'Volunteer Socialist' Thought Expmt

[JeremieCompNerd]

I have a thought experiment I want to run by you, just to see if my head is really that far off normal that I think this could work. :P I don't know if it's technically socialist ideals or if there's a better term for it, but this isn't about what thoughts it follows it's only about whether you think it could succeed, and what you think could cause it to fail.

Imagine a bank account. This bank account is listed under the name 'The Fund' or something similar. It can be accessed by anyone, anywhere, who has signed a contract to become a member. This membership can be backed out of at any point, for any reason. The membership is free, and the contract is a new form of social contract among all members. Location is not an issue, this is an international bank account among all people of the world.

The thought experiment is as such, that if a member signed the contract their obligations would be FIRST to the laws of their country. This wouldn't be a separate nation, you'd still have to live under the usual laws.

Next, you would have the right to withdraw money for certain purposes, and within reason. These purposes would be for such things as rent, bills, food, car payments, and other simple things that every human should be entitled to. You would be expected to put any money you had that you didn't need into the funds, essentially a request that in exchange for the insurance of having the assistance of the other members of the Fund, you would pay into the account as well to assist others when you had enough to spare at the end of the month.

There would be no one person in control of the Fund, rather every person would take part in voting and if a need arose for a quick panel of judges to determine if a case (such as removing someone from the Fund for never putting money in and making no effort to find employment/funds outside the Fund, or for someone needing to make a withdrawal of questionable necessity), that panel would be randomly selected from the members of the Fund to prevent any one person from maintaining an office or title in the Fund.

So, these being a few simple ideas for how an organization of socialist style concepts might exist in a modern setting, what would everyone's opinion be on such a concept? Do you think that by using randomly selected or universal voting that corruption of the 'government' of such a Fund would be stymied? Do you think that there would be any way to prevent it's abuse by people with no intent to ever add money to it? Discuss and enjoy. :)

[Drakim]

Aren't you describing insurance here?

[JeremieCompNerd]

Only somewhere there's a rich prick making money off insurance, denying that money to everyone he can even if they actually do need it, and insurance only covers a specific purpose (fire, house, et cetera). This is more like a family income type thing, where people help each other to maintain basic standards of living even if it means they don't get to buy their new Mercedes this month.
At any rate, I'm hoping this spurs debate and helps foster thought on what we could accomplish together as a species if we helped each other out instead of screwing each other every chance we got. For one thing, the Fund as a whole would have more money since there wouldn't be as many people paying late charges and ridiculous interest rates. The same people squeaking by on minimum wage could actually afford to live on that money if they could avoid the expenses of being in the hole, and with that extra could help someone else out in return. :)

[TheMason]

Socialism and collectivist ideologies do not work in the real world because of human beings operate out of self-interested motivations. Socialism limits the incentive for people to be productive. Seriously, how much extra effort would you put into an endeavor if, at the end, what you made was taken from you?

Let's say you entered into this hypothetical bank account. As you said it is only for the necessities of life. What if the fund managers said:
* You have to buy Car X because it is cheap and gets good gas mileage.
* You can only buy enough gas to get to work and go shopping one day a week, but you get a double allotment once a year to go to a family reunion.
* You can only buy a 900 square foot house if single, 1100 square foot house if married and 200 square foot for each child (but not more than 2).
* You can only buy so much in groceries.
* You're utilties usage is capped.

So while you have the piece of mind of a child (ie: not having to worry about money), you have representatives telling you what you can do.

There is a practical problem to what you propose on top of restraint of freedom through economic chains. This is best described by what is called the Tragedy of the Commons. Basically it is states that when people are given a common good such as common grazing lands or fishing areas, they will exhaust the common area out of their own self-interest.

Now in order for what you're describing to work is that once in the fund...you can never leave. Let's say a bunch of us NGers sign up for this fund. How I'd use it would be to pay off or at least down my vehicle and home loans. I'd enjoy the luxury of not worrying for awhile, but the moment that I feel I've maximized my profit I'd leave the fund. Chances are I would have taken more than I contributed thus depleting the fund some.

