Hello there!
Being rather young, it has been only recently that I politically awakened. I was drawn to the far left and began to read about Marx and Lenin, learned to hate Stalin and hoped to convert the rest of the world to my point of view.
However, after a few debates with my friends and with my father, a keen conservative, about politics, I realised that Communism destroys incentive in the working class and that the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" lead to corruption and greed within the people of authority.
Knowing this, I decided to try and find my own solution, I was still drawn to the idea of full state control over the economy but realised Humanity's need for incentive in work. I have thought up my own system, one that combines Communism with Capitalism and hopefully provides what both ideologies promise, freedom of opportunity as well as complete employment and fair rights for workers. The idea I came up with was Quotaism.
Quotaism is simple. Every worker, who is willing to work, is set a basic quota. This may be in working hours or units produced or any other means of measuring productivity or contribution. This Basic contribution will be met with basic reward. In a system with monetary currency, this would provide money enough to rent housing, to buy basic staple foods and to maintain the home to a minimal degree. In a system with labour vouchers or something similar, the basic quota would be met with vouchers for basic foods, housing and household goods. The worker can then decide to fulfil further supplementary Quotas, which will provide him with further supplementary pay or more labour vouchers that will provide more luxury related rewards. With the help of modern technology, computer programs will quickly assign working hours, production quotas and work placements quickly, efficiently, and without bureaucracy, which will free up man power for more productive work. It should also be noted that with this technology, in an ideal situation, it will be possible for workers to take unscheduled breaks without major faults in economic productivity. Indeed, if less workers work in a factory and produce the same amount of units, they are being more productive per person and therefore they are paid more each as they have contributed more each. However, to eliminate red tape and bureaucracy, it is mandatory that the state takes control over all industry and provides work for as many people want to work.
This, then, will only work if the state relinquishes all state provided unemployment benefit and pension, so that everyone within the industrial machine works for themselves but also being productive for the society. Of course, in an ideal situation, the state would be able to supply basic supplies for the heavily disabled or children. Pensions will be managed by the people themselves, encouraging workers to save for their old age. This combination of far left wing and ultra conservative values, will maintain incentive in the working people whilst providing jobs for all and fair opportunity for all and eliminating unearned pay and poverty that capitalism so desperately produces.
Democracy would also have to kept, with general elections with real parties etc, after each 'five year plan' carried out by the government. This would help to increase incentive within the Government and also remind them that the people are in control as to stop the Government from becoming totalitarian and un-democratic.
I have posted this because I want to know what you think, not to convert you, and would like to know if you see any flaws within the system.
To be fair, I can't see any differences with this and what the Soviet Union practiced. The Soviet economy ran on quotas to factory owners, which they had to meet. The problem with this system is that all it does is give them a number of things to produce and there is absolutely no quality control in the products. Furthermore, there is no incentive to produce better products. It's also worth noting that such a system would find it impossible to follow demand, which the USSR certainly did. Thousands of poorly made shoes would be made when the population didn't need them. Farmers would slaughter all their animals to meet numbers, yet have a shortfall next year.
Also, because the economy was centrally planned, there was so much red tape and this would be no different. The economy is not black and white and to efficiently plan it centrally you would need thousands of civil servants, which is a contradiction in itself as that creates inefficiency.
I admire your effort, but I think you've taken the worst aspect of Soviet socialism and have adapted it into its own form of government.
GT - LedgeyNG, Steam - Ledgey91, PSN - LedgeyNG
At 4/29/11 12:45 PM, PremierMeridian wrote: Quotaism..
I have posted this because I want to know what you think, not to convert you, and would like to know if you see any flaws within the system.
Hi PremierMeridian, Welcome to NGP. Congrats on a decent first posting!
Okay, i hope i read it correctly, but unfortunately it is flawed. There's a BBC doco by Adam Curtis which covers this, and i could look up the exact episode if you want me to, but i'll just give a link for starters. It's either The Century of the Self, or another one of his.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century _of_the_Self
Anyway, it shows that Russia reached a peak of production thru socialism, but then it became too complex to keep track of, so that just as they were beginning to examine the possibility of computerizing all the complexities of a top-down decision process, it all started unraveling. The example given was a train full of goods that got sent across the country, and then when it reached it's destination, it then got sent back and forth a few more times still carrying the same load, because the transport company was essentially paid for mileage of tonnes transfered. ie. a quota.
