investments of each humans. Your system is based on the appropriation of other's work and knowledge, our system is based on the FREE unity and cooperation between them. Your economic system is based on a pyramidal way of distributing the responsibilities and the richness, where the ones on top have more liberties and influence than everyone under and making every human against each other. Our system is based on the respect of the difference between every humans, their complementarity and their mutual help.

The system you are defending has nothing to do with "liberty" or "liberalism", because it defends the liberty of only a fraction of the individuals.

http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com

André Franc-Shi

So the brain surgeon should waste his valuable time, when he could be saving lives, and clean toilets.

Can you summarize the arguments in favor of division of labor [which claim your way of doing it will kill off most of mankind and leave the rest living in caves], and then your refutation of these arguments? One place to look is Human Action, page 157 and on, available free here.

If you would kindly summarize and then refute what he writes, you will take a giant step toward winning many of us over.

Otherwise, you will strike some of us, flasely no doubt, as asserting and emoting but not proving your case.

 

@Smiling Dave : "winning many of us over"
I am not trying to convince anyone from here, there are other people wich are alot easier to convince. I think, for most of you, your 'opinion is done already' (if we can say that in english). I am explaining what is socialism, since I have read alot of confusion from the libertarians between social-democracy and socialism. Social-democracy is based on the State while real socialism is State-abolitionist. Now you will know your modern opponents will be the liberal-egalitarist.  :0)

I don't care if you think that "the notion of poverty refers only to those people who are unable to take care of themselves (Page 157)", I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call "poor" and "unable to take care of themselves".
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.

I don't care if you think that "the notion of poverty refers only to those people who are unable to take care of themselves (Page 157)", I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call "poor" and "unable to take care of themselves".
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.

C'mon UR

How many people in Canada starved to death before we had an income tax.

The poor are perfectly able to take care of themselves.

As long as they are given a chance that is.

Not much opportunnity in a socialist state.

Or NON-State as the case may be.

unionrevolte:

Of corse! You don't even have to make some mud-pies if you want. But what will you do after? Tell me what are your passions, your child's dreams.  :)

I'm really passionate about a 100ft yacht in the Caribbean stocked with unlimited food and drinks, with a young all-blonde girl crew. I'll vote for your candidacy in the revocable delegation if you can guarantee me this. What a revelation. Where have you been all my life?

The only condition to benefit of the 'social salary' will be to give the minimum time to the 'social work', wich represents (like we have talked before) the essential work that no one what to do, wich will be divided to each citizen and randomlly atribuated (with all information public and accessible).

Wait a moment here. You can't just slip in fine print conditions like this out of nowhere. You are saying I'd have to catch a plane from my yacht and go clean some toilets somewhere because your (sorry, our) HAL computer picked me in some lottery? That's going to crimp my style. I have to think about this proposal. Btw, what happens if I don't agree to your bargain/deal?

"Then Bill Gates does owe you something then. But you also said that Bill Gates doesn't owe you anything. Which is it? "

Look, I don't know what you don't understand here. He doesn't own me something personnally, but the profit he made was made with social knowledge and social work, so the private profits he made should be returned to the society (wich reprsents the action and exchanges between every humans). Like I said, the profit should be distributed to EVERY terran.

But we agreed that YOU (with your actions and exchanges) had NO contribution whatsoever to Bill Gates' profits. Since he doesn't owe you personally anything, why twisting your panties in a bunch over what he may or may not owe somebody else? Did this "society" (which apparently doesn't include you, since Gates doesn't owe you anything) ask for your help or advice regarding their supposed claim to Bill Gates' profits? Or you're just going to claim Gates' profits in their name whether they asked you to or not? 

"how did you, your revocable delegation, and your HAL computer become the executors"

We will democratically abolish private profit and ask that all exchanges made by the businesses becomes public information (just like corporations).

Is this abolishment of profits and disclosure of all information going to be done by asking the people/businesses nicely, or is the revocable delegation also going to allow some "convincing" by yelling and guns? I'd prefer nicely, thanks.

All profits made by all businesses will be deposite into a big social account and distributed each month between every humans.

So who would want to build a business, work hard to make profits only to have them immediately relinquished to HAL? I wouldn't. But that's OK. I'll take my 100ft yacht (which you promised me) over profits any day. So no problem here. 

Someone that will refuse to return his profits will be judged exactly like someone refusing to pay the taxes today : fraud.

Well today it's the state that "judges" whoever refuses to pay taxes. You said there'd be no state. You're tricky with these fine prints, tovarisch. I feel like you're trying to con me into something that's completely different from what you advertise it to be.

Z.

Oh God,!! He`s back, this should be fun.

This time I`ll only answer the questions directed at me. With a few exceptions of course.

1. How are you going to take out private profit? and who is going to do that? and by what means, violence?Also who makes the exceptions?

2. I just love how you say" It's a bit simplistic. it is not a question of a certain amount. We take of private profit". Priceless.

Please answer my previous posts if you wish to continue debating with me. If you're into nitpicking in order to post it on your site to make the debate look as if you won , then I'm not interested.

 

"The system you are defending has nothing to do with "liberty" or "liberalism", because it defends the liberty of only a fraction of the individuals"

I personally found this quote hilarious. First, you fail to explain Adam Smith and why your system has a lot in common with him. Then you go off redefining liberty has you please.

Liberalism defends the liberty of everyone, that's my argument. I'm not going to offer you an explanation, why?????  because you fail to explain any of your arguments, and  because there are sources on this website that can explain them to you.

I wonder what Valject has to say about this new post.lol

OMG, are you saying old people get the help they deserve according to the working life they offered to the society (do I have to define 'society again?). I think these people should get alot more gratification.

 

I'll laugh if I ever end up like that , but  hey what the heck.

