Socialism the third most searched for term in 2008

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

You should be the last one to insult another's intelligence or lack of knowledge on certain subject matters, nighthawk.

I hadn't insulted anyone's intelligence, I merely asked them to read up on a matter before hand. And even if I had insulted someone's intelligence why is it that I should be the last one to do so? The applicability of chaos theory to fields of economics is highly debated and all I said was that there are a lot of people who find it inapplicable while another effectively stated that the entire academic community which found any form of relevance to such an application of theory is wrong based upon a certain divine omnipotence which he seemingly posses about human nature and the like.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

read up a little bit before making statements as the above
chaos theory economics - Google Search

chaos theory dictates that many systems are so complex and hyper sensitive that certain outcomes will come off as seemingly random.

Yes, assuming you mean the opposite of what you typed. Chaos theory explains that complex systems which appear to be chaotic or random in nature can only be pseudo-random as all systems can be reduced to a recognizable pattern- i.e., it supports laws of predictability in mathematical systems which allow mathematicians and those who apply mathematics within their fields to rely on statistically relevant postulates.

Try coming up with an accurate, long term mathematical equation for production will you... actually come up with around 20 billion of them and make sure that their variables affect one another. At your disposal you have all the world's super computers, and 1,000,000 years worth of time. you have to pay for your own electricity and cooling though. I'm sure your working people will be glad to pour all their resources into your project, because their great great great great.... grandchildren will inherit all the information you've analyzed for your planned economic system...

You do realize that is an incredibly ridiculous proof to request from a political theory? In other words, this is why application of chaos theory as well as statistics and probability in general exist- we can assume truths based on established patterns and formulate explanations based on those patterns and their correlations.

Would you have preferred the Capitalists to have been required to produce the same information in the 18th and 19th centuries?

how many people have you provided jobs for?

I'm having trouble finding any bit of relevancy in that question.

The applicability of chaos theory to fields of economics is highly debated and all I said was that there are a lot of people who find it inapplicable while another effectively stated that the entire academic community which found any form of relevance to such an application of theory is wrong based upon a certain divine omnipotence which he seemingly posses about human nature and the like.

HUUUURRR HUUURRR.

If by "divine omnipotence" you mean genetically inherited altruism, and if by "seemingly posses about human nature and the like" you mean supported by the leaders in the field of evolutionary genetics.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Russia went from having no car manufactures whatsoever, the few cars- and the number was very few, mostly owned by the czar and his family- were imported from other nations. The USSR, on the other hand, established seven separate and globally successful manufactures, most of which are still making vehicles today.

Yeah, but the cars they made at the time were actually crap. The Trabants from East Germany, for example, are universally renowned for their ****tiness. Top Gear also did a little feature trying to discover what the best cars from Soviet Bloc countries were, with little success outside of a jeep thing.

You should look into Peter Kroptkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Richard Dawkins' Nice Guys Finish First, and Hamilton and Axlerod's The Evolution of Cooperation.

These publications, as well as the results of Axelrod's famous iterated prisoner's dilemma tournaments, point towards altruism which is both present in humanity and evolutionarily relevant.

The most obvious example of recent real world cooperation is peer to peer file sharing. Bit Torrent alone accounts for 35% of all Internet traffic; this doesn't include other popular methods of peer sharing- usenet, Gnutella, IRC, etc...

These networks offer an environment mostly untouched by Capitalism- they require very little external resource (besides the cooperation of it's users) and thus, are not required to succumb to the trade of capital for product.

Nonetheless, these networks do require a constant community from within a Capitalist economy. In a society which puts emphasis on altruism and community rather than individualist competition the productivity and popularity of peer transfer structures will increase, an incredible concept considering its dominance in transfer of intellectual property today.

Firstly, most of that which is actually pirated via peer-to-peer filesharing networks is produced by capitalists for purposes of capitalism - by music-makers seeking to make money from their music, for example, whose music is simply leaked into sources where it can be contained.

Secondly, that helps to prove my point, in a way - the reason peer-to-peer filesharing is popular is because it means people can greedily obtain as much as they like without having to pay for it. It's only those who have something to lose from it who complain about it. It is relatively communist in nature, but like communism, it just means that people can leech from a source without having to work for it.

As Franz Ferdinand (the band) put it, "It's always better on holiday, so much better on holiday, that's why we only work when, we need the money." In a truly communist society, you wouldn't need the money, and so people wouldn't work, meaning very few would actually give something back to society. People will not work unless they have to, and the only way you can incite people to do that without money or rewards (which will be given to everyone as all will be equally rewarded) is with authority, governmental in nature.

Thirdly, books such as "The Blank Slate" and "The Ghost In The Machine" and otherwise (those amongst Ron Mexico's reading list) demonstrate that humans are not inherently altruistic.

I suppose that's still debatable, then?

As I've kind of demonstrated that the book is more taking a stance on the Y axis of politics rather than the X axis, not really, unless you can provide us with some evidence to show that it's pro-socialist outside of Goldstein equalling Trotsky (which as Orwell hated Trotsky and Goldstein isn't a rallying point for the reader anyway isn't a good argument anyway).

Ah, but if you concede that Goldstien is intended to represent Trotsky then you have a clear distinction between Trotskyism and Stalinism.

No, you simply have a clear distinction between Stalin and Trotsky, not the two ideologies, but the persons - one being the actual dictator and the other being his hated enemy. Which also works if you accept that Big Brother is an amalgamation of Stalin and Hitler, and that Goldstein is a Trotsky-Jew mash-up.

No, it is not anarchy. Pure democracy is rule by the people, yes, however, anarchy is a lack of rule.

And how pray tell would "rule by the people" work? The individual would have a say in how things are to be. Anarchy, the same really, the individual would govern others or himself the way he deemed it so. It's simply an argument over terminology.

Not Capitalist, Corporatist.

Same **** different day? They're all still the same ideology in the novel under different names. There is no distinction other than the geographical location in which they are practiced.

Not on an individual level, no. Yes, the party seeks only control- the individuals who make up the party can be assumed to seek luxury, longevity, etc... everything any human would seek. The same can be said of the pigs of Animal Farm, the difference being that the pigs were only just establishing themselves while the inner party of 1984 was pre-established.

They can't really be assumed to seek luxury longevity etc because they explicitly state that they want power for the sake of power and they don't really live in luxury, simply relative luxury. It's a rather large plot point that they're not using their power as a means to an end, it is an end in and of itself. O'Brien pretty much uses those words shortly before his boot/face statement. Whereas the Pigs quite clearly seek luxury because that's how they organise their farm and their dealings, oppressing the others while treating themselves.

Not at all- while the structures formed by the ideologies are identical, all three are crafted to appeal to their regional base.

But they're not crafted in any such way at all. They are actually the same ideal. Again, Goldstein reveals as much.

It was alright. The third game was admittedly better, and, in my opinion, the best of the three.

It was incredibly poor, and I believe I've written a rant about it elsewhere, so I'll keep that outside of here.

Not at all; your argument is contained within my own. If the sales are rising due to Communists wanting to educate themselves about Communism, does this not denote an increased number of Communists?

And as I have stated, it is reasonable to assume that the percentage of Communists is higher among those who have read The Communist Manifesto than it is among the general population, therefore, when a larger portion of the general population has read The Communist Manifesto it is reasonable to assume that the number of Communists have increased.

No, all of these sales do not translate into new Communists, or Communists at all. However, it is reasonable to assume that they point to an increase.

I was simply stating that it does not necessarily mean an increase, and that an increase in sales does not mean that people are seeking an alternative. If indeed communists are trying to educate themselves on the matter, then they're already communists before they've even touched Marx's work. Increased sales does not mean that anyone "seeking out an alternative" in any way shape or form, because with these political ideologies people have usually decided their stance before they've even touched the things.