I wouldn't be the only one. As time progresses, more and more ppl will leave the fund leaving it a little less wealthy than they left it.

Now the reason why socialist governments can endure (not thrive) is they do not allow their citizens to defect. Therefore their common funds are continously refreshed, however they cannot sustain such a system for long. It may take decades or over a century...but eventually collectivist systems (be they socialist or Keynsian) will collapse under their own inefficiencies.

[TheMason]

At 8/29/10 03:54 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Only somewhere there's a rich prick making money off insurance, denying that money to everyone he can even if they actually do need it, and insurance only covers a specific purpose (fire, house, et cetera). This is more like a family income type thing, where people help each other to maintain basic standards of living even if it means they don't get to buy their new Mercedes this month.

Insurance companies have to maintain enough reserves to be able to pay off claims. They also use premiums to invest so that they can grow their pool of money to pay for these claims. Yes, there is some profit involved. But why is that bad?

If I spend my money on a product that protects me against risk, I want to make sure that the product is sound. If the guy at the top is able to manage the pool and grow it...it makes me a little more secure in knowing I'll get money when I need it. Now I don't approve of slavery, so if s/he is paid in accordance with how they perform...go for it. If they get a bigger bonus because they grew the company's assets...great! Now if they get paid a flat wage whether they grow, shrink or maintain the size of the asset pool...why would they bother working to grow it? At best they'd be fine with maintaining the size and thus keeping their job.

[JeremieCompNerd]

Alrighty! Now we're down to some real thought. *Grins*
Part of the argument you used is that the Fund might restrict freedoms, but the way I had envisioned this it would be entirely separate from your own bank account. The Fund couldn't tell a person to get X car, because for one thing there's a very limited government of the Fund. A random selection would occur and a panel of judges would decide if a massive withdrawal at any given moment was deemed 'necessary' in other words, if you do buy a Hummer for no reason and use the collective account it's likely to get vetoed. But getting a random selection of people to agree that a mid sized sedan isn't necessary would be rather difficult, it would take quite an excessive use of the Fund to warrant refusal since several people would have to agree you were wasting money. Even then, you can still buy that excessive car, just not with the Fund's assistance for it.

Another part was that nobody would be motivated to work, however the incentive is that you are only putting into the Fund what you wish. You still have a personal bank account, so you still have a strong incentive to work hard and make more money. The Funds is entirely voluntary, and you would only put into it when and if you felt you could. No monthly payment required, no demands for your cash, only the incentive to pay into it to help your fellow man as they have helped you.

True, the money wouldn't accumulate as well as it could if it was managed properly, but it's also not intended to be a multimillion or multibillion dollar industry the way insurance is. It doesn't require salesmen, treasurers, managers, offices and office space. It would accumulate interest as an open bank account and that would be the limits of it's growth. It would have a computer system with maybe one employee (if an automated computer selection system wasn't possible) and the occasional repair or server upgrade and that would be the limits of it's cost as well.

As for the Tragedy of the Commons, I'd like to think of the better nature of mankind. However, we know all too well that very few people are capable of truly offering assistance to others without seeing a future benefit from it, (even when having just benefited from that same person) so I do believe that you are correct. The world simply isn't ready for this kind of project to be real at the moment, if I believed it was even for a moment I would establish more detailed rules and open the Fund myself. For the moment, it's simply an interesting thought experiment to me and I thank you for your effort in talking it through with me so far. :)

[TheMason]

At 8/29/10 05:50 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Part of the argument you used is that the Fund might restrict freedoms, but the way I had envisioned this it would be entirely separate from your own bank account. The Fund couldn't tell a person to get X car, because for one thing there's a very limited government of the Fund. A random selection would occur and a panel of judges would decide if a massive withdrawal at any given moment was deemed 'necessary' in other words, if you do buy a Hummer for no reason and use the collective account it's likely to get vetoed. But getting a random selection of people to agree that a mid sized sedan isn't necessary would be rather difficult, it would take quite an excessive use of the Fund to warrant refusal since several people would have to agree you were wasting money. Even then, you can still buy that excessive car, just not with the Fund's assistance for it.

