Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Let’s make more services and goods FREE!

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 5, 2012, 1:11 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In my opinion many goods and services should be made totally free of charge for all citizens. By collectivizing the institutions in society, removing the profit motive and organizing them so that their function is to actually give people what they need when they need it, the focus on money will be less necessary in many cases. By making more and more goods and services free we’d be moving towards a more solidaric, egalitarian and classless society in which everyone would be able to have a decent life. Free services would also make things more efficient with less paperwork, bureaucracy etc.

Take public transportation, for example. This is one service that should definitely be made totally free of charge when you need it. By collectivizing public transportation and making it free, there’d be no need for tickets, ticket controllers, registration of personal el-cards etc. Much easier for the passengers, and much cheaper for society..

Necessities – health care, food, housing etc. – should definitely be made free of charge. There should be good, decent social safety nets provided for all citizens. In a civilized society it’s the only moral thing to do. Doctors should be there so that they can help the ones that are sick, not deny them care. We should make food so that the hungry can eat, not stay hungry.

Organizing society like this is also perfectly feasible. We now live in a wealthy, modern and highly advanced technological society, we can afford to make sure everyone has a decent life.

So let’s move forward; let’s work to create a society where we control our own lives and communities, and where everyone of us can have a decent life.


”What we proclaim is the right to well-being: well being for all!"

-Peter Kropotkin

156 Comments

156 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the rich want us to believe our resources and capabilities are controlled by money

because the have the lion share of that money

worry about campaign funding, worry about the debt. we don't have the funding to do things for the people

money does not turn the planet

OMG the banks sucked all the money out through interest and manipulation and now we must be in debt forever

excuses

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 1 year ago

"Free services would also make things more efficient with less paperwork, bureaucracy etc."

This is very true. Getting to the point where we can actively appreciate it as a society is going to take 2 generations perhaps.

That notion is deeply intertwined with this one.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-we-can-never-go-with-republicans-must-teach-ki/#comment-851615

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

In some cases this sounds reasonable as long as there is a way to pay for it or if it can be done reasonably inexpensive. Public transportation should be inexpensive or free to cut down on pollution in crowded areas. Perhaps it could be free for those that don't make much if any money. those who make more could get a package deal if they use it regularly and reasonable fares if it is rare.

Single Payer Health Care could be covered by creating what they mistakenly call sin taxes like on cigarettes or gas which contributes to carbon-dioxide poisoning. they don't complain when private companies charge more for smokers since it ads to the cost of coverage but when the government does it they call it a sin tax.

Copyrights and Patents are a total different story we need to find a different way to finance innovation since this does more to protect bureaucrats than artists and writers. this should be especially true for educational material and for things that are financed by the government which should be a open source. To allow the private sector to have a copyright or patent for something that the government pays to research is corporate welfare.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Where are you getting the money to pay all the workers who are producing these free goods and services?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It must be the community and the participants that should decide things in society thru democratic process – including funding, remuneration etc.

But like I said in the post: money would be less necessary if we removed the profit motive and organized the institutions in society so that their function was to actually give people what they need when they need it. The more goods and services that are free, the less money-circulation we need – and that’s the road we should go down.

And as a socialist you are of course aware that these ideas are very popular among leftists.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"It must be the community and the participants that should decide things in society thru democratic process"

If the community decides it wants free houses, like you suggested, where is it getting the money to pay the workers to make the houses?

.

"including funding, remuneration etc"

If it is free there are no funds to remunerate anyone.

You could use taxes, but that doesn't mean it is free. It means it forces taxpayers to pay for the houses whether they use them or not.

Why do the people who live in apartments have to pay the same amount of taxes towards housing that someone who lives in a 5000 sq ft house has to pay? That is unfair.

Isn't a better system to just let people buy whatever they want with their own money?

Plus, you don't see how unworkable a system is where houses are free? What do you think that would do to demand? It is not workable.

.

"money would be less necessary if we removed the profit motive"

That is not true.

Removing the profit motive does not mean we no longer have to pay people to work. People are not going to all of sudden be willing to work for free.

And removing profit does not give us the ability to produce everything everyone wants. Consumption still must be rationed. You need money to ration consumption.

.

"The more goods and services that are free, the less money-circulation we need "

You either need money or you do not. You can't have some money for some things and no money for other things. That is not workable.

You either have to compensate workers to get them to work or you do not.

You either have to ration consumption or you do not.

.

"And as a socialist you are of course aware that these ideas are very popular ideas among leftists."

Popularity does not mean they are workable or desirable.

You need money to motivate people to work and to measure demand and to measure opportunity cost and to allocate things in a pareto efficient way and to make sure demand equals production.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

”If it is free there are no funds to remunerate anyone.”

If there is money-circulation there can be funding, and this funding can be used to make many services free.

“You could use taxes, but that doesn't mean it is free.”

I’m talking about it being free of charge when you need it, of course.

“Why do the people who live in apartments have to pay the same amount of taxes towards housing that someone who lives in a 5000 sq ft house has to pay? That is unfair.”

Taxes should be fair and progressive. The more you make own etc, the more you should pay. Details should be up to the communities to decide democratically.

“People are not going to all of sudden be willing to work for free.”

If more goods and services were made free, they’d be getting access to services they otherwise would have to paid for..

“You either need money or you do not. You can't have some money for some things and no money for other things. That is not workable.”

That one you’re going to have to explain more. What do you mean?

“You either have to compensate workers to get them to work or you do not.”

You can fund (with money) some services made free to the people using the services..

“You need money to motivate people to work”

No, actually most people want to work. Doctors became doctors because they wanted to work as doctors; teachers became teachers because they wanted to teach.

Work no one wants to do could be given remuneration for, but preferably it should be shared by the ones willing and capable of doing it.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Even doctors who tremendously enjoy their jobs most likely would not have gone through all the work it takes to become a doctor unless they were handsomely rewarded for it. By the time I went to college, dental school, and finished residency I was almost 30 before I actually took home a paycheck. I really love what I do, but I most certainly would not do it if I did not make a good living.

Nothing is free. There is always someone paying for it. Someone has to drive the bus, build the bus, put fuel in the bus, etc. All of that costs money, you are just saying it should be someone else who pays for it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Even doctors who tremendously enjoy their jobs most likely would not have gone through all the work it takes to become a doctor unless they were handsomely rewarded for it."

If money was the decisive incentive that made them want to become doctors, then I'm thinking maybe that profession is not for them.

"By the time I went to college, dental school, and finished residency I was almost 30 before I actually took home a paycheck. I really love what I do, but I most certainly would not do it if I did not make a good living."

But remember that in the society I want education would be free of charge, and everyone, students included, would have access to lots of goods and services free of charge.

"Nothing is free."

You're wrong. If society was organized from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, (cf libertarian communism )goods and services would be free.

"There is always someone paying for it."

Sure, but remember that we live in a wealthy technological society built up thru generations of people's hard labor, our personal contributions are microscopic compared to what we recieve from society. We live in a free-ride society.

[-] 0 points by Faraujo (-4) 1 year ago

You realize this doesn't work as there is a free rider problem?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, no. What I was saying is that we're all free riders:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-free-ride-societypt4/

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I didn't say it was the decisive incentive, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that even if they really like it, most would not go through the trouble if they didn't know they would be paid very well. Two totally different things.

The cost of education is not that big a deal to doctors because they have no problem paying it back.

The reason they want to be paid well is because they often delay getting married, buying a house, having kids, etc due to a long commitment to get yourself established. And the work is hard and stressful.