Of course the countries head computer guy suggested that their computer systems were not funded enough to handle the vast amounts of data that the whole of the Russian system was capable of producing, especially since they only had large tape backup systems in the '60s or '70s.
I think today thou, we are close to reaching a computational and informational level where an open transparency of checks and balances would be sufficient, and i remain optimistic that an public internet structure will be robust enough to handle it.
The next issue then would be that quotas are generally assigned to production, but that production alone doesn't constitutes healthy happy lives, and in recent times, it's started to be the bane of the Capitalist system, since the environment gets overlooked. This is where we need new value systems and greater sharing, but from what i've seen that's not happening as well as it could, as production still is king, and is likely to get worse (cheap labor vs robots) before it gets better.
Woah, this next one sounds good..
"Curtis is currently finishing a new documentary for the BBC, [11] called 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace'"
By through this system, the worker can determine how much he or she works. If they are found to be making bad quality products they can be warned or whatever.
This system is also much more suited to tertiary sector jobs, it would keep work varied and allow tertiary industry workers as well to choose their work load. Also, I suggest that quotas are set to the individual monthly. Farming would be handled in a factory like manner, which I also described in my paper that I wrote, of which my OP was a small section. Animals, although cruelly, would have to be farmed in a Battery or semi-Battery way.
Oh, goody! I get to dig through my big bag of quotes now.
"Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own." - Sydney J. Harris
Admittedly, you aren't very 'arrogant', but on the other hand it's a little bit arrogant for someone to think they've invented a new form of government and socio-economic philosophy, especially when that same person admits to just getting into politics.
Nothing to be ashamed of. We've all been through that youthful phase where we think we have invented a great new idea that will change the world.
The issue of incentives is surely a great problem, which I believe your so called "new" system fails to solve.
However, the primary problem of socialism is that of economic calculation. The government is incapable of knowing what to produce and ho to coordinate resources efficiently like the market can/does.
If you are genuinely interested in political theory, I urge you to read this.
Even if you don't agree with everything, it will surely help you gain a broader perspective of things. If you like it, I then highly reccomend you read teh book Socialism by the same author.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
wolf piss
At 4/29/11 07:45 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The government is incapable of knowing what to produce and ho to coordinate resources efficiently like the market can/does.
But the market has zero responsibility to the people, whereas socialism is made to solely benefit the people. These are both extremes, and som ewhere in the middle lies the best compromise between efficiency and benefits to the people.
Here's the thing though, that still doesn't give incentive to work harder, I mean let's say you're a farmer and only work enough land to feed you and your family or enough to get enough money. You already own your home and you already have enough food and can make all your own stuff, thus you produce less food since you don't have to work harder especially when there isn't anything special to buy.
Now, the main reason it fails is because competition is still in need of existence, take us, we don't need to compete for food we already have enough, we don't need to compete for shelter or anything it's mostly secure from others. Once the need for competition goes away i.e. farms come in and make food production much easier, then you can go into moral reforms and say establish a bigger regional government. I view economics the same way, unless you can start your own company and have no fear of failure then Communism won't work, i.e. the markets have to become stable and plentiful where one company can live with the presence of another.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 4/29/11 12:45 PM, PremierMeridian wrote:
and with my father, a keen conservative, about politics, I realised that Communism destroys incentive in the working class and that the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" lead to corruption and greed within the people of authority.
your dad is conservative, he's going to teach you this.
Iron man is a superhero
Iron woman is a command
At 5/3/11 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But the market has zero responsibility to the people, whereas socialism is made to solely benefit the people.
The market IS people though. Things are made only in response to the the real deamnds of people.
The fact that socialism is is "made" to benefit the people is meaningless. Socialism doesn't work and millions of people starvingto deat and living in poverty is the clear evidence of this.
These are both extremes, and som ewhere in the middle lies the best compromise between efficiency and benefits to the people.
This "middle ground" argument is a load of anti-intellectual nonsense. If you want to make the case for individual examples of the state doing things better.
It's clear you don't have any real understanding at all of economic calculation or the localised nature of knowledge, and are just making cliche asertions.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 5/4/11 05:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The free market is more social than socialism.
look closely at what free market is and then try to tell me that any free market exists.
Iron man is a superhero
Iron woman is a command
At 5/4/11 05:42 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The market IS people though. Things are made only in response to the the real deamnds of people.
