In making the utilitarian case for most public action - that is, arguing that government should be doing something because it is a “greater good” or “in the public interest” - there is an implicit assertion that government is going to be more organised, objective and long-term oriented than businesses or individuals.
Many calling for a bailout are arguing that capitalists will tend to be “greedy” - and what they mean by this is short-sighted and wantonly destructive in their private pursuit of wealth. They argue on the one hand, that greed is the cause of economic woes, because greedy people are just looking to gratify some immediate short term want. Capitalist greed is seen as uncaring and cruel, but more importantly, as basically irrational.
Spontaneous order: the idea that many different private entities working for private interests could also provide greater public benefits seems strange and almost magical thinking to some. How can anything good come of greed? Won’t selfish people just do whatever they want, acting like a bunch of thieves and conmen to make a quick buck?
The greatest irony of this, is that central planning is conversely argued to be able to rise above petty private greed with - or all things - greed.
The government, it is believed by some, is going to act rationally and long-term. The government is going to profit the taxpayers on net by making wise investments in public goods. Increasing public education programs or welfare, for example, is not merely argued in altruistic terms - but as wise, prudent ways to enrich society and get a good return on investment.
Consider the current economic climate. When businesses fail miserably, and shares are selling for next to nothing, the government is perfectly just to come in and buy those shares. Capitalists, we’re told, are too short-sighted to buy up these bad companies - whereas government has the wisdom and patience to make a profit out of these assets (often, by managing them with government “czars” and expert boards). However, capitalists merge, buy and sell companies all the time. Bad companies fail and good companies assimilate their capital and make it profitable again. If capitalists aren’t buying up certain companies, it is more likely because these shares are viewed as practically worthless for making a profit.
It is unclear how greedy capitalists manage to profit at all. If they are always conning one another, conspiring to thwart working people and only making short-term investments - then why does capitalism thrive? Why does capitalism produce so much wealth and abundance for societies which embrace even marginally free markets? But more importantly, why would a monopolistic government with the same greedy motives, run and ordered by people with these motives, somehow be able to use greed for good?
If greed produces such horrible, destructive results in capitalism, how is it that “socialist” greed can get different results? Why is a CEO, for example, a short-sighted self-indulgent weakling with a lust for power and short-term gratification, while the president of a country is a wise, benevolent pillar of honour and strength, desiring to serve the people and promote the collective good?
If the government is viewed as somehow being able to be profitable when using greed, then why can’t this apply to private entities? If greed is a major cause of economic problems, then how can greed also be the solution?
I think the word ‘greed’ is improperly used. Looking out for one’s benefit to enhance one’s financial situation is not necessarily greed. Most often ‘greed’ is associated with the overwhelming obsession with possessions to the point of “needing more to have more”. I think when people truly do overrun others in an attempt for more (and thereby act immorally and improperly, such as using force or trampling rights, of which I don’t need to post examples) then we have a problem. As you said, this is not just with “capitalist pigs” but with those in power (who greed for power), such as governments. I don’t think “greed” drives true capitalism at all, as when you cross to “greed”, is when things fall. Being selfish and greedy are two separate entities.
Boy, there’s lots of good questions in that article! They each need addressing, in my opinion. A truthful society won’t like the answers they get.
The question that REALLY caught my attention… was “why does capitalism thrive?”. I’m not sure what the word “thrive” means, but… I wrote an elseblog post this morning that might answer a few questions, or, at minimum, raise a few. In that blog, someone said something about “capitalism got us here” and someone else mentioned “Melanie” which us old geezers can relate-to. Here’s the post… slightly off-topic for THIS article, but maybe applicable just the same.
First, I believe mankind could have been much further advanced, had we used a cooperative system (commune/economyless) to date, instead of a competitive system (capitalism/greeenpaper rat-racing). We would have certainly been more advanced in the OTHER criteria of value measurings… like morals, equality, kindness, repair-ability, reuse-ability, W.H.O. atrocious statistics, etc.
Melanie? Ok, if I remember right, that’s an era of anti-establishment, communes, flower-power, sitars, beads, incense, pot, dogs, kids, hippy buses, LSD, music, sharing, storytelling, tree-hugging, bug-hugging, critter-hugging, open-mindedness, avoiding-money, shunning-ownership, Christianity, gurus, and free-loving. If that’s what you’re talking about, then that’s EXACTLY what the USA and planet should be getting back-to.