I would love to know what makes you think people will work for free.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I didn't say it was the decisive incentive, you are putting words in my mouth. I said that even if they really like it, most would not go through the trouble if they didn't know they would be paid very well. Two totally different things."

What? If people don't want to become doctors because pay is not good enough, then money is a decisive incentive, isn't it? How's that putting words in your mouth?

"The cost of education is not that big a deal to doctors because they have no problem paying it back."

And I advocate free education for all, including doctors, so that they don't need to have a huge salary.

"The reason they want to be paid well is because they often delay getting married, buying a house, having kids, etc due to a long commitment to get yourself established."

And I want a society in which lots of goods and services, education included, is free, so that people would have more freedoms no matter what their life situation was.

"And the work is hard and stressful."

Lots of the work that pays very little is hard and stressful as well. People shouldn't be pushed to work harder than what they wish.

"I would love to know what makes you think people will work for free"

In the post I was mainly suggesting that we make more services free, not that people worked for free. But if we somewhere into the future entered into a libertarian communist society it would still not be correct to call it "working for free" since the workers would get access to goods and services they otherwise would have paid for. people should work and participate based on their own creativity, wants, and interests. That's real freedom.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

What if people's "creativity, wants, and interests" are not in demand from others? Should they still have access to these free goods and services? There are plenty of people who are interested in things that have no value to anyone else.

The benefit of working for money instead of "access to goods and services" is that money allows you to get whatever goods and services you want. Will one have access to the same choices of goods and services that one has with money?

Services cannot be free. If someone does something for you and they are getting paid, whether it is in the form of money or in the form of goods and services, that service is not free. Someone paid for it.

This system you describe is some fantasy Utopian paradise where people are not competitive or have any wants besides the necessities in life. That is not realistic. People, like all animals, are naturally greedy and competitive and ultimately want much more than they really need. You can't change thousands of generations of evolution. You also can't change the fact that people are going to want the finer things in life that only money can buy. Again, not to be rude, but this is a complete fantasy world that (thankfully) we will never see.

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

“What if people's "creativity, wants, and interests" are not in demand from others? Should they still have access to these free goods and services?”

Of course.

“There are plenty of people who are interested in things that have no value to anyone else.”

Most people work together with others and contribute to the community in which they live. It wouldn't be a problem.

“The benefit of working for money instead of "access to goods and services" is that money allows you to get whatever goods and services you want.”

It shouldn’t be the amount of money you have that determines what goods and services you should have access to.

“Services cannot be free. If someone does something for you and they are getting paid, whether it is in the form of money or in the form of goods and services, that service is not free. Someone paid for it.”

I’m talking about it being free when you need it. Remember also that 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.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

"It shouldn’t be the amount of money you have that determines what goods and services you should have access to"

Then how do you decide who gets what? Say the local Acura dealership has 6 Acuras and the local Kia dealership has 30 Kias. How do you decide who gets the Acuras and who gets stuck with the Kias?

"I’m talking about it being free when you need it" - This whole paragraph, while completely true, does not really explain anything. If Jim wants to have a cheeseburger for dinner someone has to raise the cow, slaughter the cow, grind the beef, package it, deliver it, and finally Jim will need some propane that was brought to his local gas station from a refinery to cook his burger.

Yes, our modern society allows all those things to happen with ease. But who will compensate the people who perform all those steps if the food is "free when Jim needs it."

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Then how do you decide who gets what?"

Basing it on people's needs would be an obvious factor, don't you think? Decitions over production, distribution etc must be decided democratically by the communities.

"But who will compensate the people who perform all those steps"

There could be remuneration funded thru taxes. Also, the more free services and goods there are, the less payment is necessary.

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

money buys and owns resources

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

..and that's why we should work to create an egalitarian and classless society where we own the resources in common!

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

I keep my books and my hard drive

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Of course. I'm talking about the means of production.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

That is correct.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"If there is money-circulation there can be funding, and this funding can be used to make many services free."

I don't know what you mean by that.

Free means you are not paying for it. Are the producers getting paid? If so, how?

.

"I’m talking about it being free of charge when you need it, of course."

So does that mean it will be paid for with taxes or will not?

.

"Taxes should be fair and progressive. The more you make own etc, the more you should pay. Details should be up to the communities to decide democratically."

Then isn't the most progressive form of "tax" a system where everyone pays exactly what they consume? Shouldn't the person who lives in the 5000 sq ft home pay fully for it? Shouldn't the person who does not live in any home not have to pay any part of that person's home?

How is it fair to force someone to pay a tax for something they are not consuming and don't want to consume?

How is that better than just giving everyone income and let them spend it the way they want?

.

"That one you’re going to have to explain more. What do you mean?"

The economy either uses money or it doesn't. Explain how an economy can run with only part of it using money. Only some workers get paid? Only some things have a price? How is that workable or better?

.

"You can fund (with money) some services made free to the people using the services.."

If the service is free and nobody is paying for it, where is this money coming from to pay the people producing the service?

.

"No, actually most people want to work. Doctors became doctors because they wanted to work as doctors; teachers became teachers because they wanted to teach. "

There is no question some people will work some of the time for free.

But there is zero evidence that we will continue to get the same amount of labor as we do when you pay people. We will get much less. Since people are more motivated to work when getting paid, what benefit is there to eliminating money?

.

"Work no one wants to do could be given remuneration for, but preferably it should be shared by the ones willing and capable of doing it."

Why not just pay everyone?

How would you manage consumption without money?

I don't understand the benefit to eliminating money. It is just a tool that helps us manage our economy.

If you have a socialist economic system where everyone is paid enough to live a high standard of living, what purpose is there to eliminating money?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“I don't know what you mean by that.”

How is that confusing? One can fund services that are made free for the ones using the services. Children aren’t paying for elementary school, it’s being funded.

“So does that mean it will be paid for with taxes or will not?”

A fair tax system could be one solution. A better and fairer tax-system providing better services would be an obvious short term goal.

“How is it fair to force someone to pay a tax for something they are not consuming and don't want to consume?”

So we shouldn’t take care of the disabled who need help, then?

We live in a wealthy society with an intertwined, all-encompassing economic system. Our personal contributions in taxes and labor are also very small compared to the benefits we now enjoy. The way to deal with a society like this is to organize it so that everyone can have a good life.

“How is that better than just giving everyone income and let them spend it the way they want?”

I argued why making more services free is the best way in the post. It’s definitely what we should go for in the long run. We should work to create a classless, egalitarian, participatory democracy, and when entering a society like this, the need for money would decrease.

“Since people are more motivated to work when getting paid, what benefit is there to eliminating money?”

We should, in the long run, work to create a society where these tendencies are at the minimum, and where people instead worked and participated based on their own creativity, wants, and interests. This would be a society with real freedom for individuals, and where real human creativity could flourish.

“I don't understand the benefit to eliminating money.”

First of all, there are other forms of remuneration than money. Second, eliminating money would be a long term goal.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Children aren’t paying for elementary school, it’s being funded"

Elementary school is not free. It is getting paid for by their parents.

There is an enormous difference between making something free and paying for something through taxes.

What you are really advocating for in this post is not to make things free. You are advocating that everyone should be forced to pay for other people's goods and services.

Elementary school is not free to me as a tax payer.

That is fine for a very special class of goods and services that cannot be effectively distributed through the market, like school, medicine, police, fire, justice, defense and regulations. But that is terrible for everything else. Forcing people to buy things whether they use them or not should not be expanded.

People shouldn't be forced to buy other people's clothes, houses, cars, furniture, etc.

.

" A better and fairer tax-system providing better services would be an obvious short term goal."