That's true, however, you are completely ignoring that power differentials drive much of what goes on in our system today, even when such differentials are highly regulated.
The fact that socialism is is "made" to benefit the people is meaningless. Socialism doesn't work and millions of people starvingto deat and living in poverty is the clear evidence of this.
Ummm... You are thinking of "Communist" Dictatorships, not socialism. (quote fingers included)
This "middle ground" argument is a load of anti-intellectual nonsense. If you want to make the case for individual examples of the state doing things better.
The middle ground is not nonsense. Only psuedo intellectual libertarians who cannot understand that fact that ALL of us have taken advantage of people in our lives and many of us would do so more if it were not impractical or illegal.
If you want an example, just look up anti-monopoly regulation in the US, and the before and after.
It's clear you don't have any real understanding at all of economic calculation or the localised nature of knowledge, and are just making cliche asertions.
I don't need to know economic calculation to know that with unbridled power often comes the will to use it against weaker people.
Heck, even in the US's heavily regulated market the lower end people are taken advantage of all the time. Do you think gas is $4-$5 a gallon here because crude oil is expensive? Do you think Apple coomputers are more than twice as expensive as PCs becuase they are twice as good? Hell no.
If you want an example of what a 100% free market does to the people, read "The Jungle"
Your idea is not new but its good you are looking into things now. The one problem I see with your thinking is you are looking to extremes to get your information. Marx... Stalin? If you want to find a more measured approach simply look at economies that are working. Try Germany and some of the Icelandic countries. They have a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Competition is good but you must have checks and balances to make sure the more powerful don't destroy the weaker in the economy. That is currently happening in America right now. Larger companies dont want to compete with mom and pops. So they lobby, lobby, lobby to death and even in some instances go into gov. with the sole intent on writing bills that block smaller companies from competing with them. Look in any major industry and you can find it: Monsantos (big aggra). The former CEO ran the FDA made it illegal to force GMO's label their food as such rendering them indistinguishable from organics. The head of the energy department is a former Big oil/coal CEO. Remember when there used to be many mom and pop oil companies? Look at healthcare. The lobbyist wrote the healthcare plan in the senate making it illegal to buy the same drugs (that they manufacture) from outside the united States. There is no such thing as free markets. Its only regulated or unregulated. The real question is how do you regulate it where people are protected but your don't stunt growth for all?
At 5/5/11 01:44 PM, newave wrote:
There are worthwhile explanations for three examples you put out there. In none of these cases are the big companies trying to stamp out smaller competition.
Look in any major industry and you can find it: Monsantos (big aggra). The former CEO ran the FDA made it illegal to force GMO's label their food as such rendering them indistinguishable from organics.
Putting GMO on food has the potential to extremely damage food sales. When the word "oraganic" is already regulated there is no need to slap GMO on the rest of the food. GM shouldn't be required to slap "CHEAP" on all of its non-luxury models. The system we have where "organic" = organic and no designation = likely GMO works just fine without directly black listing GMO products.
The head of the energy department is a former Big oil/coal CEO. Remember when there used to be many mom and pop oil companies?
The energy Dept. Head needs to have a vast array of knowledge and experience with energy. A former CEO of an oil company would have this requisite knowledge and experience. Also, you blame this for the dwindling number of mid sized oil companies. What you fail to realize is that accros almost all sectors midsized companies have dissapeared. Is this the doing of the evil big corporations? Nope. This is the doing of the innocent consumer. They have WalMarted all of their purchases to the point where only the giants can survive. the mid-level companies either went bankrupt do to dwindling revenues, or allowed themselves to be absorbed by the big companies who had enough sales to absorb the shrinking profit margins.
This problem you speak of was driven by consumer greed, not corporate greed.
Look at healthcare. The lobbyist wrote the healthcare plan in the senate making it illegal to buy the same drugs (that they manufacture) from outside the united States.
Have you heard the news about foreign medicines? A HUGE percentage of them are not only counterfiet, their complete fakes. Many of these fakes are extremely dangerous. This legislation is actually counteracting corporate greed, by forcing the retailers to buy American products that have been approved by the FDA. Now any law student knows that FDA sucks, but it is definitely a hell of a lot better than what the rest of the world has.