In this way the fund can be restrictive and limit freedom of choice. If there is any expectation that the fund's managers will veto a purchase, someone may not purchase a vehicle that they would otherwise purchase. As for the freedom to still purchase it without the fund's assistance...I'll get to that in the next paragraph.

Another part was that nobody would be motivated to work, however the incentive is that you are only putting into the Fund what you wish. You still have a personal bank account, so you still have a strong incentive to work hard and make more money. The Funds is entirely voluntary, and you would only put into it when and if you felt you could. No monthly payment required, no demands for your cash, only the incentive to pay into it to help your fellow man as they have helped you.

In your original post you said the contractee would obligate themselves to put in what money they deem they do not need. This is problematic two ways:
1) Everyone would put in a minimal amount (say a dollar a month) and make the fund inviable. (Tragedy of the Commons scenario.)
2) In order to make the Fund viable, a group of judges may go to various courts and make the claim that since the Fund pays all necessary bills for contractees...everything a person makes should go to the Fund. Depending on how good of attornies the Fund has...it could win this victory in court and confiscate contractee's wealth/income.
3) Under the above court scenario...defection from the contract may be restricted and become more difficult or even impossible.

As for the Tragedy of the Commons, I'd like to think of the better nature of mankind. However, we know all too well that very few people are capable of truly offering assistance to others without seeing a future benefit from it, (even when having just benefited from that same person) so I do believe that you are correct. The world simply isn't ready for this kind of project to be real at the moment, if I believed it was even for a moment I would establish more detailed rules and open the Fund myself. For the moment, it's simply an interesting thought experiment to me and I thank you for your effort in talking it through with me so far. :)

I have heard of different websites which allow people to ask for money and describe their need. People with extra money can look at individual's proposals and decide whether or not to pool their money with others and take the risk on another human being. There is interest involved, but that is (I believe) contractually determined by the lendee and lendors. I think this is a good way of doing what you want...without the freedom limitations and inefficies of a socialist/collectivist system.

BTW: I don't hate and despise socialists nor do I think they are evil or immoral. I just think their ideas are very old and over history has been shown to be unsustainable and ends up hurting more people than they help. For example the Tragedy of the Commons comes from Medievel European communal hearding/grazing lands (Commons).

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

At 8/29/10 02:27 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Next, you would have the right to withdraw money for certain purposes, and within reason. These purposes would be for such things as rent, bills, food, car payments, and other simple things that every human should be entitled to.

Stopped right there, I know where this leads.

[SadisticMonkey]

derp because there's no way demand for withdrawals will be several orders of magnitude larger than deposits

at least, thank goodness, you would want to make this voluntary

At 8/29/10 03:54 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: At any rate, I'm hoping this spurs debate and helps foster thought on what we could accomplish together as a species if we helped each other out instead of screwing each other every chance we got.

Please please please please watch this video.

[Chris-V2]

At 8/29/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote:

Socialism limits the incentive for people to be productive.

I don't feel that's a fair comment, I feel any other form of employment other than self employment does this. Worker apathy is a problem for any system where people do not benefit directly from the fruits of their labour. Soviet Workers were forced to work excrutiatingly hard for very long hours, the inevitable solution to these situations is to make someone a manager and appeal to their newfound sense of authority.

Do you know how much I get paid an hour for being a waiter in a hotel?

EU9.06

Know how much I get if I work really really hard?

EU9.06

This system sounds like a really interesting social experiment, it would be very cool if you could set it up but use some form of fictional currency instead and encourage bartering. Otherwise it would require a larger scale of implementation, econimies require people to get money circulating. Would these people be living amongst normal capitalist workers or in a seperate enviroment?

