Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is there anything we should pay for ourselves?

Posted 2 years ago on March 3, 2012, 2:27 p.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Should we pay for our health care and medicine?

Should we pay for our homes and our land?

Should we pay for our birth control and abortions?

Should we pay for the food we eat?

Should we pay for the car we use and the gas to drive it?

How should the things we use be paid for?

242 Comments

242 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Should people that haven't the resources to pay the exorbitant costs, be forced to die?

Should some who's lived there for and made payments for 25yrs, be forced out for missing a few payments, because they are now old and sick?

Should we pay for child care for those that have these children?

Shouldn't we know what's in that food?

Tell that to guy trying to drive around and find a job in a 87' Olds 98.

This is one of your least informed posts yet.

[-] 2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

And as usual you don't answer anything in the OP.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Yes of course you're correct. I should have asked him to clarify, who is we.

Care to attempt to answer one or two of my questions?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I know, it is such a common rightie ploy to ask these presumptuous questions feigning this air of innocence. OBNOXIOUS!! And so simple-minded. They get it from their asinine Becks and Oh-Reallys. It's like with Newt, a stupid person's idea of smart.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I know, it is such a common rightie ploy to ask these presumptuous questions feigning this air of innocence. OBNOXIOUS!! And so simple-minded. They get it from their asinine Becks and Oh-Reallys. It's like with Newt, a stupid person's idea of smart.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Suppose people have a right to health care. Suppose people in the 1700s had a right to health care. At what point in the development of new methods and technology do newly invented things become rights? Does something become a right when someone else has it? Why do I not have a right to 1700s grade health care?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Suppose for a moment, that you could make sense.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Suppose for a minute, that you could understand me. If health care is a right, why is that right specific to modern methods?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Because we can.

If you prefer trepanning, help yourself.

You have holes in head anyway

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Exactly. Something does not become a right until someone else has it. That is the central ethic of what you are saying. Why are you attacking me? what did I say? Can't we have a rational and reasonable debate on the merits of things?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I don't know.

Can you stay in the present day?

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Sure. But, if something was a right now, it was a right 200 years ago. Rights are timeless, just as they do not require effort of people to fulfill.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If this were true, how did corporations get "rights"?

How did women get "rights"?

How did blacks get "rights?

"Rights" change with the times and our ability to recognize them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they were given rights to become participators in contracts

back in the 19th century I think

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Rights are based on principle. Rights are guidelines that prevent interference from third parties. You and I have a right to fight and protest in New York without the police locking us up. We don't have a right to protest in someone else's house without getting their permission, because their right to have their house free of us trumps our right to protest, because it is their property.

Rights require noninterference, not effort, from third parties. We have a right to own guns but not a right to make our neighbors buy us one.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Why, Oh why, are questions never answered?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I am telling you. Rights are naturally granted to people. Women and Blacks always had rights, the right of other people to not interfere with their activities.

They weren't somehow granted these rights by the government, merely the government stopped unfairly restricting these rights.

Do you think the Second amendment gives us the right to make our neighbors buy us a gun?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

200 years ago they had little or NO rights, and corporations as we know them didn't exist.

Stop changing the subject.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

No, they naturally had the same rights that they enjoy now. Natural rights are an aspect of humanity, not something granted by government. People have the natural right not to have others interfere with their activities.

Wait a second, I am the one who changed the subject? this was originally about health care rights.

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I don't care, I want to keep pushing my unprincipled ideology.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I asked questions, you reveal that you are the uninformed.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Really??

How so? You provided nothing but blanket questions, devoid of humanity.

As though life was a video game.

I asked questions, that ask for clarity.

I guess you're just not very clean, on a lot of subjects.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

By being incapable of determining that I was asking questions. Now that you have given a completely unintelligible response, I have been informed of the fact that you are completely uninformed.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Uniformitively put old chap.

Quite a short bit of nothing. Very unclear. Which is of course, what you've always done best.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

"Uniformitively put"? Very uninformed of you, old chap.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Should we earn enough money to pay for those things?

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Consider that the core concept in those sentences in toonces' excellent post is "pay" ie. the 'mere monetary purchase' rather than the 'fair sharing and exchange' of essential goods and services.

The limiting factor in what humans can achieve is 'The Collective Imagination and The Will To Do', however we have become complicit in our own indoctrination such that we do not seem to be able to see past, through and around mere fixation on 'Magical-Money' - the 'Fiat-Fantasy' that is actually the sum of all our nightmares as 'cost and afford' rule the day & as 'Fiat Money' works its evil magic on us !

The suffocating tyranny of Bankster Fiat Money can NOT abide for ever. More and more Human Communities and Societies - from the smallest units and upwards, will organise themselves in order to collectively provide themselves with energy, food, homes and healthcare and in so doing the Mystical and Mesmeric Matrix of Magical Money will dissolve back into The Darkest Ether from whence it came !!

As a species we have the 'where with all', imagination and collective-will to pursue new economic paradigms for a future fitting, fair and free for all. Then we will liberate ourselves to create (not "pay" for) Moon Base Alpha prior to Terra-Forming Mars ! Why Not ?!! If we can sort our sh*t out here with the application of : head & heart ; intellect & compassion ; mind & soul, then we'll be capable of anything !!!

After all ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDaWsqytrfI !!

amor vincit omnia, per ardua ad astra et dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

So well said, Shadz. You have found the crux of the matter.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth - shine the light...........shine the light.

The ideal that leads will set us free - Health and Prosperity for ALL.

We move forward - Together.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

No, not everything, but would agree that the minimum earnings should cover health, food and shelter, the basics or needs. Everything else would be a "want".

[-] 1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

why should minimum earning cover health food shelter etc? Desires are not rights.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

I agree that desires are not rights. My comment was towards what we sometimes label as the basics for survival. I believe that the word "rights" is assigned to too many optional desires or wants. And if you ask 10 people what basic food, shelter, etc. Is needed, the answer would vary widely. The discussion on living wage on the OWS forum extends much too far into desires or wants.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I agree. : )

[-] 0 points by Puerile (12) 2 years ago

No, we should all be broke and die :(

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Hence your name.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nice how they sometimes advertise.

Refreshingly honest. - In that aspect anyway.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Yes. Pretty funny.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We are then duly notified of a waste of time and of space.

Very Thoughtful in a way.

[-] -1 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

I seldom see Hoars complain about their income unless they aren't very good Hoars.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yes - you are responsible for attaining the skills to support yourself

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yes you should EARN enough money to pay for those things......please reference the word "EARN" and learn it's definition and etymology

"earn" is not a gift.....it's based on merit

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=earn

http://www.definitions.net/definition/earn

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Yes, I know what "earn" means. So, do you think it is healthy for a society to have an economy that provides jobs that do not pay people enough to live on? We are civilized, are we not? People come before profits, no?

All jobs should pay human beings enough so that they can live and pay for those things listed above.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I think it's unhealthy for people to expect to survive with no skills and to create families without the resources to sustain them.......

I think it is uncivilized to demand that others pay you more than you merit (theft) by your skills and talents, and I think it uncivilized that people would take on responsibilities they are unable to be responsible for....and THEN demand that those around them be responsible for their irresponsibility.......

Human beings should develop skills that merit enough pay to live and pay for the privileges of society, not to do so is bestial and unsophisticated........and rather vulgar....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

I think it is uncivilized for a society to have an economic system that provides 50% of its jobs with a wage that is unlivable.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I think it's uncivilized for a society to allow 50% to remain at a skill level that merits no more than an unlivable wage......especially one with an established public education system which should prepare people to enter the workforce instead of preparing them to be arrogant idiots with a chip on their shoulder and an entitlement mentality....

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Don't you see that the jobs are provided by employers? These are the jobs they offer, that they want filled. They do not want skilled workers. But, for a society to function in a civilized manner all people need to be able to earn enough money to live on.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

there are a myriad of things that need to be done all around us, at any moment of any day, and people would compensate others to do those things....so, to claim that the labor pool is finite and controlled by "employers" is myopic and incorrect....

at what point do we reach a tipping point in your fantasociety? when the efforts don't equal the rewards? by "giving" people so-called "living wage" regardless of merit we devalue the actual merit of those who perform tasks that are worth what they are paid, but...you'll never see this because you are operating from emotion instead of logic, and you need a villain in your fantasy of inequality

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

No. I'm not operating from emotion instead of logic. Quite the opposite. Facts are facts. One-half of jobs offered are low paying. There's no way to argue around that. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye.