Old people did not offer anything to society that wasn't payed for. They got what they deserved, it's not like anyone enslaved them all their life only to free them later and make them feel abused. Seriously, they got payed for the work they offered.Society doesn't owe them anything, they already got payed.

 If my Grandfather worked as a mechanic all his life , I can assume he got a paycheck. I can also assume that he planned his retirement, if he didn't  tough luck. What do you propose?

If you want a better retirement, you better find a way to get one. No one is responsable to pay you more then what you are offering.
 

@unionrevolte:

There has been much scientific research on altruism and generally it has been found that it doesn't exist.  Humans are egocentric by nature.  Many things that are perceived as altruistic are in fact not altruistic at all but rather egocentric.  If you disagree with these claims we can debate it more or you can look for the research yourself, either works for me.  However, if you are basing an entire society on the assumption of altruism I think you first need to prove that altruism exists, and in large enough quantities for your society to succeed.

As a brain surgeon in your society, are you suggesting that I do brain surgery on my own dime in my own time?  That is, I have to do my share of farming and toilet bowl cleaning but once I have met my quota if I want to do brain surgery I can't get paid for it?  Or are you suggesting that once my quota is met then I can go do brain surgery in my free time and charge whatever I want for it?

In your society are you forcing people to participate or can people choose to not participate in your society and live in peace without being provided for by the state and without contributing to the state?  If people can live without the benefit of the state what is stopping brain drain (all of the well educated people breaking from society)?  If this happens then you will end up with only the uneducated left contributing to your society meaning you have no architects, no doctors, no engineers, to managers, etc.  You have janitors, assembly line workers and farmers left.  If all you have are these people how are you going to get the resources necessary to outsource the other services (doctors, engineers, managers, etc.)?  The people left in your society are not producing enough on their own to afford outsourcing these things.

My guess is that with regards to that last part you are relying on altruism and hoping that the well educated voluntarily choose to stick around and support the society?

1. How are you going to take out private profit? and who is going to do that? and by what means, violence?Also who makes the exceptions?

The problem, of course, is that you can never eliminate the phenomenon interest (what Marxians and businessmen call profit), i.e., the fact that (a) future goods are necessarily valued less relative to consumer goods (all other things equal), and (b) the period of production must be factored into entrepreneurial calculations. Bohm-Bawerk explains,

Bohm-Bawerk:

How is it conceivable that, under Socialism, a young oak sapling which will be an oak tree, with the value of an oak tree, in two hundred years, can be made equal in value to an oak full-grown now? The central authority directing the national production must base its entire arrangements and dispositions on a calculation of present and future goods having different values, if its dispositions are not to be quite inept and monstrous. If it does not put less value on future goods it must find that a process which promises a greater number of products in the far future is more remunerative than a process which yields a small number in the present or near future, and it must, accordingly, always turn its productive powers to remote productive ends, however remote they are, as being, technically the most fruitful. The natural consequence would be very much as we have pictured it--misery and want in the present. -Positive Theory of Capital, pp. 386, Interest under socialism.

And this is precisely what we saw, and continue to see, in the failed communist experiments of the 20th and 21st century. The Soviets managed to produce a lot of steel, which inflated their GNP figures, but only at the expense of consumer goods, such as food, clothing, etc (the fact that there were bread lines which extended around entire city blocks, and Levi jeans were worth their weight in gold). Thus, the socialists quest to eliminate interest (profit) is entirely impossible; you cannot forcefully eliminate natural human preferences, the fact that if you value a good at all, that you must necessarily prefer it sooner rather than later.

Socialism, therefore, can only succeed in eliminating the explicit expression of interest, namely the opportunity cost between current and future goods, and varying methods of temporal production.

Micah71381:

In your society are you forcing people to participate or can people choose to not participate in your society and live in peace without being provided for by the state and without contributing to the state?

I don't know what Unionrevolte is saying, he seems to contradict himself. On one side of the argument, he says that his society is more liberal and follows the TRUE  Adam Smith. Then all of a sudden he says that you are forced to give in your money. To whom?  Societaaay@!@!@!ofc.!!!

From what I understand, he wants to abolish "private profit". Everyone must give in their "private profit" to....he hasn't said to whom yet...oh well carry on. Everyone places they're profit in a pot, failure to comply will result in capital punishment, probably death or tickle me with a feather, who knows?  You are free as long as you do your minimum work, whatever that is.

Who decides what minimum work is? who redistributes the wealth? Who makes the magic happen?Who punishes whom? All these are mysteries of TRUE Socialism, maybe some things are best left unanswered.

I'm still waiting for him to describe a day(a week would preferable) in a anarcho-communist world. It should be a wonderfull treat. I honestly can't wait.

@ Unionrevolte,

I would suggest you read up on price/wage controls and their effects on the market.

unionrevolte:

I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call "poor" and "unable to take care of themselves".
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.

emphasis mine

There it is, the gun to our heads.  Thanks for showing your true colors.

The greatest part of the whole social anarchism/market anarchism debate is that it is a null point.  If at any point there ever is a revolution that ends government completely, both systems posit that they are natural occurrences.  Ergo, we will either fall into line as commune-dwellers, of our own volition, or we will become a society of free trade, of our own volition.  At this base point is the crux of the issue, though.  The anarcho-socialist always has to include the threat of force at some point to maintain control, yet they are also the first to posit that anarcho-capitalism is actually slavery.  They say that anyone can be a capitalist, as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of the commune-dwellers.  Well, by definition, they wouldn't.  And the claim, albeit dubious, that the anarcho-socialist will also not try to infringe on the capitalist community puts both ideologies on an equal footing in a stateless society.  Ergo, unless anarcho-socialists actually intend to go to wary against anyone pursuing freedom in the manner of capitalist, all the remains is to let freedom take its course to determine which society will thrive.  It is an emphatic point of the libertarian that they would do nothing to overrun a commune, save for trying to sell them something.  There is no emphasis on the part of the anarcho-socialist on this point.  They simultaneously claim that a market society is fine if they do not interfere with the commune, yet insist that "measures" must be taken to ensure that everything the commune requires is taken care of.  Usually they start by suggesting the voluntary nature of things, but it ultimately progresses into angry mobs attacking "wreckers" and exiling people to...where?  The free-market city down the way?