There's a still a Nazi/Fascist/white power population whom Mein Kampf still might apply to, however, it seems, in my personal experience, that the piece has been referenced primarily by those who oppose these movements, where the opposite seems true among leftist movements.

I wouldn't argue that much in America given the demonization of communists in general in that nation.

I take no issue with teenage rebellion. I am a teenager, and I hold views which are obviously rebellious, effectively making me a member of this group. It's uninformed rebellion, from any age, or rebellion for the sake of rebellion which irks me.

"Teenage rebellion" as a term does not mean rebellion while in the state of being a teenager, rather rebellion spawning from the general attitude of a teenager being rebellious for no reason other than to be rebellious. Naturally this is stereotypical and can exist at any age but we know the term.

The system you support, as you explained it to me, is the most correct, flawless system possible. It is also the most idealistic and unrealistic. It does not require fail-safes which protect the rights of its people because it ignores the possibility of failure and corruption.

I account for failures and corruption whenever anyone raises the issue. I never said my ideal would operate perfectly, because I don't claim to be able to create a eutopia. I simply state that my system is or would be superior to what we currently have.

As I have said, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself, in his perfection, lowered himself from the great buffet in they sky, and came down to rule us directly, I would fully support your system. However, unless you have a perfect, god-like ruler, such as the FSM, a pure dictatorship will quickly fall into disarray, human rights would whither, and industry would slow.

Hehe. Human rights.

Not to mention, you lack the ability or technology to even monitor all goings on and respond to it as you describe.

CCTV. *shrug*

We are of all ages, sexes, colors, sexualities, religions, etc...

Opiate of the masses, on the religion ground - if you're religious and a communist you're not a very good communist. But as I say, I wouldn't doubt a fair share of them are teenagers. A large share, in fact. Purely cuz it's hip to fight the machine.

While some are direct disregard for or protest of authority, most are an attempt to gain authority within a system where an authority structure is presented.

Again, that's bull****, unless you consider murder or criminal damage or theft or even attempting to exclude liability for defective products an attempt to gain authority within a system where an authority structure is presented. If anything, there are more laws restricting authoritative figures than there are restricting the general public - see the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (rather ironically passed in 1984) for an example of an act which effectively ties the hands of police officers in all situations outside of suspicion of terrorism.

How do you steal what does not belong to anyone? Stealing property from within a commune is as absurd as stealing someone's laughter. While you could propose operations which would rob people of the ability to laugh, however, there is little reason to execute a reform such as this, and one would have trouble gaining the support necessary to execute something like this.

Communism states that property belongs to everyone, not that it belongs to no one and is just there. If a communist society truly would not account for someone just taking stuff from the possession of others (as you can possess things without owning them) and hoarding it, it's a pretty piss-poor society where if you can take it, it's yours.

Of course they'll know it's propaganda! A poster which states that "Eating babies isn't really conducive to progress within our community. Please don't." would be equivalent to a poster within a Catholic church which states that "Jesus really doesn't like it when you rape little boys." These are both messages which will generally be supported by the community, for obvious reason. Propaganda does not equate to a lie- propaganda is simply a message which, fairly obviously, promotes a specific concept.

The people who develop this propaganda are the entire community. The purely democratic council would carry over from the Socialist state, except that it would hold no power, and only exist to set production and consumption standards and requests, none of which are legally binding- rather they only exist to offer uniformity to those who wish to subscribe to it.

And those who do not wish to subscribe to it will be allowed to run rampant?

It seems all organizations, governments included, create propaganda- it is almost inherit in the concept of organization- the organization must develop a specific stance in which to organize around.

I'm not sure how this is true. If you were to visit a consoler would you consider that consoler an authority figure?

If they were trying to get me to change the way I behave when I'm perfectly happy with the way I behave, yes. If they tell me that if I don't change my ways I will be unable to interact with society, then definitely, as they would be representing society's will in attempting to reform my behaviour.

Not at all. This process would occur on an individualist basis. Let's say, you have, for example, a guy named Ron who enjoys the occasional baby eating session. The initial response from his communal suppliers would be "Oh, that Ron guy is a dick. I'm going to stop supplying whatever I supply to him." if Ron continues to eat babies those who know about his baby eating would respond by bringing the issue to council. Council could then take a vote on whether or not to send a warning to Ron about his baby eating habits which explains to him why the Community disagrees with his actions, and what the response will be if he does not stop, alternate suggestions to his actions (perhaps he could eat tofu babies?) and what rehabilitational efforts are available to him. Finally, if Ron still doesn't quit eating babies council can vote on a request asking all of the producers within the Community to stop supplying Ron with their products. At this point Ron will be effectively exiled from the Community. He will still be free to execute all freedoms, however, the products normally supplied to him by the Community would no longer be supplied to him.

The Council is the authority. Sure, they can't force anyone to do anything, but the fact that they effectively represent the will of society, and they are in charge of passing on society's "suggestions" to everyone by representing society's will, they represent the will of the majority, and therefore are society's "authority" against all parties who oppose society's will, the minority presumably. Society must appeal to them, the individual wouldn't be able to do it themselves without being on the Council just in case the Council takes action against them for some form of "vigilantism" which society may disagree with because of it's nature, and so again, without Council's authority, the individual's action becomes something society might very well disagree with.

And again, if those people who supply Ron refuse to comply, Ron will not be inconvenienced if he can still get what he wants. Society could push the suppliers' hand by refusing to pay for their supply, but as there will presumably be no concept of money, refusing to endorse a supplier's supply would probably inconvenience the individual more than it would inconvenience the supplier or Ron.

It will never be punished. These actions do not remove rights from Ron, they simply separate him from the community. (and do so at the discretion of each individual community member.)

Firstly, any sanction, such as refusing to supply the individual with something that is freely available to anyone else, is effectively punishment, as it is a ramification of his actions. Separating him from the community is essentially a violation of his liberty, being as he won't be free to do what he likes within the community. If you refuse to supply him with food or water, you will be violating his right to life. You'll be refusing him a supply which everyone else has a right to, therefore you'll be discriminating against him without justification, as what he's doing isn't a crime, and you have a right not to be discriminated against. If he started putting propaganda up saying "eating babies is okay!" you'd be limiting his freedom of expression by taking actions to prevent or undo that.

And then there's the question of what a "right" is. "Rights" are defined by law to begin with - without law, you have no rights. It is that simple.

In essence, your theory relies more on God-like perfection in humanity to operate effectively than mine does even though my theory simply relies on perfection in one person and technology (and even then, my theory doesn't require perfection, as it doesn't claim to be perfect - simply superior to any alternative that is practically possible).

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

how many people have you provided jobs for?

That has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the statement I was making, if you wish to argue try actually making a relevant point rather than sidestepping the issue with misleading tactics. Referring to me directly achieves nothing since I can just as easily turn the tables on you and ask how many people YOU have provided jobs for, which neither proves nor disproves my points or your points, it'd simply make me look retarded in much the same as it has made you appear retarded.

My original issue was that you cast doubt by trying to make one side appear biased, when I demonstrated that the other side would quite clearly be biased as well. Your point has done nothing to dispel that.

Besides, providing jobs does not mean that your wealth in any way shows your intelligence or that you use your money wisely, because I very much doubt that all of Rupert Murdoch's income goes to his loyal underlings or to creating more jobs. And the state provides jobs as well - do you think that the government is made up of robots or something?

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Yeah, but the cars they made at the time were actually crap. The Trabants from East Germany, for example, are universally renowned for their ****tiness. Top Gear also did a little feature trying to discover what the best cars from Soviet Bloc countries were, with little success outside of a jeep thing.