Yep, we hippies are still alive and well, and we’re patiently awaiting the natural collapse of the pyramid scheme called capitalism (see back of USA dollar for pyramid scheme symbol). The problem is actually in the use of economies and ownership (state or private). Economies cause rat-racing, because of enjoyment addictions. That, causes pyramids, which we hippies/moms KNOW are EXACTLY like the one’s the kids repeatedly fail-at building. While the upper 1/3 are “heads in the clouds”, the kids on the bottom ALWAYS GET CRUSHED from having the weight of the world’s knees on their backs. This is seen in capitalism… with the amount of servitude infestation (working FOR others instead of WITH others) (inequality), and we also see an infestation of “pay up or die” and “join or die” done to the 18 year olds. I’m pretty sure “get a job or starve” is a forcing of religion into the competer’s church, and thus has killed membership in the cooperator’s church (Christianity/communes).
As soon as we quit using economies and ownership, and do potlucks and barnraisings instead, we’ll be back on track. It will take putting Christians in charge of the country, though. Hippies will work, too, if they’re stalwart and motivated. There will be laws and police, and the strictest law is the newest one. Fairness/equality. Its a place where church and state are allowed and encouraged… to overlap and mingle. Ready to throw the switch and outlaw economies/ownership? Custodianship will still happen. It will be much like the U.S. military supply system… using requisition forms and no monetary discrimination. Luxuries are put into repositories for all to share. Good stuff. At first it feels like a loss of freedoms, but once its tried-on, it feels like a massive gain of freedoms, because it is.
Ok, thanks for indulging me, and a good write, Colin, if indeed you authored it. (Blog says you published it, so I’m not sure what that means.) Best regards!
Larry “Wingnut” Wendlandt
MaStars - Mothers Against Stuff That Ain’t Right
(anti-capitalism-ists)(system fighters, not role-playing-people fighters)
Bessemer MI USA
anti-establishment, communes, flower-power, sitars, beads, incense, pot, dogs, kids, hippy buses, LSD, music, sharing, storytelling, tree-hugging, bug-hugging, critter-hugging, open-mindedness, avoiding-money, shunning-ownership, Christianity, gurus, and free-loving.
Many of the things on that list are incompatible with biblical Christianity.
At first it feels like a loss of freedoms, but once its tried-on, it feels like a massive gain of freedoms, because it is.
That’s the part I don’t understand. Where’s the freedom in putting all my liberties into the hands of the requisition bureaucracy? Today, I’m pretty free to live where I want, work at any job I can get, and buy anything I can afford. I feel free. If I give that all up, suddenly I’m at the mercy of the bureaucracy that decides what I should get from the common pool of goods and luxuries. Does that make sense? Or am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting your point?
Wingnut:
Without some way of “keeping score”, economies very quickly become too complex for central control to work. The primary failing of non-capitalist economic systems is not their motivations (which can be very noble), but that they cannot cope with complexities over groups of a few hundred people. This is why you never see larger communes. Right now, today, in the US, you could start your own commune. The commune would “own” the land on which its members lived, it would buy collectively goods which could not be locally produced and sell goods which it had in excess. Capitalism allows for such collective groups to exist as bubbles within its sphere of influence. Even if the US were to become a huge commune, such interactions would need to take place with other nations.
So why don’t we see large communes? There are two primary reasons. First, most people tend to act selfishly toward people they don’t know. So long as you have a small commune, it is possible to get everyone to act somewhat for the common good, so long as they know all the other players. Once it begins to grow though, this tends to break down as people don’t know all other members or you just get “bad apples” who don’t care. The second is actually a worse problem though. Once you start getting larger economies, it becomes increasingly difficult to know what everyone wants and what each person can best do for the good of the group. Even the most charitable of people can’t effectively manage such an economy without some kind of “point” system.