 

We shall see, if the state ever disappears, which side raises arms against the other.  I would hazard it to be the side that thinks the means of production shouldn't be owned by any one person.

 

"I assure you that the economic domination will be surpass worlwidely by the ones you call "poor" and "unable to take care of themselves".
That day, they will become able to take care of themselves and will no more be poor.emphasis mine"

There it is, the gun to our heads.  Thanks for showing your true colors.

 

Yes, but it's even better than that.  He expects us to take this prediction of the future on his ASSURANCE.  Yet anyone could make any random assertion and it would carry as much weight.  He doesn't explain why or how, he doesn't specify the extent of "surpass", or even explain what surpassing means in this instance.  He doesn't tell what group he considers, and here I paraphrase, "dominant", nor does he question his own choice of words in saying that there is a group considered unable to take care of themselves.  If they aren't dead, they must be doing something right.  If they are, they're not contributing to any revolution.  If they are currently being helped, and then revolt, how is there immediate rectification of their lack of ability to care for themselves.  Name the day that will come.  Don't even be specific.  He asserts the "day will come" as if appeal to one's own imagination is argument that can convince anyone of anything.  He makes a claim at a definite outcome without being able to give any conditions leading to this, explain WHY this is the exact outcome, or really explain what that outcome means.  I mean, there would be no poor people if everyone died, too.  It goes nowhere.  It's pathetic, and that is being generous.  I don't even have to offer a counter-argument from another viewpoint, because there is nothing here that stands on its own to be knocked down.  I can just tear his own words apart ceaselessly, and never have to go on the offensive.  And then he even adds emphasis!  Like if I told people that the moon is made of cheese, only put it in bold print, the bold print somehow makes it an argument.  I've had conversations with Russians that made more sense than this.  And that's not to say anything bad about Russians, it's just that I DON'T SPEAK RUSSIAN.  So...whatever the hell, I guess.  This is the "Go Fish" equivalent of argument.

@valject

According to his website it seems that he won the debate(http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/2011/02/funny-debate-starting-with-some-people.html), in the commentaries..

There's also some fun things in the website like: "Joseph Schumpter was aware that capitalism must be removed and replaced""The libertarians fight with us againts the bourgeoisie" and all sorts of creepy things. I think this debate was useless yet quite fun to read in ones spare time.

This was pretty fun to read . I'm still waiting for that description of "Unionrevolte Utopia".

I've been reading unionrevolte's posts just now, and I have to say, these are some prety fun things one can say. I can't believe I didn't laugh when I read them the first time.

I feel like that a lot... There's this one person I debated off and on for a while and I never fully realized how much of a joke he was until reflection upon the matter...

For fear of getting off topic....

Favorite quotes:

"Government is the people"

"If it weren't for [legal tender]... we'd be using shoes as money"

"A loan shark is an example of a free market bank"

(In response to a personal story where I told him about my relatively poor friend who pays at least a fifth of his income in taxes) "Well doesn't your friend use the roads?"

"The government puts trillions of dollars into medical research every year"

"You need facts to back up your argument, you never have any facts"

(after I cited the fact that one economist judged that, since the abolition of the Somali Government, the "country" has increased in 14/15 factors, the only odd one out being education)

"Well I'm sorry but education is important to some of us, just imagine an artist that might have been educated and brightened up his community"

And then the statement that just made me laugh, which will eternally and forever take the cake and which made me disparage of the common man and assured me he was a joke:

"higher taxes means a freer market"

 

Those are fun facts, especially the Somalia one, I'm going to look into that.

The public roads argument was hilarious.

 

 

I don't think we have to worry about going off topic, this thread is pretty much a joke when read from the beggining.

Besides, unionrevolté has won the argument. ...

The worst part for me was that two seconds of his beloved research proved he was difinitivly wrong. The federal government spends 2% of the budget on roads and medical research TOGETHER. Remember that whenever anyone uses the roads argument you could cut the budget by about 200% and still increase dramatically the amount going to the roads

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/09/30/130249425/thanks-for-paying-taxes-here-s-your-receipt?sc=fb&cc=fp

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

unionrevolte:

@DrewBrando:
"Describe a regular day in Anarcho-communist society?"
I will do it in the next message.

 

I wonder if you're ever going to do so.

ROFLMAO

 viva la unioin reolte!

Yes, indeed.

unionrevolte:

"Why is it beneficial for brain surgeons to spend one day a month cleaning public toilets or whatever?"
-It makes them aware that they need the work of other peoples for them to spend some time into their 'brain surgeons' work
-It gives them a better overview over the society and the human work and knowledge
-It makes him socialize with different people encouraging links and exchanges between peoples
-It makes him do some physical exercise or different brain excercise
-If no one wants to do the work, why shouldn't he participate too? Who is he to avoid this kind of work?
-Nothing tells me that no one will want to clean the public toilets for the social salary. I know plenty of people who are happy in their job of cleaning.

This is priceless.

Hello again! It's been a while, but i'm back!  :p

I've just published a text on my blog wich might interest you. I think we could translate the title this way : "Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms."