You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that even if all low paid workers were suddenly qualified to do more, there would be no jobs for them.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

and you can't wrap your head around the fact that the pool of jobs isn't limited to those provided by others....and with that in mind your statement about low paid workers suddenly qualified to do more there would of course be jobs for them, jobs that they themselves create to meet their qualifications......you don't have to wait around for someone to provide you a job, all you need to do is find a need or desire and provide for it.......

and you can say that half the jobs are low paying, but that is not a "fact" it is a position.....it could just as easily be said that half of employees are under-qualified and as such only merit low paying jobs...I don't know any employer who wouldn't love to expand the responsibility and pay of an employee should that employee demonstrate a willingness and desire to learn and accept more responsibility...but, most don't want that...they want to do the minimum possible..and you can never get ahead with that philosophy..NEVER...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Do you really think all 300 million working Americans could just suddenly start successful businesses? If so, who is living in a fantasy world, slammers?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

well....300 million would include infants, retiree's, the mentally handicapped and institutionalized....so, no

Also there are many trades which always need workers...electricians, welders, pipe fitters, truck drivers, lift operators, etc...and they all pay fairly well.....

But, the 25 million un or under-employed....sure, a large number of them could start businesses..."successful" depends on their idea's and application of effort......there are lot's of properties owned by banks and mortgage companies that need services performed on them, and lot's of people very busy that would surrender some money for convenience.....

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Okay, you got me on the 300 million, but still you can't expect every worker to be an entrepreneur. I think that is unreasonable because the truth is that low paid workers perform very important functions that are necessary for profit-making. Hence, their value could be determined to be much higher.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I know you are a good person. Stay strong! Find laughter where you can - its good for the spirit.

Educating the dense and unwilling must be very frustrating.


1 points by beautifulworld (4615) 2 minutes ago

Exactly. You get it. Some don't and are so intransigent I fear they never will, but I won't quit trying. LOL! ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth - For a system to work it needs all of it's components. All of the components "MUST" be properly maintained ( cared for ).

We move forward - TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Exactly. You get it. Some don't and are so intransigent I fear they never will, but I won't quit trying. LOL!

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

WE should fire and fine all the oil speculators then?

They didn't do a thing to "earn" a single dime.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

didn't they? they enabled drilling to proceed by pre-purchasing contracts to by the future commodities at a set and agreed upon price.....a price which may or may not be the actual market price on the date of contract closing and as such carries a great risk to the purchaser of the contract should their speculation be incorrect.....

I am sure you have almost no idea how futures markets work, and are just parroting the incorrect, yet often repeated, idea that speculation effects market price.......

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If it didn't, they wouldn't do it.

Lazy fucks.

Seems you're the only one left that hasn't figured that out yet.

They create "real" inflation, for fun and profit..

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

actually there are more losers in futures trading than there are winners, and those who don't hedge their positions can lose more than they invest, and can be wiped out by an incorrect assumption of market conditions

I have studied commodities and futures trading exhaustively as a potential addition to my investments...but, the risk is too great, even with the great reward.....

it is YOU who are uninformed as to the nature of such investments and are just following the common and incorrect assumption of how that sort of investing works...

I encourage more research, but I don't expect you to do it, as it would prove your assertions and contentions false, and you have likely created an identity out of your philosophy and to shatter your beliefs would be a loss of identity, and as such, is highly unlikely......

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They drive up prices for consumers.

It's you that's deluded.

Gas prices went up immediately, with the increased speculation.

They added NOTHING to the product except higher costs for the consumer.

[-] 2 points by foolend (12) 2 years ago

In other related news!!!!! Senate blocks bid to speed Keystone approval -- but Obama loses Dems despite lobbying

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Good. The Lakotas are ready to go to war over the damn thing.

[-] 2 points by foolend (12) 2 years ago

Obama digging himself a deep hole on this one

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You win some, you lose some. That's how it goes.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

So, skyrocketing inflation is the fault of speculation in the private sector?

Unbelievable.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Don't worry. You're not paying more, you're getting less.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Its both. Pay more and get less. Perfect marketing for the greedy corrupt. Use both sides of the coin.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's like Dylan Ratigan said.

Our wealth is being extracted.

They're doing it from every angle possible, because it's in their charter to do so.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Who needs a leader when you have an ideal to lead the way:

Health and prosperity for ALL - They can't assassinate this leader.


2 points by shooz (4529) 0 minutes ago

There is no other way DKA.

Together, yet leaderless.

It's the sheep that need a leader. ↥like ↧dislike permalink


"We the People" Will LEAD - TOGETHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We can not let them win by playing dirty. We have to keep in mind that they would not be playing at all if we were not important to the fight against corruption. Know that when you are attacked especially unmercifully - that you must be hurting them. Give a shout-out we are here for each other.


[-] 1 points by shooz (4529) 0 minutes ago

I did come back despite the plethora of unrepentant trolls.......:)

The current bot activity is still here though.

" Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" ↥like ↧dislike permalink


We move forward together in support of each other - we succeed TOGETHER.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There is no other way DKA.

Together, yet leaderless.

It's the sheep that need a leader.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28242) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes - and damn the consequences ( our death ).

I vote - NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We move forward - Together.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I did come back despite the plethora of unrepentant trolls.......:)

The current bot activity is still here though.

" Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!"

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

gas prices are up because of the weakened dollar and worldwide demand.....

you are such a fucking retard, do you ever do any research? or do you just believe whatever any liberal news fag blows up your ass?

[-] 1 points by foolend (12) 2 years ago

good comment

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

BS!

Supply is high and demand is down.

Speculation is way,way up.

You don't want to start some piss ant put down game? Do you?

Is that what you can back here for?

I've listened to professional oil price annalists, in interview after interview, and every single one says it's up because of speculation.

I'll believe them over you every single time.

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

http://pricedingold.com/us-retail-gasoline/

The dollar is going down, not gas going up.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Don't give me BS over the price of bling.

You could make the same correlation to the price of diamonds if you wanted, and it still won't change the supply of gas being high.

You just looking for an excuse for the failure of supply and demand.

I still believe the professional annalists.

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I am not looking for an excuse for the failure of S&D, I have no idea what you mean. I believe wholeheartedly in the laws of S&D.

http://www.coins-auctioned.com/docs/coin-articles/history-of-gold-ounce-price-comparison-to-a-loaf-of-bread

Gold has not gone up in value as significantly compared to other commodities as it has to the US dollar. there's supply and demand, we keep printing more money, increasing supply, and the value magically goes down.

The Dollar is going down.

come on, Shooz, I came to expect you to be a bastion of logic and reason on this site amidst a battalion of nonsense. Why are you arguing this point? What am I missing?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Then I will simply remind you, that the 17th century is well behind us and like it or not, you can never go back.

Austrian economics is dead in the water.

http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

US demand is down, because of pump price...but worldwide demand is up because of India and China

you really have no clue as to what you are fucking talking about....it's fucking pathetic......

annalists? you mean analyists?

so, tell me...how is the world price up on speculation when all the world supply is not subject to speculation? our oil companies are pikers compared to the state owned oil companies of OPEC and other nations of Africa and the Middle East....I guess you didn't know that either, huh?

and how about the dollar, that, when compared to gold is down by over half it's value since january 2009? you think that might have an effect on pump prices you blithering idiot?

It really is time for you to visit a library, or any place where information, rather than propaganda, is available....

you demostrate your rank stupidity with each addtional response......please continue, although I hope you aren't allowed around sharp objects or anything hot.....

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Every single one of them, said speculation.

Bling is for bling collectors, it's got nothing to do with the price of gas.

Demand was down before the price went up, and that same pressure should have driven them back down either way.

Supply is high!!!

You're just making excuses.

Speculation was the reason gas shot up after 9/11 too. Everybody knows it but you.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"everybody" who has no knowledge of futures trading..

gold is a value guideline to compare the dollar to....you can also use forex comparison, and other goods, like food, textiles and others....all up in price due to the devaluation of the dollar due to borrowing and printing

you're simply an idiot, and by choice totally ignorant......

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're a know narcissist.

