So if being better gets you more responsibility and work, but doesn’t bring extra benefits, just why in hell would anyone even try to be a better manager? In such a system, the prime rule of survival becomes, “keep your head down. Don’t stand out from the crowd.”
Bryan Ekers said:
Oh course, that’s what happens in practice. Hence, in the Soviet Union the manager of a factory earned the same as his workers in Rubles, but wouldn’t you know it, he needed a new, state-owned ZIL limousine because the job ‘required’ it. And of course, those management retreats are very important in the worker’s paradise, so the managers get their own dacha in the countryside, while the rest of the workers get to take the bus home to the 600 sq ft flat they shared with five other people.
And of course, it’s important that the manager’s time be used more efficiently, so he’d get special access to the upper floor of the GUM department store, where the good products are kept and there are no lines.
That’s the reality of what happens when you try to force equality of income.
Bingo. If monetary incentive is taken out of the equation, what incentive is there to rise in the administration? Love of luxury perks and love of power over the workers. Personally, I’d rather trust a man’s love for money: it’s more predictable and less likely to spin off into tyranny. A manager who is making serious bucks will more likely work to keep the company productive, so he can continue to draw his pay. A manager motivated by power is more likely to get rid of dissenters and squash opposition, whether this helps the company or not. A paid manager can sign a contract guaranteeing him a salary for a fixed period of time, with options to renew if the directors think he’s doing well. An empowered manager that can be ousted at the vote and whim of the workers had better take steps to prevent any dissent, including eliminating any potential managerial rivals.
As for workers moving to other communes: good for them. Except it re-raises the whole “who will clean the toilets” issue. I thought one of the major reasons to get a higher education and advanced training (i.e. to become a pilot) was that you wouldn’t have to do crappy jobs any more. What happens to your sewage treatment commune (a vital service to the state as a whole) when the workers simply decide they don’t want to do it any more? Without serious incentives, financial or otherwise, how do you keep this industry from falling apart and dooming the state to cholera outbreaks?
And as for the artist, if Pablo was allowed to acquire his own property, he could paint whatever he wanted. Also, if corporations can own buildings, Pablo can go to their managers and ask them for permission to paint murals on their walls. They might even like the idea so much, they pay him for his time. Contrast that to art by committee.
You folks have a very dim opinion of democracy. Can you really say that the perks of the managers in the Soviet Union were the result of democracy? I would venture that they are the result of croneyism to an autocratic power intent on squashing democracy.
If democracy leads to its own end though the squashing of opposition, how is it present in our current governmental democracy? Perhaps you are conspiracy theorists, but I think we have a few safeguards in place to prevent that. If democracy is threatened (in the US at least) it would seem to me from the sheer cost of running a successful campaign.
If people are inherently better managers because they have more money perhaps you would propose that they would be better at running our country. Indeed it is only they that should be able to elect a president, and if that president is to be successful at all, he must be guaranteed a significant share of the GDP. All of the poor cretins are obviously unable to make their own decisions because they’re poor right?
Perhaps you would also argue that because scientists aren’t rewarded with millions of dollars of personal income for their discoveries the progress of science is being slowed and is ineficient. There are some exceptions in a few feilds like biochemistry that probably draw some juicy stock options, but the vast majority of fields operate with comparitively modest raises and departmental authority.
I’m sure that if threatened with losing an important service a wage increase could be levied.
As far as cleaning toilets are concerned, it is a perfect example of something that everybody is overqualified to do (with the exception of mentally disabled people). There are certain few people whose time is so valuable they can’t take 15 minutes to clean up after themselves, but those folks are very rare. Here’s the deal though, if you can convince everyone else that you’re so high and mighty that you don’t need to clean the employee bathrooms once in a while then more power to you. If on the other hand you can’t, you could always try to snow a different cooperative.
Or maybe if cleaning up drew a respectable wage, then it would lose some of it’s stigma and you wouldn’t have trouble finding someone who would prefer a low pressure job like that.
I would choose a committee over a corporate elite.
Perspective, I’m having a hard time following your arguments. Managers making lots of money has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with the fact that people who own assets (shareholders, businessmen) are in competition with each other to hire the best managers of their assets. People with demonstrated ability command higher prices because they perform better and are therefore worth more to the people who’s assets they are managing.