"have you heard the news about foreign medicines? A HUGE percentage of them are not only counterfiet, their complete fakes. Many of these fakes are extremely dangerous. This legislation is actually counteracting corporate greed, by forcing the retailers to buy American products that have been approved by the FDA. Now any law student knows that FDA sucks, but it is definitely a hell of a lot better than what the rest of the world "
You are incorrect. I have a degree in the sciences (biology (genetics was my focus)). I also worked for a fortune 500 pharma corp for a few years. I know for a fact that most of these companies create their drugs in their own labs but manufactures their drugs in (guess where) china.
I can also tell you that Monsantos GMO's are designed to be one generational and NOT healthy. They would be black listed if people knew what kinda genetic tinkering they did. I can give you tons of examples. If you wanna know exactly I will explain. Let me know.
I would call your system statism, or possibly corporatism. I agree that it would not be considered either left or right wing by conventional standards.
I have one thought though: how is information brought to the economy? Hayek criticized centralized planning on the grounds that order could not develop spontaneously, it needed to be consciously recognized. In a market system, all actors make decisions that contribute information to the economy. When I choose to buy a cell phone and ditch my land line, I'm slightly raising the demand to manufacture cell phones and slightly lower the demand to expand the traditional land telephone network. If a lot of people agree with me, then there will be more investment in cell phones and less in landline networks. If industries are just meeting their quotas, than how does new information affect production decisions?
I agree that operations research and computer programming have made labor more efficient, but they are only as good as the information they're given.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
At 5/4/11 10:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: That's true, however, you are completely ignoring that power differentials drive much of what goes on in our system today, even when such differentials are highly regulated.
And there's your number one problem.
People act as though these "regulations" are the only thing holding back total corporatism, when in reality it is these regulations themselves that are corporatism.
Regulations act as barriers to entry, meaning that these politically connected firms don't have to worry about the constant competition they would face on a free market. Megacorp can afford to pay lawyers to fill in constant, superflous paperwork, whilst mom and pop can't.
This video explains it quite nicely.
Ummm... You are thinking of "Communist" Dictatorships, not socialism. (quote fingers included)
Obviously by socialism I'm talking about government owned means of production.
People didn't die in soviet russia just because of murderous leaders.
The middle ground is not nonsense. Only psuedo intellectual libertarians who cannot understand that fact that ALL of us have taken advantage of people in our lives and many of us would do so more if it were not impractical or illegal.
zzzz
If you want an example, just look up anti-monopoly regulation in the US, and the before and after.
hahah, what a joke. Free market monopolies are a total myth.
Government is far more responisle for creating monopolies than from preventing them.
It's funny how 'private' monopolies are so wrong and evil, whereas government monopoly is perfectly fine, even though only the latter will ever actually FORCE people to give them money.
I don't need to know economic calculation to know that with unbridled power often comes the will to use it against weaker people.
Yeah you do need to understand. Pointing out the (supposed) weaknesses of something is meaningless unless you can give a better alternative, and yet you apparently don't even understand your alternative. Yes, economic calculation applies to all state action, not just socialist governments.
Do you think gas is $4-$5 a gallon here because crude oil is expensive?
I think it's because America's been printing a fuckton of money.
Ignoring this though, are you claiming that supply and demand, the fundamental method of efficient resource allocation, is equivalent to 'taking advantage of money'?
Okay cool. Next time you sell something, be sure not to get as much for it as you can, but rather, sell it for its inhernetly "fair" price.
Do you think Apple coomputers are more than twice as expensive as PCs becuase they are twice as good? Hell no.
Okay that's just fucing retarded.
Firstly, value is subjective. People evidently do think that apples are worth twice as much as PC's, because otherwise they wouldn't buy them.
Secondly, given that the inexpensive PC option exists, why are you complaining?
"Wah all these poor people can't afford macs before of evil corporations! This is exploitation!"
If you want an example of what a 100% free market does to the people, read "The Jungle"
Bahaha, you don't know half a shit of what you're talking about.
The Jungle is a work of fiction, and an extremely unrealistic one at that.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
Communism, if it is to succeed must be embraced by the community and built for the community. The best way to do this is to bring the new community to the real world. Overlay the social networks with topography maps and GPS on the real world. Let communities rate each other real time and set their goals in real time. Let them share information at will. In this way communism will rise up outside of government, and possibly eventually replace it.
At 5/6/11 07:21 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Communism, if it is to succeed
Communism cannot succed, see my first post in this thread.