You are never wrong......in your own head.

Facts and reality be damned.

So go buy some bling...nit wit.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

hahaha.....that's all you got? typical..... :-/

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

We do. We also pay taxes that go to corporate subsidies, war, corruption, greed and graft.

The more the rich bankrupt society, the fewer people are able to earn a living and pay taxes, which results in more demand on the state for social services.

Try to to be such a stupid fucking douchebag.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I guess if yuo don't have the facts or intelligence to reply with a convincing argument, it makes perfect sense to call me names.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

The way to approach this is to start with the necessities. All humans should for starters, at least have a right to a home, education, health care, and not having to starve.

The way I see it our end goal should be that we as much as possible, organize society "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" built on direct participatory democracy.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 3 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Wouldn't that be nice. I hope one day people of this world will stop acting like they are in a primate pecking order and start working together, it's more than possible.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Absolutely. Its going to be one hell of a job, but when we have gotten rid of undemocratic hierarchies, including private tyrannies, we can create a free, just society ( http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html )

where true human characteristics can come to the fore: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1323868733_human_nature_and_libe.html

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You want a communist society and this has been tried already. You can't get everybody to work hard. It doesn't take into account human nature.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No, no. I want Anarcho-Syndicalism!

In my opinion the society we should strive for is one where democracy is the core. A society where capitalism and central state power are replaced by more direct democracy and direct participation. A society where the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants and the ones affected by them. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny. A system of cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit.

A society like this, where power is decentralized and democracy is built from the "bottom up", is often called Libertarian Socialism or Left-libertarianism. Many also refer to this type of society as Anarcho-Syndicalism which is a popular branch of Libertarian Socialism that focuses especially on direct democracy, workers´ self-management and solidarity.

In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society people are no longer profiting on other people´s work like in capitalism; no one exploits others, no one is being exploited - the economic institutions are now run democratically. Most services would be free when you need them, and production, distribution, remuneration etc. would be decided democratically by the participants. It would be a society where people are not treated like cogs in a machine and commanded to act in a mechanical way, but where each individual could live out its true potential based on its own capacity.

In a society like this human characteristics like solidarity, creativity, engagement and altruism would come to the fore. Now, we have to face the fact that we don´t know everything about human nature. We do, however, know that there are some fundamental human characteristics. Human nature allows for different kinds of behavior and it can be shaped to a certain extent, but there are certain things - such as solidarity for example - that make up some of the core features. Just look at the history of our evolution. For millions of years things like cooperation, sharing, caring, sticking together and so on, basing social organization on a relatively egalitarian principle, have been central parts of our evolution. Even as far back as Homo Habilis working together for the common good, cooperating on finding and getting food etc. were essential and crucial for the survival and further evolvement of the species. Now, there were also things like rivalry and violence that took place at that time, and these things have to a certain extent also been passed on, but as our ancestors evolved further, all the way up to Homo Heidelbergensis and later on Homo Sapiens, these things decreased and elements like solidarity and egalitarianism - in addition to cooperation - became more integrated in the social organization. Working together for the common good turned out to be a crucial and highly successful factor in our evolution. And with cooperation and working together, things like solidarity, altruism etc - a more collective mentality - also became a natural part of our ancestors´ way of thinking and acting. When our ancestors finally evolved into Homo Sapiens this had become a big part of our way of life: Some of the first human societies consisted of hunter-gatherers basing society on solidarity, cooperation and egalitarian principles. Marx and Engels studied and wrote about these types of egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies; they called them "primitive communism" - a kind of preindustrial version of the modern classless stateless communist society they envisioned might come into place in the future.

In other words, evolution has allowed us to develop a free will, a mentality that allows for variation in behavior, making room for adaptation and molding of the mind; but our ancestors have also passed on certain elements - mostly good ones - that are determined and part of humans today. Things that were the main reason for our evolutionary success, like solidarity and cooperation, are parts of our nature.

In fact many of these things can also be seen among most species, simply because sticking together and helping each other increase the chances of species survival. Peter Kropotkin, a zoologist, philosopher and Libertarian Socialist - contributing especially to the philosophy of Anarcho-Communism - wrote about this issue in his book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution", looking at mutual aid and cooperation in nature, arguing that evolution naturally would develop things like commitment to helping others, and that these were important factors in the survival of the species.

Another important contribution to this topic is of course "The Selfish Gene" from 1976 by professor and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. In this book he pointed out that altruism, and cooperation naturally would evolve among species thruout evolution because organisms act as if their genes - not the organisms themselves - are selfish. It is the gene that is being passed on endlessly thru organisms, and things like altruism would therefore accrue in order to increase the chances for the gene to survive. And it makes perfect sense; individuals sharing the same genes would naturally evolve cooperation, altruism and solidarity, because it increases the chances of the gene being replicated. Most scientists on this field regard Dawkins´ contributions to be correct.

In an Anarcho-Syndicalist, or Libertarian Socialist organization society will become more egalitarian and most hierarchical structures will therfore vanish. At the same time a society like this will encourage humans to live out their true nature and create a solidaric society on all levels: workers, workplaces, unions, communities, federations not any longer being encouraged to only look after themselves and striving for as much money and material goods as possible, like it is in capitalism, but instead cooperating for a best possible society for everyone, democratically run by the participants.

A Libertarian Socialist society would be based on direct democracy and not a system where representative politicians are running things. There will have to be representatives in this society as well, but they would be recallable delegates elected directly from the group or organization to which they belong, representing workplaces, unions, communities and so on. The society would in other words be decentralized and federated, run democratically thru networks of cooperative workers´ councils, assemblies, communities, delegates etc.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

These are fascinating, innovative ideas, but please, if you want them to resonate with the majority change the name. I've been in this country for awhile, and Anarcho-Syndicalism, no matter how worthwhile it's contents may be in substance, will never play in Peoria . . . never.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

It dont matter to me what we call it, but" anarcho-syndicalism" and "libertarian socialism" are pretty well established terms used to describe that kind of society. Whether we must enlighten the people that theres nothing dangerous about the terms or change the terms, I dont know though..

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

I think if you retain any of those terms you will be flying in the face of generations of effective propoganda. That is unfortunate. It would be prefferable if people could think for themselves, but the majority have been very conditioned to reject these terms outright.

I would strongly suggest that people who back these ideas change the names, so that people will give these ideas a chance based upon their merits, rather than simply rejecting them on sight.

Literally Billions of dollars have been spent shaping American beliefs, and it would seem wiser to circumvent, rather than try to overcome, the power of that conditioning:)

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Maybe so. Some also use the terms "Left-libertarianism" and "Participatory Democracy". Maybe they could be used when talking in "conservative" areas..

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Of these options, I think Participatory Democracy would be the most likely to appeal to a wide following. Just my thought on the matter.

Thanks for the work on this issue. New centuries, especially our current one, frought with so many troubles require open minds and innovative solutions.

[-] 1 points by DerekStevens (8) 2 years ago

Interesting. Very interesting. I'll need some time to process this.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Good to hear. I think ideas such as democratically run solidaric communities and workplaces is something most people would embrace. We just have to cut thru the propaganda spewed out by the private tyrannies and the financial elite, and introduce the ideas to the people.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Your last paragraph describes classic Coporatism . And a question: how would such a society frm a military? Police? Courts?

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You will never get rid of the free rider problem. Some people will work and some won't. Without incentives, people will not strive to produce and then corruption will take hold as the basic services cannot be provide. The most productive organizations are ones where competitin reigns. Just ask anybody who worked for Jack Welch at GE.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

We all live in a free ride society, we get free lunches and free rides all the time.

The right-wingers often tend to look at taxes as a way of stealing the fruits of other people´s labor, that people are being taxed so that other can enjoy a free ride. Well they´re way off. First of all, the ones who are really stealing the fruits of our labor are the financial elite who have been making billions by pushing a few buttons on a computer at the stock exchange and exploiting people in the US and all over the world. And secondly, the "fruits" of one´s labor can´t be measured in an advanced moderen society.

We now live in a complex, highly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years. People have been building infrastructure, contributed to science, developed technology, developed efficient ways of manufacturing etc etc. Because of all this effort we now enjoy a more wealthy, advanced and efficient society than ever. All of this, lots of it built and created long before we were even born, we´re now enjoying despite having little or nothing to do with contributing to it ourselves. In other words, our contributions, no matter what we do, are microscopic compared to what we receive from society. We´re enjoying the results of generations of people´s work gradually building a modern society - an enormous free ride.