Take away the risk/reward relationship, and remove incentives to be a better manager, and you’ll find that people tend to rise to the level where they are comfortable, and no further. They have no incentive to work overtime, to study on their own, etc. If you told me today that I had just reached the pinnacle of my career at my company and no matter how much I did I would not earn a cent more or get any other benefits, I’d stop doing anything but the minimum required.
And not only that, the people who, out of the goodness of their hearts continue to try harder, would begin to become frustrated and angry that those around them who choose not to work hard lead better lives and have more free time. In other words, they will eventually get tired of being punished for working harder (working harder for no extra benefit is the same as punishment).
My wife is a good example. She works as a nurse. The nursing union makes it impossible to fire bad nurses. And my wife has enough seniority that she is no longer eligible for any more raises. Because of a nursing shortage, there are few junior nurses. So most of them are in the same boat - they are at the peak of their pay scale, and they can’t really be fired for screwing around.
The end result is that the nurses who work their asses off are starting to become disenchanted. There are a few bad apples who can be counted on to call in sick at least once or twice a week, and who show up for their shifts with a novel and sit and read al night, letting the other nurses do all the work.
So, are they all happy in this little classless worker’s paradise? Not at all. They are getting very frustrated. The hard working ones are working extra shifts to cover for the ones who always call in sick. A couple of them are thinking of leaving nursing, despite their relatively high salaries, because they are getting so frustrated at the inequality.
It would be much better if the nurses could be punished for slacking off, and rewarded for being good. A class difference would certainly develop as the better nurses get higher and higher salaries, but it would be more fair, and everyone there would be much happier.
As for toilets, it appears that you’re already willing to deviate from your classless society and pay people more for the icky jobs. So how about engineers vs truck drivers? If they both make the same money, why would someone go to school for four years to become an engineer? So you’d better pay them a little more, too.
How about people who do dangerous jobs? Do cops and firemen get paid more than teachers or bus drivers?
Then there’s location. How are you going to convince engineers to move to Siberia for that new construction project? What if everyone wants to live in Moscow?
Before you know it, you’re going to find out that you have to have different salaries for everyone. So how are you going to decide? Looks like we’re back to that giant bureaucracy again…
Your capacity to jump to conclusions is so great, you should try out for the 2004 Olympics.
“Us Folks” (by which I mean just me, since I’m not speaking for anyone else) love democracy, but this isn’t supposed to be a discussion of democracy but one of capitalism/communism. Democracy works very well under capitalism because (ideally) no simple vote, no matter what the majority, can confiscate a citizen’s land or possessions. No matter how many people are trying to vote me out, they can’t dislodge me from my parcel of land, and I can rely on government law enforcement to protect my rights on that land. The democracy you seem to think would go along with your commune offers no real defense for the individual. If 50 percent plus one says you have to leave, out you go, with no possessions or rights to products you have spent years working to make.
Running a campaign for a major federal office like Senator or President is expensive in the U.S. But running for local office, which can have as much if not more influence over the day-to-day lives of local citizens is open to all. As such, I doubt democracy is threatened in the U.S. Actually, the fact that they could resolve (with much grumbling but no violence) the contentious Bush v. Gore election is solid evidence. In most nations, such a close race would have led to gunfire in the streets. In the U.S., they just had the normal amount.
Nope, you have it exactly backwards. People get more money because they are better managers. And as for making them the rulers of a country, note that so far (I thought) we were discussing means of production, not means of government. It’s communism that tries to mash the two together, not capitalism. Shareholders can vote on how a corporation is run, no problem, but the right of each citizen to vote on how the country should be run is a seperate matter, and should remain so.
Scientists, like artists, can become rich through their work, but a major non-monetary reward is recognition and fame. The discovery of a scientist is his (or hers) and does not belong to “the collective” as it would in a commune structure where the workers (collectively) own all (collective) products of their (collective) labour, with no apparent regard for individual contribution.
Whoops, that’s a slippery slope. Pay people more for doing undesirable jobs? Why didn’t we think of that?