Here is the original link in french : http://unionrevolte.blogspot.com/2011/03/esquisse-dun-programme-liberal.html

And here is the poor translation from google : Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms

Maybe this will help you understand how we plan to change the world.  =)

Thank you Unionrevolte, You've finally offered a very good explanation on how your society works. Now, we know exactly what to debunk.

Madam unioinrevolte,

How do you define capitalism?

What are the benefits of living in a society?

How much civic work will be required of us to reap the benefits of living in a society and what are the penalties for those that don't voluntarilly submit to the revolution's demands?

You desire 25 well trained individuals to oversee the new order. Can you imagine billions of people in free command of their own destinies?

I'm really good at cleaning toilets but look forward to operating on your brain.

 Economically, we are 'Liberal' because we accept the law of the free market (supply and demand) to fix prices. However, we are 'egalitarian' because we advocate the abolition of the labor market and the adoption of a single income for all

This is a contradiction. When you set a "equal income for all" you are heavily tampering with the free market economy.

EDIT: Having a "social salary" will lead to inflation and thus prices of goods will grow. Since everyone has 1000$ a month or whatever, that amount will loose value. Prices in goods will be incredibly high, and thus your government will have to control them artificially. This leads us to the economic calculation problem.

In other words, what we demand is to separate the hardware-liberalism (goods) of liberalism-human (labor market) just as we once separated the power of the Church and the state. 

Doesn't make any sense. Explain "wage slavery" and why it's "bad". Goods and services are already separated, we pay a market price for  goods.The market sets the wages. Throwing the Church/ State argument in there does not follow.

What we preach before-all, the democratization of the economy, and thus the destruction of monopoly capital. Any accumulation of capital and its management by a handful of individuals (even if elected) is the opposite of socialism and communism as we claim.

So far so good, I agree with you on this one. But monopolys are a result of government interference, without a state we wouldn't have monopolies . Wihtout state intervention, monopolies can only exist if the products they are offering are superios to other products offered by the market.

Microsoft has a monopoly on Operating Systems because the competition is really low. The solution is competition, not a revolution.

 We advocate the establishment of a voluntary system, where all are absolutely free to do whatever they want, provided they have fulfilled their civic work (minimum work required to reap the benefits of living in society)

So I'm free, but I still have to work for the "society". This is a rip-off, atleast I know what to expect, I admire your honesty.

But Unionrevolte, who decides what's good for society and what minimum work is? Is it going to be you?

 Everything must obviously begin with a revolutionary overthrow of the established order. 

Oh, dear.

The revolutionary overthrow (How to take power) 

Interesting... I like "How to books" myself.

We advocate the establishment of a pyramid of revocable delegates formed groups of 25 individuals . If that were done in Quebec, with our 7.5 million citizens, it would make four levels of governance, all trained groups of 25 individuals elected at any time revocable.

See...? I knew we would get to this point. Earlier you said you wanted to remove the Government, now it is clear you want to replace it with some other type of government. All you are doing is changing the governmental structure and giving it a new name. Call it what you want, this is still a government, even if it's ruled by 25 individuals democratically elected.

In France, it would be only 5 levels and 6 levels only if they included the 6.8 billion people around the world. Thus, the heart of global democracy, global democracy ANY, is based on groups the size of a school class, only 25 individuals! 

WOW, smaller government!!@#!!@#!!

Who's going to make that happen in France?

The stated goal should be to abolish the parliamentary system and replace it with this delegation is revocable. When OUR state revocable delegates represent more people than their State House, it will be legitimate to gain parliamentary power, to abolish it and replace it with this delegation.

Thank you for agreeing with what I said earlier.

 For example, if Jean Charest was elected with only 2.5 million votes, just as our revocable delegation gathers more than 2.5 million such votes to become as legitimate if not more than the Quebec government of Jean Charest

For any of those who aren't aware, Jean Charest is the Prime Minister of Quebec(Canadian province).

Unionrevolte, could you explain this part?I don't really get it.

This delegation revoked, the state of the future, should not be eligible for economic power, it is individuals who have that power

Are you even aware that you are contradicting yourself? You are only making a government with less people. Democracy doesn't give every individual power. Democracy oppresses the invidual by placing him at the will of the majority.

This delegation revoked, the state of the future, should not be eligible for economic power, it is individuals who have that power. The State of the future will be task of setting standards, for example: the number of safe lead in paint, order the abolition of the old parliamentary decree the abolition of profit and capitalism in its Overall, anything that sets standards and does not need economic power.

You are playing with words. You are saying the the "State of the future" will not have power only individuals will have power.That sounds nice but "The State of the future will be task of setting standards, for example: the number of safe lead in paint, order the abolition of the old parliamentary". How do you define power? So I have power but 25 individuals will still decide what's good and what's bad for me./facepalm

abolition of profit and capitalism in its Overall, anything that sets standards and does not need economic power.\

Whenever you get the time, explain profit.

 

The entire economy of the future will not be based on a state organization and arbitrary, but on individual initiative. No taxes, no taxes, no way for the state to accumulate capital. 

This sounds nice, I hope you don't contradict yourself, again, later on.

Overcoming of capitalism 
If the goal is to destroy capitalism, we must destroy the means by which the accumulation of capital, whether private (bourgeois capitalism) or state (state capitalism).

Do you even understand capitalism? What the heck is "burgeois capitalism"? I thought you believed in a free market?

The nationalization of banks is therefore essential. However, these banks should not be managed by either the state or by groups of individuals. Its tasks should be reduced to its simplest expression: 
-Fusion of all banks 
-Abolition of banking services (loans, investments, mortgages, etc.).. 
-All the tasks of deposits and withdrawals on the accounts may be made by a single computer. 

But you said monopolies are bad? Who's going to control that single computer? Who's going to be in charge of banks?

Why do you want to remove banking service?

What is your problem with loans? Can I give loans in your system?