Now, there are people, certainly in third world countries, but also in the West, who are struggling to get by and do not feel that they´re enjoying all these goods. I totally understand that but that has to do with the unfortunate concentration of wealth. I`m talking about the society as a whole. The western countries are more efficient and wealthy as ever, the problem is that we have a system that allows for more and more accumulation of wealth. That is one of the reasons why we have to abolish Capitalism and replace it with democracy.

Now, what´s really interesting about this "free ride" - debate is that even though the rich, which the right-wing tend to support, are becoming increasingly wealthy by doing less, the right always turn to the poor and working class when they want to give a speech about getting free rides and stealing the friuts of other people´s labor. Citibank first recieved their taxpayer bailout back in the 80s from Reagan and have since that, along with an increasing number of other corporations received an enormous sum of taxmoney. Is that not stealing the fruits of other people´s labor? And what about, let´s say, indonesian facory girls working 12 hours a day for 50 cents an hour at a Nike- factory so that Phil Knight and the rest of them can sell shoes and equipment for huge profits. Is that not getting a free ride?? Why isn´t this theft adressed by the right-wing? The rich, which have become rich mostly by pushing a few buttons at a computer at Wall Street, and/or exploiting workers in the US and all over the world, which isn`t exactly hard work, are being given more and more tax breaks and benefits by politicians, yet the right wing have the balls to criticize sick people for getting their medical bills covered by the government. To put it this way, as long as the wealthy are getting more and more recourses into their hands by doing very little, people should have no right lecturing the working class and poor for asking for welfare programs.

So how should we organize a complex highly advanced wealthy society? Make it more democratic! Make the workplaces democratic, make the communities democratic. Organize society so that people can be in control over their own lives. Create a society where we focus on peoples needs instead of short term profit. End the system we have today, which encourages greed and unsustainable and pointless consumption, and instead create a society where true human characteristics and feelings like engagement and solidarity will come to the fore. Create a decent civilized society where everyone can enjoy a decent life. Create a world where we all can enjoy the "Free Ride" Society.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (362) 2 years ago

To comment on your Nike example: your assuming that we (the consumer) can not make a choice in what we purchase. If everyone felt that Nike (or Phil knight) was exploitive and on a free ride, then why buy his product? No one is forced to buy, it is free will. No demand equals no Nike. I see you like to criticize the right but the left has not solved anything either.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I've applied it to medicine

and had a heart attack at home

just kidding

[-] 1 points by DerekStevens (8) 2 years ago

Bravo. My only question is when you say "democratic" do you mean by representation or direct?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why not both ?

[-] 1 points by DerekStevens (8) 2 years ago

Good point. It's plausible to do both. Maybe direct based at the local level and representative at the national level?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yes

and a method to veto congress laws via petition to direct vote

[-] 1 points by DerekStevens (8) 2 years ago

Yo Dawg!

I heard you like checks and balances. So I put checks and balances in your checks and balances So you can monitor your congress While your congress monitors your political system.

Genius!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

As much Direct Democracy as possible, but in a huge complex society we probably need some representation, but they must be recallable representatives. Read/watch more here: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

That is not a problem with the rich, that is a problem that has been caused by giving government too much power and control.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I don't understand how you got to that conclusion. Some arguments please.

Now, being a libertarian socialist I'm of course not a big fan of big government, but there is another form of concentrated power that - in the US - is extremely powerful: Private power. This power is much worse in a (representative) democratic society because it's pure tyranny: non-elected wealthy powerful individuals controlling the economic institutions and economy in general.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-democratic-deficit/

We should seek to dismantle all forms of undemocratic hierarchies and concentration of power.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The world has advanced due to personal endeavours and what has driven those people are material and financial gains. There is more innovation with capitalistic societies and even here in the US our innovation has increased since we have adopted free market policies. Just look at what has happened since 1980 and the gains that have been made.

Those people in Indonesia you speak of are better off since they have a job that they wouldn't have if Phil Knight was there. So if they don't have that job who pays them?

Your issues about creating a society have nothing to do with economics but human nature and are in my opinion religious in nature. As far as I know, no economic theory, including capitlaism, will produce the society you speak of.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You´re wrong. Its in our nature to be creative, active and contribute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXevpVXzePc

So because they´re better of than if they did not have the job, then that automatically justifies the working conditions? Is that ypur argument??

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Creative active and contribute? Like in the old Eastern Bloc?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

No. Tyranny is awful. You obviously did not watch the video. Please do.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

It's in some people's nature. So you again have a free rider program where a small percentage is producing. If they don't get their rewards then they will adapt

If Nike wasn't there what would happen to those people?

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Its in most of us.

Didnt you read the above? We all get free rides and free lunches all the time

And if the slave owners didnt give the slaves work, where would they be? Dont you realize how awful your argument is?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

I disagree with you. If it was in most if us then we wouldn't have a production problem. The minority of the people will not continue to work while the majority don't.

It had nothing to do with slave owners and slaves. It has everything to do with providing a better life and that us what Nike is providing. Again I ask you, without them where are the jobs and the food.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Why don´t we see a lot more of this in our society today? Well, the problem is that today these things are being suppressed. In today´s (especially Western) societies things like greed and consumption are being encouraged. In fact, capitalism requires corporations f.ex. to only think about the "bottom line". If they don´t, they´re out of business, and corporations that do think profits and greed replace them. A society like this will of course produce a lot of greedy individuals. Capitalism encourages greed, and since human nature allows for some molding of the mind, the system we have manages to suppress many individuals´ core characteristics. Take advertisement f.ex: Private tyrannies spend huge amounts of money on this. We´re being pumped full of this garbage almost everywhere we look, whether it´s TV, radio, internet, newspapers etc etc, day in and day out. It is a highly unnatural phenomenon, it´s been a part of human history for an extremely small amount of time, yet it affects us, many of us in a huge way. But with that said, I think it s worth mentioning that even though we´re being encouraged to be greedy and selfish, we still see lots of kindness and solidarity. Even in a society based on greed and consumption, human characteristics, opposing this lifestyle, are lived out.

Many slaves were taken care of, They didnt have to starve or thirst. Is that a justification for slavery?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

We are indeed primates though, with traits and behaviors that evolved over thousands and thousands of years that were necessary for survival. Those traits don't just go away just because we can now realize some of them are wrong. We really are not that far removed from a bunch of monkeys in the grand scheme of things.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

all humans should at least have access to land and water so they can plant seeds, cut down trees or build houses of mud and clay. but the rich have made sure that will never happen! They continue to hoard the land so that 90% of the earth forever remains UNOCCUPIED.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

You realize 30% of the land in the US is owned by the government, with very few people living in it?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Actually more like 12.5%,. "Today, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees the use of some 264 million acres of public land, representing about one-eighth of all the land in the United States."

But I'll bite, who owns the other 60 percent? 1% of the population owns what percent that is not held in trust in nation parks, and government facilities?

Fact is, the current resource distribution, and the reasons for it, are just too far out dated and no longer tenable, period.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I'm not talking about the bureau of land management. I am talking about all federal, state, and local governments combined. I also never said it was right for the 1% to hoard land, thank you very much.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa that's horrible! I never thought someone would actually quote that and be serious! You actually read the book and just ignored the philosophy? Holy crap get out of my country!!!!!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

"The way I see it our end goal should be that we as much as possible, organize society "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" built on direct participatory democracy."...

That is communism, not democracy.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

When you say "communism", are you referring to Leninism or Anarcho-Communism? The first is awful tyranny, the latter is most definatley about democracy - direct participatory democracy build from below.

So what are you saying; are you saying a society organizied "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can't be democratic?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yes. That must be enforced and that will require the force of government (or a mob). Communism does not lift all boats, it makes everyone equally miserable.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

huh?

I asked:

"are you saying a society organizied "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can't be democratic?"

in which you answered:

"Yes. That must be enforced and that will require the force of government (or a mob"

how was that an answer to my question..?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Perhaps the "yes" answer to your question was a bit ambiguous to you, so:

Yes, I am saying that a society organizied "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can't be democratic.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"a society organizied "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can't be democratic."