At the core, a capitalist system is nothing more than a point system for favors given. You do me a favor, I give you an IOU. You take that IOU to a third party who does a favor for me, and give him my IOU. He comes to me, and gets a favor done. This way, we all keep track of who wants what, who can do what, and how much each person wants something. Offering two IOU’s for a particular thing means you want it more than someone who offers one. Every person’s wants vary, and one person may value rest more than the ability to use the commune’s pool. We figure out what everyone wants using the point system. Morally, I agree we should all be willing to help out those who make mistakes or lose things they wanted. On the other hand, all of us have problems prioritizing if there is no cost to our actions.
Even in a fully charitable environment where we all have the same goal, capitalism helps us reach that. In my corporation, each department charges other departments for services used. We all have the same goal (making money from the rest of the world), but the “points” of capitalism help us prioritize who gets to use the labs and where our expertise gets directed. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul doesn’t provide net income, but it does help us track who needs the resources and where they are needed most. This is why anti-capitalism is anti-intellectual. We don’t have to be cutthroat to be capitalist, just realize that capitalism allows each participant in the market to communicate their own personal priorities in a way that is difficult in other systems.
Colin
Who does a corporation work for? Obviously it works for its stockholders, who own the company. This is its valid purpose, and it has no moral obligation to look out for any other party in the economy, correct? As I’ve been saying in my recent articles, your failing in your approach to government is in treating it inconsistently. Government is not (just) a magic organization that claims to be for “the people” while being run by politicians who are after their own interest. “The government” is a corporation, owned by the voting public.
Just as a corporation is responsible to pursue the interests of its owners, “the government” is responsible to look after the interests of the registered voters. If the registered voters want to build a giant hotel, the government will build a giant hotel. If they want long term economic health, the government will at least pretend to seek long term economic health. Like any corporation, the leaders will only be reliable to the extent that they are held reliable by the owners. If I buy a restaurant and hire a manager who steals from me, they will keep stealing from me until I fire them and press charges. Currently, bank executives are getting away with defrauding their stockholders because the stockholders aren’t doing anything about it. The same is true of government.
As I mentioned in other articles, government might be unethical and incompetent, but it is still only a corporation controlled by voters and selling to taxpayers. The government is unabashedly “greedy”. It is trying to promote circumstances that will raise the wealth of its owners (the voting public). It might be doing so counter-productively, but that is either the fault of the owners for giving bad instruction to their managers (the politicians) or the politicians for doing a poor job of what they were hired to do (in which case they should be fired once their contract expires).
Expecting government to work for the voters is the SAME as expecting a corporation to work for its owners. There is no magic here expecting people to act contrary to human nature, we’re just asking politicians to do the same thing as CEOs everywhere. Any politician, CEO, or restaurant owner defrauding the owner of the company should justly be punished. Any owner who doesn’t check up on their employees to defend against such fraud can expect to be defrauded eventually. And we agree that no corporation has the right to infringe on basic human rights, whether it calls itself a “street gang”, a “Fortune 500 company”, or a “government”.
Atanamis, what a eloquent and intelligent response. Thanks! I’m honored. I agree with many of the things you say. But there’s a few things I’d like to focus-on. I’m not sure how to quote properly here, so hang-on for dear life.
Without some way of “keeping score”, economies very quickly become too complex for central control to work.
But WITHOUT economies, there is no need to keep score. There is only a need to carefully watch supply levels, and watch-for/fill requisition forms… and get the supplies transported. All members of Team World will need a communications device or computer… to requisition supplies… just like remote military troops for their “Team Military” monetary-discriminationless supply system. Economies are not necessary and no other living thing on the enitre planet… uses economies or ownership. Supply/survival systems and great inventory management IS needed, it just need not use money or ownership. Look at the military supply/survival system. It has a criteria it uses to separate necessities from luxuries. It puts luxuries in “rec services” for all to share equally, no matter the “rank”. Even though SOME civilian AmWay coupons (money) ARE used in the military, it is not necessary. Vehicles can be gotten from motorpool with loose substantiation, food from chow halls, housing on-base, good equal healthcare for free, “basic issue” ANYTIME from supply warehouses and GSA stores, and low stress from billings/demandings. You will RARELY see or hear a military person complain-of fear-for-survival over wellbeing (supplies) rationing. On the civilian side, its a screaming-in-pain festival. Yes, communicating shortages in supplies, and having an excellent Team World inventory management system with an all-volunteer workforce keeping it shining and sharing… IS necessary. Using classes, and money, and ownership, isn’t necessary in that, and actually kills its opportunity to be successful. NOT successful, financially. Successful, in all the OTHER criteria-of-measurement that can be used to set something’s “value”.