To prevent the accumulation of capital, it will abolish private profit. So we need a bank account where all social enterprises will deposit their profits (if any will be considered fraud or tax evasion and will be judged the same way that these crimes today)

Judged by who, you said there's no state. This is opression.

I thought I was free, why can't I keep my money?

 To avoid that this system is transformed into state capitalism, social capital should NOT be run by elected officials or any other group of individuals, but it must be managed by all individuals themselves!

Apparently everybody is going to police eachother. If I don't give in my profit everybody will arrest me?

-Invite all people who have no "bank account" of staff to open one. 
-Creation of the single wage for all, where on a monthly period, the profit accumulated in the account office will redivides equally among all members of society. 

Why should I work hard, make a 500grand a year, give it to the bank and only receive a crappy 3000$? I choose not to work, in these conditions.

So if you take the Canadian GDP and divide it by the number of Canadians, we could offer more than $ 3,000 a month to ALL Canadians. Similarly, if we take the global GDP and divide it equally among everyone on Earth could already provide about $ 950 per month ALL the land, women, men, children, elderly, disabled, all without discrimination !

This is scary, all this sounds so simple to you. You are just going to divide everyones work and give it out like that!!! If I'm going to live in your society, I want this job. I want to be the one who devides the PIB of the country to everyone else, deal?

Investment Democratic 
A party to determine (say 20%) of single income to all citizens would be removed from its income "investment democracy".

This doesn't look good. I have a free salary but I still have to pay taxes?

But this is not the state or anyone else other than the individual himself to decide how it wants to invest this money.

You hide behind these labels. This is nothing but rhetoric.

For example, say we offer $ 3,000 per month for all Canadians. 20% $ 3000 = $ 600 investment in democracy for all.

YAY!!!!DEMOCRACY!!!.WAIT!!!

NO!!! these are taxes, no matter what you call them. Same goes for you new and improved version of govenrment.

Thus, every individual, every month, may decide how it allocates its investment. It may invest $ 200 in the project of one of his friends, $ 300 in his own company and, say, $ 100 for research against cancer, or for arming the country, anything!

Why can't I invest money my own way? Also what war, I thought this brought peace? Why do we need to arm ourselves?

 More capitalism, more means of oppressing the People by the People.

Amen.

In this way, each individual becomes his only official, banker, investor and politician. If, for example, you have a project to build solar panels, you will have your own Democratic guaranteed investment, meaning that you can invest your entire $ 600 in your own business if you want (all profits collective will revert later).

Gee thanks, I can invest the whole 600$. Thank you master. What's that? I have to give in the profits later?

I feel like this is one of those contracts with hidden fees.

 By cons, if this investment is not enough, you'll need to go to 'sell' your project to others to convince them to invest part or all of their investment in YOUR democratic project.

I love how you say "sell". We can't sell in this socialist mouvement since we don't own anything to begin with, but I still have to convince others to invest their taxes, I mean 600$.

I'll tell them to invest it and all the profit will be given back to the community. That is incredible. I wonder what we will do with the rest of the money.

This is the democratization of the economy! And so the only way the free market can exist at the same time that democratization of the economy. No need to "organize" the economy by the state, individuals organize themselves according to their own needs.

I understand, you won't organize anything. You will just make a few adjustments like minimum life salary, who owns what, who does what and where with their money, police everyone if they refuse to pay, arrange certain prices etc...

Is not this exactly the real liberalism than trying to talk with Adam Smith's theory of "invisible hand". Here there is no arbitrary economic organization, aside .... 

Atleast we agree on that, but your still holding out.

Basically, there will be oppression.

That's what all this is about.

Work Location 
The civic work is the only obligation of the individual to enjoy his life in society.

I can't enjoy my life if someone else tells me what to do and what not to do.

 If the person refuses to do civic work, he was invited to take care of himself alone, without social assistance and thus no single income for all

I'm totally cool with that. I'll go live somewhere else with other people who share my goals. But somthing still bugs me. I want you to give me an honest answer to this question.

If I refuse to be part of this and start my own business will you still take away my "profit" and share it around? I get that I will be punished and not offered a "social salary", but can I atleast enjoy the fruits of my labor or do those belong to society too?

 The civic work jobs is essential, or not enough people want to participate. For example, if garbage system has  only 10 individual so it would take 15, five individuals will work as street to the garbage collector for a period to be determined (say one month).

Who decides? This sounds like hardcore central planning.

These individuals will be selected randomly by a computer, according to the criteria necessary for the job (age, region, etc..).

Just join the Zeitgeist movement, their leader has the technology and the money to make this happen. There's alos the Venus project if you're interested.

That set aside.

What about the economic calculation problem?

For such a distribution system to work, it is ESSENTIAL that all information handled by these computers social 'is full at all times available and public, to avoid favoritism or any form of fraud. 

You keep saying that there will be no dictatorship. But your system will naturally lead to totalitarianism. Who handles these computers? It is impossible for a huge number of people to democratically work, it's too chaotic. You said it yourself, that this society is organized and isn't exactly like Adam Smith predicted.

I say you find people who share your beliefs and live in a cummune with them, this way those who are not interested will continue being capitalists. That's what a voluntary system is all about. I'm sure there's many who subscribe to your ideal world. Why don't you all join together , and establish your own commune. This way those who are not interested, can continue living in this "oppresive capitalist system designed by and made for pigs".

Unionrevolte meant that the whole society forms the pyramid, a group of 25 people promoting a delegate to the next level, until at the top there is a group of smaller than 25. A classic MLM, if you ask me :)

What's a MLM?

Wasn't he implying that our society will be ruled by 25 people?

Sketch of a liberal-egalitarian, how to overcome the modern paradigms.