How so? You're making no sense, my friend. A society organizied "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can't be democratic because....?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Well, I guess it could, if you do away will individuals rights and freedoms.... Not something I would support.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Ok. So you realize now that it can be democratic. Good.

I could't understand why you could claim the opposite, since if the overwhelming majority were in favor of it and organized it, it would be democratic.

No you don't have to take away individual freedoms and rights. They'd just be different: Instead of indiviual rights like the right to own and profit on means of production others are using, the right to control institutions like tyrannies, and have undeocratic power in society, it would be individual rights such as an individual's right to have a say in the things it's a part of and which affects it, including of course communities and workplaces.

Libertarian Socialism strongly favors individual rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Democracy = tyranny of the masses... A tyrant by any other name...

Freedom is freedom. The moment YOU start to describe my freedom, I cease to be free.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

An anarcho-syndicalist participatory local democracy means that people are in control of their own lives, workplace and community - Thats's freedom.

Oh, so democracy is tyranny? So who get to decide which laws should apply, if not the people having to live by them? A dictator? Dead slaveowners? A tiny majority of powerful people? That's dictatorship - that is tyranny.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

We need to restore the Constitution. The Constitutional republic created by our founders is the closest civilization has gotten to a perfect governing system to insure freedom and prosperity for all individuals.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

Ah, ok. So dead slave owners, then.

Well, I don't know about you, but I want the people who are living in today's society to decide which laws and rights they should live by, not dead people.

A small goup of people in the supreme court, state and gvernment guarding an unchangable piece of legislation written 200 years ago not in accordanse with public opinion is undemocratic tyranny.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I have decided

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Here in the Uited States, you do have the right to purchase any home you like, provided you can pay for it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I am aware of that...

But, like I said, I think everyone should have the right to a home, period.

We all live in a free ride society ( http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320872575_the_free_ride_society.html ) we could easily afford it.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

You DON'T have the right to a home, or food, or health care. We are freaking animals- competing against others for resources. There is a reason that there is natural selection- just because you're a human doesn't make you so special that you deserve something. If you want something you have to earn it in this life. You probably haven't earned anything that you have and just take stuff from ohers, because that's what you philosophy is- to take things from people that earned them and put them in the hands of people that didn't. I'm never giving you anything you crazy freak

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"If you want something you have to earn it in this life"

No, no. We should all get to enjoy the free ride society. We all get free lunches and free rides all the time: The right-wingers often tend to look at taxes as a way of stealing the fruits of other people´s labor, that people are being taxed so that other can enjoy a free ride. Well they´re way off. First of all, the ones who are really stealing the fruits of our labor are the financial elite who have been making billions by pushing a few buttons on a computer at the stock exchange and exploiting people in the US and all over the world. And secondly, the "fruits" of one´s labor can´t be measured in an advanced moderen society.

We now live in a complex, highly advanced technological society built up by generations of people thru hundreds of years. People have been building infrastructure, contributed to science, developed technology, developed efficient ways of manufacturing etc etc. Because of all this effort we now enjoy a more wealthy, advanced and efficient society than ever. All of this, lots of it built and created long before we were even born, we´re now enjoying despite having little or nothing to do with contributing to it ourselves. In other words, our contributions, no matter what we do, are microscopic compared to what we receive from society. We´re enjoying the results of generations of people´s work gradually building a modern society - an enormous free ride.

Now, there are people, certainly in third world countries, but also in the West, who are struggling to get by and do not feel that they´re enjoying all these goods. I totally understand that but that has to do with the unfortunate concentration of wealth. I`m talking about the society as a whole. The western countries are more efficient and wealthy as ever, the problem is that we have a system that allows for more and more accumulation of wealth. That is one of the reasons why we have to abolish Capitalism and replace it with democracy.

Now, what´s really interesting about this "free ride" - debate is that even though the rich, which the right-wing tend to support, are becoming increasingly wealthy by doing less, the right always turn to the poor and working class when they want to give a speech about getting free rides and stealing the friuts of other people´s labor. Citibank first recieved their taxpayer bailout back in the 80s from Reagan and have since that, along with an increasing number of other corporations received an enormous sum of taxmoney. Is that not stealing the fruits of other people´s labor? And what about, let´s say, indonesian facory girls working 12 hours a day for 50 cents an hour at a Nike- factory so that Phil Knight and the rest of them can sell shoes and equipment for huge profits. Is that not getting a free ride?? Why isn´t this theft adressed by the right-wing? The rich, which have become rich mostly by pushing a few buttons at a computer at Wall Street, and/or exploiting workers in the US and all over the world, which isn`t exactly hard work, are being given more and more tax breaks and benefits by politicians, yet the right wing have the balls to criticize sick people for getting their medical bills covered by the government. To put it this way, as long as the wealthy are getting more and more recourses into their hands by doing very little, people should have no right lecturing the working class and poor for asking for welfare programs.

So how should we organize a complex highly advanced wealthy society? Make it more democratic! Make the workplaces democratic, make the communities democratic. Organize society so that people can be in control over their own lives. Create a society where we focus on peoples needs instead of short term profit. End the system we have today, which encourages greed and unsustainable and pointless consumption, and instead create a society where true human characteristics and feelings like engagement and solidarity will come to the fore. Create a decent civilized society where everyone can enjoy a decent life. Create a world where we all can enjoy the "Free Ride" Society.

I have a job, and I get payed!! :)

"what you philosophy is- to take things from people that earned them and put them in the hands of people that didn't."

Ehh, now, that would be Goldman Sachs

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"You DON'T have the right to a home, or food, or health care."

I want these rights to be established!

"We are freaking animals- competing against others for resources."

Are you trolling or just being ironic..?

"There is a reason that there is natural selection- just because you're a human doesn't make you so special that you deserve something"

I think so. I think it´s a moral thing. Its in our nature to care for each other. In my opinion the society we should strive for is one where democracy is the core. A society where capitalism and central state power are replaced by more direct democracy and direct participation. A society where the economic institutions are run democratically by the participants and the ones affected by them. That means democratic control of workplaces, democratic control of communities and so on; a society where people participate in the decision-making and are in control of their own work, life and destiny. A system of cooperative communities that benefit everyone and focus on people´s needs instead of short term profit.

A society like this, where power is decentralized and democracy is built from the "bottom up", is often called Libertarian Socialism or Left-libertarianism. Many also refer to this type of society as Anarcho-Syndicalism which is a popular branch of Libertarian Socialism that focuses especially on direct democracy, workers´ self-management and solidarity.

In an Anarcho-Syndicalist society people are no longer profiting on other people´s work like in capitalism; no one exploits others, no one is being exploited - the economic institutions are now run democratically. Most services would be free when you need them, and production, distribution, remuneration etc. would be decided democratically by the participants. It would be a society where people are not treated like cogs in a machine and commanded to act in a mechanical way, but where each individual could live out its true potential based on its own capacity.

In a society like this human characteristics like solidarity, creativity, engagement and altruism would come to the fore. Now, we have to face the fact that we don´t know everything about human nature. We do, however, know that there are some fundamental human characteristics. Human nature allows for different kinds of behavior and it can be shaped to a certain extent, but there are certain things - such as solidarity for example - that make up some of the core features. Just look at the history of our evolution. For millions of years things like cooperation, sharing, caring, sticking together and so on, basing social organization on a relatively egalitarian principle, have been central parts of our evolution. Even as far back as Homo Habilis working together for the common good, cooperating on finding and getting food etc. were essential and crucial for the survival and further evolvement of the species. Now, there were also things like rivalry and violence that took place at that time, and these things have to a certain extent also been passed on, but as our ancestors evolved further, all the way up to Homo Heidelbergensis and later on Homo Sapiens, these things decreased and elements like solidarity and egalitarianism - in addition to cooperation - became more integrated in the social organization. Working together for the common good turned out to be a crucial and highly successful factor in our evolution. And with cooperation and working together, things like solidarity, altruism etc - a more collective mentality - also became a natural part of our ancestors´ way of thinking and acting. When our ancestors finally evolved into Homo Sapiens this had become a big part of our way of life: Some of the first human societies consisted of hunter-gatherers basing society on solidarity, cooperation and egalitarian principles. Marx and Engels studied and wrote about these types of egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies; they called them "primitive communism" - a kind of preindustrial version of the modern classless stateless communist society they envisioned might come into place in the future.