Morally, I agree we should all be willing to help out those who make mistakes or lose things they wanted.
First, nobody should NEED help. Second, you cannot be giving, because that would imply ownership exists, and it is a fake thing, invented by mankind. No other living things on the planet… honor it. So, since you WOULD NOT OWN any supply that YOU are currently custodianing and another needs desperately… then it is a LAW that you hand-over the excess goods that you don’t own, as you are only being a custodian and “forward supply point” for Team World. The new church’n’state equality laws… force you to hand over the Team Earth supplies, or you’ll be arrested for inequality and unfairness. Nuns with guns, ya know. That’s why my organization is called “Mothers Against Stuff That Ain’t Right”. We’re farm moms… some of the most equality-ensurin’, muffin-feedin’, face-washin’, love-givin’, bandaid-applyin’, everyone-gets-a-sloppy-joe, Jesus-enforcin’ creatures on the entire planet!
Monetary discrimination must go, and soon. Best regards!
Wingnut, no other living creature forms social groups over a few hundred individuals. No other social group has found value in more than a few dozen specialties. How does your universal commune determine which of the billions of requests for gold get filled first? How does your commune determine who should go mine that gold? A military works on an authoritarian model. The soldiers don’t get any final choice in whether they get resources, those resources are deployed entirely based on the goals determined by the high ranking officers. The problem with this in a general society is that it is impossible for any central controller to know the wants and needs of all the individuals. The only person who knows that I’d rather have two limes rather than one lemon is me. With a trade economy, so long as the price of a lime is less than half that of a lemon, I will choose it. In a non-trade economy, there is no way to weigh my preferences accurately. Some form of “points” have to be used, and due to limitations in currently available resources there has to be a way to determine who wants/needs them most.
The problem with large communes isn’t that they are wrong, it is that they are impossible. No large commune has ever been able to work long term. That said, the same has been said of democracies, on the basis that the people will just vote themselves money. Until you can demonstrate your idea working though, it is just a nice theory that isn’t actually practical. People aren’t nice enough to work as hard for the “general good” as they will for their own interests, and even if they would the complexities of managing who gets what with limited available resources (which is all an economy is) require some form of trading a less wanted thing for a more wanted thing. You aren’t creating a society without an economy you’re just removing the point system that makes it possible to tell who wants what (unless you remove scarcity, which would definitely change everything).
Hi again, A and other readers. Thanks for the reply!
Wingnut, no other living creature forms social groups over a few hundred individuals.
I can prove that wrong. Ants alone, have hundreds of thousands in their communes, and stop along their “highways” to greet each other and share lunch with each other. Minnows, pollywogs, insects of all kinds, all do communal herding and move to the food instead-of “ordering” it be “picked” and trucked to them. You haven’t studied communal systems, I can tell.
No other social group has found value in more than a few dozen specialties.
I don’t understand that line. Sorry. Would you please clarify/elaborate?
How does your universal commune determine which of the billions of requests for gold get filled first? How does your commune determine who should go mine that gold?
Gold is a luxury… it goes into the repositories along with all jewelry…. to be shared by all. Gold really has no value other than its industrial uses and its ability to be pretty. In New America, you can’t “purchase” or “order” things or people with it. And there will be plenty of jewelry to “check out” from the jewelry repositories, just as there are many library books to check out of THAT moneyless, equal-opportunity repository. You KNOW socialism works. You’ve used it for years and years. Capitalism/pyramiding DOESN’T work… as all tug-o-warring doesn’t work.
A military works on an authoritarian model.
ANY society with laws and police… is such.
The soldiers don’t get any final choice in whether they get resources, those resources are deployed entirely based on the goals determined by the high ranking officers.
You’ve not studied the military or experienced it, huh? Any rank can fill out a requisition form for basic issue items. You’ve been watching too many soldier movies. Its hard to even conceive moneyless ops, isn’t it? But I’ve seen it work. Nine years in the U.S. Air Force. Yes, it has rules… and they seem, at first, strict. But they’re not enforced with gestapo-weight sticks, they are gently enforced by self-policing and regulations-quoters… which are a dime a dozen in the military. They are just like the elders in an indian tribe constantly teaching the kids how to use tools and how to be true to self and to be pro-team.