[Sajberhippien]

Note that the "tragedy of the commons" hypothesis isn't some obvious fact - it's a thought experiment and hypothesis, and only has some circumstantial evidence in favor of it. There's also plenty of circumstantial evidence against it - see for example Elinor Ostrom's work.

[TheMason]

At 9/1/10 11:31 AM, Chris-V2 wrote:

At 8/29/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote:

Socialism limits the incentive for people to be productive.

I don't feel that's a fair comment, I feel any other form of employment other than self employment does this. Worker apathy is a problem for any system where people do not benefit directly from the fruits of their labour. Soviet Workers were forced to work excrutiatingly hard for very long hours, the inevitable solution to these situations is to make someone a manager and appeal to their newfound sense of authority.

In the US we have overtime, double time and even triple time when talking about wage laborers. So their wages are multiplied for what they work above and beyond 40hrs/wk. We also have piece-rate in which you are paid according to how much you produce. You make more of widget X...your paycheck is fatter.

Furthermore, there is the possibility of promotion. Be productive and you get a promotion and make more money. So sorry your point doesn't hold water. If a system allows for rewards of hard work then your workers are more productive.

Take China and the US for example. New Balance shoes decided to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US from China. Here they paid workers about $22/hr. In China the average wage was less than $1. However, they found that besides the added freight, insurance and market response costs...the American worker actually made more shoes per hour than the Chinese worker. The reason being the American system allows for more reward/profit for the worker than the socialist Chinese system.

Do you know how much I get paid an hour for being a waiter in a hotel?

EU9.06

Know how much I get if I work really really hard?

EU9.06

In the US a waiter makes less than half of minimum wage per hour. The reason is we tip about 15-20% of the bill. So if you don't refill my drinks or provide good customer service you may get change for a tip. You do a good job and you could earn 20-25% instead of 15-20%.

So I guess I'm saying I'm sorry you're stuck in a European system that doesn't reward hard work.

[TheMason]

At 9/1/10 12:41 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Note that the "tragedy of the commons" hypothesis isn't some obvious fact - it's a thought experiment and hypothesis, and only has some circumstantial evidence in favor of it. There's also plenty of circumstantial evidence against it - see for example Elinor Ostrom's work.

I don't think Prof. Ostrom's work really undermines my argument. In her model the Commons are managed by people who have authority and power. These monitors have the ability to coerce appropriators/particiapants/users into using the Commons in a way that serves the collective good and thereby presents a foil to people just using up the Commons for their own self-interest.

The point is humans are motivated more out of self-interest than altruism. There is an economic (and not necessarily monetary economic) calculus that goes through people's minds when making decisions. In a system with loose external controls, people will deplete the Commons. In systems where wise men, elders, police or other monitors have the power to use the force of law to compell collectivist behavior...the Commons are better managed.

Finally, it is not necessarily based upon just thought experiements but the historical record. We see these observations going back to the Greek historians. And the historical/anthropological record in the US shows that the Native Americans were not the benevolent stewards of the land that we commonly want to think they are. Tribes would often exhaust and pollute an area and then move on, sometimes purposely to deny the area to rival tribes.

[Jon-86]

At 8/29/10 02:27 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Next, you would have the right to withdraw money for certain purposes, and within reason. These purposes would be for such things as rent, bills, food, car payments, and other simple things that every human should be entitled to.

Who decides that? Why should every person be entitled to a car? We dont need cars? I don't have one and can get along fine using the bus. If everyone can have a car why not a helicopter? If I think that's within reason.

At 8/29/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Socialism and collectivist ideologies do not work in the real world because of human beings operate out of self-interested motivations.

Why do society's instinctively work in groups then?

[Jon-86]

At 9/1/10 06:46 PM, TheMason wrote: So I guess I'm saying I'm sorry you're stuck in a European system that doesn't reward hard work.