In other words, evolution has allowed us to develop a free will, a mentality that allows for variation in behavior, making room for adaptation and molding of the mind; but our ancestors have also passed on certain elements - mostly good ones - that are determined and part of humans today. Things that were the main reason for our evolutionary success, like solidarity and cooperation, are parts of our nature.

In fact many of these things can also be seen among most species, simply because sticking together and helping each other increase the chances of species survival. Peter Kropotkin, a zoologist, philosopher and Libertarian Socialist - contributing especially to the philosophy of Anarcho-Communism - wrote about this issue in his book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution", looking at mutual aid and cooperation in nature, arguing that evolution naturally would develop things like commitment to helping others, and that these were important factors in the survival of the species.

Another important contribution to this topic is of course "The Selfish Gene" from 1976 by professor and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. In this book he pointed out that altruism, and cooperation naturally would evolve among species thruout evolution because organisms act as if their genes - not the organisms themselves - are selfish. It is the gene that is being passed on endlessly thru organisms, and things like altruism would therefore accrue in order to increase the chances for the gene to survive. And it makes perfect sense; individuals sharing the same genes would naturally evolve cooperation, altruism and solidarity, because it increases the chances of the gene being replicated. Most scientists on this field regard Dawkins´ contributions to be correct.

In an Anarcho-Syndicalist, or Libertarian Socialist organization society will become more egalitarian and most hierarchical structures will therfore vanish. At the same time a society like this will encourage humans to live out their true nature and create a solidaric society on all levels: workers, workplaces, unions, communities, federations not any longer being encouraged to only look after themselves and striving for as much money and material goods as possible, like it is in capitalism, but instead cooperating for a best possible society for everyone, democratically run by the participants.

A Libertarian Socialist society would be based on direct democracy and not a system where representative politicians are running things. There will have to be representatives in this society as well, but they would be recallable delegates elected directly from the group or organization to which they belong, representing workplaces, unions, communities and so on. The society would in other words be decentralized and federated, run democratically thru networks of cooperative workers´ councils, assemblies, communities, delegates etc.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

You have some very distorted views about the world.

The money you make is the value that you produce and trade to others.

The historical contexts of nation building and the 'free riding' thereof are irrelevant when arguing ethics- the actions of people long since dead don't make my actions any more or less ethical.

Democratizing the economy will only result in the unproductive masses voting to take away the resources of the productive few. This is unethical. Someone taking away someone elses money against their will is stealing, plain and simple.

YOU ARE A CAPITALIST. and you always will be as long as you charge anything for your labor.

The evils of the rich that you are arguing against is simply a case of fraud and doesn't have anything to do with the failure of the free market and capitalism. In fact, it is BECAUSE that the market isn't truly free that this happens. In perfect capitalism, all economic actors would have perfect knowledge and would always make fair agreements with others. It is our human nature that destroys the purity of the capitalist system, and simply changing to another system won't change the human nature to defraud someone else!

So all we need is a president with a backbone that will indict fraudulent people, not a revolution

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

"The money you make is the value that you produce and trade to others"

Again We´re enjoying the results of generations of people´s work gradually building a modern society - We all get enormous free rides and free lunches all the time

"The historical contexts of nation building and the 'free riding' thereof are irrelevant when arguing ethics- the actions of people long since dead don't make my actions any more or less ethical."

It´s not irrelevant when claiming that "what you get payed are the fruits of your labor" or something in that fashion. It´s very ethical to create a society that is good for all people and where people have a say in the things they´re part of and affected by - democracy buildt form below: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

Pure capitalism and so-called libertarianism is tyranny - private tyranny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpJQEcXP7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I notice how you didn't respond to the other arguments that I made. Pick and choose, huh?

You just can't admit that you and everyone else is a capitalist.

And btw my argument against the 'free ride' created by our ancestors had to do with ethics, not whether or not it actually happened. Yes, we enjoy the benefits of our ancestors, but their actions don't make my actions any more or less ethical. Fundamentally, you are arguing ethics. So use relevant arguments

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

I didn´t respond because it didn´t make much sense. Maybe I should have responded anyway, though.

It didn´t make much sense because your definition of Capitalism is not correct. I´m not sure what you´re talking about.

About ethics. The problem is that I have a very different ethics than you. I believe it´s a moral thing that we create a society where we all can have a decent life and where we can have a say in the things we´re a part of and which affect us.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Capitalism- A system where trade and production is controlled by private owners for profit. You own your labor, right? That means that when you charge for the use of that labor (which is capital) you profit from it. You are a capitalist.

Because we own our labor, it is our responsibility for it. It is morally right to retain the value of our production for ourselves. It is unethical to force someone to give that labor away to someone else. Of course, I can choose to donate to charity etc. Which is something that I do and everyone else should do, but it is MY choice, not yours. If you make the choice to take my money away and give it to someone else, then you are stealing from me, plain and simple. Your system is unethical and steals from people

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

You're wrong. A capitalist is someone who invests capital http://www.thefreedictionary.com/capitalist . You have to get your terms straight.

Listen, politicians have been given bailouts to corporations for a long long time now. Citibank, fex, first recieved their taxpayer bailout back in the 80s from Reagan and have since that, along with an increasing number of other corporations received an enormous sum of taxmoney. Is this an unethical way to force someone to give something away to someone else? Should they pay it back?

And what about exploitation? In state-capitalism many of the means of production are privatly owned by individuals who make a profit from other people's work (cf exploitation /profit) In other words, the value of the worker´s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the payed hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets payed in the form of profit. This profit is hence future investments and more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value.

Current property rights are not graven in in stone, they can be changed just like they were, a certain time ago, changed into the ones we have today. Just like the wealthy business owners have been given the right to own the means of productions others are using and profiting on someone else´s labor, workers can be given the right to instead control their own work and workplace. Property rights are not unchangable and come in different variations, and it has to be the public who have to live by these laws that should get to decide these. In other words, democracy.

These "voluntary agreements" you're talking about, taking place in a class / capitalist / state-capitalist society in which the wealth and resourses are very highly concentrated, and where some individuals are owning huge corporations or important means of production, (and other individuals are not owning these things) are simply just cognitive illusions since the ones owning the resourses - the wealth and the means of production etc - have much more power, hence having the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring/negotiations in a worker/non-owner - employer/owner relationship.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I understand GDP gross domestic product

measures and economy based on the number of goods and services produced

not the money generated by stock money changing

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Wow I can't believe this- I think the entertainment value has just about worn out.

Anyone reading this : DON'T listen to this crazy person.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

So, in other words, you're out of arguments...

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

You don't listen to my arguments because you're CRAZY

Goodbye

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

What exactly is meant by "the right to a home"?

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 2 years ago

What is meant is what was said. What exactly didnt you understand?

[-] 3 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

We shouldn't pay to arm Israel or to allow its religious fanatics a welfare life style.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I realize you hate the Jews and would rather see them killed. It is okay for you to speak your mind. I would rather you proclaim your Jew hatred than hide amongst the KKK and spread your hate in anonymity. I would hate to see you have to hide your true feelings.

[-] 6 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Wait, after all that, we should pay for freeloading Israel? They can't afford their own military? They can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? WTF?

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No, I do not hate "the Jews". That's a rather tired ploy. Here's a snippet from the Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=254039

RELATED: J'lem: Violence follows arrest of haredi charity workers Mea Shearim elections disqualified after violence Mea She’arim shop accedes to vandalist demands

Israel Edri, 27, is the exception. The vast majority of ultra-Orthodox men in Israel do not work or serve in the army, choosing instead a pious and largely impoverished life of studying religious texts, or Torah, mainly the Talmud. It is not that they cannot find work – Israel’s unemployment rate is at its lowest in decades – rather they do not want it and have none of the education or training needed to be employed.

With birthrates three times the national average, Israel’s ultra-Orthodox communities are mushrooming. Many live on government allowances and private charity and on their wives’ earnings. It wasn’t always that way nor is it a problem among ultra-Orthodox Jews living outside of Israel.

In 1970, 20% of working-age men in the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel were not working by choice; today, the figure is two thirds (65%). Ultra-Orthodox Jews in the US and Britain traditionally take jobs and their labor force participation rate is the mirror opposite of Israel’s.