The problem with this in a general society is that it is impossible for any central controller to know the wants and needs of all the individuals.
That’s why you don’t use central “control”, you use dispersed control, just like the military does. Its a “network” and we have plenty of those laying around these days, and even more after we finish having the need to advertise and peddle.
The only person who knows that I’d rather have two limes rather than one lemon is me.
Just put a “2″ in the AMOUNT column on your lime requisition form, and mail it in, call it in, or go to the commissary in your Team World fleet vehicle and pick it out of the bin like other military (team) families do. There’s still a checkout line, so we can keep track of inventory management, but you won’t need a wallet and you won’t get a store receipt, because you will NEVER own the limes. They were made by God and grew on HIS/HER planet that never had any for sale signs on it when mankind arrived. No (en)titles of ownership, either. No police, either. God’s creatures self-police, when not shoved into a control system. In God’s eyes, having a living thing be… “under control”… is a bad thing, including kids being forced that way. Force is a bad thing. Ask, don’t force. There’s three ways to make a horse help pull a stump. 1. Whip and kick… force. 2. Fool it into thinking goodness is on the horizon, via luring with stick, string, and carrot. This is how capitalism lures-in its victims - string attached. 3. Learn to speak horse and ask the horse to help you and itself. Prove to the horse that its a good idea to help pull the stump. Convince it, with the use of good lovin’ and good logic.
We ALL know that #3 is the good and right way. We do. And it DOES work… no matter how much you currently distrust your fellow competing man.
With a trade economy, so long as the price of a lime is less than half that of a lemon, I will choose it.
What did you actually have a wanting-for? Lemons or limes? Just order the one you want… both are in-stock at the commissary. Don’t take more than you need, and if you accidentally do, call Team World and try to get it back into inventory before it rots. Simple, huh? Horse sense sucks, eh?
In a non-trade economy, there is no way to weigh my preferences accurately.
Nobody cares what your preferences are. What did you write on the supply requisition form? We’ll try to fill the “order” which is now a “request” and not an order. The days of capitalism’s “ordering” of things and people… are at a end.
Some form of “points” have to be used, and due to limitations in currently available resources there has to be a way to determine who wants/needs them most.
Go look at the incoming requisition form statistics at Team World supply headquarters… if you want to try to do trend analysis. We need folks like that. Trends are important… they tell us where to concentrate our volunteer labor. Points systems are tallying systems, and its time to grow up PAST age 3-4… when counting everything was important. By age 5, if a child was still counting everything in the house, mom’s usually said “Ok Susie, I UNDERSTAND that there are 5 pears in the bowl, already! Sheesh! Susie, can you tell me ANOTHER characteristic of the pears now… like which are green and which are yellow?”.
Counting/tallying is for 4 year olds… and its time New America left tallying behind. We’ll still use it for inventory management, but trinket-counting and/or esteem-tallying? Nah. Nobody is THAT shallow, are they?
The problem with large communes isn’t that they are wrong, it is that they are impossible.
No they’re not. You just have to WANT it. We’re all too busy tug-o-warring right now, or at least the capitalism buy-ins are.
No large commune has ever been able to work long term.
Economyless communes aren’t accepted as THE ONLY sane way to be, yet. When they (and Christian ways) are seen as THE only way, only then will they be properly tested and found to be wonderful and worth working-at. There’s still too much programmed cold-war-days-fear of the dreaded terms “socialism” and “communism”. Commune is a word we use fine in “community” and “communications” and even in “communion”. The caps sure hate it when its used in the term “commune-ism”. PROGRAMMED!
How’s “communalism”? Has that word got a ton of programmed baggage hanging on it yet?
That said,
…and subsequently well-shot full of holes…
the same has been said of democracies, on the basis that the people will just vote themselves money.
I’ve never seen a democracy. Kids are forced to join the free marketeers at age 18 here in the USA, so the USA isn’t one. Know of any? Maybe remote tribes somewhere, huh?
Until you can demonstrate your idea working though, it is just a nice theory that isn’t actually practical.