The best way to do this is to bring the new community to the real world. Overlay the social networks with topography maps and GPS on the real world. Let communities rate each other real time and set their goals in real time. Let them share information at will. In this way communism will rise up outside of government, and possibly eventually replace it.
This...is just bizarre.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 5/6/11 07:21 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: The best way to do this is to bring the new community to the real world. Overlay the social networks with topography maps and GPS on the real world. Let communities rate each other real time and set their goals in real time. Let them share information at will...
It'll happen sooner than most think it will.
okay i think the problem with most political systems is that people don't have the emapthy nor the cognitive capabilities to actually make large-scale decisions. In leiu of such it would explain many things like communism (no i'm not an anti-communist pro capitalist pig like most people would have me be labeled) was unsuccessful because it wasn't executed properly, if you look at it from Joseph Stalin's perspective he was a narcissistic control freak who wanted all power and abused it as such as Kerl Marx said "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absoloutley." that being said would explain a lot...
At 5/6/11 07:49 PM, GhostShellCommand wrote: okay i think the problem with most political systems is that people don't have the emapthy nor the cognitive capabilities to actually make large-scale decisions.
I disagree with this. Society could be ruled by extremely smart people, but if they don't have all of the information that a free market brings to the economy, their great intelligence will be wasted.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
At 5/6/11 07:47 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 5/6/11 07:21 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Communism, if it is to succeedCommunism cannot succed, see my first post in this thread.
Communism can't succeed if it is to be managed by a big bureaucratic government. I'd agree to that any day of the week. There's no argument to be had there. And of course people need to have incentive to work. And so the answer is actually a strange variant mix of communism and capitalism. People most be rewarded for the work they do. The question is, is it possible to be rewarded in ways that don't lead to money "pooling" or where money can literally be created out of thin air without devaluing anything but still giving incentive to work. Crazy, yes. But when the demand is no longer an issue and supply & cost to produce are all that matters things change.
The scarcity issue must be solved first. I'm not sure that it can be solved, but if it can be solved incentives and freeloading don't matter so much.
The best way to do this is to bring the new community to the real world. Overlay the social networks with topography maps and GPS on the real world. Let communities rate each other real time and set their goals in real time. Let them share information at will. In this way communism will rise up outside of government, and possibly eventually replace it.This...is just bizarre.
:D This...is the future.
Where we're going, we don't need roads.
I'm sure computers would look and sound bizarre to someone in the 1800s, just as cars did to people in 1800 & 1700 hundreds & planes. but it happens....
At 5/3/11 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/29/11 07:45 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The government is incapable of knowing what to produce and ho to coordinate resources efficiently like the market can/does.But the market has zero responsibility to the people, whereas socialism is made to solely benefit the people. These are both extremes, and som ewhere in the middle lies the best compromise between efficiency and benefits to the people.
This is what happens when you remove concrete thought from political metaphors.
"The market has zero responsibility to the People"
The words Market, Responsible, and People. are all metaphorical. "The Market" simply refers to the interactions of people in relation to goods and services, presumably in the absence of coercion [in the literal sense]. The market is not an anthropomorphic being with 'thoughts' 'a spirit' or 'intentions'.
It is true that the market is not responsible to the people
What you PROBABLY mean by this is that "Without state intervention in what I regard as economic activity of persons, a small minority, namely businessman and the class of wealthy [non-state ] individuals, will take advantage of the gullibility and fewer opportunities of the general masses through [XXX]"
And XXX can really be anything, paying workers wages not commensurate with their marginal productivity [or wages that ARE commensurate with their marginal productivity but still at a level you subjectively perceive as being too low]. Environmental degradation. Selling products of low quality or high price. Creating an aesthetically unpleasing culture of consumerism. And so on and so forth.
And what you probably meant by your statement about Socialism was
"I believe that Socialists are predisposed towards wanting to bring about the general good of the citizenry [whatever that is and however that good comes to be known is a separate matter] and by means of what is [commonly, or academically, you are not clear] referred to as socialistic government power, they will be able to manifest that disposition."
Of course I might be misinterpreting you, but that's what happens when you try to condense complexity.
____________________
That said.
Work incentives through paying people based on how 'much' they labor is not outside of the Marxist doctrine as far as I know.