Once a tiny minority, ultra-Orthodox Jews, known as haredim, now number about 700,000, or about 10% of Israel’s population. And that’s a problem. Israel’s economy can’t afford to have such a big part of the population permanently out of the work force and living on government handouts paid for by the rest.

“By the time you are up to 10% of the population of whom 70% of the male part of the population doesn’t work, you are getting to a macro-economic issue,” Stanley Fischer, governor of the Bank of Israel, said at a briefing. “This is not sustainable. We can’t have an ever increasing proportion of the population continuing to not go to work.”

Americans who are struggling to keep roofs over their heads and food on their tables ought not be sending tax dollars to support this bizarre welfare cult the haredim have going in Israel. Israel, btw will sink under their weight. It seems as though, like other prosperous westerners (who don't need US foreign aid) secular and modern religious Israeli Jews aren't into having kids. Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians still are into having kids as are the haredi parasite cultists. If Israel wants this state of affairs it should be on them and not on the US taxpayer to pull the freight.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Considering the TRILLIONS of dollars in givaways to the 1% in this country by the government, THIS is your main concern? Really? And you don't see some predisposition in that choice of focus?

Really?

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I might have been wrong to be baited into this argument by toonces. He/she has put up at least two posts calling upon OWS to support Israel, yet also put up this post we are commenting on that seethes with hatred for US people who use and need certain benefits.

I couldn't restrain myself from pointing to the bizarre welfare cult in Israel and the fact that Israel, a prosperous nation, gets US foreign aid, meaning US taxpayers are funding this cult. If I am repulsed by this parasitic haredi cult my feelings are actually shared by the majority of secular Jews who live in Israel.

The Israel Lobby has been instrumental in pulling our country into the horrible Iraq war. They now beat the drums for war with Iran. I don't appreciate this influence and how it's used. That has nothing to do with any animosity you perceive in me against Jewish people. Many Jewish people have made great contributions to humanity and most American Jews are not actively involved in Zionist politics. Lots of Jewish people are supporters and participants in Occupy and other worthy endeavors. Even many Jewish people who are pro Zionist are deceived and manipulated. I don't hate them. I hope they wake up.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Sorry, but no,. Although Toonces is obviously a right wing troll, you are also way off the mark. Zionism simply means supporting the right of Israel to exist. I am a Zionist, too. Yet I support OWS, and find many of the accusations against Israel to be as ignorant and propaganda driven as anything the Right has put out. Your contention that the Israel lobby has one iota involvement in the Iraqi war is a preposterous case in point. In fact the Israel lobby was intentionally silent on the issue, which surprised the heck out of me at the time. Our invasion of Iraq was pure Bush/Cheney pure and simple. The first question Bush asked upon learning about the Trade Center attack was if it could be traced to Iraq. Cheney had been formulating a plan to expand American power for years, and this provided a chance to do so.

In this case, it is you who have been deceived and manipulated. In this issue you and Toonces are flip sides of the same coin.

Nor do i have anyissue with foreign aid to Israel. It does not irectly fund the Hassids. It goes to help the Israeli government, and I am 100% in favor of that. The Israelis themselves are beginning to have a real debate on the funding of the Hassids, and will take some time to work out. But it is an internal debate. The issue is just another, relatively recent way to attack the subject of foreign aid to them, and is completely disingenuous. If one wants to discuss the issue of west Bank settlements, I'm far more in line with demanding an end to them. But this religious issue, and the fact-free accusation of Israel's efforts to influence that moron Oedipally motivated Bush, who was looking for any excuse whatsoever to attack Iran, is another story altogether.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I realize that one can be a supporter of Israel and also OWS. I think it best not to engage in a debate here on this topic. We do not agree.

[-] 0 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Somehow I am not surprised you are a Zionist. It explains a lot.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Somehow I am not surprised you are an anti-semite. It explains nothing other than your bigotry extends to so many people.

Nazi troll.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Thorough indoctrination is easy with people that posess a low intelligence level. May I suggest that for your personal motto? Go away filth.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nazi troll. Go fuck your sister again.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, you hate the Jew.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I have great respect and love for Jewish people who are progressive. There are brave Israeli Jews who are active in fighting for Palestinian human rights. Jews gave their lives for the movement for Black civil rights. Jewish people were prominent in the anti Vietnam War movement, everything from pacifists to the Weather Underground and I think each did their part.

Jewish people are active in Occupy and other progressive movements. I salute each and every one of them.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Don't bother. Any critisizism of Israel automatically means you are an anti Semite. Remember that people in this country have been thoroughly indoctrinated into worshipping Israel and slavering in front of the magic Jews. Don't play their game.

[-] -3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

He hates the Catholics.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Neither. I hate fucking trolls fascists KK K wannabe's like you.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Go away little boy. The grown ups are talking. Go crawl back inti you garbage dump called New Jersey.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Go away Nazi troll. Human beings are talking. Your crap should stay quarantined on Koch sites.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

so I am only a wannabe? You said earlier that you dislike the catholics. You pray to the Obama god.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Really? Show me me a single syllable to that effect. Just one.

I dislike the Catholics? You're lying to me about my OWN words? You really think I don't remember what I think and believe? I know that you're stupid and mentally ill, but that's dumb even for you. And that's saying a lot!

You're right about one thing though. You are no wannabe, You are a racist scum through and through.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I try not to use "you" when I post

it often causes unneeded accusations

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Bombs and missles. I should be able to buy those for myself. I can blow stuff up at least as well as the government. Plus, it's my Constitutional right to own arms. The Constitution doesn't say there's a limit to what I can buy. It simply reads "arms." (sarcasm intended for this post, DHS!) (Ooh! That parenthetic remark was sarcastic, too)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You could be like that guy in California that killed his wife when his home made cannon went off and tore through his trailer.

There ought to be law, but there isn't.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Yeah, but I'd like to think I'd really cautious when handling such things. Plus, I armor-plated the ol' double-wide with some surplus Kevlar stuff I bought on ebay! LOL!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

After a few Pabst's it doesn't matter much anymore, good deal on the kevlar though.

I hope it's not that Chinese knockoff junk. I hear it breaks down under UV. Not good in the desert. You might want to try welding some old car roofs together.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Now that you mention it, I'm sure where it was manufactured. I better go and see. It WAS MADE IN CHINA!!! Oh! Damn you all to hell!!!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

aW c'mon.......Weldin' car roofs is more fun, and you can decorate the wife with the kevlar.

Chicks look sooo HOt in kevlar.

It's what they call a win, win sitciashun. As long as the kevlar is cannonball proof.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Chicks in Kevlar? Why didn't I think of that?? You are a sooper geeeneee-us. Hot combat sex!! Look out Loretta! Leeme show ya a REAL M-30 grenade launcher! Yee-haw!

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are right, the Constitution does guarrantee the right to arm ourselves... I does not sy that your neighbor should pay for the arms you would choose to arm yourself with.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

man didnt make the land, they are just the bums who live on it so no, man didnt make the food, they are just the bums that eat it, so no, we didnt make the oil, so no, men didnt make it so mankind has the ability to create life, (we just perform the act) and poof a baby comes! so no. medicines often come from plants and herbs, (when you take corporate pharmaceuticals out of the picture) whose only interest is getting a profit by trading one side effect for another even at life altering side effects that end up in court with attorneys getting millions of dollars at our peril while we get the chump change..... so no... whats left? we could pay for our cars. but then again, horses were designed to transport men, but other men have taken away my right to own a horse, unless im rich. (says so right in the constitution) joke, but real life scenario here..... man, man is really messing things up huh.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Just replace the word "should" with "can".

[-] 1 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

If the company you worked for were employee owned, then you should pay for everything because you get paid every last cent you create.

[-] 1 points by Frank (19) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Yes, just tax the rich for everything and your life will be magically taken care of. I would be ashamed to take money off someone else, especially by force.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Toones, why are you ashamed to admit what you do for a living? Is it because it will reveal you to be a despicable hypocrite? Or worse?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I am not ashamed. I don't see what difference it makes what I do. I do not see you volunteering what you do for a living. Are you ashamed?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

You came here to spew your bullshit but clearly there is a reason you want to conceal your bullshit "career."