Practical means “practiced”, right? Yes, loving communes are far from practiced.
People aren’t nice enough to work as hard for the “general good” as they will for their own interests, and even if they would the complexities of managing who gets what with limited available resources (which is all an economy is) require some form of trading a less wanted thing for a more wanted thing.
Its rumored that the World Health Organization did a study and found that we have the technology to feed, clothe, and healthcare the entire world population… 12 times over. Remember, we don’t need to build so many yachts and learjets in New America… because we share luxuries and tools…. and no longer does each person seek to have “their owned” item. This leaves massive workforce and advertising force… free to voluntarily work on these so-called shortages that would instantly cease to exist. There is no limited available resources (necessities) if we don’t let there be such. Luxuries… yes. Share them in moderation and cherish/care-for them carefully.
You aren’t creating a society without an economy you’re just removing the point system that makes it possible to tell who wants what (unless you remove scarcity, which would definitely change everything).
Computers will still exist, ya know? So will phones. You are allowed to say what you seek, on the requisition form. You can also choose which aisle you walk down… at the grocery store (supply depot), too. It will look just like any other grocery superstore… but it will be packed with healthy food that hasn’t been chemically prettied-up… and you won’t need money. You’ll have to fill out a waiver if you want more than 1000 limes this visit, though. If you have a justified consistent need for 1000 limes each visit… Team World supply system will try to make that happen for you… per current lime world supply levels.
Its just like the military, except… instead of “team” working-on weapons prowess and war-training and prep, it instead works on keeping its own supply levels safe. Currently, capitalism drones keep the military supply system stocked. It need not be that way. Team World has every ability to be self-sustaining…. but we have to WANT to stop tug-o-warring and start sharing. All the best! Wingy
Ants
Your response to large communes is ants? Seriously? If you don’t understand the VAST biological and psychological differences between humans and ants, I’m not sure this discussion can go anywhere.
Specialities
Ants all gather food. They don’t have thousands of highly specified fields which benefit from someone with a high level of expertise. The complexities that such tasks entail change the game. It would indeed be much easier to have a commune where the only jobs were “collect food” and “kill attackers”. It would also be a miserable existence for most humans.
Luxuries
Of COURSE gold is a luxury. That was the point of it as an example. It is also a luxury that people have historically wanted in large amounts for personal use. The failing of communistic ideology is in thinking that people can just “figure out” sharing of luxuries on a huge basis without some kind of point system. Babysit a large group of kids for a micro example of this. Even with only 20 kids, they will tend to fight over limited resources that they want. Amplify that to 20 million, and tell me they will be able to fairly share luxuries even if they want to.
Human Shallowness
Yes, the vast majority of people are. Again, there is no reason why you CAN’T have a commune existing inside a capitalist society. The reason you don’t is because people are selfish and the complexities of managing “fair” goods dispersal are massive. It is popular to point out that “communist” countries never really practice communism. The reason though is that selfish power hungry leaders always tweak the definition of “fair” distribution to me “more for them”. True capitalism never allows anything to be taken from anyone without their consent. True communism takes anything from anyone else “because I need it more”. Which system is more fair? Which system is more free?
Requisitions
Right, that’s for basic items. Can you requisition big screen televisions? Can you requisition personal cars? Communal economies work by reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Nobody gets to live well, everyone gets to have “basic issue items”. This is why nobody wants to live in a communal living group. Modern families don’t even want to share their possessions among extended family members. Worse, the army is infamous for its vast inefficiencies, which result from the lack of a proper economy.
Communal Living and Christian values
“Christian” values call for voluntary sharing of possessions with the needy. The church in Acts had members voluntarily selling property to meet the needs of others. In Corinth, they were instructed to weekly set aside money for the benefit of others (in Jerusalem). These are all things you can be doing today. The US doesn’t need to change to mirror what you want to see, the people do. This is the problem with every attempt at communes historically. They need all members to change, and try to implement it through political methods. Politics doesn’t change people’s hearts.
Hi A and readers! An excellent reply again, A! I do snide comments here and there, and you don’t do a single one. Too cool. You are truly an excellent debater, Atanamis. You bring up pertinent and applicable points, and they are indeed the rough areas of doing communes. Well thought.
