A question for Gabo

[anomaly]

This is simply a question to Gabo, and others of you on the right: you claim to want more freedom, which I personally have no problem with, yet in the same breath you will attack socialism: If not further nationalisation (complete socialism) with a democratic government (representative democracy with more than two simple-minded parties) to give the people control of the economy, than what? What means do you propose to get to your ideal society?

 

[Gabo]

Deregulate the government as much as possible.


Then everyone can choose their own community governments, entered into voluntarily.



This will give EVERYONE complete FREEDOM to decide their own lives.




Socialists can establish a society based on sharing and equality.

Authoritarians can establish a society where a strong central power controls every aspect of life.

Libertarians can simply establish no society at all, and just live with simple freedom and choice for all.



This type of country seems only logical and fair to me.
Any other government would use FORCE to make people follow rigid rules and guidelines that only please some people.

 

[anomaly]

Deregulate the government as much as possible.


Then everyone can choose their own community governments, entered into voluntarily.



This will give EVERYONE complete FREEDOM to decide their own lives.




Socialists can establish a society based on sharing and equality.

Authoritarians can establish a society where a strong central power controls every aspect of life.

Libertarians can simply establish no society at all, and just live with simple freedom and choice for all.



This type of country seems only logical and fair to me.
Any other government would use FORCE to make people follow rigid rules and guidelines that only please some people.

Deregulate the government? If government dregulates, who will step in? The corporations, obviously, not the people, as you seem to think. Corporations are almost all dictatorships, so you'd be handing over the fate of billions of people's lives to a few lucky individuals. CEOs do , historically, what is neccesary for them and their company to succeed, they care nothing of the steelworker, the factory worker, the child laborer, the Brazilian peasant, or the Asian farmer. I'd rather dismantle the rigid, two party system we see before us, create a systme more like Germany's where third parties can flourish. Then, when the government is much more deomcratic in nature, completely nationalise the economy, thus handing over all industry, indirectly, to the people. Further privatisation will just continue the trend of inequality that we saw during the '20s and now in the late '90s to today. Privatisation, by nature, hands over more and more economic control to the fortunate few, leaving the middle and lower classes with economic power. This would only continue the trends we see, it would do nothing to create more freedoms, nor would it end force. As I've mentioned before, a Nike or Gap CEO indirectly forces a poor Chinese worker to work for a meager salary and for long hours in a dirty factory. What is the worker's choice? To work or die. The Brazilian peasants had no choice, as their government was forced to give land to rich corporations. What was the governments choice? To take away peasant's land and give it to rich American companies or see his country suffer economically from lack of trade with the USA. These are the effects of deregulating the economy. Deregulating by definition will subject the lower class worker to the dips in the buisness cycle, thus creating an atmosphere where it is impossible to maintain a job for more than, say, a year. This is where I completely disagree with you, as what you wish to do will benefit the more fortunate in society, while subjecting the middle class and working class to the upper classes' mad drive for profit. I cannot, as a socialist, allow this, or agree with you. There is another way.

 

[Gabo]

Your group of people that think the CEO's will all take over and treat us like slaves CAN CHANGE THINGS. Create a community in which there are no CEOs. Regulate your community's economy and make all profits equal for all people.


But for gosh sakes, let those of us who WANT the horrible CEOs to take advantage of us and treat us like slaves live in a place that has no restrictions.



What don't you understand about everyone creating their own community rules and guidelines?

 

[anomaly]

Your group of people that think the CEO's will all take over and treat us like slaves CAN CHANGE THINGS. Create a community in which there are no CEOs. Regulate your community's economy and make all profits equal for all people.


But for gosh sakes, let those of us who WANT the horrible CEOs to take advantage of us and treat us like slaves live in a place that has no restrictions.



What don't you understand about everyone creating their own community rules and guidelines?

When the government has less power, it simply has less power. By no means does it disappear. So what you think is that when the government stops regulating the economy (these regulations are fading now), the country will simply disappear? And if the country does give way to these 'communites' you speak of, what then? Will the communities be totally peaceful towards each other? Your argument is very childish and very unrealistic. Do you really think that a capitalist government ruled by CEOs will allow a commune to be set up? Has the USA shown any acceptance of socialist countries in the past (Vietnam, Greece)? Things aren't so simple in the real world. And here's my problem with letting the CEOs of major corporations rule us: not only are they mostly corrupt, but they hurt workers. Capitalism by its very nature and definition is hostile towards workers. This I will not allow. Besides, I'd rather have a democratic government than let many dictators rule anyday. Why do you so love these CEOs Gabo? What good have they done for you? After that post, I wonder your age. Again, there is a way to actually achieve your goal, but further privatisation and deregulation is not the answer. How do you expect total freedom by giving the richest 10% control over the poorer 90% (as your privatisation would do)? Do you not think the richest would act in their own self interest? After all, acting in one's own self interest is a key part of capitalism. If you ever see the error of your ways, I have an alternative plan to offer you. You said I want everyone to make 'equal profit'. I do not. That is not what socialism is all about. It is about giving greater equality and power to the majority, to the workers, but not total equality. This is why socialism is very compatible with capitalism. You also must understand that a 'regulated economy' is not the communists end goal. The end goal is, obviously, communism, also called anarcho-communism. You would, I think, view this system as desirable, yet you continue to push for more privatisation, a move that cannot lead to anarcho-communism.