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Just up and admit it toonces.

You're a poorly stuffed cat......ready for the green screen.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

I will admit that your comedy is far more enjoyable than EndGluttony's threats and insults.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Comedy??

That was 100% true.......................:)

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

We should pay for the same things david & charles pay for
politicians
alec
lie machines
ows trolls

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

This post is confusing. The prices of all these things are regulated, so in some terms set by the government. That's not the same as handed-out, but its meant to keep prices steady and affordable. Is it working right now? No. Does that mean that the system completely failed, no. We live under a kleptocracy trying to buy us off with bread and circus.

[-] 1 points by liberaltarianinbrooklyn (9) 2 years ago

I don't mind paying for health insurance. I just want a true free market where I can shop for it out of state or buy it from a collective. I want a system where monopolies are not my only choice as a consumer. And I want my tax dollars to fund healthcare programs for people who are destitute or disabled. As a left-libertarian it's hard to see how people can have any liberties if they die outside an emergency room. The line between needs and wants is not as clear as people may like to think.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

again i will say this nothing should be free because everything cost money in some way

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

What do you do for a living? Please describe the "hard work" you do to "earn" your money. I can't wait to hear.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

What do you do? What difference does it make? You act like you don't think a person who doesn't want the government to take money from people to be doing nothing. I don't have much, but what I have, I have for the most part earned. It bothers me that OWS seems to want to take from others. That is it, the goal it to take. So, rather than encouraging people to do for themselves, it encourages people to take from others.

The group does not support a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage, they just want to take what others have who they deem to have more than they have.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Tell us what you do, how do you "earn" your money, what, are you ashamed? Bet you should be.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Why are you obsessed with what I do?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Because I know you're a full of shit scumbag. Don't worry, the fact that you're ashamed to admit it is all the proof I need.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Ooooh, ouch!

Liberal debate strategy 101= When the facts are not on your side, call the other person names...

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

What "hard work" do you do to "earn" your money? You came here to spew your hate, what are you ashamed of?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You seem to be the one spewing hate.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

I asked you a question, and your lack of response led me to make an educated guess about your character. No one knows your name, you have no reason to conceal your true nature.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

$15 an hour

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Should we pay for our health care and medicine? Yes, but we should not allow pharmaceuticals to artificially inflate prices (the US model basically allows them to set a price and no one is able to bargain or choose a cheaper alternative) and collude with insurance companies to help them keep premiums and deductibles rising faster than the average salary increments.

Should we pay for our homes and our land? Yes.

Should we pay for our birth control and abortions? Yes, but for those who are too poor to afford such things, there should be a provision for state help. If a person who is too poor to afford birth control is going to give birth to a child... odds are that child is going to end up becoming a criminal who will need to be housed in a prison at taxpayer expense. Do you want your tax dollars pay for a condom/abortion or a lifetime of imprisonment/litigation?

Should we pay for the food we eat? Yes

Should we pay for the car we use and the gas to drive it? Yes

How should the things we use be paid for? By us, but at an APPROPRIATE price, after receiving the APPROPRIATE dues for our labor.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

The reason we pay more for pharms is exactly the same argument OWS uses to support wealth redistribution. We are a rich country and the pharms charge us more so they can charge the poorer nations less. You are seeing pharm redistribution.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Big Pharm charge what they can get

if the could charge those poor countries as much as they do here,

they would

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Doesn't change the fact it is exactly the same thing OWS is pushing for in taxation... Take from those who have wealth and redistribute to those who don't. If OWS was consistent, they would be all for high drug prices here to help those in poorer nations have more access to drugs...

Go figure.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Excuse me? How is allowing the market to set the price for pharmas, by allowing healthcare providers to source drugs from cheaper overseas manufacturers, by allowing patents to lapse (thereby freeing them up for manufacture by competitors and bring down costs) equivalent to taking from the rich and giving to the poor?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

These questions amount to an idiotic oversimplification - firstly in the sense that each is a separate issue, and a reasonable response to each would fill whole pages that the post, as it is, doesn't warrent.

Secondly, there are whole economics departments in major universites grappling with these very complex questions, but you appear too uninformed to site any particular view based on familiarity with such economic theories.

And so, you are just wasting our time.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

A question is not an idiotic oversimplification, it is a question. The replies I have been getting have been vague and nebulous if I get any answer at all. Most who reply call me names (idiotic, for one) and dodge answering even one of the questions.

I believe it is the flaw in the arguments presented by the OWS mob. The questions have not been considered and answered by the OWS. If considered and answered, might shine light on the flaws in the solutions presented by those participating in the OWS movement.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You look like you should pay. And the next time you order a round, and start asking questions like this, you should pay again. And again.

Then you smarten up and start with, here is what I am willing to contribute. Then listen while everybody else offers up. THEN you can start the next phase which is "what does everything cost?" Make a priority list of what everybody wants. See how much of your list you can buy. Then you can learn about the fact that you can't have a military 10 times as big as any other country or double all of the rest of the world.

We are getting closer to your questions but first there is this thing called taxes. You can either think that everybody pays some toward everything. Or you can think that everybody only pays for what they want to pay for. That fiction goes along with, I don't really want most of these things so I am not going to pay for any of those.

That is a good time to go buy a set of luggage and an airline ticket and a set of primitive camping gear. You are really going to need it and I don't think anyone is going to pay for it. There are several ungoverned areas just beyond the tribal areas (choice of three continents). Good luck. And let us know how it works out. (There is no mail service.)

[-] 1 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

Charity is way better than government at paying for stuff

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Should we be measuring the value of human life in dollar signs?

There is enough resources, people and willpower to feed, cloth, shelter, cure and educate every single person on this planet.

It doesn't happen because those who own and control the resources are only interested in expanding profits instead of helping people.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Why does it happen? Do you do work for free for the gathering of resources to feed, clothe, shelter, cure, and educate?

[-] 3 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

If I was given an opportunity to help my community in such a way of course I'd do it for free, because in helping my community I am helping myself.

In providing the needs of the community I'd be providing my own needs simultaneously.

What would I want with money in a world where people share everything.

Instead we have a world where a minority of the population 'owns' the majority of the earth's resources, so we are all forced to sell our labor in order to pay for our existence, and we call it 'freedom'....

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Every day you have the opportunity to help your community.

[-] 3 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

no I don't.

I don't have the resources, time or energy, because this civilization forces me to be a wage slave in order to live.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are less of a slave than you would have been 100 years ago.

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Living conditions have improved throughout history, even in civilizations that openly practiced slavery.

Does this justify slavery? I don't think so.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Nope. We should have everything provided for us free of charge. Nobody should ever work again. Utopia is just a state of mind. Free pudding!

[-] 1 points by phila9012 (128) from Philadelphia, PA 2 years ago

thank you more government means more wasted money, they suck it is better for us to control what we do.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

No. Nothing. We should nationalize all the assets of America's 1%, and live off their hoarded wealth. But not Republicons, they have to stay poor for being such assholes and traitors.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Democrats choose to stay poor because they are lazy and greedy.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

U R dumb.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Probably not as dumb as someone who calls Republicans assholes and traitors.... and spells the words "you" as "U" and "are" as "R"

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 2 years ago

You dont even want to pay for condoms. Hell, I bet you would rather someone put the condom on you rather than you take the time to do it.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You may want to learn who is on which side of the argument before you take your shots.

You are right to a certain extent, I do not want to pay for condoms, but that is because I have no use for them as I am married and fixed and I have no reason to buy you condoms. You are also correct that it was much more enjoyable for me to have my wife put my condom on.

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 2 years ago

"It is much more enjoyable for your wife to put your condom on you,,,,,, but you dont need a condom because your fixed."??????? Are you crazy or something?

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

"was"... In this case, tense is important.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes to all

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by onetime (-67) 2 years ago

Keep on setting on the park bench like you are doing and let the Gov continue to pay for your sorry asses

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Answered in the order presented above:

yes in the form of premiums and help the helpless who can't,

yes,

yes but help the helpless (Fluke is clueless not helpless) who can't,

yes, but help the helpless who can't,

yes.

n/a

[-] -3 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

The answer to all the above is "not unless we are rich".

[-] 2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

If you live in the United States, YOU, are the rich.

[-] 1 points by slinkeey (244) 2 years ago

Wow! Well said...