Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


and thats where it always breaks down for me. An entrepreneur can do as much as he wants as long as only he uses his machine-- he can appropriate all that value and no one apparently has an issue.

But if he dares to ask others to use his machine as well, that is "exploitation" even in circumstances where he is willing to pay far more than a party could receive for ANY other similar work. So he is best off to simply sit back and use his own machine and never share it with others.

Why would he pay more for the work? Come on now Flubber, let's talk about the real world.

[Barnabas]

Having no private property only makes sense if the state own all the property, but no private property + a stateless future (which is the dream of commies) is impossible.


Unless we become hunter gatherers or subsistance farmers

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



Does that mean everyone just gets some standardized ration of housing, food and other consumables regardless of the job they do.

That means that people get paid enough that they don't want to work for you.

How would it work

1. For the doctor
2. For the plumber needed to fix a house

? The same.

3. If due to my bad back I want to get the neighbor kid to mow my lawn?? ( OR is lawnmowing a centralized state function ??)

If you're disabled I think someone in your family can mow your lawn, or maybe you don't need one. Otherwise, mow your own lawn. In a functioning communist society, no one will need to mow your lawn for a wage that would make it worth your while.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Having no private property only makes sense if the state own all the property, but no private property + a stateless future (which is the dream of commies) is impossible.


Unless we become hunter gatherers or subsistance farmers

Point is, that the closer we get to a stateless society the less wage labor there will be, not that a stateless society will ever come to be.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: he does not believe in property rights

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
*sigh* I guess I have to spell it out:

Who owns most of the means of production? Thus, who would be impacted by prohibiting ownership of the means of production?

A very, very tiny minority owns most of the means of production.

Who Owns America?
The top 10 percent of American households own 98 percent of the tax-exempt state and local bonds, 94 percent of business assets, and 95 percent of the value of all trusts. The richest 1 percent own 60 percent of all corporate stock and all business assets. True, some 40 percent of families own some stocks or bonds, but almost all of these have total holdings of less than $2,000. Taking into account their debts and mortgages, 90 percent of American families have little or no net assets." (page 9)

From Michael Parenti's Democracy of the Few.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
But if he dares to ask others to use his machine as well, that is "exploitation" even in circumstances where he is willing to pay far more than a party could receive for ANY other similar work. So he is best off to simply sit back and use his own machine and never share it with others.

That assumes you're a selfish *****. I think we can see from the Open Source movement that there are plenty of people willing to make things that anyone can use for free, simply for the joy of making useful things.

There are always going to be those who are unwilling to contribute if they don't gain from it, but why should we let them hold back all of humanity? Why should we sacrifice the majority of human kind for the greed of the few? How many ideas go unexplored, lives go wasted, simply because someone lacked the financial means or the necessary drive to do something with that life or ideas?

[Kuciwalker]

Thus my point

[chequita guevara]

What point?

[Kuciwalker]

That was an xpost. You were saying that pretty much only the rich own the means of production. I was saying that denying property rights over the means of the production is the same as denying the property rights of the rich. Duh?

That assumes you're a selfish *****. I think we can see from the Open Source movement that there are plenty of people willing to make things that anyone can use for free, simply for the joy of making useful things.

Actually, we can see that corporations are sometimes willing to pay people to work on technology that they don't get the exclusive rights to, particularly when there's a lucrative support market for that technology.

[pchang]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[How many ideas go unexplored, lives go wasted, simply because someone lacked the financial means or the necessary drive to do something with that life or ideas?

Indeed. Under Communism, "Since they pretend to pay me, I pretend to work."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by pchang
"Since they pretend to pay me, I pretend to work."

<-------------------------------------------------

[Ned]

Commies do live in their own private delusions. It is hard to believe they actually believe in what they say, because that would mean they were all lunatics. It is better to believe they know what they say is utter nonense, because that would mean commies are ruthless, scheming liars, who will say and do anything to gain power.

So which is it, Che? Are commies lunatics or liars?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why would he pay more for the work? Come on now Flubber, let's talk about the real world.

YOU are lecturing ME about the REAL world


ITs your THEORETICAL model. So I am asking . . . if I build a machine using hours and hours and hours of my own labour plus my own resources which I obtained through my own labour, should I be compensated for that on an ongoing basis in return for lettuing others use my machine?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That means that people get paid enough that they don't want to work for you.

I don't understand you answer. There has to be a mechanism by which people are allocated resources like food, housing, cars or lawnmowers. Generally people work to earn some variation of money although is small communal farms that was not the model.






But kid . . . you are the one asking me to make it real. Take a plumber. The house I live in needs one. Is it my house and I have to pay the plumber or is all housing state owned so the state pays the plumber?
Does the plumber get anything extra if he comes out for my midnight emergency? If no, do you take anything away from them if all plumbers refuse to do midnight duty?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Flubber
But if he dares to ask others to use his machine as well, that is "exploitation" even in circumstances where he is willing to pay far more than a party could receive for ANY other similar work. So he is best off to simply sit back and use his own machine and never share it with others.

That assumes you're a selfish *****. I think we can see from the Open Source movement that there are plenty of people willing to make things that anyone can use for free, simply for the joy of making useful things.

There are always going to be those who are unwilling to contribute if they don't gain from it, but why should we let them hold back all of humanity? Why should we sacrifice the majority of human kind for the greed of the few? How many ideas go unexplored, lives go wasted, simply because someone lacked the financial means or the necessary drive to do something with that life or ideas?

What society created the open source movement? What were the conditions of those societies as far as the ownership of private property?

For most of mankinds history few had the leisure to do stuff for the joy of it. Its market capitalism that created the conditions for that, and in all likelihood it will be market capitalism that makes it possible for currently poor countries to reach that point, as well.

Its also like that in those countries already developed, market capitalism will continue to be the driving force behind most economic growth. Certainly market capitalist societies can accommodate other institutions within them, from voluntary things like open source, to govt enterprises, to voluntary communism like kibbutzim. As long as there is ALSO a framework for private property and markets. Thats a mixed economy, and is what has generally proven the most resilient.