The point being that they improved greatly in decades. I suppose, though, that one could blame Ford, as the collaborated with the USSR automotive industry.

Firstly, most of that which is actually pirated via peer-to-peer filesharing networks is produced by capitalists for purposes of capitalism - by music-makers seeking to make money from their music, for example, whose music is simply leaked into sources where it can be contained.

80% of the content listed on the Pirate Bay, a website with emphasis on piracy, is released under a license which promotes free distribution.

Secondly, that helps to prove my point, in a way - the reason peer-to-peer filesharing is popular is because it means people can greedily obtain as much as they like without having to pay for it. It's only those who have something to lose from it who complain about it. It is relatively communist in nature, but like communism, it just means that people can
leech from a source without having to work for it.

Not at all. While no participation is required on the part of the user, it is almost always given, as without participation from the user the service would die. (All transfers depend on the ability for users to upload.) This has obviously not happened, as BitTorrent is by far the most successful transfer protocol in existence. This shows that people are willing to contribute despite not being required to do so.

As Franz Ferdinand (the band) put it, "It's always better on holiday, so much better on holiday, that's why we only work when, we need the money." In a truly communist society, you wouldn't need the money, and so people wouldn't work, meaning very few would actually give something back to society. People will not work unless they have to, and the only way you can incite people to do that without money or rewards (which will be given to everyone as all will be equally rewarded) is
with authority, governmental in nature.

See above. I know I would be entirely willing to work so long as I was doing something I liked.

Thirdly, books such as "The Blank Slate"

I haven't read the book, however the theory states that humans are born without any instinctual qualities, and every value we have is taught to us, correct? And the book argues against that? Doesn't that support my argument of instinctual altruism?

and "The Ghost In The Machine" and otherwise (those amongst Ron Mexico's reading list) demonstrate that humans are not inherently altruistic.

Again, I haven't read The Ghost in The Machine, but from what I understand, while it does explain how humans have picked up personality traits of prehuman species, it doesn't really do a good job of explaining why he doesn't believe altruism is one of these traits. It's true, he sights war as an example, however, one must remember that war has only existed as long as the class split.

As I've kind of demonstrated that the book is more taking a stance on the Y axis of politics rather than the X axis, not really, unless you can provide us with some evidence to show that it's pro-socialist outside of Goldstein equalling Trotsky (which as Orwell hated Trotsky and Goldstein isn't a rallying point for the reader anyway isn't a good argument anyway).

Wait, what? What evidence is there to show that Orwell hated Trotsky?

No, you simply have a clear distinction between Stalin and Trotsky, not the two ideologies, but the persons - one being the actual dictator and the other being his hated enemy. Which also works if you accept that Big Brother is an amalgamation of Stalin and Hitler, and that Goldstein is a Trotsky-Jew mash-up.

This either assumes that:
a.) Stalin is not a Communist
b.) Trotsky is not a Communist
c.) Despite agreeing on everything, Trotsky and Stalin will fight to the death, literally, to oppose what the other represents.

And how pray tell would "rule by the people" work? The individual would have a say in how things are to be. Anarchy, the same really, the individual would govern others or himself the way he deemed it so. It's simply an argument over terminology.

No, there is a very clear distinction. In a pure democracy a council made up of the entire population and they vote on laws, which are then enforced by a police force, a court system, etc... On the other hand, the council within the commune exists only to further the spread of information. It is also a purely democratic body, however, it does not create or enforce law.

Saying that there is no difference between these bodies is like saying there is no difference between the US Congress and Wikipedia.

I was simply stating that it does not necessarily mean an increase, and that an increase in sales does not mean that people are seeking an alternative. If indeed communists are trying to educate themselves on the matter, then they're already communists before they've even touched Marx's work. Increased sales does not mean that anyone "seeking out an alternative" in any way shape or form, because with these political ideologies people have usually decided their stance before they've even touched the things.

However, if the sales are due to Communists who wish to educate themselves wouldn't this indicate that there was an increase of Communists who haven't read the book?

I wouldn't argue that much in America given the demonization of communists in general in that nation.

From personal experience, very few people who argue against its tenets actually know what its tenets are.
o

I account for failures and corruption whenever anyone raises the issue. I never said my ideal would operate perfectly, because I don't claim to be able to create a eutopia. I simply state that my system is or would be superior to what we currently have.

Hardly. You're going to manage all of the legislation yourself? You'll be seeing several three hundred, four hundred, five hundred page bills daily. Are you going to read these all, or simply pass through what the lobbyists who wrote the bill wanted?

CCTV. *shrug*

And this is going to help your manage file transfers?

Opiate of the masses, on the religion ground - if you're religious and a communist you're not a very good communist. But as I say, I wouldn't doubt a fair share of them are teenagers. A large share, in fact. Purely cuz it's hip to fight the machine.

Religious communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, that's bull****, unless you consider murder or criminal damage or theft or even attempting to exclude liability for defective products an attempt to gain authority within a system where an authority structure is presented. If anything, there are more laws restricting authoritative figures than there are restricting the general public - see the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (rather ironically passed in 1984) for an example of an act which effectively ties the hands of police officers in all situations outside of suspicion of terrorism.

It has less to do with the actual offense, and more to do with the motivation- the motivation usually being to gain power or capital. (or something which translates into power or capital, like a powerful job or an expensive product.)

Communism states that property belongs to everyone, not that it belongs to no one and is just there. If a communist society truly would not account for someone just taking stuff from the possession of others (as you can possess things without owning them) and hoarding it, it's a pretty piss-poor society where if you can take it, it's yours.

While this is a possible situation, it would not be benificial to the Community. As such, council endorsed propaganda would be created discouraging these actions, and people who take such actions would be named within council, perhaps receiving the same treatment as our buddy Ron, though probably not to the same extent.

The same concept holds true in a BitTorrent environment- if a user is seeding to a peer who has low upload or is not uploading they are free to refuse transfer to that user.

And those who do not wish to subscribe to it will be allowed to run rampant?

Effectively, however, this action wouldn't be recommended as in extreme cases this would cut you off to the community's supply of food, clean water, shelter, etc... Living selfishly in a world commune would be similar to living today without ever accepting or giving capital to or from anyone.

If they were trying to get me to change the way I behave when I'm perfectly happy with the way I behave, yes. If they tell me that if I don't change my ways I will be unable to interact with society, then definitely, as they would be representing society's will in attempting to reform my behaviour.

You go to be rehabilitated on your own accord, and you listen to the advice and participate in the therapy as you see fit. No one could force you to attend or take to heart sessions. The only difference in a commune would be that rehabilitation would be completely free and accessible to all members of society for all issues.

The Council is the authority. Sure, they can't force anyone to do anything, but the fact that they effectively represent the will of society, and they are in charge of passing on society's "suggestions" to everyone by representing society's will,

They 'represent' society and pass on society's suggestions because they are society. Even our friend Ron would have the ability to vote on the issue of his baby eating.

they represent the will of the majority, and therefore are society's "authority" against all parties who oppose society's will, the minority presumably. Society must appeal to them, the individual wouldn't be able to do it themselves without being on the Council just in case the Council takes action against them for some form of "vigilantism"

As stated above, they would be assumed to be members of council, as this property would be inherent of being human. Even Ron, with his baby eating, would still have the ability to vote on all introduced suggestions.

which society may disagree with because of it's nature, and so again, without Council's authority, the individual's action becomes something society might very well disagree with.

Council would be as much of an authority as the news is today. They exist to inform people- what people make of the information provided by Council would be up to them.