Those “people” are doctors, nurses, engineers, technicians (and even pilots) who may make up say, 5% of the population but through their skills allow an urbanized society to function by keeping the citizens and the machines in good running order. These people worked hard to get the qualifications and education necessary for their jobs. Putting them on toilet detail is a preposterous inefficiency. Better to pay someone to clean up. They can earn a wage for a job which is unpleasant but not too demanding and they always have the option of working their way up to something more rewarding and interesting.
Stigma, shmigma. You think the communists didn’t look down on the workers under their control? They certainly didn’t have any problem killing them in huge numbers.
Ah, but consider this: through hard work and talent, you might one day become a member of that “elite”, or you can certainly educate your children so that they have a better chance than you did. And what is your definition of “elite”, anyway? Having sufficient wealth to retire? The ability to afford products of higher quality? I get the impression your “elite” consists of anyone who has an SUV.
On the other hand, if the committee doesn’t like you, they won’t want to share power with you and they will find ways to keep you down. You can look forward to a dead-end life scrubbing toilets with no chance for advancement. And if you make enough noise, you can find out what it’s like to scrub toilets in Siberia. Of course, you’ll only be able to work during June and July. The rest of the year, the water will be frozen.
Are we free to keep the product of our work and to buy and sell freely? If the answer is yes, then you cannot have communism as it is a contradiction in terms. That is the definition of a free market. The answer then must be “no”.
Next question: How many people would want to live in a system where they cannot keep the labor of their work and are not free to choose their work and start and lead common enterprises? Experience and common sense tells us not many.
You can work it out by fractions or by simple rule of three but there is a good reason “true communism” has never existed and that is that it is impossible, it is a contradiction in terms: central planning and individual freedom.
There is a reason in Cuba they have no freedom: the reason is communism is not possible with freedom.
**perspective[/p], let’s get real. The great majority of people do not like your ideas (assuming you had a coherent set of ideas, which you don’t). Now, what are you going to do with all of us in your system? How are you going to keep us within the system without use of force (and I can tell you you would need a lot of force)? Saying “try it, you’ll like it” is not going to work, i guarantee it. I am not going to like it and I would have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming, just like most of the population. If you do not accept that premise you are not talking about the real world.
So the primary reason that democracy functions is because it protects your ownership rights? Of course as already discussed your land can currently be confiscated by the government. And of course you are due retribution, but this retribution is a bureacratic assessment of “market value.” I don’t see why a similar idea couldn’t be proposed under communism.
Actually I would be strongly in favor of individual rights and they could be protected by a constitution like any other. The right to own lots of stuff though seems to be the only one you are worried about.
And the importance of this distinction is what?
Wealth can also be an indicator of avarice, a capacity to break the law without getting caught, or simply the fact that you’ve maintained an inheritance. Making less money can also be the result of being discriminated against, and have no bearing on your actual capacities.
Being hired as a CEO could mean you went to prep school with the chairman of the board not that you were the best qualified. Given enough advantages, a person need only be competent, not the best. Competitive pressure has an effect but it is not an absolute that guarantees anything.
No it’s one possible variation of communism that does. A cooperative community need not be a state.
My point is that the criticisms had less to do with sharing of property than democracy itself.
Most scientist don’t get the kind of “fame” that say a Stephen Hawking does. They do probably appreciate the respect of their peers though. This is something that I think would be enhanced by a communal structure.
Like I said, if they can convince their peers of that, then so be it.
What was that you said about mashing the means of production together with the state?
Actually no (although I think SUV’s are an eyesore, but that’s another thread). Rather I would say that anyone that works hard should have at least those benefits.
It seems to be a recurring theme here to fall back on the communism=oppressive government idea. If you’re convinced that people are so greedy that the only possible form of communism is an oppressive one that sends folks to Siberia if they get out of line, perhaps it is better to switch the argument to human nature rather than the distribution of goods. Really I think it is the threat of excessive government control that seems the most pervasive objection.
I would argue that property is a learned cultural value. Certainly not any easy one to unlearn, but not biologically programmed either. Therefore we have a choice. It may not be an easy one, but it is still a choice. Furthermore, the assumed self interest isn’t necessarily as large as it is made out to be. In fact, if society is based around it, I would say that it only increases self interest artificially and overvalues it.