(Sketch of a foolish design of a totalitarian state, where the state simply isn't called the state! Newspeak at its best! Double-plus good!)

We claim of liberal egalitarianism, and it's not for nothing! Economically, we are 'Liberal' because we accept the law of the free market (supply and demand) to fix prices.


(Whew. Well, that's a relief. He accepts the law of the free market. I guess that means he's a voluntaryist. Phew, well I guess I won't need to spend any time debunking this guy, he's on my side!)

However, we are 'egalitarian' because we advocate the abolition of the labor market and the adoption of a single income for all.

(... ... Oh boy.)

Thus, we do not oppose the law that sets the price of bread and other goods, but one that sets the price of human labor.

(We only oppose the law of supply and demand for a good (labor) that enters into every other good! Shit, well I guess we'll only indirectly control the prices of all goods into which labor enters... so... all of them.

Seriously. So the price of labor-intensive goods will necessarily skyrocket, and the price of non-labor-intensive goods will necessarily plummet. If you can get any goods. Because it totally won't discourage people from mass production (e.g. non-labor intensive goods) or anything. Totally. And the discouragement from mass production won't prevent the mass of goods from reaching the mass of people or anything.)

In other words, what we demand is to separate the hardware-liberalism (goods) of liberalism-human (labor market) just as we once separated the power of the Church and the state.

(What the hell does that even mean? The analogy doesn't work. See, this is what happens when you fail to recognize that labor comprises an endless number of goods, each varying in value, just like physical goods. Or if you huff paint. That can do this, too.)

What we preach before-all, the democratization of the economy, and thus the destruction of monopoly capital.

(Because destruction is the most important part of any functioning economy. Like how in World War 2 all of the blown-up buildings in Europe turned it into an economic powerhouse overnight, while the United States, largely undamaged, languished in a decades-long recession. Seriously, what the fuck?)

Any accumulation of capital and its management by a handful of individuals (even if elected) is the opposite of socialism and communism as we claim.

(You don't actually mean this. You mean the accumulation of per-capita capital, that is, the accumulation of greater capital-per-person in group A as compared to that of group B.)

We advocate the establishment of a voluntary system,

(Oh man, here it comes.)

where all are absolutely free to do whatever they want, provided

(Snerk!)

they have fulfilled their civic work (minimum work required to reap the benefits of living in society).

(And if they don't, then get with the head-shooting! My favorite part of any socialist revolution! Actually, my favorite part is when the leader of one of the losing factions gets killed by an icepick-wielding assassin while in exile overseas. I heart you, Trotsky.)

Everything must obviously begin with a revolutionary overthrow of the established order.

(Woo! Kill everyone who doesn't voluntarily join our voluntary organization!)

The revolutionary overthrow (How to take power)

(In five easy steps:
1. Pour a glass of your favorite beverage.
2. Grab a power pill. (Try looking in your local arcade, behind the Pac-Man machine.)
3. Place power pill in mouth
4. Pour beverage into mouth
5. Swallow power pill and beverage together.

Congratulations! You've taken power!)

We advocate the establishment of a pyramid of revocable delegates formed groups of 25 individuals.

(But you can never revoke that there are delegates. Never. Don't be silly.)

(...Jesus Christ, it's a political pyramid scheme!)

If that were done in Quebec, with our 7.5 million citizens, it would make four levels of governance, all trained groups of 25 individuals elected at any time revocable.

(But you'd have to get all 25 people together to vote. And that could be made tough by inconvenient labor assignments, perhaps!)

In France, it would be only 5 levels and 6 levels only if they included the 6.8 billion people around the world. Thus, the heart of global democracy, global democracy ANY, is based on groups the size of a school class, only 25 individuals!

(It's like high school, only with cliquish groups of jerks who try to force their will upon you! So, it's high school!)

The stated goal should be to abolish the parliamentary system and replace it with this delegation is revocable.

(But remember, the existence of the delegation is not revocable, and any suggestion that it might be will result in what the Soviets called "nine grams" in the back of the head. Fun times.)

When OUR state revocable delegates represent more people than their State House, it will be legitimate to gain parliamentary power, to abolish it and replace it with this delegation.

(And if they resist, we kill 'em!

...Wait a minute. So this majority could be arrived at by simply murdering everyone who voted for members of the State House? You really could kill 'em!)

For example, if Jean Charest was elected with only 2.5 million votes, just as our revocable delegation gathers more than 2.5 million such votes to become as legitimate if not more than the Quebec government of Jean Charest.

(And if Jean Charest or anyone else disagrees, bam! Guillotine.)

This delegation revoked, the state of the future, should not be eligible for economic power, it is individuals who have that power.

(But the delegation consists of individuals. Do you need to give up all ownership to have political power? Or will it be possible to simply wield power in such a way as to make it seem as though those in power control nothing, when in reality they control everything? What is the matrix?)

The State of the future will be task of setting standards, for example: the number of safe lead in paint,

(Because I can't think of ANY way to use standards to make my friends more wealthy, and my enemies less so.)

order the abolition of the old parliamentary decree the abolition of profit and capitalism in its

(There's a sentence end missing in the Google translation, but I think you wanted to end this sentence with the word "entirety." Assuming that...

If this delegation can order the abolition of profit, that implies they can judge that certain actions taken by individuals or groups as "profiting" and thus as worthy of censure, possibly punishment. That is fucking terrifying.)

Overall, anything that sets standards and does not need economic power.

(This is a NULL SET. Even the example you use, that of lead in paint, needs economic power. Power to prevent individuals from manufacturing, selling, or buying paint with too much lead in it. So, we need:

1. An organization staffed by individuals who watch over the manufacturers of paint, lead-based dyes, and precursor production in order to eliminate high-lead paint.
2. An organization with police power to capture/punish/kill those who would produce high-lead paint.
3. An organization that tests paint lead levels in use in various places in the economy, to catch any use of high-lead paint that gets past 1 and 2.