And again, if those people who supply Ron refuse to comply, Ron will not be inconvenienced if he can still get what he wants. Society could push the suppliers' hand by refusing to pay for their supply, but as there will presumably be no concept of money, refusing to endorse a supplier's supply would probably inconvenience the individual more than it would inconvenience the supplier or Ron.

Everyone is a producer and a supplier. If someone who produces continues to support Ron (through which he/she would have no motivation to do so, as he/she would not be receiving and sort of funding from Ron) the suppliers who do not support Ron can, at their own discretion, decide to drop support for the Ron supporters.

This would, of course, be very bad for the Ron supporters as it would deprive the Ron supporters of resources as well as possibly allow their competition a window into market dominance, all at no gain to the Ron supporters.

Firstly, any sanction, such as refusing to supply the individual with something that is freely available to anyone else, is effectively punishment, as it is a ramification of his actions. Separating him from the community is essentially a violation of his liberty, being as he won't be free to do what he likes within the community.

He is still free to do what he wants, however, certain suppliers may refuse to supply him with their products.

If you refuse to supply him with food or water, you will be violating his right to life. You'll be refusing him a supply which everyone else has a right to, therefore you'll be discriminating against him without justification, as what he's doing isn't a crime, and you have a right not to be discriminated against.

Certain producers may refuse to supply to him, yes. That is their right to distribute their product to whom they wish. Of course, if they utilize this right to a point which is detrimental to society they might start to feel the pinch from their suppliers as well as a drop in support from consumers.

If he started putting propaganda up saying "eating babies is okay!" you'd be limiting his freedom of expression by taking actions to prevent or undo that.

He has every right to create and distribute these posters as he sees fit.

And then there's the question of what a "right" is. "Rights" are defined by law to begin with - without law, you have no rights. It is that simple.

"Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions."

In essence, your theory relies more on God-like perfection in humanity to operate effectively than mine does even though my theory simply relies on perfection in one person and technology (and even then, my theory doesn't require perfection, as it doesn't claim to be perfect - simply superior to any alternative that is practically possible).

No, Marxism relies on altruism which exists genetically in humanity. Your system relies on the ability for one person to constantly monitor all citizens while simultaneously understanding all issues brought to him or her and responding to said issues, all while maintaining altruism which is not promoted within a hierarchal, Capitalist system.

And the state provides jobs as well - do you think that the government is made up of robots or something?

"Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."-Micheal Steele

In reality, however, the U.S. government is the largest employer in the nation.

Yes, assuming you mean the opposite of what you typed. Chaos theory explains that complex systems which appear to be chaotic or random in nature can only be pseudo-random as all systems can be reduced to a recognizable pattern- i.e., it supports laws of predictability in mathematical systems which allow mathematicians and those who apply mathematics within their fields to rely on statistically relevant postulates.

it also notes that no matter how much data is collected or analyzed 100% accuracy is impossible and reliable long term predictions are virtually impossible.

the common comparison here is contrasting predictions of human need to predictions of the weather... I doubt anyone would argue the deterministic nature of the meteorological activity, but most would note that it's far too sensitive for any form of accurate long term prediction. A butterfly flapping its wings in brazil... causes a tornado in texas... something which a planned economy(or anything else for that matter) is incapable of accounting for.

Originally Posted by 8bit

The point being that they improved greatly in decades. I suppose, though, that one could blame Ford, as the collaborated with the USSR automotive industry.

Or we could blame the Trabant for being ****.

80% of the content listed on the Pirate Bay, a website with emphasis on piracy, is released under a license which promotes free distribution.

It wouldn't be piracy if it was intended to be distributed freely.

Not at all. While no participation is required on the part of the user, it is almost always given, as without participation from the user the service would die. (All transfers depend on the ability for users to upload.) This has obviously not happened, as BitTorrent is by far the most successful transfer protocol in existence. This shows that people are willing to contribute despite not being required to do so.

Any contribution through bit-torrent is easy and/or requires no effort (as in allowing people to torrent from you in the same way as you can torrent from them). It's not like the communist utopia where all receive equally yet do all manner of work to contribute in return.

See above. I know I would be entirely willing to work so long as I was doing something I liked.

Everyone has exactly the same attitude, so who would do the menial jobs like cleaning the toilets? Hardly anyone, if they didn't have to. You need people to fill certain roles in society, or certain needs wouldn't be provided for. The only way you can do that is by directing someone into that path.

I haven't read the book, however the theory states that humans are born without any instinctual qualities, and every value we have is taught to us, correct? And the book argues against that? Doesn't that support my argument of instinctual altruism?

Blank Slate theory tells us that you're born as a blank slate. The book apparently argues against the Noble Savage theory, or maybe that's another book.

Again, I haven't read The Ghost in The Machine, but from what I understand, while it does explain how humans have picked up personality traits of prehuman species, it doesn't really do a good job of explaining why he doesn't believe altruism is one of these traits. It's true, he sights war as an example, however, one must remember that war has only existed as long as the class split.

War is fighting on a larger scale. Fighting between tribes etc has existed ever since humanity could form tribes, and fighting between individuals has existed since neanderthal man.

Wait, what? What evidence is there to show that Orwell hated Trotsky?

A quote which I posted earlier which you didn't dispute.

Originally Posted by Orwell

"[T]he fact that Trotskyists are everywhere a persecuted minority, and that the accusation usually made against them, i.e. of collaborating with the Fascists, is obviously false, creates an impression that Trotskyism is intellectually and morally superior to Communism [i.e. supporters of Stalin]; but it is doubtful whether there is much difference."

Trotskyism and Trotsky are therefore not seen in a good light by Orwell. This was the basis of my argument earlier, and you didn't dispute it at the time.

Your response was that Orwell was opposed to Bolshevism, and that Trotsky was a Bolshevist, which supports my point - Orwell did not see Trotsky as a hero of any kind.

This either assumes that:
a.) Stalin is not a Communist
b.) Trotsky is not a Communist
c.) Despite agreeing on everything, Trotsky and Stalin will fight to the death, literally, to oppose what the other represents.

Or D) that two people who believe the same thing would rather that themselves be in power than the other. I oppose other authoritarians, for example, because I'm the only person I trust to be able to do it right.

No, there is a very clear distinction. In a pure democracy a council made up of the entire population and they vote on laws, which are then enforced by a police force, a court system, etc... On the other hand, the council within the commune exists only to further the spread of information. It is also a purely democratic body, however, it does not create or enforce law.

Saying that there is no difference between these bodies is like saying there is no difference between the US Congress and Wikipedia.

But the police force and the court system are the population as well, so when a "sanction" is imposed in either, it's essentially the same thing with slightly less force being used.

However, if the sales are due to Communists who wish to educate themselves wouldn't this indicate that there was an increase of Communists who haven't read the book?

It could be that they're the same number of communists, but the many who had not read the book suddenly decided to pick themselves up a copy.

From personal experience, very few people who argue against its tenets actually know what its tenets are.

Same goes for Mein Kampf - few people who argue against it actually know what was in it other than "kill Jews".

Hardly. You're going to manage all of the legislation yourself? You'll be seeing several three hundred, four hundred, five hundred page bills daily. Are you going to read these all, or simply pass through what the lobbyists who wrote the bill wanted?

Lobbyists? In MY jurisdiction?

And this is going to help your manage file transfers?

The only reason we can't right now is because internet service providers are private companies. If we nationalized internet provision we wouldn't rely on civil cases to prevent piracy.

Religious communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those people didn't read the bit where Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses" and a communist utopia would be better off without it.

It has less to do with the actual offense, and more to do with the motivation- the motivation usually being to gain power or capital. (or something which translates into power or capital, like a powerful job or an expensive product.)