 

[Gabo]

Go ahead, have your socialist/communist society.
But on the same note, let me have my capitalist society.


Right now lets say default government control is about 50%.

Under the laws of any government, people may always add their own control on to the existing control.
Therefore, currently anyone who desires government control from anywhere between 50% and 100% can live happily in the society they establish.

But what about those who wish for less control? They are completely screwed.
Decreasing the amount of government control is not allowed, only increasing.
These people don't get to live how they wish.


My goal is reduce default government control.
Then the people are free to add anywhere from 0% to 100% control on to the default government control.
EVERYONE can establish societies with the level of government control they wish, pleasing EVERYONE in the country as they all choose for themselves.


I AM NOT ADVOCATING REMOVING ACTUAL CONTROL.

All I want is for people to be able to voluntarily increase or decrease the amount of control in their voluntary community.
You can live in a community with 100% control, where people are all treated equal and have an equal role in the society.
I can live in a community with 0% control, where everyone is only responsible for themselves, and there is no safety net available.


The only laws that remain are two:
1) Everyone has the right to their life, liberty, and property. (They may still waive this right under any contract. For example, a socialist community would waive their right to own property as it is all community owned.)
2) Everyone must keep all promises made. This includes the signing of contracts and mutual agreements made by the person. For example, if I agree to never own a dog, I must keep that agreement.


This simple change in government would not create an immense shift of power. Under default, all areas in the country would remain under the same control they have currently.

The only difference is that people would be allowed to back out of the current ways to establish their own society, whether it be communist, capitalist, or something else.


I'm assuming most people would be content with remaining under the current system.
But I for example would move with other like-minded people to a community with very few restrictions because that's what I choose.
And you would probably move with other like-minded people to a community with communist principles established.


NO DICTATING CEOS THAT RULE OVER THE COUNTRY.
Only the simple right to choose what type of society to live in.

 

[anomaly]

Go ahead, have your socialist/communist society.
But on the same note, let me have my capitalist society.


Right now lets say default government control is about 50%.

Under the laws of any government, people may always add their own control on to the existing control.
Therefore, currently anyone who desires government control from anywhere between 50% and 100% can live happily in the society they establish.

But what about those who wish for less control? They are completely screwed.
Decreasing the amount of government control is not allowed, only increasing.
These people don't get to live how they wish.


My goal is reduce default government control.
Then the people are free to add anywhere from 0% to 100% control on to the default government control.
EVERYONE can establish societies with the level of government control they wish, pleasing EVERYONE in the country as they all choose for themselves.


I AM NOT ADVOCATING REMOVING ACTUAL CONTROL.

All I want is for people to be able to voluntarily increase or decrease the amount of control in their voluntary community.
You can live in a community with 100% control, where people are all treated equal and have an equal role in the society.
I can live in a community with 0% control, where everyone is only responsible for themselves, and there is no safety net available.


The only laws that remain are two:
1) Everyone has the right to their life, liberty, and property. (They may still waive this right under any contract. For example, a socialist community would waive their right to own property as it is all community owned.)
2) Everyone must keep all promises made. This includes the signing of contracts and mutual agreements made by the person. For example, if I agree to never own a dog, I must keep that agreement.


This simple change in government would not create an immense shift of power. Under default, all areas in the country would remain under the same control they have currently.

The only difference is that people would be allowed to back out of the current ways to establish their own society, whether it be communist, capitalist, or something else.


I'm assuming most people would be content with remaining under the current system.
But I for example would move with other like-minded people to a community with very few restrictions because that's what I choose.
And you would probably move with other like-minded people to a community with communist principles established.


NO DICTATING CEOS THAT RULE OVER THE COUNTRY.
Only the simple right to choose what type of society to live in.

First, I'd like to point out that I thought about it, and France's GDP is about 55% privately made, 45% nationally. The US's GDP is not 50/50, but rather the private sector makes and controls something ore like 80% of it. Your numbers are a bit off, mine are closer but not exact. I will look that up tomorrow. As for the rest of it, basically all you want is the right to live freely and freely choose to live in such a society? Now, some more questions for Gabo:

1. Do you not feel that communism would give you total freedom? After all, classes will disappear, and the gov't will 'wither away' as Marx and Engels put it. So why do you oppose communism?

2. How then do you plan to create your ideal society? We anti-capitalists have some plans to get there, but you seem to have none. Will the American government really allow total freedom? And will they allow an autonomous zone to exist that has only those two laws? Your ideas seem good, but I argue that they could be reached far more easily under communism than under the current capitalist system.

 

[Gabo]

1. Do you not feel that communism would give you total freedom? After all, classes will disappear, and the gov't will 'wither away' as Marx and Engels put it. So why do you oppose communism?