“Christian” values call for voluntary sharing of possessions with the needy
Actually, true Christian values call for never allowing anyone to become “needy”, for we’ve eliminated demandings and duress, at least as far as survival supplies (wellbeing). Equality is what Christians seek… and yes, lowest common denominator, with love and pride. When everyone “takes it in the butt” just a little bit, the commune produces massive over-stock of necessities. When necessities are well-covered, “we” can start concentrating on luxuries… like having enough vehicle fleet to allow people to at least “decorate” their fleet vehicle to their likings. No, you can’t put an non-standard parts on the vehicle, that would be a headache for fleet maintenance and its massive re-useability efforts. But you can decorate… and since you would essentially check out a fleet vehicle until its dead, you probably “get to” keep your vehicle decorations (personalization) for the life of the vehicle. But, Team Food, Team Clothing, Team Roof, and Team Health always come before any Team Rec or Team Luxury divisions. True Christians will ALWAYS vote THAT as the priority policy. (Lets hope!)
Yeah, we’re wandering into “what is human nature” versus “what is learned behavior” area of town here, aren’t we. Its not a very well-studied neighborhood, I don’t think. I sense that maybe SOME folks think greed is a human nature thing, and not a learned behavior. The word “instinct” is going to pop-up, and we’re all going to fall into another branch of over-analysis, I suppose.
It seems we’ve also bumped-into the possession versus ownership thing, too. There’s lots of directions one could think this out. In general, though, I’m pretty reluctant to call ANYTHING “human nature” without doing a serious investigation as to whether or not it was actually a learned behavior. I think many wash their hands of responsibility for actions and attiudes… by chalking something up to human nature. Blaming disgusting behavior on human nature or instinct… is a handy blindering and “Who me? Not me!” forsaking device, I think. It needs investigating… I’d say.
Thanks for the replies and kindness, A! All the best! Wingnut
Oh yeah… ants do more than collect food. Some work on housing, some work on healthcare, and some explore. Some relax, too. They might even play games sometimes… I haven’t learned to talk ant yet.
Some work on housing, some work on healthcare, and some explore. Some relax, too. They might even play games sometimes
I don’t mind the ants that play games, it’s the ones that hang around in the street all day with their saggy pants and their boomboxes and their skateboards that bother me. There should be a daytime curfew for ants. Get off my lawn!
Well again, if communal living works then start doing it. Nobody is stopping you from getting a group of friends together and living communally. The fact is that you know it won’t work, and that’s why you aren’t doing it. If your idea is as good as you say, you can create a commune and watch as it grows to encompass the full US population. Capitalism is a superior base because it allows people to choose communalism if they want, while communalism refuses to allow people to practice capitalism. Our current system allows you the liberty to participate or not participate in the economy. If you don’t want to participate, don’t.
Not true. All land in the USA, and on the planet for that matter, is owned. Since an ownership-avoiding commune doesn’t use or honor owned land, and in fact needs lots of un-owned fertile lands to even break-even hunger-wise, communes are not allowed by capitalism. If you look at Quakers and Amish, those are the most “growing” allowed by the capitalism/ownership/billings surrounding and impounding them. But please, keep on using and promoting capitalism and competing. You’ll pay for it now, and you’ll pay for it in afterlife. Apparently you like getting conned and hung out to dry. Ever tried not participating in capitalism? Ya can’t. Its a join or die thing… as all the supplies are blockaded with free marketeer (AmWay) slaving requirement stickers called price tags. Capitalism has everything owned, and thus, hoarded and exclusived. Cut the denying. Don’t start doing “fantasy” posts now, A, after all these well-thought ones. There’s no freedom of choice for 18 year olds under the strong arm of capitalism and its ownership laws and police guns. Its join or starve, baby. The 18 year olds won’t be starting any communes, or even having the freedom of choice to join one. They won’t be owning/buying any land unless they were one of the lucky ones born set-for-life in the giant inequality and cronyism festival called capitalism. Its the veruy same sham their parents were forced into, and their parents before them, and before that too. Capitalism does NOTHING but forcing and ordering. Oh yeah… and conning buy-ins to cheer-for, condone, and promote its felony activity. You know this to be true…. but deny away, friend. Best regards. Wingy