That's three giant organizations of people (working their civic labor, I guess) for that one standard. And all of those people could be spending that time more productively. Imagine the level of bureaucracy needed to enforce a million such standards, some in unknowing conflict with others. The "civic labor time" required to do this rapidly approaches all of everyone's time. And you say there's no economic power there!)

The entire economy of the future will not be based on a state organization and arbitrary, but on individual initiative. No taxes, no taxes, no way for the state to accumulate capital.

(No taxes, it's just that everything I produce gets confiscated once a month or however often in order for me to get "money" which will either:

a) make me better off than I was with the stuff I produced (leech)
b) make me worse off than I was with the stuff I produced (producer)

If I'm a leech, then I'm getting free money for producing things nobody wants.
If I'm a producer, then I'm strongly encouraged to spend more time relaxing on my porch with a drink next month.

That's, of course, assuming that not all of my time is spent in "civil labor.")

Overcoming of capitalism
If the goal is to destroy capitalism, we must destroy the means by which the accumulation of capital, whether private (bourgeois capitalism) or state (state capitalism). The nationalization of banks is therefore essential.

(Because a nationalized bank will have NO economic power.)

However, these banks should not be managed by either the state or by groups of individuals.

(They will be managed by individuals only! And none of these individuals will cooperate! This is going to be the most bug-filled bank software ever!)

Its tasks should be reduced to its simplest expression:
-Fusion of all banks

(Bank fusion will be used as a limitless source of cheap energy.)

-Abolition of banking services (loans, investments, mortgages, etc.)..

(Jackassery. That's all I have to say about that. Well, actually, no it isn't. I was eating delicious Starburst candy as I read the above line, and, upon reading it, I choked and spit all over my computer.)

-All the tasks of deposits and withdrawals on the accounts may be made by a single computer.

(Well, we were gonna call it "Deep Blue," but keeping with your whole socialist theme, I guess we can call it "Deep Red." Who programs Deep Red? Does he have any economic power? Is programming Deep Red part of "civil labor?" If so, can I sign up for that job? Really, I have everyone's interests in mind.)

To prevent the accumulation of capital, it will abolish private profit.

(Oh boy, how do we do that?)

So we need a bank account where all social enterprises will deposit their profits

(So, it's less of a bank, and more of a warehouse? You realize that some of these profits will be invested in the production of capital equipment? How do I divide up an automotive factory? What parts of the car are profit? Do I just need to figure my profits per car and remove parts equalling that value and send them to the bank?)

This is Unionrevolte's parenthetical sentence: (if any will be considered fraud or tax evasion and will be judged the same way that these crimes today).

Mine: (Oh boy, so now we need an Internal Revenue Service, only with head-shooting power! Also, shooting filthy capitalists will be part of "civic labor.")


To avoid that this system is transformed into state capitalism, social capital should NOT be run by elected officials or any other group of individuals, but it must be managed by all individuals themselves!

(I imagine a propaganda poster: "The blood is on YOUR hands!")

Therefore:
-Invite all people who have no "bank account" of staff to open one.

(10 IF REFUSE THEN HEADSHOOT
20 GOTO 10)

-Creation of the single wage for all, where on a monthly period, the profit accumulated in the account office will redivides equally among all members of society.

(So profits are okay if they're all squandered in less than a month?)

So if you take the Canadian GDP and divide it by the number of Canadians, we could offer more than $ 3,000 a month to ALL Canadians. Similarly, if we take the global GDP and divide it equally among everyone on Earth could already provide about $ 950 per month ALL the land, women, men, children, elderly, disabled, all without discrimination !

(Oh my God. You do realize that the "P" in GDP is NOT "Profit!" It's "Product!" Put another way, imagine a profit margin of 10%... which is bigger than a lot of companies make. Now you've got a Canada wage of $300 a month, or a world wage of $95 per month!)

Investment Democratic
A party to determine (say 20%) of single income to all citizens would be removed from its income "investment democracy".

(Totally not a tax. Actually, I think Google translate is shitting itself here.)

But this is not the state or anyone else other than the individual himself to decide how it wants to invest this money.

(And if he wants to, say, spend less on food, and invest the difference, well then FUCK HIM!)

For example, say we offer $ 3,000 per month for all Canadians. 20% $ 3000 = $ 600 investment in democracy for all.

(It sounds so great when you put it that way. $600 that I have to blow on some kind of silly "investment.")

Thus, every individual, every month, may decide how it allocates its investment. It may invest $ 200 in the project of one of his friends

(Project: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours)

, $ 300 in his own company

(Project: I really like Beluga Caviar)

and, say, $ 100 for research against cancer

(Project: Give cancer cancer!)
,

(All wonderful ideas... waitaminute...)

or for arming the country,

(What the fuck?!)

anything! We have here the essence of democratic participation and equal proportion between each individual. Alongside this political economic system, any theory about "participatory democracy" or "proportional democracy" will be embarrassed by his weakness.

(Google Translator shitting again? Hell, I don't even think I can tell for sure at this point!)

What is important to remember here is that there is more concentration of capital, but it is divided equally among all individuals. More capitalism, more means of oppressing the People by the People.

(Huh?)

In this way, each individual becomes his only official, banker, investor and politician. If, for example, you have a project to build solar panels, you will have your own Democratic guaranteed investment, meaning that you can invest your entire $ 600 in your own business if you want (all profits collective will revert later).

(...so why would I invest in something that will work?)

By cons, if this investment is not enough, you'll need to go to 'sell' your project to others to convince them to invest part or all of their investment in YOUR democratic project.