Explain to me the benefit of using taxes to pay for homes.

How is that better than everyone paying for their own home?

.

"So we shouldn’t take care of the disabled who need help, then? "

Taxes should be used to pay an income to the disabled and retired and to pay for a very special class of goods and services that cannot be effectively allocated through the market which I mentioned above.

That's all taxes are good for! Using taxes to pay for houses or cars is not an improvement to our economic system!

.

"The way to deal with a society like this is to organize it so that everyone can have a good life."

You do that by paying everyone full pay, without exploitation, and then letting them spend their own money how they want! You don't reach the good life by eliminating money or by forcing people to spend their money on things they don't want.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Elementary school is not free. It is getting paid for by their parents."

The point was that one can fund services which are free of charge for the ones using them.

"There is an enormous difference between making something free and paying for something through taxes."

Well, by funding services thru taxes and making it free for the ones using it, it's free of charge when they need the service.

"You are advocating that everyone should be forced to pay for other people's goods and services."

I'm advocating organizing this wealthy modern society - in which we get much more back from society than what we contribute - so that we all can have decent lives.There's force in any kind of society: you're forced to follow the rules.

"That is fine for a very special class of goods and services that cannot be effectively distributed through the market, like school, medicine, police, fire, justice, defense and regulations. But that is terrible for everything else. Forcing people to buy things whether they use them or not should not be expanded."

I don't go to school, and I don't have any children. Why should I pay for schools? (using your standards)

"Explain to me the benefit of using taxes to pay for homes."

If we made sure everyone had a roof over their head, we'd have a better society.

"Taxes should be used to pay an income to the disabled and retired"

So now it's suddenly ok to pay for something that has got nothing to do with me. And why is that?

"You don't reach the good life by eliminating money or by forcing people to spend their money on things they don't want."

True freedom is achieved when people contribute and work based on their own creative urges, wants, and interests.

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"The point was that one can fund services which are free of charge for the ones using them."

And the point that I am making is that it is not free, you are paying for it through taxes. And outside of the unique things I mentioned above, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to require people to pay for things they are not consuming!

A system where everyone are free to spend their money any way they want is far superior to a system where you are forced to pay for things you don't want.

.

"so that we all can have decent lives"

A society where you only have to pay for the things you consume delivers a far more decent life than forcing people to pay for the things other people want to consume!

.

"There's force in any kind of society: you're forced to follow the rules."

We don't need to have a rule that forces people to buy houses and cars for other people.

That makes society worse and less efficient.

.

"I don't go to school, and I don't have any children. Why should I pay for schools? (using your standards)"

Students are just workers in training for a job. Those students are paid for through a sales tax. So the businesses that will employ them are paying for their training just like they have to pay for their workers.

.

"If we made sure everyone had a roof over their head, we'd have a better society."

We don't have to use taxes in order for people to get a home. If you want a home, you can pay for it out of your own salary.

Using taxes is unfair and less efficient.

.

"So now it's suddenly ok to pay for something that has got nothing to do with me. And why is that?"

Because the disabled are physically unable to get a job and get an income!!!

It is fair to pay someone an income who is disabled and cannot work. It is unfair to pay someone an income who is physically able to work and chooses not to.

.

"True freedom is achieved when people contribute and work based on their own creative urges, wants, and interests."

There is nothing free about forcing the people who are working hard to have to produce for the people who do not want to work hard.

If you want goods and services, you have to work just like everyone else because we do not live in a Star Trek world with matter replicators where things are produced without labor.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It shouldn’t be peoples’ access to money and resources that determines how society is being organized. Organization of communities must be based on democratic process, and producing things people need. In an anarcho-syndicalist / socialist organization with democracy on all levels it’s reasonable that the community makes more and more things free (when you need them). It’s a better organization because it creates a more solidaric humane society, and cuts back on a lot of bureaucracy.

I agree, taking care of the disabled and students should be the task of any decent society. However you and I are still paying for it; we’re paying for something that has nothing to do with us – a principle you have argued against on several occasions. Also, workers aren’t getting “100% of the income” as you say, if they have to pay for the disabled, right?

Considering that we live in a wealthy and modern society it also makes very little sense to talk about “I don’t want to pay for others’ this and that”, because an individual’s personal contributions in labor, taxes or whatever are microscopic compared to what he/she gets back from society.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"It shouldn’t be peoples’ access to money and resources that determines how society is being organized. Organization of communities must be based on democratic process"

When everyone is given their own money to spend, everyone gets to spend their money however they want which means everyone gets exactly what they want.

When you vote on what people can and cannot have, now you no longer can get exactly what you want, you are forced to consume what the winning vote says.

So you go from having FULL control over your consumption decisions to having very, very limited control.

I, along with everyone else, would rather make our own consumption decisions than have our neighbors make our consumption decisions for us through a vote.

.

"and producing things people need"

When you give people their own money to spend, then you are producing what each individual needs and wants.

When you replace that with voting, people no longer have that control. You are no longer producing what each individual wants and needs, you are producing what a popular vote wants and needs.

I don't understand how anyone benefits from that. Nobody benefits by giving up their control over their personal consumption decisions to a democratic vote.

.

"It’s a better organization because it creates a more solidaric humane society, and cuts back on a lot of bureaucracy. "

No, it does just the opposite.

If you want people to get along, you should allow them to consume whatever they want.

When a person with money gets to buy X and then you come along and replace his money with voting and his neighbors vote he can no longer buy X, do you think that will make him closer to his neighbors?

When a person who used to have full control over how his income is spent now has his income taken from him, through taxes, to pay for things he does not use, do you think that will make him happy or angry with his neighbors?

I don't understand how you don't see that people prefer to spend their own money how they want.

.

"I agree, taking care of the disabled and students should be the task of any decent society. However you and I are still paying for it; we’re paying for something that has nothing to do with us – a principle you have argued against on several occasions."

I am not taking care of students. Students are getting paid to do the work needed to produce the things I want to consume.

And if the disabled were able to work, I would not be in favor of giving them free money. You don't understand the difference between requiring the healthy to work and not requiring the disabled to work because they cannot work!?!

.

"Also, workers aren’t getting “100% of the income” as you say, if they have to pay for the disabled, right? "

Workers are getting 100% of the income, BECAUSE THEY DO 100% OF THE WORK.

The reason why it is fair to take money out for the disabled IS BECAUSE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO WORK!!!

And the reason why you are taking money out for the retired is BECAUSE THEY ALREADY WORKED!!!

.

"because an individual’s personal contributions in labor, taxes or whatever are microscopic compared to what he/she gets back from society."

That is not true in a socialist society.

All of our production comes from labor. And if you contribute an hour's worth of labor, you get paid roughly an hour's worth of production in return.

Your claim is only true in capitalism where an investor can get 10,000 hours worth of production in exchange for each hour's worth of labor contributed.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

It’s pretty obvious that people should be able to have a democratic say in the things that affect them. Sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes not. You can’t always have your will, that’s a logical consequence of living in a society with other people.

Democracy should be built and controlled from below, with workplace and community democracy – a society in which people are in control of their own lives.

If you’re actually rejecting the idea that people should have the right to control the things they’re a part of and affected by, then that’s just awful.

People should be able to consume what they need/want, I just want the goods and services to be free of charge when they need them.

Who’s paying the students’ income?

I fully understand the difference between requiring the healthy to work and not requiring the disabled to work because they cannot work. The point was that you’re still paying for it; you’re paying for something that has nothing to do with you – a principle you have argued against on several occasions.

No, workers aren’t getting paid 100% of the income as you claim – some of it goes to the disabled.