I don't oppose communism (voluntary communism that is). I think it is a wonderful, helpful system for those who enjoy it's style

But it just isn't for me.

I don't like feeling tied down, feeling like I'm obligated to the community.
I'm more a free-flowing, take your chances, life is an adventure type.

2. How then do you plan to create your ideal society? We anti-capitalists have some plans to get there, but you seem to have none. Will the American government really allow total freedom? And will they allow an autonomous zone to exist that has only those two laws? Your ideas seem good, but I argue that they could be reached far more easily under communism than under the current capitalist system.

As of now, the government WON'T allow us freedom.
That's my big beef with government currently.

Here is our best solution:
www.freestateproject.org

I really doubt you are interested enough in it to read through the whole site (although I would appreciate if you did), so I'll summarize.


We're recruiting 20,000 liberty-lovers to agree to move to New Hampshire.
Once we reach 20,000 people, we will start a mass migration to the state.
After we get there, we will do everything in our power to reduce the size and scope of the government to only protecting our natural rights.
It's going to be an uphill battle, but we will win our freedom eventually.
Hopefully the government will find it in its heart to comply with us and give us our well deserved freedom.
But if it won't cooperate..... rebellion and secession may be necessary.

 

[anomaly]

I don't oppose communism (voluntary communism that is). I think it is a wonderful, helpful system for those who enjoy it's style

But it just isn't for me.

I don't like feeling tied down, feeling like I'm obligated to the community.
I'm more a free-flowing, take your chances, life is an adventure type.




As of now, the government WON'T allow us freedom.
That's my big beef with government currently.

Here is our best solution:
www.freestateproject.org

I really doubt you are interested enough in it to read through the whole site (although I would appreciate if you did), so I'll summarize.


We're recruiting 20,000 liberty-lovers to agree to move to New Hampshire.
Once we reach 20,000 people, we will start a mass migration to the state.
After we get there, we will do everything in our power to reduce the size and scope of the government to only protecting our natural rights.
It's going to be an uphill battle, but we will win our freedom eventually.
Hopefully the government will find it in its heart to comply with us and give us our well deserved freedom.
But if it won't cooperate..... rebellion and secession may be necessary.

Perhaps ou could tell me why you don't like communism's 'style'?

Also, I find your drive for freedom an honorable one, as the government has now obliterated the seeds of democracy with its two party, moderate system, giving you ultra-libertarians and us socialists alike no representation (by now I hope you realize that the US gov't is not socialist, and nor are the GOP or the Dems). I, however, have no plans of engaging in rebellion with the most powerful empire ever seen by human eyes! I am more caught up in socialist happenings, and my invention of the (possibility of...it isn't a real party yet) anti-capitalist party to unite us leftists (anarchists, Marxists and environmentalists) against a common foe-capitalism. By the way, if anyone finds this unification idea appealing, lemme know.

 

[Gabo]

Perhaps you could tell me why you don't like communism's 'style'?

It's not that I don't like it.
It's that it's not for me.

I need to be fully free, not bound by any obligations to others.
I want to count on only myself and provide only for myself.

by now I hope you realize that the US gov't is not socialist, and nor are the GOP or the Dems

Ok, they're not really socialist.

But they're definitely becoming more authoritarian/statist.

I, however, have no plans of engaging in rebellion with the most powerful empire ever seen by human eyes!

I am willing to die for my cause.
If I must defend New Hampshire from the tyrannical attacks from the US, so be it.

But somehow I think our military is less likely to comply when the government is telling them to kill their own bretheren.

I also think the American public is likely to speak out against oppressive attacks on New Hampshire (unless government takes full control of media).



Most likely, though, rebellion won't be necessary.
All we want is to not pay into the system, but also not receive from the system.

 

[anomaly]

It's not that I don't like it.
It's that it's not for me.

I need to be fully free, not bound by any obligations to others.
I want to count on only myself and provide only for myself.

You may have difficulty being so selfish. Difficulty surviving, that is. Communism would likely be localised, so you would be working each day for a short period of time to ensure the survival of your particular commune. Perhaps 100 people or so. Excess production would be offered to neighboring communes. Atleast that's how I picture global communism. I doubt communism would work if it wasn't a global effort. I have no problem helping myself and 100 others (probably friends and family) survive, I guess you do.

Ok, they're not really socialist.

But they're definitely becoming more authoritarian/statist.

Finally you admit it! And I do agree with you that they're becoming more authoritarian, but it's not really the politician's fault. A two-party system is naturally authoritarian, excluding a large amount of views and subjecting people to the relentless corporate/US propaganda we see.

I am willing to die for my cause.
If I must defend New Hampshire from the tyrannical attacks from the US, so be it.

But somehow I think our military is less likely to comply when the government is telling them to kill their own bretheren.

I also think the American public is likely to speak out against oppressive attacks on New Hampshire (unless government takes full control of media).



Most likely, though, rebellion won't be necessary.
All we want is to not pay into the system, but also not receive from the system.

Quite honorable, your dedication to your cause. I will support this 'free-state' plan, if it ever really comes about, especially if others are as dedicated as you are.