I actually hate the tipping system/culture you guys have developed. It makes me uncomfortable. Especially when sometimes tips are included in the bill and people are expecting a double tip. You should be paying people the right amount to begin with.

And I don't think its just me otherwise self service buffets wouldn't have taken off in a big way!

[Chris-V2]

At 9/1/10 06:46 PM, TheMason wrote:

In the US we have overtime, double time and even triple time when talking about wage laborers. So their wages are multiplied for what they work above and beyond 40hrs/wk. We also have piece-rate in which you are paid according to how much you produce. You make more of widget X...your paycheck is fatter.

Working serious amounts of overtime in Ireland is taxed heavily as far as I'm aware, it's called having a life outside of your occupation. You do get time and a half and double time for working crappy shifts, though.

Furthermore, there is the possibility of promotion. Be productive and you get a promotion and make more money. So sorry your point doesn't hold water. If a system allows for rewards of hard work then your workers are more productive.

There is the possobility of a better job in any system.

Take China and the US for example. New Balance shoes decided to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US from China. Here they paid workers about $22/hr. In China the average wage was less than $1. However, they found that besides the added freight, insurance and market response costs...the American worker actually made more shoes per hour than the Chinese worker. The reason being the American system allows for more reward/profit for the worker than the socialist Chinese system.

In the US a waiter makes less than half of minimum wage per hour. The reason is we tip about 15-20% of the bill. So if you don't refill my drinks or provide good customer service you may get change for a tip. You do a good job and you could earn 20-25% instead of 15-20%.

Want to know the secret to getting tipped?
Get them drunk.
Not really, we don't tip here because the cost of a meal is so high. I could spend 40 euros on just food for 2, I'm not giving a waiter another 5 euro.
I still don't like the sense of obligation that comes with tipping, especialy in bars. I'd rather a girl didnt earn more than me just because she has tits.

So I guess I'm saying I'm sorry you're stuck in a European system that doesn't reward hard work.

Me too. And I'm sorry you live in a country where you can get paid less than minimum wage.

[Rory]

Fine, It's a good idea, but socialism (And It's ugly sister, Communsim) only work when 100% of the people involved are entirely true and devoted to the cause, and It just doesn;t owrk, as we don't live in a bue skies, field of dreams world, and It noormally ends up the way you said, "some rich prick" continues to make more and more money. It's sad that systems like this can't work, but this is reality.

[TheMason]

At 8/29/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Socialism and collectivist ideologies do not work in the real world because of human beings operate out of self-interested motivations.

Why do society's instinctively work in groups then?

Since a society is a group of people, and my argument is based upon individuals...I think you meant to say "people" instead of 'society's'.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes described the natural state of man as such:

"...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short..." thus our natural state is one of "...warre (war) of every man against every man."

Without some sort of social contract, the strong will prey upon the weak. For example I am a big gun advocate. I am also a big XBox 360 gamer. Now for arguments sake (I'm not sure how you feel about guns or the XBox) you are a XBox gamer...but hate guns and don't have them.

In a state of nature if my XBox breaks I'm gonna come to your house or cave and take your XBox by force. Ain't nuthin' nobody can do 'bout it.

So while I am a Libertarian...I understand the need for a social contract which means limited government.

(There is also the socio-biological notion that humans are by nature a group animal...but don't want to completely bore you!)

We need to have some sort of system in place that coerces me into not coming over to your house and taking your XBox. This could be social in nature (shared cultural mores for example), religious (Thou Shall Not Steal...except second or third base) or government (police).

People, to include the strong, form such social contracts because no matter how strong I am...I am always looking over my shoulder for someone stronger.

So I perceive a benefit to being part of society, a benefit that is greater than the cost (ie: freedoms lost) of being governed.

So to bring this back around to the topic at hand...