You can’t get around that our personal contributions are extremely small compared to the benefits we receive from society. That’s a pretty obvious fact.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"It’s pretty obvious that people should be able to have a democratic say in the things that affect them"

I agree.

But you also want to give people a democratic say in the things that affect OTHER people!

What you decide to spend your money on has zero effect on me, so I should NOT have a democratic say in how you spend your money (unless what you are buying harms me or puts me at risk like if you lived next door to me and wanted to buy a nuclear bomb to keep in your garage).

.

"Sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes not. You can’t always have your will, that’s a logical consequence of living in a society with other people."

Your claim is false.

When everyone is given their own money to spend, you CAN always have your will living in a society with other people.

.

"Democracy should be built and controlled from below, with workplace and community democracy "

I agree. But that does not mean we must replace money with voting!

.

"a society in which people are in control of their own lives."

MONEY gives you control over your own life. You want to take that away and replace it with voting, which now gives neighbors partial control over your life!

.

"If you’re actually rejecting the idea that people should have the right to control the things they’re a part of and affected by, then that’s just awful."

If you take the time to think your idea through, you will see that replacing money with votes does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you want to do! It is YOU that is rejecting that idea.

Replacing money with votes takes away your right to control the things you’re a part of and affected by and gives some of that control to your neighbors.

.

"People should be able to consume what they need/want, I just want the goods and services to be free of charge when they need them."

When people have their own money to spend, they are able to consume exactly what they want and need.

When you replace their money with voting or taxes, now they are forced to consume what their neighbors vote for, not what they want.

There is zero benefit to making things free of charge when you use them. You are still paying for them. What benefit is there for them to pay through taxes once per year instead of every time they consume the things?

Plus it makes managing the economy impossible. When I pay $10k in taxes towards cars but I take $100k worth of cars, what purpose does that serve other than making it impossible for supply to match demand and for me to consume an unfair amount of cars?

.

"Who’s paying the students’ income?"

Students are workers. They get paid from the same place as every worker gets paid: the companies that employ them.

.

"The point was that you’re still paying for it; you’re paying for something that has nothing to do with you – a principle you have argued against on several occasions."

That is not true.

I never argued against using taxes to pay for the disabled, students, the retired and the class of goods and services that cannot be allocated effectively through the market.

I argued against paying an income to able-bodied workers.

.

"No, workers aren’t getting paid 100% of the income as you claim – some of it goes to the disabled."

Workers getting paid 100% of the income means none of it is going to investors. In capitalism, half the income is paid to workers, half is paid to investors for not working.

.

"You can’t get around that our personal contributions are extremely small compared to the benefits we receive from society. That’s a pretty obvious fact."

That is because it is a fact that is obviously false.

In socialism, if you contribute an hour's worth of labor to production, you get back in return roughly 1 hour's worth of production.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“But you also want to give people a democratic say in the things that affect OTHER people!”

Not unless they’re affected by these things as well.

“What you decide to spend your money on has zero effect on me, so I should NOT have a democratic say in how you spend your money”

This doesn’t make any sense. The economy is all-encompassing. We live in a society with all kinds of endless networks of economic relations, decisions, transactions etc, that affect the economy we're all a part of in all kinds of different ways. The economy must be controlled democratically.

“Your claim is false. When everyone is given their own money to spend, you CAN always have your will living in a society with other people.”

You can’t be serious. Everyone will have their will? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In a democracy people control things together by f.ex. voting. Everyone can’t of have their will in every case, of course. Like I said, sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes not. You can’t always have your will when living in a society with other people.

“I agree. But that does not mean we must replace money with voting!”

No, it means that democracy and voting must be what decides production, remuneration etc. If you’re suggesting voting with money, then that’s not democracy because money is not equally distributed.

“If you take the time to think your idea through, you will see that replacing money with votes does the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you want to do! It is YOU that is rejecting that idea.”

I have thought it very well thru. It’s you who haven’t thought it thru. Voting with money isn’t democracy.

“Replacing money with votes takes away your right to control the things you’re a part of and affected by and gives some of that control to your neighbors.”

Absolutely not. The right to democratic say should be proportional to how much you’re affected, and that is done by creating a participatory democracy built from below (cf Anarcho-Syndicalism/Anarcho-Communism) The local economy affects everyone in the community, it must be controlled democratically. . “When people have their own money to spend, they are able to consume exactly what they want and need.”

And When people have access to free goods and services, they are able to consume exactly what they want and need.

“What benefit is there for them to pay through taxes once per year instead of every time they consume the things?”

I’ve told you why making more things free is the way to go. You want me to repeat them?

“Students are workers. They get paid from the same place as every worker gets paid: the companies that employ them.”

Who pays them, and where does this money come from?

“Workers getting paid 100% of the income means none of it is going to investors. In capitalism, half the income is paid to workers, half is paid to investors for not working.”

Capitalists exploit workers of course (cf surplus/profit), but workers aren’t getting 100% like you claim - some of it goes to the disabled. I don’t understand why you want to make a big case out of, and continuing to claim this which is logically, obviously wrong.

“That is because it is a fact that is obviously false.”

What exactly is false about the statement: “our personal contributions are extremely small compared to the benefits we receive from society.”?

“In socialism, if you contribute an hour's worth of labor to production, you get back in return roughly 1 hour's worth of production.”

And is the amount you get a result of your actions alone, or are there lots of other factors that contribute substantially to it..?

[-] 0 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"The economy is all-encompassing. We live in a society with all kinds of endless networks of economic relations, decisions, transactions etc, that affect the economy we're all a part of in all kinds of different ways. The economy must be controlled democratically."

It does NOT affect me when you decide to use your own money to buy your own house, car, clothes, food, furniture or whatever, despite all these networks.

It only affects me when you decide to tax me to pay for it!

Explain how my decision to use my fair share of our economy's productive power to buy furniture, or anything else, affects you.

.

"You can’t be serious. Everyone will have their will? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In a democracy people control things together by f.ex. voting. Everyone can’t of have their will in every case, of course. Like I said, sometimes the majority agrees with you, sometimes not. You can’t always have your will when living in a society with other people."

What!?! lol

With money people CAN have their will in every case. Only in voting can they not!!

With money, I DO get to be the SOLE decision maker on how my money is spent.

With money, I DO get my way 100% of the time. Nobody can tell me you are not allowed to spend your money on X.

When we replace my money with votes, I am no longer the sole decision maker. I can no longer get my way 100% of the time. Voters are now telling me how to spend my money.

I don't understand how you think it is better for me to give up control over my consumption and spending decisions and giving that control to the voting public.

.

"And When people have access to free goods and services, they are able to consume exactly what they want and need."

This is simply not true. They are not free and they do not give me the ability to consume what I want.

These free things are NOT free. They are paid for with taxes. If my income is $100k and you tax me 70%, I am paying $70k per year for these "free" things.

This is a very real expense of mine. That is now $70k that I can no longer spend on other things.

And so this also does NOT give me the ability to consume what I want. When you spend my tax money on operas I will never attend and don't want, trains that I will never use and don't want and other people's homes that I will never live in and don't want, that is $70k spent on things I DON'T want.

If I am a keyboard player who loves analog equipment, I might have wanted to spend that money on building my own analog studio instead.

So these things are not free, they cost me $70k.

And they do not give me the ability to consume what I want. I wanted an analog keyboard studio, I got operas and trains instead.

A more rational, sane system, is for everyone to spend their money how they want, without using taxes to pay for these types of consumption items.

I should be able to spend my $70k on music equipment, the people who go to the opera should be able to spend their own money on operas, and the train riders should be able to spend their own money on riding the train.