Motive is irrelevant when it comes to innocence or guilt of a crime - only intention, recklessness, or negligence. Motive only helps us find who did it.

But you concede then, that the majority of offences are the very opposite of "attacks against authority are illegal".

While this is a possible situation, it would not be benificial to the Community. As such, council endorsed propaganda would be created discouraging these actions, and people who take such actions would be named within council, perhaps receiving the same treatment as our buddy Ron, though probably not to the same extent.

The same concept holds true in a BitTorrent environment- if a user is seeding to a peer who has low upload or is not uploading they are free to refuse transfer to that user.

Effectively, however, this action wouldn't be recommended as in extreme cases this would cut you off to the community's supply of food, clean water, shelter, etc... Living selfishly in a world commune would be similar to living today without ever accepting or giving capital to or from anyone.

Firstly propaganda is not authoritative enough to hold any weight, secondly you'll be denying people their "rights" by denying them the ability to survive. And they could easily go and take their food or water from suppliers, which you would not take measures to prevent, because you refuse to enforce authority.

You go to be rehabilitated on your own accord, and you listen to the advice and participate in the therapy as you see fit. No one could force you to attend or take to heart sessions. The only difference in a commune would be that rehabilitation would be completely free and accessible to all members of society for all issues.

And anyone who doesn't see their behaviour as warranting rehabilitation would probably not bother with it.

They 'represent' society and pass on society's suggestions because they are society. Even our friend Ron would have the ability to vote on the issue of his baby eating.

So there's no point in having a council if it's just "everyone in society turns up in a room" rather than a panel of people representing society. That doesn't contradict my proposition that they are, in fact, the authority.

As stated above, they would be assumed to be members of council, as this property would be inherent of being human. Even Ron, with his baby eating, would still have the ability to vote on all introduced suggestions.

The minority having the ability to vote doesn't disprove the fact that the majority are authority. And as above, there's no point in having a "council" if every individual in his actions is a councillor.

Council would be as much of an authority as the news is today. They exist to inform people- what people make of the information provided by Council would be up to them.

The news does not make suggestions - it simply reports. If you're referring to tabloids that run petitions, of course, then it's more than news, it's the media. And the media are pretty authoritative.

Everyone is a producer and a supplier. If someone who produces continues to support Ron (through which he/she would have no motivation to do so, as he/she would not be receiving and sort of funding from Ron) the suppliers who do not support Ron can, at their own discretion, decide to drop support for the Ron supporters.

This would, of course, be very bad for the Ron supporters as it would deprive the Ron supporters of resources as well as possibly allow their competition a window into market dominance, all at no gain to the Ron supporters.

Then you drop the issue of morality (which I don't really care about, but society would have to in your little utopia) and the suppliers concentrate more on consumption and market. I mean, who cares if he's eating babies if it comes to what amounts to profit.

He is still free to do what he wants, however, certain suppliers may refuse to supply him with their products.

So he could just take it from their cold dead hands if he wanted. What's to stop him? Absolutely nothing. Your system does not account for injustice.

Certain producers may refuse to supply to him, yes. That is their right to distribute their product to whom they wish. Of course, if they utilize this right to a point which is detrimental to society they might start to feel the pinch from their suppliers as well as a drop in support from consumers.

Well you have to then weigh the priority of "rights" - whose right is more important, the morally-behaving producers, or Ron's? Who decides that? The majority, or an independent impartial arbitrator. Either way, authority.

He has every right to create and distribute these posters as he sees fit.

Which defeats the point of community-developed propaganda if you have two sets of conflicting propaganda. It answers nothing.

"Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions."

Moral rights are defined by a code of moral rules, i.e. quasi-laws set down by certain authorities, be they divine, governments who consider a certain code of conduct to be acceptable, or the majority who have developed what behaviour they consider acceptable over time.

No, Marxism relies on altruism which exists genetically in humanity. Your system relies on the ability for one person to constantly monitor all citizens while simultaneously understanding all issues brought to him or her and responding to said issues, all while maintaining altruism which is not promoted within a hierarchal, Capitalist system.

Again, the myth of the Noble Savage.

Firstly, my system doesn't rely on me monitoring every person personally myself, but it does rely on me checking to ensure that those I delegate with that responsibility don't fail in it. Secondly, if there is an issue I am incapable of understanding (such as complex scientific issues) I have the experts brought to me to aid me in understanding it insofar as I need to, and then delegate individuals with executing my decision. If they do not, or don't do it correctly, it will be corrected as soon as it is brought to my attention. I never said my system was perfect - mistakes will happen. But I would do as best as is humanly possible to ensure that Justice is done.

How do I know those I delegate won't betray my trust? I don't, that's why I wouldn't trust them to do their job accurately without my supervision. Demand regular reports, have watchdogs watch over them. I very much doubt every individual would collaborate against me in a society where all are watched and all have something to lose if they are caught.

How do I know the so-called experts won't lie to me to get me to make a certain decision that is in their benefit? Firstly I ensure that I have more than one expert on hand, secondly I don't simply trust what they tell me on face-value. Thirdly, as with a court, I'd want certain proofs to be presented before I am swayed from a more Just decision.

How do I maintain altruism? I don't. It's not about making people care about others. It's about making them behave in such a way that they do not harm others. I don't care about their thoughts, I care about their actions.

"Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."-Micheal Steele

In reality, however, the U.S. government is the largest employer in the nation.

You and I both know that quote is wrong, or perhaps we can completely disregard the civil service's thousands of employees.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Or we could blame the Trabant for being ****.

They simply followed the Ford business model, which is known for its reluctance towards change, as fairly recently made apparent.

Ford products also happen to generally be ****. This makes sense as Ford took a huge role in developing the Soviet automotive industry.

It wouldn't be piracy if it was intended to be distributed freely.

Yes, and 80% of it is not piracy.

Any contribution through bit-torrent is easy and/or requires no effort (as in allowing people to torrent from you in the same way as you can torrent from them). It's not like the communist utopia where all receive equally yet do all manner of work to contribute in return.

We would contribute what work we are interested in contributing. All manner of work would be completed by society and its creations, but we all are aloud to choose the work we wish.

Everyone has exactly the same attitude, so who would do the menial jobs like cleaning the toilets? Hardly anyone, if they didn't have to. You need people to fill certain roles in society, or certain needs wouldn't be provided for. The only way you can do that is by directing someone into that path.

If society has an aversion to menial jobs, which they most certainly do, focus would be put on automating these jobs, or at least reducing their work load. This can be done before the move to anarchy, of course, but can and will continue through communal control.

Blank Slate theory tells us that you're born as a blank slate. The book apparently argues against the Noble Savage theory, or maybe that's another book.

No, it argues against Tabula Rasa, also known as, the blank slate theory. This is why the full title is: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

War is fighting on a larger scale. Fighting between tribes etc has existed ever since humanity could form tribes, and fighting between individuals has existed since neanderthal man.

Yes, as I stated, it has existed since the class split.

Trotskyism and Trotsky are therefore not seen in a good light by Orwell. This was the basis of my argument earlier, and you didn't dispute it at the time.

Your response was that Orwell was opposed to Bolshevism, and that Trotsky was a Bolshevist, which supports my point - Orwell did not see Trotsky as a hero of any kind.

I'm not a Trotskyist, and I don't agree with everything Trotsky had to say. However, I do agree with some of what he has to say. Why does this need to be black and white? Can't someone disagree with his vanguardism, but agree with his support for social movement and empowerment of the working population?

Or D) that two people who believe the same thing would rather that themselves be in power than the other. I oppose other authoritarians, for example, because I'm the only person I trust to be able to do it right.