What the topic starter proposes is a noble idea. However, with such loose rules and regulations I think most people are going to behave in ways that maximize their profit and minimize their losses; the Fund be damned.

If the Fund were to survive it would have to create strong and binding sanctions for those participants who choose to defect or underpay. This is problematic because after awhile I see such a fund as being unable to attract new participants...and thereby collapsing.

[Jon-86]

At 9/2/10 08:25 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/29/10 04:20 PM, TheMason wrote: Socialism and collectivist ideologies do not work in the real world because of human beings operate out of self-interested motivations.

Why do society's instinctively work in groups then?

Since a society is a group of people, and my argument is based upon individuals...I think you meant to say "people" instead of 'society's'.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes described the natural state of man as such:

"...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short..." thus our natural state is one of "...warre (war) of every man against every man."

Without some sort of social contract, the strong will prey upon the weak.

In a state of nature if my XBox breaks I'm gonna come to your house or cave and take your XBox by force. Ain't nuthin' nobody can do 'bout it.

But we've evolved a little since being cavemen! That development has come as a result of working together in groups not as individual breakthroughs that were then sold to everyone. The strong do prey on the weak but the strongest are not always the smartest!

Thats why people form groups to begin with! So everyone can get the benifit of individuals who are better at something. If one person is smart, the group is smart. If one person is strong the group is strong.

So if you were to "come to my cave" even if you were stronger than me you wouldn't be facing me alone, you would be up against a group. Then its up to you if you consider your xbox as something you would fight to the death for or if you were smart see if anyone you know can fix it for you in return for a favor on your part.

The main reason socialism doesn't work is not human nature. In my opinion we haven't yet come up with a way to manage it on a large scale. And until we do it will never work in a modern world that thrives on mass production. But small scale it works fine.

[poxpower]

The Fund in a nutshell:

Step1: Join Fund
Step 2: Take money
Step 3: get kicked out
Step 4: Profit

TA-DAAAAAA!

[TheMason]

At 9/2/10 09:03 AM, poxpower wrote: The Fund in a nutshell:

Step1: Join Fund
Step 2: Take money
Step 3: get kicked out
Step 4: Profit

TA-DAAAAAA!

Exactly my point! Thanks Poxy!

[TheMason]

At 9/2/10 08:43 AM, Jon-86 wrote: But we've evolved a little since being cavemen! That development has come as a result of working together in groups not as individual breakthroughs that were then sold to everyone. The strong do prey on the weak but the strongest are not always the smartest!

It is actually both. Without some sort of incentive from the group to produce for the group's good individuals would defect from said group. I mean look at San Francisco in the 1960s. You have a group of peole (hippies) who form a collectivist counter-culture. It failed because eventually some alpha males or females rose to the top and made the group oppressive. Eventually it all fell apart. I mean look at Charles Manson...he came out of this experiement.

Thats why people form groups to begin with! So everyone can get the benifit of individuals who are better at something. If one person is smart, the group is smart. If one person is strong the group is strong.

I would say smarter or stronger. There is also the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

But you're not really saying anything here that detracts or repudiates my argument.

So if you were to "come to my cave" even if you were stronger than me you wouldn't be facing me alone, you would be up against a group. Then its up to you if you consider your xbox as something you would fight to the death for or if you were smart see if anyone you know can fix it for you in return for a favor on your part.

It was an example for the state of nature, or anarchy. Yes you're going to have friends/family there. Yes you've formed a group. Quite likely they're of the same mindset on things as you. So if I and I my friends come over and we're gun nuts and you're not we'll just shoot you all and take your shit.

The main reason socialism doesn't work is not human nature. In my opinion we haven't yet come up with a way to manage it on a large scale. And until we do it will never work in a modern world that thrives on mass production. But small scale it works fine.

It works in very small groups like less than a hundred where social constraints come into play. If you don't pull your weight in a large system, it is likely people will not notice. But when part of a very small group like a family, friends or office then the stigma of being a freeloader or lazy could compell you to work contrary to your slothfull nature. (I'm using "you" or "your" rhetorically and not trying to insult you.)