I'm not going to link a long book or economics essay that Explains this, but here is a short quasi-syllogism that should explain the fallacy.
1) Labor is not valuable as an end in itself, it is a means to an end.
2) The end of labor is the production of goods and services valued directly or [more commonly] indirectly by the individual in question.
3) In a society marked by a division of labor, the product of labor is exchanged indirectly by others in exchange for something that is valued by the laborer. The laborer would not do so involuntarily unless he perceived some benefit from doing so, relative to doing nothing or another labor alternative.
[I acknowledge this goes against Marxism that seeks to abolish the division of labor, but since you never mentioned the division of labor I will assume that you understand why a division is necessary. Noting here that even the Bolsheviks never abolished the division of labor nor could they even come close to doing it.]
4) Since the labor services are being used by others, the only means by which a price paid for labor services commensurate with the value of others is by precisely gauging how much others are willing to exchange for the labor services [this is virtually a tautology]
5) the only meaningful way this willingness can be gauged is if the labor exchange is voluntarily bought and sold.
In other words, saying "We will compensate people for how much they work" Ignores the fact that the central planning authority doesn't know the subject value of what the laborer is producing. Prices tell us whether there is too much of one thing being produced relative to another, based upon the demands of the citizenry.
Planned economies suffer from the inability to deal with shortages and surpluses for this reason.
And compensating people for the hours they work means giving them money to buy...
What exactly?
Whatever the central planner decides should be produced.
And how does he know what should be produced?
It's completely arbitrary.
_______
Also what you described in your large paragraph was not a political system, it was an economic system. Socialism is an economic system, insofar as it deals with how the state exercizes its monopoly of force in matters of 'the economy'. Political systems deal with how state power is alloted and distributed. You can have democratic socialism, dictatorial socialism, monarchical socialism, etc.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 5/4/11 05:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The free market is more social than socialism.
Derp derp. Hey Sadistic Monkey, isn't the government nothing more then the most powerful company in a Free Market? It's made up of people, it provides services, it demands pay for its services, it's controlled by the people and virtually everything it does can be done by a company. Exactly what about it is not a company?
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 5/8/11 12:46 AM, Warforger wrote: Derp derp.
Did you actually watch the video.
It's made up of people, it provides services, it demands pay for its services, it's controlled by the people and virtually everything it does can be done by a company. Exactly what about it is not a company?
- It's a monoply. Lasting, widespread monopolies are not possible on a free market.
- People don't pay the government for services. The government uses the threat of imprisonment in order to take their money. Companies are voluntary. If you don't like their services you don't have to pay for them.
- The government is maintained by ideology, which is why companies could never become large and powerful enough to collect taxes.
-Not only do they have no economic incentive, companies lack the ability to kidnap and imprison people for disobeying its "laws".
- Government offers only package deals. You can't pick and choose which services you want to pay for.
The list goes on. Those things you mention do not characterise the.
The state is a state because of ideology. People, even those who may "hate politicians" nearly ALL believe a state is necessary, and when the state does something 'bad', they always seek not to abolish the state, but just to change it.
Because of this, if a state can get majority support for its existence (and hence support for it being the single creator and engforcer of laws), then it can do many other things without requiring majority support.
If a private company announced that it is going to start collecting taxes, no one is going to support this.
People would violentally resist, and it would become to expensive to pay people to essentially risk their lives to collect what little tax they could from the public.
Further, this is supposing that a company could ever become anywhere near as large as a state, which is of course ridiculous.
The only reason most corporations are able to get as big as tehy do is because they get the state to make a bunch of "regulations" which act as barriers to entry, protecting the corporations from the constant barrage of competition that they would face on a free market.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 4/29/11 02:06 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: "Curtis is currently finishing a new documentary for the BBC called 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace'"
All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace begins on BBC2 on 23 May at 9pm.
"What the series shows is how this idea spread into the heart of the modern world, from internet utopianism and dreams of democracy without leaders to visions of a new kind of stable global capitalism run by computers. But we have paid a price for this: without realizing it we, and our leaders, have given up the old progressive dreams of changing the world and instead become like managers - seeing ourselves as components in a system, and believing our duty is to help that system balance itself. Indeed, Curtis says, "The underlying aim of the series is to make people aware that this has happened - and to try to recapture the optimistic potential of politics to change the world."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2 011/may/06/adam-curtis-computers-documen tary
.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