The self is meaningless without community and vice versa. They are codepent and impossible without each other. A society of individuals all acting only in their self interest is schizophrenic. A society acting only for the sum total by ignoring the individual is oppressive. A balance must be struck.
Consider that a large part of the bureacracy and laws in a capitalist society are based on controlling greed and keeping it from running amok. This comes from the fact that self interest as a guiding principal only serves to hurt the community. In order to control it, society has responded through the only democratic organ it has: the state. Also consider that the supposed self interest is really a desire to be respected by others. Why buy diamonds when cubic zirconia glitters about as well? Why buy an SUV when you don’t need 4-wheel drive? Because it means social status. Even the most “self interested” are dependant upon others for their happiness. But this dependance is unconscious and dysfunctional. If others can make you happy, why do you need the diamonds?
We in our society are continually mistaking the signifier for the signified. We chase after things that are empty in and of themselves and are essentially meaningless outside of the context of our society in the name of self interest. Yet if there was no society, why would the self want these things? This would all be a bunch of proselytizing if it weren’t for the fact that many are still hungry and many more without adequate health care.
It is one thing to recognize self interest, and another to glorify it and treat any extreme of it short of violence not only as an inalienable right but as an end in itself. We. as human beings, are not bound by our history or simply to what has been done before. We are capable of cooperation without coercion, respect without material signifiers, and compassion without intimate knowledge. The real qustion is: do we want it?
>> Really I think it is the threat of excessive government control that seems the most pervasive objection.
My goodness, we’re almost into page 4 and now you realise this? I have asked you several times and you have not addressed this: Under your system do I get to keep the product of my work? Am I free to buy and sell at whatever conditions the seller/buyer and I can agree on? Am I free to own property and keep it and give it to whoever I want? Am I free to employ another person at whatever price we both convene? Am I free to sell my labor at whatever rate I want? Are these rights protected by the State?
If the answer is that yes, I will have all the rights and freedoms I presently enjoy, then how would your system differ from the one we have (except in name) and how would the result be any different than what we have? If the answer is no, some of my rights and freedoms will be limited, then thanks for the offer but I think I’ll pass.
You are doing a lot of incoherent rambling and hand waving and vague promises of a better world where we will all be happy playing the fiddle or the flute or the harp while a chorus sings Kumbaya, but you are not addressing the nuts and bolts of the system. If we will have the same rights and freedoms, then we already have it and we know how it works and it is called Free market Capitalism. If you are proposing some changes, please tell us exactly what they are so we can decide if we want them.
I will ask again, in your system, how and where do people like me, who dislike and oppose the system, fit? Experience tells us there will be huge numbers like me. I do not like singing Kumbaya or playing the Siamese flute. I want to be free to own shit and not have to justify to anyone why I have three oscilloscopes when I can’t afford a dentist visit. It’s called freedom and I like it. Please explain how much I will have in your system.
I have a couple of things to add to this interesting debate. One is that there is NO democracy in the US. True Democracy is evil. The founding fathers warned against Democracy on many occasions and the inevitable tyranny it brings (no cite at the moment, but I’ll get one). Democracy does not protect one’s rights any more than Communism does. Both of these forms of government tend to destroy rights because they elevate society over the individual.
Second, I’d like to introduce a simple analogy and request comment from the Socialists/Marxists/Communists involved in this discussion. Say you own a car after working hard to earn the money for awhile and have paid cash to buy it (or build it from scratch - I don’t care). A stranger you meet is poor and wants to be a pizza delivery guy. He has no car and would like to rent yours for his pizza delivery. You both agree that he can use the car for $10 per day and he begins delivering pizzas. Now while it would seem possible to deliver pizzas on foot or by bicycle, this guy can make a lot more money using your car. Now, Mr. Marxist, are you stealing this guy’s labor by charging him $10 a day for the use of your car or are you enriching him by making the car available (at a price) such that he can make much more money with less labor than without it?
That is exactly the interaction between a capitalist and labor. Capitalism makes both the capitalist and the laborer richer and allows the laborer to labor less as well.