When you try to institutionalize (or "manage") it, you have to put so many sanctions and layers of monitors that it becomes cumbersome and unsustainable. Therefore as a macro economic or political system...socialism is an epic fail.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/2/10 08:25 AM, TheMason wrote: So while I am a Libertarian...I understand the need for a social contract which means limited government.

Ugh so basically what you're saying is that in order to prevent people from coercing property from others, we need...an organisation whose subsistence is entirely dependant upon coercing property from others?
-_-

We need to have some sort of system in place that coerces me into not coming over to your house and taking your XBox. This could be social in nature (shared cultural mores for example), religious (Thou Shall Not Steal...except second or third base) or government (police).

Have you even, you know, read any anti-statist literature before?

[TheMason]

At 9/2/10 10:17 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/2/10 08:25 AM, TheMason wrote: So while I am a Libertarian...I understand the need for a social contract which means limited government.

Ugh so basically what you're saying is that in order to prevent people from coercing property from others, we need...an organisation whose subsistence is entirely dependant upon coercing property from others?
-_-

The problem is we've gotten away from minarchist thought. This is a problem with both Republicans and Democrats. We look to government to solve our issues. Gays getting married? The government needs to define what marriage is! Healthcare costs going up? Government (although at the root of why costs are going up) must step in and create a solution!

But at the same time I am not deluded enough into thinking that no government would solve all these problems and not create more and possibly worse ones.

We need to have some sort of system in place that coerces me into not coming over to your house and taking your XBox. This could be social in nature (shared cultural mores for example), religious (Thou Shall Not Steal...except second or third base) or government (police).

Have you even, you know, read any anti-statist literature before?

*sigh* Yes I have. I'm just not convinced that a pure, anti-statist system is good.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 9/2/10 02:27 PM, TheMason wrote: The problem is we've gotten away from minarchist thought.

Um..exactly? lol

A bunch of radical libertarians who were willing to go to war over a small tax were unable to keep the state limited; what makes you think that we will ever be able to?

America was one of if not the most deliberately limited states in history. There were so many checks and balances and restrictions on its power, but in little over two hundred years it's become the single most powerful organisation in HISTORY.

No state has ever remained limited and it's foolish to suggest that it ever could.

*sigh* Yes I have. I'm just not convinced that a pure, anti-statist system is good.

If you have any particular problems I'd be happy to suggest why it would be "good".

[Jon-86]

At 9/2/10 09:37 AM, TheMason wrote: It was an example for the state of nature, or anarchy. Yes you're going to have friends/family there. Yes you've formed a group. Quite likely they're of the same mindset on things as you. So if I and I my friends come over and we're gun nuts and you're not we'll just shoot you all and take your shit.

Obviously. But in that kind of environment everyone would be armed. So its not as simple as that, you then go back to the decision of risk your life to steal or barter and gain a new person or people who are useful to you. And if you think about it. It took a smart person to invent the gun in the first place. Brains over brawn...

It works in very small groups like less than a hundred where social constraints come into play. If you don't pull your weight in a large system, it is likely people will not notice. But when part of a very small group like a family, friends or office then the stigma of being a freeloader or lazy could compell you to work contrary to your slothfull nature. (I'm using "you" or "your" rhetorically and not trying to insult you.)

This is kind of what I was on about when I posted this a long time ago http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1131 507

[SmilezRoyale]

The OP did do one thing correctly, he at least made a point of not advocating this be done by a state. [[And none of that randian bull-crap about 'voluntary taxation' and 'vegetarian meatballs']]

If it turns out everyone here is completely wrong in their assumption and your little thought experiment, then you have found yourself a great business opportunity. If everyone here is right, people will learn from the experience.