The thing is, both Trotsky and Goldstein were in power. They voluntarily left their positions because they disagreed with their peers. They were then driven out of their respective nations for disagreeing with who was in power.

But the police force and the court system are the population as well, so when a "sanction" is imposed in either, it's essentially the same thing with slightly less force being used.

The police force and the courts would no longer exist in a communal system.

It could be that they're the same number of communists, but the many who had not read the book suddenly decided to pick themselves up a copy.

And the logic behind explaining it this way?

Same goes for Mein Kampf - few people who argue against it actually know what was in it other than "kill Jews".

The difference is that it seems few of the people who argue in defense of the tenets represented in the book have read the book. I however, suppose I could be wrong. This is all judging by my personal experience with Nazis.

Lobbyists? In MY jurisdiction?

Will you abolish free organization and speech? With organization you will have lobbies which represent the opinions of these organizations.

The only reason we can't right now is because internet service providers are private companies. If we nationalized internet provision we wouldn't rely on civil cases to prevent piracy.

Networks are far more complex than you seem to think they are, and the Internet, specifically is far more complex than you see it as. Protocols already exist today to protect societies from what you are suggesting.

Those people didn't read the bit where Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses" and a communist utopia would be better off without it.

Marx isn't the holy lord of Communism, and the Communist Manifesto isn't my holy writ. While I agree with Marx in this context, one may disagree with him and still call one's self a Communist.

Motive is irrelevant when it comes to innocence or guilt of a crime - only intention, recklessness, or negligence. Motive only helps us find who did it.

Motive is a synonym for intention.

But you concede then, that the majority of offences are the very opposite of "attacks against authority are illegal".

I never made that claim. I claimed that most crimes are either oppositions to the authority or ordeals regarding capital.

Most are, however, not a result of opposition of authority in general.

Firstly propaganda is not authoritative enough to hold any weight, secondly you'll be denying people their "rights" by denying them the ability to survive. And they could easily go and take their food or water from suppliers, which you would not take measures to prevent, because you refuse to enforce authority.

It seems one would have a hard time taking such actions without support and without supply.

Nonetheless, even if such action were sustainable, having to forcefully take the supplies needed to survive simply seems less luxurious than having them delivered to you, an incentive to contribute to society right there.

And anyone who doesn't see their behaviour as warranting rehabilitation would probably not bother with it.

Correct, however, voluntary rehabilitation would certainly help thin down the numbers. It does today.

So there's no point in having a council if it's just "everyone in society turns up in a room" rather than a panel of people representing society. That doesn't contradict my proposition that they are, in fact, the authority.

I don't really picture them turning up in a room, however, simply being a council doesn't make a body an authority. They simply would not have an authoritative presence. If you claim otherwise you're redefining what authority means.

The minority having the ability to vote doesn't disprove the fact that the majority are authority. And as above, there's no point in having a "council" if every individual in his actions is a councillor.

No, I don't believe you actually explained why democracy is pointless. Can you go over that again, perhaps more thoroughly?

The news does not make suggestions - it simply reports. If you're referring to tabloids that run petitions, of course, then it's more than news, it's the media. And the media are pretty authoritative.

When I get arrested by the CNN police force I'll agree with you.

Then you drop the issue of morality (which I don't really care about, but society would have to in your little utopia) and the suppliers concentrate more on consumption and market. I mean, who cares if he's eating babies if it comes to what amounts to profit.

There is no profit to be had.

What you're describing the current world market situation. No, no one right now cares if you eat babies as long as you consume, consume, consume.

So he could just take it from their cold dead hands if he wanted. What's to stop him? Absolutely nothing. Your system does not account for injustice.

You seem to be picturing a direct transition from the system we have today in which someone stands up and says "YUP WERE COMMUNIST NOW"

Of course this wouldn't work. Of course we would have riots.

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a slow progression to this point. As such, society would be very much conditioned away from greed by the time a communal structure took place, as this structure would only take form as a result of society's progressive conditioning, not the other way around.

The same can be said of the united States today. It's part of the reason why we generally don't try to own people. It's really a huge reason slavery was outlawed. We saw that it wasn't a good system, and we also saw that a majority of US citizens were conditioned away from reliance on that system.

Well you have to then weigh the priority of "rights" - whose right is more important, the morally-behaving producers, or Ron's? Who decides that? The majority, or an independent impartial arbitrator. Either way, authority.

Unless you define rights as lapses in restriction, athority is not required to create rights. If you define rights this way then you would be correct in claiming that a communal society would have no rights as there would be no authority to restrict.

Of course, at this point you're simply dabbling in semantics.

Which defeats the point of community-developed propaganda if you have two sets of conflicting propaganda. It answers nothing.

I suspect the community created and distributed propaganda would be more numerous and better placed and produced than the propaganda of Ron.

However, your expectancy for propaganda to tell you what to think is in my mind, sickening. Propaganda doesn't exist exclusively to tell people what to think- it exists to make information and partisans known, and to remind people of their existence.

Moral rights are defined by a code of moral rules, i.e. quasi-laws set down by certain authorities, be they divine, governments who consider a certain code of conduct to be acceptable, or the majority who have developed what behaviour they consider acceptable over time.

Society isn't an authoritative structure, though. It is socially acceptable to shake hands and smile when first meeting someone in the United States, however, I rarely hear about people receiving citizen's arrests for not shaking someone's hand.

Again, the myth of the Noble Savage.

Firstly, my system doesn't rely on me monitoring every person personally myself, but it does rely on me checking to ensure that those I delegate with that responsibility don't fail in it. Secondly, if there is an issue I am incapable of understanding (such as complex scientific issues) I have the experts brought to me to aid me in understanding it insofar as I need to, and then delegate individuals with executing my decision. If they do not, or don't do it correctly, it will be corrected as soon as it is brought to my attention. I never said my system was perfect - mistakes will happen. But I would do as best as is humanly possible to ensure that Justice is done.

It sound's like you're describing the U.S. presidential system, sans voting rights.

There is no corruption within our legislative bodies today, am I right?

How do I know those I delegate won't betray my trust? I don't, that's why I wouldn't trust them to do their job accurately without my supervision. Demand regular reports, have watchdogs watch over them. I very much doubt every individual would collaborate against me in a society where all are watched and all have something to lose if they are caught.

How do I know the so-called experts won't lie to me to get me to make a certain decision that is in their benefit? Firstly I ensure that I have more than one expert on hand, secondly I don't simply trust what they tell me on face-value. Thirdly, as with a court, I'd want certain proofs to be presented before I am swayed from a more Just decision.

All are watched by whom? You? You are personally going to see over several hundred million people? Perhaps several billion people? Or will you appoint people who will do that for you who you will watch over? Of course, Watching over a few million people is quite a daunting task, as such, those who you appoint will have to appoint others underneath them... as this progresses the possible points of failure increase, which is a huge issue in a linear system like the one you're describing.

How do I maintain altruism? I don't. It's not about making people care about others. It's about making them behave in such a way that they do not harm others. I don't care about their thoughts, I care about their actions.

How can you prove to me, rather, that you, personally, will remain altruistic towards society, rather than using your position to reap benefits?

Finally, what happens when you die? Your entire nation falls into disarray? You appoint someone who worked underneath you? You hold an election?

You and I both know that quote is wrong, or perhaps we can completely disregard the civil service's thousands of employees.

Perhaps the intended sarcasm when quoting that wasn't quite as apparent as I had intended it to be.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

it also notes that no matter how much data is collected or analyzed 100% accuracy is impossible and reliable long term predictions are virtually impossible.

the common comparison here is contrasting predictions of human need to predictions of the weather... I doubt anyone would argue the deterministic nature of the meteorological activity, but most would note that it's far too sensitive for any form of accurate long term prediction. A butterfly flapping its wings in brazil... causes a tornado in texas... something which a planned economy(or anything else for that matter) is incapable of accounting for.