.

"but workers aren’t getting 100% like you claim - some of it goes to the disabled. I don’t understand why you want to make a big case out of, and continuing to claim this which is logically, obviously wrong."

I never said workers do not have to pay a tax to pay for the disabled. You are misrepresenting what I have said.

Workers get 100% of the gross, pre-tax income that an economy produces, instead of only getting half and the other half going to investors.

Paying a tax so the disabled can survive because they have no other way of getting an income is entirely different than paying a tax to buy someone a house or train ticket who has their own income.

Not paying a disability tax means the disabled die because they will have zero income.

Not paying a house tax does NOT mean people cannot buy a house and will NOT have the income to get a house!

Not paying a train tax does NOT mean people cannot buy a train ticket and will NOT have the income to get a train ticket!

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

(response to http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-make-more-services-and-goods-free/#comment-851560 )

Well, you’re not the only one participating in the economy. Your personal contributions or purchases does not affect the economy very much, but our personal purchases combined affect the economy very much. The economy must therefore be controlled democratically by the participants.

This is ridiculous. Of course you can’t have your will in every single case when living in a society with other people. A society is also more than just it’s economy.

Democracy must be the what decisions in society are based on, not money. Voting with money is not democracy.

Services should be made free when you need them. That makes the ones needing the services free to use them when they need them. The more services that are made free, the less remuneration is needed.

“Paying a tax so the disabled can survive because they have no other way of getting an income is entirely different than paying a tax to buy someone a house or train ticket who has their own income.”

But that’s beside the point. The point is that workers don’t get 100% as you claim, because some of it goes to the disabled.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Your personal contributions or purchases does not affect the economy very much, but our personal purchases combined affect the economy very much. The economy must therefore be controlled democratically by the participants. "

You keep repeating that claim without explaining how it is true.

What specifically happens when I buy analog keyboards and you, for example, buy a new dining room furniture set that requires our neighbors to step in and say you can't buy that, you have to buy X instead.

Everyone, of course, should just be given their own income and be given the freedom to spend that income any way they want so long as they don't harm another.

.

"Of course you can’t have your will in every single case when living in a society with other people"

This is another claim you keep repeating without explaining how it is true.

With money, I am able to spend my income without anyone telling me what I can and cannot buy. I have been the person in full control of how my money gets spent my entire life.

Explain to me how that has just been a delusion of mine all these years. Explain to me who really was spending my money.

.

"Democracy must be the what decisions in society are based on, not money"

All of our production decisions should be based on what you want to buy. The point of production is to produce what YOU want. It does not matter if your neighbors want the same thing.

Voting should have nothing to do with the economy.

The economy should produce all the things you want, all the things I want and all the things your neighbors want. There is absolutely no purpose whatsoever in only producing what a majority votes on. Who cares if a majority wants anything. The only thing that should matter is getting the economy to produce what you want.

If you contribute 100 hours to producing whatever other people want, you should get 100 hours worth of production in return for things you want (minus the things we must tax for mentioned above). Your neighbor should not have any say in what you are allowed to consume or what workers are allowed to produce for you!!

.

"Services should be made free when you need them"

And that is an unfair system. The people who consume the goods and services should be the ones who pay for them.

If you use the train and I don't, you should pay for it, not me.

If you use the train 10 times more than me, you should pay 10 times more.

And I should be the one who decides how much of my income goes towards my car or house or whatever, not my voting neighbors.

If I want to spend only 10% of my income on a house, I should be free to do that regardless of what my neighbors say.

If I want to spend 70% of my income on a large, luxurious house, I should be free to do that regardless of what my neighbors say.

There is absolutely no benefit to doing what you propose in an economic system where everyone is given a right to a job at full pay. That is only necessary in capitalism where some people cannot afford certain things and need for it to be subsidized by taxpayers.

Everyone, of course, should just be given their own income and be given the freedom to spend that income any way they want so long as they don't harm another. .

"The point is that workers don’t get 100% as you claim, because some of it goes to the disabled."

And I have said over and over in my comments that is true, I agree!

However, what I also have said is that paying tax money to the disabled is entirely different than paying tax money to workers or to people who refuse to work.

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

housing is often about land ownership

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Lots of things are about land ownership.

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

I think the president is trying to make the election close so we care

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Well, you really are "the one sentence guy", aren't you. And why did you bring up the president here?

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

he hath praised the land give away to the private railroad companies as progress

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Resources must be collectivized and democratized so that they are in the hands of the people.

(see, I can do that as well!)

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

I gave everyone a shot but most miss it

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

what?

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

everyone deserves a fair shot

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Everyone deserves to control the institutions in society collectively.

[-] 0 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

We are obviously being PUNKED here- Nobody is that dumb.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

A sincere question - and I apologize that it will sound rude -
but why do so many people ( here ) speculate on totally impossible dreams ?
Why not strive for something that CAN be done ?
That a large majority want done ?
Seriously - I have been WORKING in OWS for a year -
and so many seem to be centered on various dreams.


Sadly, I have been in many different NY OWS working groups that have wasted hundreds ( or thousands) of hours on inacessable dreams
many of the meetings seemed like grad student seminars about philosophy


If the tea potty had done that, they would not have taken over the R party and the progressives would not have been stopped.


If 2010 had given us 2 more in the Senate and some progressives in the House - we could have had single payer, a real infrastructure jobs program


ultimately - my point is - we need to work on this:
the problem is not democracy
the problem is not capitalism


the problem IS the connection between the two


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

We should discuss the short term goals as well as the long term goals. It's important to fight against cutting medicare etc, but it's also important to have some kind of idea - but not sketched out in details of course - about what we should strive for.

Libertarian Socialism is not an impossible dream. There have been many examples of both small scale and relatively large scale libertarian socialist or libertarian socialist-like organization. One of the core ideas of LS, workers' self management is an idea growing in populatity, and we see it exemplified with the increasing number of co-ops fex.

It's also not utopia to make more services free of charge. In the country I live in, Norway, we have (more or less at least) free health care, free college, free university, good social security etc. It's not utopia; you can have that as well, but it's going to take lots of organizing

Capitalism will not be abolished in the very near future. This system is however undemocratic, tyrannical, exploitative and destructive it's an intolerable systme that must abolished at some point.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks.No problem. For more on workers' self management check out this video I put together: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Good video. My mistake. Long term - I agree I have been so frustrated with people HERE who are working on these issues TODAY.
Kind of like planning a sprinkler system while your house burns down.
How did Norway "evolve" away from greed? How does Norway constrain capitalism?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"My mistake. Long term - I agree I have been so frustrated with people HERE who are working on these issues TODAY."

Well, they're actually not wrong about working on these issues today. Let me explain: Like I said, it's important to fight cuts in welfare, and push today's politicians to tax the wealthy more etc etc, short term goals, and it's important to present and discuss ideas of a future just society that we should strive for. But it's also important to try to put some of our "dreams" if you will into action, and create what could be the beginning of real radical changes. Listen to what Chomsky and Alperovitz said at the end there in the video (starting at 18:10) Interesting stuff. Creating cooperative businesses and communities based on solidarity, and participatory direct democracy can be done - even within the framework of a state capitalist economy. Alos look at OWS, creating small cooperative libraries, kitchens, organizing networks based on solidarity and democracy. All these things are small scale now, but can and will grow in the future.

I'm afraid there's a little too much greed in Norway as well. We have a state-capitalist economy as well, we just have much more regulation and democratic public control.