And as for democracy… Capitalism IS democracy. Every single time you buy a product, you are casting a ‘vote’ for the things you want. If enough people ‘vote’ the same way, then the company that pleases you will grow, and its competitors will shrink.
If you like sailing, then every time you spend money on sailing supplies you are ‘voting’ for the hobby of sailing, and your money is helping to ensure that the industry stays alive and grows.
And because the system is adaptive, your vote counts even if you are in a small minority. If very few people agree with you, the sailboat industry will shrink until it reaches the point where the few people ‘voting’ for it can support it.
This is part of that ‘spontaneous order’ of capitalism, btw. If enough people ‘vote’ to live in the suburbs by spending their real-estate money on suburban development, then society will start to shift to a suburban culture. No central planners are deciding that - we are. Democratically.
This sytem of ‘micro-votes’ and an adaptive, flexible response to them is far more democratic than the crude approximation of having a government as an intermediary and then having to vote for the government that best suits your interests.
Of course, we need both, because we need some government. But let’s not let the democracy of government selection blind us to the fact that Capitalism itself is inherently democratic, and in a much more efficient way.
Private ownership under communism? Well, if the government decided to seize everything in sight and pay the owners some amount of compensation, the government would go completely brankrupt or would pay its bills with worthless currency.
As for the seizing of land under capitalist democracies using the principal of Eminent Domain, the action is relatively rare (although the Tennessee Valley Authority is arguably the biggest abusers of the principal in the U.S.). Contrasts this to thousands of square miles of farmland forcibly “collectivized” by the Soviets, causing millions of famine deaths. If a government is given power to grab land and proprty at will… watch out!
I’ve already raised the issues of artistic freedom, so what thread have you been reading? And the desire to “own lots of stuff” isn’t the self-evident damning you want to make it. I’m avidely defending the right to own stuff, which is a HUGE aspect of freedom; the protection from others to seize what you have built.
You have it backwards again. Wealth has to be generated before anyone can be accused of avarice. Wealth doesn’t appear magically; it’s the result of productive behaviour. As for making less money than you think you deserve, you can always enter in negotiations with other companies, or strike out on your own. You’ve admitted the need for the first option and I can’t see any reasonable objection to the second, unless you cling to the idea that setting up a company and hiring people means you are expoliting them.
If you want absolute guarantees, you should be arguing religion, not economics or politics. Why is being competent such a bad thing? In capitalism, competent people are kept and “the best” people have a chance at promotion. They won’t always get promotion, but no social system can possibly guarantee that everyone gets what they deserve. Capitalism rewards based on the objective standards of production and efficiency. If anything, communism shows a greater tendency to relying on personal freindships for advancement, as well as factional divisions. Are ALL managers to be elected by workers in your system? At ALL levels? That would be like changing the entire civil service at every election. Sounds like a political nightmare to me.
Agreed. Set it up as a small group of like-minded people dedicated to a relatively simple process like agriculture. Just don’t expect any communes to produce high-tech items like computers, televisions or jet aircraft. If you decide to live without them, feel free. I decide to live with them, myself.
Most people in America don’t get rich, but they all have a shot at it. And being famous among your immediate circle of friends and coworkers doesn’t seem all that satisfying.
Well, DUH!. What do you think goverments are made of? They consist of human beings, with all the vices and weaknesses humans are prone to. I’m disinclined to give a government any more power than it absolutely needs, and that definitely includes control over production and distribution.
You would argue and you’d be wrong. The holding and protection of territory is practiced by every predatory animal on Earth, including humans. It offers the best chance of finding enough to eat, and for modern humans, the accumulation of wealth and property offers the best chance of being able to survive times of hardship and illness. Do you expect the government to always be able to bail you out? Good for you, but I prefer my own safety net.
The balance which historically has worked best on a large scale is one that leans toward the individual instead of the state. The balance is irrelevant, of course, if the state consists of one person.
Well, arguments over the human need for status are also grist for another thread, but certainly one should have the right to get higher-quality items if one can afford them, for whatever motive. I’m not interested in having to morally justify any of my purchases.