(So if I can convince people to give me their investment money so I can buy steak or something... "Sorry, your investment didn't pan out, but don't worry, we all still get paid nearly as much this month as last month!)

This is the democratization of the economy!

(This is the socialization of all gains and losses.

I want you to think carefully about what kind of incentive structure this creates.
If you invest well and produce something people want, we take it away.
If you invest poorly, and produce something nobody wants, we give you stuff from others.

What kind of society does this create?)

And so the only way the free market can exist at the same time that democratization of the economy.

(This is an assertion without an argument behind it. Don't think you can slip this nonsense by me. Socialization of all gains and losses and equalization of the prices of all types of labor is precisely the opposite of a free market.)

No need to "organize" the economy by the state,

(Except that all gains and losses will be spread to all people by the bank system. That totally doesn't count as "organiz[ation]", because I said so.)

individuals organize themselves according to their own needs. Is not this exactly the real liberalism

(No. More Newspeak.)

than trying to talk with Adam Smith's theory of "invisible hand". Here there is no arbitrary economic organization, aside ....

Work Location
The civic work is the only obligation of the individual to enjoy his life in society.

(The "civic work" is everything the delegation decides is necessary. Sometimes it includes foot-rubs for delegates... if you're lucky.)

If the person refuses to do civic work, he was invited to take care of himself alone, without social assistance and thus no single income for all.

(But I can still organize and cooperate with other "pariahs." If I have the drive and ability to produce profit, why the fuck should I join your society, when I can just work with others who produce profit?)

The civic work jobs is essential, or not enough people want to participate. For example, if garbage only 10 so it would take 15, five individuals

(All suspiciously named "Patsy." It's a bug in the program.)

will work as street to the garbage collector for a period to be determined (say one month). These individuals will be selected randomly by a computer,

(Trust us!)

according to the criteria necessary for the job (age, region, etc..). For such a distribution system to work, it is ESSENTIAL that all information handled by these computers social 'is full at all times available and public, to avoid favoritism or any form of fraud.

(Because open records mean that no fraud ever occurs. Because records can't be falsified. And everyone will have time to search the records for chicanery. And that will be part of the civic work... which will produce more paperwork to be checked... which calls for more civic work... which... oops. Divided by zero.)

(In five easy steps: 1. Pour a glass of your favorite beverage. 2. Grab a power pill. (Try looking in your local arcade, behind the Pac-Man machine.) 3. Place power pill in mouth 4. Pour beverage into mouth 5. Swallow power pill and beverage together. Congratulations! You've taken power!)

lol, I have to head to school. But this is hilarious.

Wait, Unionervolte, how do these 25 delegates operate? And how much power do you plan on giving them? Do you see yourself as one of chosen one? Since, you happen to be one of the founding fathers.

I wish more people from your website offered their opinion on this.

unionrevolte:

So if you take the Canadian GDP and divide it by the number of Canadians, we could offer more than $ 3,000 a month to ALL Canadians. Similarly, if we take the global GDP and divide it equally among everyone on Earth could already provide about $ 950 per month ALL the land, women, men, children, elderly, disabled, all without discrimination !

I have a feeling you used the calculator to reach this conclusion.

Dr. Terrigan...do you think these people understand that, and here I try my best to exercise maturity, that if everyone makes the same fuck wages it doesn't matter if you have one fuck dollar or a fuck million?

But here I am being rhetorical.  Truth of the matter, one of these egalitarians was recently talking with me about Egypt, and through the course of the discussion something happened inside this person's head to seriously...SERIOUSLY ask me if I had anything to do with the earthquakes in Japan.  I...don't even know how to respond to that.  You can't just say "no", because just being asked raises SO many questions.  Really?  Oh, yes.  I found a giant, coily octopus off the coast of Japan, wound it up real good, and then BAM!  Yep.  All me.  What the hell?

 

Sorry, I had to see kids to their beds, and then forgot to reply.

What's a MLM?

I was half-jokingly referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing

Wasn't he implying that our society will be ruled by 25 people?

No, from various implicit evidences I understood the population will be divided into cells of size 25, each delegating one person to form a higher order cell, until at the top we have a cell of size less than 25 (an interesting question is whether the members of the highest order cell should elect a single "delegate" to rull them all). Thus, we have a pyramid (or a tree with branching factor 25).

I see many issues with the latest unionrevolte post, but just two interest me.

1. How does this pyramid grow? Top-down or bottom-up? Do you start with "temporary" Central Committee of 25, each of whom recruits their own cell of 25 followers (thus reference to MLM) or do you go around asking people to form the basic cells and to elect their delegates?

2. What is the proposed plan on how to deal with people who refuse to convert to this pyramid or desert after conversion?

I recommend you read some Turgot, Say, or Bastiat before trying to consider yourself a fre market advocate :)

I don't think the aggressive attitude in this thread is conducive to discussion.  For starters, swearing at him, calling him names, etc. will lead readers to believe our (the austrian/libertarian) stance is logically unsound and we have to resort appealing to riddicule in order to win an argument.  Also, he is unlikely to come back and discuss (or maybe even read) this thread if everyone is just being "mean" rather than constructively discussing ideas.

I do not personally agree with his stance for a number of reasons but that doesn't mean I am going to rudely yell at him as my means of proving him wrong.  We will get a lot further by arguing points logically and calmly.

Read the whole thread.  Seriously, we've tried the logical approach already.  My first few responses were thus.  At this point, he's calling for violent subjugation of those who don't wish to join his "voluntary" society, though he doesn't like to put it that way.  Honestly, I'm more interested in milking the ridiculous statements he's making for laughs at this point, as his arguments have already been rendered threadbare by the responses he's gotten.  It's not ad hominem if I attacked the arguments, too.