However I'm going to place my money on the crowd that says this can't work, basically for everything that has been said before. Even in mutual aid societies the people in charge of running it [And yes, there is a hierarchy in such a system, an emergent hierarchy] had to control the distribution of the aid and what it can be spent on, to ensure that it wasn't being wasted, and also to make sure that use of the resources by an indvidual was a temporary and not indefinite affair. The Mormons, for all their faults, did have a rather advanced mutual aid system of this sort.

also because voluntary communes of this sort HAVE been tried. [I'm not talking about mutual aid, I'm talking about communes] and failed in almost every case i can think of except for monasteries and abbeys.

Heirarchy is not bad per-say, by the way. Differences in importance and wealth, to some degree or another, will occur simply because labor is being divided, because preferences are subjective, and because people's talents and abilities are varied. The work of a specialized accountant has a higher marginal value than the work of a desk clerk, for example.

You don't have to be opposed to all hierarchy in order to be consistent, provided you see the social value [or lack thereof] of the particular heirarchy, for the same reason you don't have to oppose cell structure simply to have a disposition against things like Cancer.

[chairmankem]

At 9/1/10 06:46 PM, TheMason wrote: You make more of widget X...your paycheck is fatter.

Not necessarily; this is a gross generalization of labor practices.

Furthermore, there is the possibility of promotion.

Again, this is a generalization. For example, teenagers who have summer jobs don't aspire to become the manager of the McDonald's that they work in. If you work as a janitor, chances are you won't become the CEO.

An increase or decrease in the wage you earn, the determination of what responsibilities you carry, or whether or not you keep your job or not based off of something that may or may not be related to your job performance, is for the most part at the discretion of one's employer.

Here they paid workers about $22/hr. In China the average wage was less than $1. However, they found that besides the added freight, insurance and market response costs...the American worker actually made more shoes per hour than the Chinese worker. The reason being the American system allows for more reward/profit for the worker than the socialist Chinese system.

That's a disingenuous statement. First off, you didn't mention over what period of time the Chinese worker was being paid or even how much exactly, so let's assume it was $1/hour. Then, take into account that the renminbi is undervalued by almost half, and that consumer goods in China are much cheaper than here. So, when you take purchasing power parity into account, that $1/hour is not as bad as it seems. Of course, that $1/hour is probably better than nothing, so it's not like no motivation exists. And there isn't a magical formula for more output depending on how much money you put in.

Second, it doesn't take into account how exactly the product is being made. An American factory is more likely to have higher-tech, labor-saving equipment than a Chinese one. Chinese competitive advantage comes from its huge pool of cheap labor, not because each individual worker is particularly productive.

Industrial productivity is generally determined by the methods and means of production, not necessarily one's motivation to work.

So I guess I'm saying I'm sorry you're stuck in a European system that doesn't reward hard work.

In European countries, waiters are actually guaranteed minimum wage.

[chairmankem]

At 9/2/10 08:43 AM, Jon-86 wrote: The main reason socialism doesn't work is not human nature. In my opinion we haven't yet come up with a way to manage it on a large scale. And until we do it will never work in a modern world that thrives on mass production. But small scale it works fine.

Exactly. The Soviet system didn't work because there was no accountability at any level of government, nor was there any particularly facile way to allocate resources. Technologies such as the Internet and supercomputing can change that somewhat.

The Internet is a very easy way to make sure that society remains free. It makes it several orders of magnitude harder to suppress dissent, and since it is decentralized and has the potential for anonymity, is relatively hard to control without a major upheaval of the current system. Also, it's fairly easier now to know how much of everything to produce because more accurate census and consumer data can be taken, and computational modeling should make it easier to adjust economic policies without too much random guessing.

Furthermore, Imperial Russia was mainly feudal and agrarian, so transition to a socialist economy from a relatively poor and backward society wasn't really sustainable in the long run. You can't really found communism on an inadequate industrial base.

[SadisticMonkey]

No, the soviet union failed because economic calculation for an entire economy is impossible.