I've written a little bit about the conditions in Norway here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/welfare-and-workers-rights-in-norway/

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

You also have lots of oil. Easy to be generous when you have lots of oil.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

If you're going to start a debate with me about conditions in Norway, you're going to have to prepare yourself better than this in order to not get "pwned" as they say.

We had the welfare state established before we found oil.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Clicheisking (-210) 1 year ago

Typical childish anarchist bullshit.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

And this is a typical comment from people who have decided that they hate what's being proposed, but don't have any counter arguments to back up why they hate it, and who typically don't get futher involved in the dicussion, because they know they don't have much to present.

It's typical anarchist, yes, but it's not childish, nor bullshit. You got 1 out of 3 right.

[-] 0 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

Do you work for free?

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

yes, I think it is human nature to work

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

So what are your counter argumnets? What exactly in the post do you disagree with?

[-] -1 points by Uneasy (19) 1 year ago

I disagree with your premise that people should work for free and I disagree with collectivism. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

"Free services would also make things more efficient with less paperwork, bureaucracy etc." That statement is BS. Central planning is the most inefficient of all.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I disagree with your premise that people should work for free"

In the post I was mainly suggesting that we make more services free, not that people worked for free. But if we somewhere into the future entered into a libertarian communist society it would still not be correct to call it "working for free" since the workers would get access to goods and services they otherwise would have paid for.

"and I disagree with collectivism. It has failed everywhere it has been tried."

That's not true. 1930s Spain had a lot of collectivist organization which was very successful.

"Free services would also make things more efficient with less paperwork, bureaucracy etc. That statement is BS."

No it isn't. Like I explained free services and goods would cut back substantially on bureaucracy

"Central planning is the most inefficient of all."

That's not true. There have been cases where efficiency and growth were enormous in societies with central planning. But it doesn't matter. I don't advocate central planning, I'm an anarchist.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Personal questions are not relevant for the political discussion. Don't expect me to answer all of them.

No, I don't work for free. What does me not working for free have to do with what I wrote?

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Sex is never free.

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

Speak for yourself, buddy.

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

The have tried free public housing in black neighborhoods. It quickly degrades into a hell.

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

Why do you think that is?

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

Because its free and there is no pride of ownership. Have you been to Greece and seen all the graffitti? Graffitti on antiquities?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Hey - Butter-knife. Got some links to show the graffiti?

You should perhaps reconsider that stance of yours anyway - it is not graffiti it is current history connecting to the past - a modern showing of outrage of the population when they are betrayed by their government. Now the monuments are even more priceless and should be preserved with their new additions linking past to present.

People are more important then possessions.

[-] -1 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

What does that mean? Graffitti maring private property is OK? Good luck getting people to agree to that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036373/Abandoned-derelict-covered-graffiti-rubbish-What-left-Athens-9billion-Olympic-glory.html

Lets just say that art from 3000 years ago stands alone and anyone putting spray paint on it is a fucking loser and criminal.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah - people who crashed the economy are just - what(?) unfortunately incompetent for a moment and worthy of bonuses to asuage their hurt feelings and egos so that they can continue down the same path(?) - and people in government that have allowed their countrys to be defrauded and put the bill to be paid on the backs of their population rather then on the backs of those who caused the mess are what(?) well meaning but incompetent(?) and so should be left in office to compound their errors?

And - What? - The public that got screwed and thrown out into the street and the unemployment lines are - What(?) the criminals because they have the audacity to stand-up and cry foul? then go further and demand that reparations are required.

Is that how you see it?

[-] 0 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

I understand the protesting and marches. Defacing property is evil. I might even say if you wanted , tag the Goldman Sachs building, but not innocent property.

But thats OK. I see you are a person who wants to be taken care of by a central state. Hows that working for you?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You truly have chosen the wrong name - as you are dull - not in the least sharp - but dismally dull - almost brain dead - do you need to be slapped on occasion to remind you to breathe?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Because its free and there is no pride of ownership."

No, I don't think that's the case. I think it has to do with the fact that the poor are getting less and less acess to recourses.

"Have you been to Greece and seen all the graffitti? Graffitti on antiquities?"

Have you been to Greece and seen all the capital the financial elite have gotten their hands on and shipped out of the country, leaving the rest of the population with crumbs?

[-] -2 points by TheRazor (-329) 1 year ago

you dont think thats the case? That isnt an answer.

So because the elite took capital out of the country, its OK to scar 3000 year old statues and monuments? To cover every flat surface with spray paint?

We disagree.

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

"you dont think thats the case? That isnt an answer."

What? I told what I think the reason is.

"So because the elite took capital out of the country, its OK to scar 3000 year old statues and monuments?"

No (why do you ask me that?)

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The most expensive things in life are free.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The most expensive things in life are free.

Welfare, food stamps, medicaid, free school, free school lunch and books, earned income tax credit, these all cost the people that take them dearly. They must pay for them with their liberty. It is 21st century slavery.

"All democracies are doomed once the people discover that they can vote themselves largess." - De Tocqueville

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Let me ask you something: Where exactly do you stand politically?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Government is at once the greatest threat to our liberty and the chief defender of freedom. For this reason we should only hire politicians that don't want the job.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The greatest threat to liberty is concentrated private power, and as long as corporate tyranny exists, we need government for self defense.

Government, as well as capitalism must be dismantled in the long run.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How do you propose to dismantle capitalism?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I've written a little bit about it here, but to sum up:

Organize communities: Enlighten, strike, start cooperate networks, push politicians to stop cutting, privatizing etc. Eventually, when support is big there can be workers' takeover of workplaces and democratization of institutions and communities.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So, eventually, your plan is to steal stuff that you want from other people.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Depends on what you mean by stealing.

I just want to change today's property rights, strip the wealthy from all the wealth and power they have gotten thru exploitation, bailouts and subsidies etc, and create a real participatory democracy where people get to be in control of their lives.

Having undemocratic power over others is totally illegitimate. Systems that allow these tendencies must be dismantled. This can of course only happen if the population wants it.

Let's say you were livng in a dictatorship, and you and your fellow citizens organized and overthrew this dictator, took away all his property and privileges, and democratized the society. Would you call that stealing?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If you take something that does not belong to you it is stealing. If the thing you steal is in a thief's possession then it is called receiving stolen goods. You go to jail for that (or at least must surrender the goods).

Ask the Swiss about this problem and the money they took from Nazi's that they stole from murdered Jews.

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

In that sense it's not stealing, but receiving stolen goods.

Just like anyone living in a dictatorship should overthrow the dictator, and take away all his property and privileges, the same must be done with concentrated private power.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Politics would be great, if not for the politicians.

I think that Jefferson had the definition of Gov about right:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities (happiness).

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Jefferson was living in a society where corporations didn't have the overwheming power in society - a society very different from today's america, wouldn't you say?

It is concentrated private power, not government, that should be the main concern. Private ownership of the economic institutions in society must be abolished.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

In Jefferson's time who had the overwhelming power in society?

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

And your point is....?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The point is that there was an entity that possessed overwhelming power in society when Jefferson was alive and he fought a war to free people from its tyranny.

You contend that corps have overwhelming power. The US Gov spent more money than all of the corps combined make in a year. They spent your money and they take more and more from you every day. They then pass laws restricting your freedom. Corps can't come close to the power that local, county, state and Fed Gov have over your life. Not even a little close.

You are fighting the wrong demon. If corps misbehave you can fire them instantly by taking your business elsewhere. If Gov misbehaves you're stuck with them for years and you may never be able to get rid of them if they bribe a majority of voters with bobbles for which they trade their liberty.