Well, if the human race consisted of just one person, this whole discussion would be moot. It would even be a discussion, really. Just some guy talking to himself. Capitalism and communism are means of managing the production of many people. Trying to take everything out of societal context is pointless.
Certainly, there are people who are hungry and without adequate health care. There always have been. But it’s only become possible to address these concerns in the last hundred years or so, and only because of increased technology and industrialization. Capitalism and democracy have shown themselves to be the mix most likely to proviude solutions.
Actually, the real question is; what the hell are you talking about? “Compassion without intimate knowledge” ? What does that mean? Supporting capitalism means you’re horny?
So why do you need comunism? Under the present system, you have every right to choose a zirconium or Toyota over a diamond or BMW. Because you don’t value these things, you have decided that the entire world should adopt your value system. How is that not oppressive to the people who desire more than the basics in life.
For that matter, what are the basics of a communist society? Stop me at any time:
Water
Food
Appartment
Public transportation access
TV
VCR
Computer
Car
3 Bedroom house
Filet mignon
Summer beach house
Skis
A ski house
SUV
Sailboat
Private jet?
In a free market capitalist society, any person can rise as far as their ability and ambition can take them. The fact that there are billionares is largely irrelevant. If you desire a simple existance and are living comfortably, why should you care that someone else may own their own jet?
Your communist society creates a ceiling and says “no one in this society can rise above this point”. How is that freedom?
Oh yeah I’ve advocated that so many times in this thread(???)
You are so threatened by the loss of property that you refuse to envision anything besides domineering autocracy.
Well, I give up. No matter how much I talk about democracy or cooperation, you will only see gulags and big brother.
But I hope you at least understand that some people (even if you believe them to be deluded)can envision communism without an oppressive state. That won’t change your mind, but I hope you can understand that their intention, at least, is not an oppressive state.
You raised it in a limited sense, and in a context that didn’t really show to me how there was any more freedom under capitalism.
I haven’t been too adamant about everything being owned by the state, simply the means of production.
So I try to take your wallet, but since I didn’t succeed, I wouldn’t have shown any avarice?
Wealth is the result of productive behavior? You’re not even going to qualify that? If I win the lottery is that productive? If I rob a bank is that productive? If I inherit lots of cash is that productive?
So why do women make consistently less than men? Because their services are worth less?
Rewards who?
Arrghh you’ve imagined more power for the government then I’ve ever proposed. A cooperative, even a democratic cooperative, is not a government. (Please also note the difference between a cooperative and a commune)
Perhaps you’d like to tell me how dolphins protect their territory. Even if you were right, by your logic since no other animal writes computer programs, humans will never be capable of it.
Show me this part of the brain, that demands a yacht and a house in the “right” part of town and I will be a believer.
Yet how much of the accumulation of wealth has nothing to do with that?
It’s not a matter of right and wrong, but a matter of understanding the difference between self interest and culturally determined behavior disguised as “self interest”.
I’m trying to put society in context.
Stop worrying. You don’t want green eggs and ham on a plane or a train. The practicality of something you don’t even want is irrelevant.
True communist societies = lots of dead people
Communist societies have been observed in real-time, as well as recorded in journals relegated as historical documents. They all have striking similarities:
a.) The population is geographically isolated from ‘the rest of the world’ (mostly in warm, tropical climates such as equator islands and some places in Africa)
b.) The population is nude (nudity is not pornography; it has zero resource)
c.) Suicide and murder are unheard of
d.) Children are not ‘parented’, they develop on a trial and error/natural selection type process.
e.) Property is an incomprehensible term
f.) Couples routinely kick each-other out of the ‘hut’ for divorce and re-marriage with about as much emotion and suprise as we have when flossing our teeth.
g.) Arts, crafts and technologies are buried with their creators upon death - there is no standardization of these for future generations.
h.) The populations are exceptionally fit physically
i.) The populations are happy
j.) The populations will give anything and/or everything that they have created without regard.
k.) The populations are trusting
l.) These populations have no discernible religion of any form. (though they do hand down intriguing stories, and sometimes perform ceremonies to display them)
m.) No capitol
Just a brief list. Consequently, these populations are dead. Western civilization exploited (help settling the territory, forced into labor to extract all their native resource before killed, rape, slavery)
One glaring aspect of these societies:
No selective pressure from other cultures. No wars.