But the entire purpose of the study is to allow us to create predictions based upon statistically relevant postulates....

It posits that there is no true randomness, and as such, while it may be difficult to measure certain aspects of nature, one may use statistically supported information to support a concept, as we understand that the result of the statistically supported information can not be random in nature.

Originally Posted by 8bit

They simply followed the Ford business model, which is known for its reluctance towards change, as fairly recently made apparent.

Ford products also happen to generally be ****. This makes sense as Ford took a huge role in developing the Soviet automotive industry.

As you can see I don't know **** about cars. I meant the entire car reference facetiously anyway based entirely on Top Gear.

Yes, and 80% of it is not piracy.

I'm willing to bet that 100% of it is hardly useful for the maintenance of society.

We would contribute what work we are interested in contributing. All manner of work would be completed by society and its creations, but we all are aloud to choose the work we wish.

That's the thing - many people want to do jobs they're hardly qualified for or suited to, and no one wants to do certain jobs which need to be done.

If society has an aversion to menial jobs, which they most certainly do, focus would be put on automating these jobs, or at least reducing their work load. This can be done before the move to anarchy, of course, but can and will continue through communal control.

So robots. And here your theory delves into the realms of what is currently sci-fi.

No, it argues against Tabula Rasa, also known as, the blank slate theory. This is why the full title is: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

So yeah I'm talking about Noble Savage theory.

Yes, as I stated, it has existed since the class split.

Oh come on, you can hardly call neanderthal man's disputes a "class split", or even tribal wars.

I'm not a Trotskyist, and I don't agree with everything Trotsky had to say. However, I do agree with some of what he has to say. Why does this need to be black and white? Can't someone disagree with his vanguardism, but agree with his support for social movement and empowerment of the working population?

Regardless of whether or not he agrees with Trotskyism, the point is that you're claiming that Goldstein is a carbon-copy of Trotsky and so represents Orwell's support of socialism, whereas I'm pointing out that Orwell was not a big fan of Trotsky and so this cannot be the case.

The thing is, both Trotsky and Goldstein were in power. They voluntarily left their positions because they disagreed with their peers. They were then driven out of their respective nations for disagreeing with who was in power.

So exactly, they'd rather things be done their way.

The police force and the courts would no longer exist in a communal system.

So those individuals who take action to enforce certain codes of conduct or moral rules or whatever would be the courts or police. And those who settle disputes based on "were my rights violated" would be courts.

And the logic behind explaining it this way?

I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying that's what it could be.

The difference is that it seems few of the people who argue in defense of the tenets represented in the book have read the book. I however, suppose I could be wrong. This is all judging by my personal experience with Nazis.

I've never met a Nazi, but I've pretty much all the experience I've had with self-proclaimed communists and the Manifesto.

Will you abolish free organization and speech? With organization you will have lobbies which represent the opinions of these organizations.

Free organization? Why should there be any organization other than mine?

I wouldn't limit free speech. You can complain all you like if you don't like my system, as long as you don't do anything about it.

Networks are far more complex than you seem to think they are, and the Internet, specifically is far more complex than you see it as. Protocols already exist today to protect societies from what you are suggesting.

From what I understand of anti-piracy mechanisms, there are two ways - one, the corporation or company whose material you're distributing poses as a file-sharer and then entraps you into taking what they're distributing which allows them to file a civil case against you, and two, the internet service providers (in Britain at least) can monitor their users and take minor actions to penalize such behaviour (like slowing your connection, not cutting you off), or forward your details to those concerned to allow them to take a civil suit against you.

Marx isn't the holy lord of Communism, and the Communist Manifesto isn't my holy writ. While I agree with Marx in this context, one may disagree with him and still call one's self a Communist.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but I would think that if anything was tweakable, the atheism wouldn't be.

Motive is a synonym for intention.

It most certainly is not. Intention, while not defined by courts as-yet, is nothing to do with motive. You may have wanted to kill someone for insurance purposes - that's your motive. All the court needs to hear about is that you intended to kill him. The motive of the crime is why you intended to kill him.

I never made that claim. I claimed that most crimes are either oppositions to the authority or ordeals regarding capital.

Most are, however, not a result of opposition of authority in general.

That's exactly the same thing. Opposition to authority being a crime is the same as saying that attacking authority is illegal. Now as I've demonstrated, claiming that this is the case in the majority of the criminal code is incorrect.

It seems one would have a hard time taking such actions without support and without supply.

Nonetheless, even if such action were sustainable, having to forcefully take the supplies needed to survive simply seems less luxurious than having them delivered to you, an incentive to contribute to society right there.

It'd be easy enough to just steal things from suppliers if no one is going to stop you. And regardless of its luxury, maybe Ron likes eating babies so much that he will accept being inconvenienced if it means he still gets to eat babies.

Correct, however, voluntary rehabilitation would certainly help thin down the numbers. It does today.

I'd wager that those who do so voluntarily aren't really that much of a problem anyway, but I will admit it does thin down the numbers.

I don't really picture them turning up in a room, however, simply being a council doesn't make a body an authority. They simply would not have an authoritative presence. If you claim otherwise you're redefining what authority means.

The fact that they come to decisions of what actions to take and then suggest these in their capacity as council is what makes them an authority, even if they don't enforce it with brute force.

No, I don't believe you actually explained why democracy is pointless. Can you go over that again, perhaps more thoroughly?

It's not really democracy here. Democracy is 51% being able to force the other 49% to obey them.

But in this example, if, no matter what an individual does, he is acting in his capacity as a councillor, his action is just as authoritative as the next guy's. So when two people conflict, there is no ability to resolve that dispute without an overarching authority.

When I get arrested by the CNN police force I'll agree with you.

Having police is not the defining attribute of authority (don't ask me what is, however, I'm trying to figure that out in my jurisprudence classes by debating with the lecturers).

What I mean is, the media have such an authoritative presence that they can rally people to take action. Vigilante mobs have been influenced by what the media says, people have become shunned by society because of the way the media represents them (even if they didn't actually commit the crimes alleged), and so on and so forth. The media hits at peoples' minds and hearts, and unfortunately many people are susceptible to that kind of influence.

There is no profit to be had.

What you're describing the current world market situation. No, no one right now cares if you eat babies as long as you consume, consume, consume.

I did presume there was no monetary system in your world, but given as you were talking about "market dominance", I presumed there was something to be gained in that.

You seem to be picturing a direct transition from the system we have today in which someone stands up and says "YUP WERE COMMUNIST NOW"

Of course this wouldn't work. Of course we would have riots.

This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a slow progression to this point. As such, society would be very much conditioned away from greed by the time a communal structure took place, as this structure would only take form as a result of society's progressive conditioning, not the other way around.

The same can be said of the united States today. It's part of the reason why we generally don't try to own people. It's really a huge reason slavery was outlawed. We saw that it wasn't a good system, and we also saw that a majority of US citizens were conditioned away from reliance on that system.

Greed will always permeate the human heart. It's... dare I say, human nature. Many of us have risen above it in time, but they've always been the minority.

Unless you define rights as lapses in restriction, athority is not required to create rights. If you define rights this way then you would be correct in claiming that a communal society would have no rights as there would be no authority to restrict.

Of course, at this point you're simply dabbling in semantics.

Define "right" in your world then. That's not my definition of it, because I'm not sure what my definition is (again a matter I intend to discuss in my classes), but I'm certain that without an authority to ensure that your rights are inviolable, or indeed to determine what rights you have, they simply do not exist.