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

Actually, you're the one who's fighting the wrong demon:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dont-tread-on-me-except-for-all-you-capitalists-ce/

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your post and the videos provide little data.

Try this:

Make yourself a list of all the outside forces (corporate and Gov) that place restrictions on your personal liberty. Grade them by significance (1 - 10, low to high) and your ability to overcome the restriction (10 - 1, difficult to easy). Sum the product of the significance * ability and see which number is greater. This will give you a quantitative measure of which entity (Gov or Corp) is the greater demon in your life.

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

What did you miss, and what did you disagree with in the article and videos?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

There was little data; evidence from which to draw a conclusion. Make the table and confirm your suspicion that corps have a greater effect on your liberty than Gov. The results should be a great tool for you cause, maybe.

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

"If the dictator steals from someone and is later toppled the things he stole should be returned to their original owners, or owners heirs."

And what if the dictatorship had existed for a very long time (like North Korea f.ex ) with well established property rights which let the state own all important property. Would it be stealing to overthrow the dictatorship and democratize the society?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Well it turns out that Koreans are a very meticulous people and keep careful records of ancestral property. It will not be difficult to track down the rightful heirs once the communist dictators are gone. 60 years after WWII people were still being compensated for property lost to the fascists.

Furthermore, if the stolen assets have been scattered or destroyed the new Gov bears a responsibility to the people that lost property. This is true today in Germany and Switzerland. The Swiss just received the stolen property of slaughtered Jews. They continue to be burdened with the reparation payments even though the old Swiss Gov is long gone.

The most important thing however that we cannot recover from the horrible fascist and communist regimens of the last 100 years are the tens of millions of people that they murdered.

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

"The population changing property rights is just the majority stealing from the minority. However you try to justify it stealing is still wrong."

Oh, Ok. So in a dictatorship where the state had the right to own all the important property, would you concider it stealing if the majority of the population owerthrew the dictator and changed the property rights and democratized the society? Why/why not?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If the dictator steals it is wrong. Just the same as if you steal from people simply because you don't like the corporation of which they are part.

If the dictator steals from someone and is later toppled the things he stole should be returned to their original owners, or owners heirs. Just like the Nazi spoils were returned to the families of slaughtered Jews after WWII.

If the people that own or operate a corp commit a crime like stealing they should be prosecuted and the damaged parties compensated.

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

"I do not agree that stealing from one group and giving to another is the solution, it is just bad behavior and solves nothing."

So should the corporations pay back all the money they've received in subsidies, bailouts etc thru the decades?

You can talk about "stealing" all you want. I'm talking about the population getting together and changing property rights and making the society more democratic. If you call this stealing, then be my guest.

Again: If you were living in a dictatorship, and you and your fellow citizens organized and overthrew this dictator, took away all his property and privileges, and democratized the society. Would you call that stealing?

"Get Gov out of business and business out of Gov."

This would mean handing all the power over to corporate tyranny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp

"Your personal freedom is inversely proportional to the size of Gov."

And now you're kind of doing what I talked about in the article: http://occupywallst.org/forum/dont-tread-on-me-except-for-all-you-capitalists-ce/

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I do not favor corp subsidies. That said how do you get the money back? Do you get it back from all of them or just the ones you don't like?

The horse is out of the barn on past subsidies, but that should not discourage you from cutting off current and future payments.

The population changing property rights is just the majority stealing from the minority. However you try to justify it stealing is still wrong.

You should make your personal list. You may find that relying on anecdotes and rhetoric will keep you a slave, relying on data and evidence will set you free.

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

Listen, private power staffs government in the US. Private and state power are very tightly linked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVPWNo4rcM&feature=plcp

This is not a big secret, so let's wrap this up, ok.

But let's say that concentrated power had less influence over our lives than government: concentrated power is still there and would have had lots of influence over our lives.

This kind of tyrannical power, big or small, must be dismantled.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3668) 1 year ago

I'm with ya, sff80 !!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I don't disagree with you about the problems with concentrated power, however the Gov has a much greater effect and encumbrance to our liberty. To the extent that corps collude with Gov the problem is exacerbated.

I do not agree that stealing from one group and giving to another is the solution, it is just bad behavior and solves nothing. If stealing is acceptable then soon enough the people that steal will be the new concentrated power.

Step one should be to end corp-Gov collusion. Get Gov out of business and business out of Gov. Your personal freedom is inversely proportional to the size of Gov.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"So you don't believe that owning property is a basic human right like life and liberty?"

I depends on what the property is. If you're talking about your DVD collection or your sofa, then that's fine. It's private property of the economic institutions that I want to dismantle. Private ownership in the economy means that some people have undemocratic control and power over others. Corporate tyranny is a very dangerous kind of tyranny. Unfortunately many have not recognized this fact:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dont-tread-on-me-except-for-all-you-capitalists-ce/

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How about the corner bakery that has been in the family for six generations?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What you need to understand is that today's property rights including private ownership on the means of production are no laws of nature. They can be changed, and if you like the idea of democracy you should agree, because private ownership is undemocratic and tyrannical.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So you don't believe that owning property is a basic human right like life and liberty? Not a right granted by any Gov, but a right that we possess based on our status as human beings.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

A chart, spread sheet, graph, or anything else, is unnecessary.

Planned obsolescence, or whatever they're calling it these days has had a MAJOR negative effect on liberty.

Every single day.

And that's just one glaring example.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How so? Can't you just buy from corps that don't engage in practices with which you disagree? You can fire them on the spot!

On the other hand, if the Fed Gov misbehaves (starting illegal wars for example) you have to leave the country if you object. As an individual you have little power to vote out the offending pols, particularly if said pols trap 50% of the voters that sell their liberty for a few bobbles and are forced into electing them; truly 21st century slavery.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Economic institutions should have only private ownership. The Gov should stay out of business. That mixture invites corruption.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Economic institutions should have only private ownership."

Absolutely not. There shouldn't be any private ownership of the economic institutions. Private ownership means that some individuals - who are not i any way democratically elected - have power and control over others. This is intolerable. The economy must be controlled democratically by the participants.

"The Gov should stay out of business."

In the long run government should be dismantled, but as long as tyrannical corporations control our lives, we need some form of self defense.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Suppose the economic institutions (like banks, investment companies, and the corner bakery) are owned by your neighbors. Will you steal them? Will you then steal your neighbors house, car, food, cloths, where does it stop; at your house?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There shouldn't be anything controversial about changing illegitimate property rights. The economic institutions in society must be controlled democratically by the participants. No one should have the right to control and dominate others. I advocate a libertarian socialist society where neighborhoods, communities, workplaces etc are controlled by the ones participating; a society with real participatory democracy built and controlled from below.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The controversial part is that when people want something belonging to someone else they find excuses to steal (eg. call it illegitimate) . They did this some time ago in Germany and we have not learned from the horrible lesson:

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9687/a_third_of_nazis_war_effort_funded_with_money_stolen_from_jews_study_finds

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

I despise the nazis just as much as you.

Again: Just like anyone living in a dictatorship should overthrow the dictator, and take away all his property and privileges, the same must be done with concentrated private power.

Corporate tyranny must be dismantled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4&feature=plcp

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

CorpoRATions?

The wallstreet Banksters?

Ummm - Yeah - that is why everyone is protesting.


[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (616) 12 minutes ago

The controversial part is that when people want something belonging to someone else they find excuses to steal (eg. call it illegitimate) .

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It starts with the targets that people find easy to hate:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Niemoller

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Seems to me that your perspective is pretty fucked up about corpoRATions and what they do and how they do it.