How exactly does a society unlearn perversion? I don’t think it is possible in our current global climate. The attempt to force this type of society into the framework of a post-industrial society, while intellectually stimulating, is ill advised. They will always be fodder to the one ‘rotten’ apple who still remembers their addiction to capitol and perversion of resource. In a world of pacifists; it only takes one killer to wipe out the entire world. Only one person with the addiction, with the memory.
Democracy on the other hand is not “pure evil” IMO. Democracy is only as strong as its constitution, its rule of law; and a catalogue of the logical axioms upon which they are based.
The US constitution is severely flawed in this regard. The only poblem one faces with a purely democratic society is that they will be too nice in areas where ruthlessness means survival. To suggest that the ‘mob’ is like a wild animal is a grave mischarachterization of why public inaccessibility to the legislative process has benefited the US.
…invalidates everything else you might say on the subject. Are you under the impression that food, clothing, shelter and energy are not “produced,” but appear magically? The system you describe takes basic survival decisions away from individuals and turns them over to the state. Do you want to eat? Wear warm clothing? Have a house/apartment/shack to live in? With heat and light? Either you’ll have to solve these problems yourself, or get the solutions from others. The “masses” won’t gaurantee your survival as an individual, since the survivial of any individual (short of a queen bee) is not crucial to a collective.
Joining a collective is to abdicate individual responsibility. Unless you solve your own problems, or make money so you can pay other people to solve your problems (i.e. so you can buy food and clothing, and pay rent and your electricity bill), you may as well be reduced to the state of a illiterate child, left to freeze to death on an open plain, totally dependant on the goodwill of others to survive. The collective may decide you aren’t worth keeping. The collective will live on, but you will not. Issues of art and science become completely irrelevant in the face of starving and freezing in the dark.
Even co-ops pay others to solve problems beyond the scope of the co-op’s abilities. A co-op may buy electricity from a utility and save the trouble of generating it themselves. They might buy fertilizers and tools to help them do their work with less effort. They may pay taxes to keep the roads in good order and the water clean. This is perfectly honourable and logical, until they decide they must seize control of the production of electricity, fertilizer, tools and water. Attempting to make an ever-growing government structure to cover every situation and solve every problem is unworkable, as shown by your constant tweaking and expansion of your theoretical system with every objection we raise. Giving such a structure control over all production means those in power can starve or freeze or isolate their opponents simply by not supplying them with food, electricity and roads. They can easily argue that the greater need is somewhere else, and who is to judge? Controlling production becomes a method of stifling dissent, not eliminating misery.
I’m not interested in giving anyone that much power over me. It’s not impossible for me to imagine persons who are interested, but I’ve learned to watch them carefully and listen for the moment when “trust yourself to the collective” becomes “trust yourself to me.”
While it might be nice to live naked in the woods the reality is that we have to work with the society we are given. Pol Pot and the Khamer Rouge tried to turn the clock back but all they succeeded in doing was murdering millions of educated Cambodians.
By the way, Western culture did not invent war and bring it to the rest of the world. We just happened to have better tools for waging it.
Yes. It is called the ‘Prisoners Dilemma’ and its a favorite of strategy and gaming theory types. Two ‘prisoners’ can work together and both benefit twice as much as they could if they simply killed the other guy and worked on their own. Problem is neither can trust the other 100% so they would rather kill the other than risk being the one who gets killed. (Society circumvents this by making the ‘reward’ for killing the other guy prison)
A ‘pure’ democratic society is not bad because it would be ‘soft’. It is bad because it is too likely to make decisions based on emotion and imperfect information. People who are experienced and educated in their particular field of expertise should make decisions. Every decision does not lend itself to vote.
Our freedom is not protected by electing an all powerfull leader every 4 years. Our freedom is protected by electing leaders who’s power is checked by other branches of the government. 50 States /Federal government; Executive/Legislative/Judicial Branches, Civilian Comander and Chief/Volunteer Military.
Democracy just ensures the people have representation in the governing process.