The people they kick out of their homes because they do not want to work with them to keep them off the streets by a simple renegotiation of their mortgage.

The people they kick out of their homes so they can have access to resources contained on the land.

The environment that they destroy so that they can make money.

The people that are poisoned due to resource extractions that pollute ground water land and air.

The money they pour into politics to allow them to continue irresponsibly destroying our world and killing people so that they can make profits.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (610) 2 minutes ago

Nothing is personal about corps except the people that work there, the people that they sell to, the people that advise them, the people that own shares, the people that lend them money, the people that live in their communities and benefit from the jobs they create, they people that collect and use corp taxes, the people that provide parts and services to the corp. There are sure a lot of people that are part of corporations. That is because people are corporations. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


Just what exactly are you decrying when you make the quote:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Niemoller

You seem to have lost your way

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What do I mean by reminding folks of that quote? If we permit theft of property, and liberty from people because they are part of a corp why do you suspect that they will not come next for your property and liberty? Why should they stop with people that are part of corps?

If the people that own and operate corps commit crimes (pollution, illegal bribes, etc) prosecute them. If you steal from the people because you don't like their corporation you are no better than the worst among them.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Just who is it exactly that you are crying out against if it is not the culprits taking over government(?) = corpoRATions.


[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (616) 23 minutes ago

It starts with the targets that people find easy to hate:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Niemoller ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Corporations are groups of people that come together for some purpose. The NAACP is a corporation. Calling them rats dehumanizes other human beings and makes them easy to hate and attack. It has been done before to other groups with horrific results. We should resist promoting violent acts against other people.

http://brainz.org/10-most-evil-propaganda-techniques-used-nazis/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

sea-lion? or kelp head? Most definitely corpoRAT shill:

Go ask the people along the southern route of the un-approved keystone pipe line how happy they are to have their land taken without their approval.


[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (609) 1 minute ago

It is not a tough question. Why do you fear it?

What property did you lose and what corp took it? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

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

railroads made this country great

"therefor the land should be given" to the corps does not follow

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"Our property has already been taken from us"

What property did you lose and what corp took it?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OMG - to see your spiel posted - and to think that you actually might believe it yourself - is to Laugh. You are a corpoRAT shill - and a fairly lame one at that.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (610) 0 minutes ago

Powers that be? Pretty nebulous. What property did you lose and what corp took it? Why did you not go to Gov for redress?

On the other hand, I expect that there are plenty of instances you can site of Gov confiscation of your property. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

It is not a tough question. Why do you fear it?

What property did you lose and what corp took it?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U truly do not have the intelligence that God gave rocks.

Our property has already been taken from us as well as our rights and freedoms curtailed - by the powers that be - corpoRATions and their bought and paid for governmental lackeys.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (610) 1 minute ago

What do I mean by reminding folks of that quote? If we permit theft of property, and liberty from people because they are part of a corp why do you suspect that they will not come next for your property and liberty? Why should they stop with people that are part of corps?

If the people that own and operate corps commit crimes (pollution, illegal bribes, etc) prosecute them. If you steal from the people because you don't like their corporation you are no better than the worst among them. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Powers that be? Pretty nebulous. What property did you lose and what corp took it? Why did you not go to Gov for redress?

On the other hand, I expect that there are plenty of instances you can site of Gov confiscation of your property.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U R an idiot.


Bone of contention: corpoRATions are not people.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (18977) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 hours ago

Again and to infinity = corpoRATions are not people. And elements in society that are doing wrong MUST be identified so as the public can see what needs to be addressed - BY THE PUBLIC ( Living and Breathing Human Beings ).

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (616) 3 minutes ago

Refusing to dehumanize my fellow man does not equate to supporting their cause. I just resist throwing fuel on the fires of hate. That's how people get killed. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete


Your latest and possibly lamest reply;

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (611) 1 hour ago

Until dolphins start filing corporate formation documents all corps are exclusively entities consisting of human beings joining together for some purpose. Demonizing a corp taints all of the people that are members of that corp. The employees, the advisers, and the shareholders; nearly all of which are human beings. Referring to people as rats is hateful and promotes violence. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink


criminal enterprises should be identified and opposed.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Exactly. Corporations were created to shield the individual from personal harm. There is nothing personal about a corporation. Its whole point is to keep the human and business seperate.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Again and to infinity = corpoRATions are not people. And elements in society that are doing wrong MUST be identified so as the public can see what needs to be addressed - BY THE PUBLIC ( Living and Breathing Human Beings ).


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (616) 3 minutes ago

Refusing to dehumanize my fellow man does not equate to supporting their cause. I just resist throwing fuel on the fires of hate. That's how people get killed. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Nothing is personal about corps except the people that work there, the people that they sell to, the people that advise them, the people that own shares, the people that lend them money, the people that live in their communities and benefit from the jobs they create, they people that collect and use corp taxes, the people that provide parts and services to the corp. There are sure a lot of people that are part of corporations. That is because people are corporations.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Until dolphins start filing corporate formation documents all corps are exclusively entities consisting of human beings joining together for some purpose. Demonizing a corp taints all of the people that are members of that corp. The employees, the advisers, and the shareholders; nearly all of which are human beings. Referring to people as rats is hateful and promotes violence.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ah - but there are peoples organizations like AARP NAACP ACLU SIERRA CLUB and then there are profits over people organizations = culprits like JPM or Shell or Halliburton or Koch = corpoRATs.

I do believe the differences are very apparent.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (616) 0 minutes ago

Corporations are groups of people that come together for some purpose. The NAACP is a corporation. Calling them rats dehumanizes other human beings and makes them easy to hate and attack. It has been done before to other groups with horrific results. We should resist promoting violent acts against other people.

http://brainz.org/10-most-evil-propaganda-techniques-used-nazis/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So you are ok with some corporations, you just want to steal from the people involved with corps of which you don't approve? And once you steal from them what is to stop someone else that disapproves of your favorite corp from taking their property using your exact justification?

What if they disapprove of you?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

CorpoRATions are not people - and it seems that you are supporting the modern day nazi's in your defense of them.


[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (616) 0 minutes ago

Equating people with rats has been done before with barbaric consequences:

http://brainz.org/10-most-evil-propaganda-techniques-used-nazis/ ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Refusing to dehumanize my fellow man does not equate to supporting their cause. I just resist throwing fuel on the fires of hate. That's how people get killed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yes - the people need to see this and understand and then act upon it before the CorpoRATions kill the world.

Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.


[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (616) 23 minutes ago

It starts with the targets that people find easy to hate:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." - Niemoller ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Equating people with rats has been done before with barbaric consequences:

http://brainz.org/10-most-evil-propaganda-techniques-used-nazis/

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Calling other human beings rats or vermin makes them easy to hate. That is how genocides begin. First, dehumanize your adversary and then it becomes easy to do away with them.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Calling other human beings rats or vermin makes them easy to hate. That is how genocides begin. First, dehumanize your adversary and then it becomes easy to do away with them.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

That comment sounds like you are in support of the modern day Nazi Party = CorpoRATions.


[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (616) 7 minutes ago

Calling other human beings rats or vermin makes them easy to hate. That is how genocides begin. First, dehumanize your adversary and then it becomes easy to do away with them. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Refusing to dehumanize my fellow man does not equate to supporting their cause. I just resist throwing fuel on the fires of hate. That's how people get killed.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27793) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

BTW - corpoRATions are not people.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Ah, but people make up corporations. That is what a corporation is. A group of people that join together to achieve some goal.

Do you believe that the people at The Corporation for Public Broadcasting are rats? Birds, monsters, and grouches maybe, but not rats.