I suspect the community created and distributed propaganda would be more numerous and better placed and produced than the propaganda of Ron.

However, your expectancy for propaganda to tell you what to think is in my mind, sickening. Propaganda doesn't exist exclusively to tell people what to think- it exists to make information and partisans known, and to remind people of their existence.

Relying on the fact that "good" propaganda will outweigh "bad" propaganda in number isn't a good defence, because presumably those with sufficient influence as a result of their "market dominance" could distribute any propaganda they wanted too. Or maybe Ron would just steal all the resources he can, like paint, and just spend all day painting over the good propaganda with his bad. And again, there's no one to stop him.

That's what propaganda is - it's to influence the mind. If you want to promote certain behaviours, you are essentially telling people to think "that behaviour is good, therefore I should conform to it".

Society isn't an authoritative structure, though. It is socially acceptable to shake hands and smile when first meeting someone in the United States, however, I rarely hear about people receiving citizen's arrests for not shaking someone's hand.

Citizen's arrest is a legal concept, and as such can only be used in a situation where law has been violated. Society's acceptable behaviour isn't law, but it's authoritative in that, for example... where society has created a "rule" in terms of conduct (not law), they criticize those who do not conform to it. If they then make this person into a social outcast, he may not be legally punished, but society's authority is still being exerted.

It sound's like you're describing the U.S. presidential system, sans voting rights.

There is no corruption within our legislative bodies today, am I right?

You have legislatures, is the point, where democratically elected officials, and a large variety thereof, have to vote on something before it becomes law (oversimplification of the legislative process but w/e). There is no Parliament in my system, effectively.

All are watched by whom? You? You are personally going to see over several hundred million people? Perhaps several billion people? Or will you appoint people who will do that for you who you will watch over? Of course, Watching over a few million people is quite a daunting task, as such, those who you appoint will have to appoint others underneath them... as this progresses the possible points of failure increase, which is a huge issue in a linear system like the one you're describing.

It would have to be delegated, clearly. But they would each be supervised, whether by me or by others. Mistrust would hopefully be enough to prevent them all from letting those they are watching or each other get away with anything.

How can you prove to me, rather, that you, personally, will remain altruistic towards society, rather than using your position to reap benefits?

I can't, because I'm not being altruistic. I want that kind of authority to meet my own ends. My own ends, however, are to do Justice, and only those who oppose that need worry about my ambition.

I wouldn't be doing it out of some kind of moral obligation to society. I wouldn't be doing it because I care about other people. I'd be doing it because I want a world where every time I wake up I don't have to be disgusted by stories about pathetic wastes of human life inflicting themselves upon the world.

Finally, what happens when you die? Your entire nation falls into disarray? You appoint someone who worked underneath you? You hold an election?

If the good die young, I'll live forever.

Perhaps the intended sarcasm when quoting that wasn't quite as apparent as I had intended it to be.

Well I was just commenting on the quote.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

As you can see I don't know **** about cars. I meant the entire car reference facetiously anyway based entirely on Top Gear.

I've never played Top Gear, so whatever.

I'm willing to bet that 100% of it is hardly useful for the maintenance of society.

A majority of Linux distributions, which is the primary kernal of choice for supercomputers and network servers, are distributed via BitTorrent protocol.

That's the thing - many people want to do jobs they're hardly qualified for or suited to, and no one wants to do certain jobs which need to be done.

So robots. And here your theory delves into the realms of what is currently sci-fi.

I have no comment on what the technology will be, other than it will exist, just through the concept of how technological progression works, its purpose, and its history.

The argument for the need for menial workers was, however, stronger when Marx wrote the Manifesto and 98% of work was done directly by humans. Now that less than 2% is done directly by humans, that argument is not quite a strong, and our current state is one predicted by Marx, allowing him to consider the possibility of a successful communal society.

Don't ask me where those numbers are from, by the way. I read them somewhere, though I haven't the slightest idea where, if they are reliable, or if they are even the same numbers I read. However, it seems fairly obvious we've moved in the general direction of having less menial work and more intellectualism.

So yeah I'm talking about Noble Savage theory.

Ok.....

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The term "noble savage" expresses a concept of the universal essential humanity as unencumbered by civilization; the normal essence of an unfettered human. Since the concept embodies the idea that without the bounds of civilization, humans are essentially good, the basis for the idea of the "noble savage" lies in the doctrine of the goodness of humans, expounded in the first decade of the century by Shaftesbury, who urged a would-be author “to search for that simplicity of manners, and innocence of behaviour, which has been often known among mere savages; ere they were corrupted by our commerce” (Advice to an Author, Part III.iii).

So you're saying you agree with this philosophy or...?

Oh come on, you can hardly call neanderthal man's disputes a "class split", or even tribal wars.

Prehistoric, personal disagreements were defined by Marx as the original class split. It is not clear if this split is pre-human, however, this seems to me to be the most realistic possibility, as chimps very obviously display a class split of sorts, showing that a class split is not specific to humanity.

We did not have a class split until we had surplus. When this surplus came about is debatable.

Regardless of whether or not he agrees with Trotskyism, the point is that you're claiming that Goldstein is a carbon-copy of Trotsky and so represents Orwell's support of socialism, whereas I'm pointing out that Orwell was not a big fan of Trotsky and so this cannot be the case.

And like I've said, just because you disagree with someone on one point, a point that is often focused on in the novel, one doesn't have to disagree with the person in his entirety.

So exactly, they'd rather things be done their way.

Apparently not at the expensive of the working class, if they left their positions of power.

So those individuals who take action to enforce certain codes of conduct or moral rules or whatever would be the courts or police. And those who settle disputes based on "were my rights violated" would be courts.

Not at all. You're attempting to manipulate a communal system to fit within a governmental system, understandable, however, impossible, as they are mutually exclusive.

The council is as much an authority as I am right now- telling you what I believe.

I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying that's what it could be.

And I'm telling you that it couldn't be that, because, where as a rise in support of Socialism/Communism would make sense considering the current situation, a sudden wave of uneducated Communists educating themselves does not. What is the reasoning behind this? It's as logical as claiming the copies of these books were actually bought up by space-fairing aliens.

Free organization? Why should there be any organization other than mine?

I wouldn't limit free speech. You can complain all you like if you don't like my system, as long as you don't do anything about it.

With free speech comes organization. When you have two people who come together who agree on something- whether it be a disagreement with your government, a favorite video game, or a call for revolution it is organization.

From what I understand of anti-piracy mechanisms, there are two ways - one, the corporation or company whose material you're distributing poses as a file-sharer and then entraps you into taking what they're distributing which allows them to file a civil case against you, and two, the internet service providers (in Britain at least) can monitor their users and take minor actions to penalize such behaviour (like slowing your connection, not cutting you off), or forward your details to those concerned to allow them to take a civil suit against you.

And both of these procedures can be easily protected against.

I'll address the second one first: In the second case it is impossible to follow with any sort of legal action because of the peer to peer nature of file sharing. Furthermore, I can fairly easily make it look like I'm sending and receiving whatever information I want it to look like I'm receiving, and I can make it look like I'm receiving in from and sending it to whoever I want.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, but I would think that if anything was tweakable, the atheism wouldn't be.

I would argue that with the withering of the State comes the withering of religion, however, suppressing it is not necessary.

Many people, however, would argue that Marx simply had bad experiences with religion, and religion can help sustain a communal system.

I would, of course, disagree with them.

It most certainly is not. Intention, while not defined by courts as-yet, is nothing to do with motive. You may have wanted to kill someone for insurance purposes - that's your motive. All the court needs to hear about is that you intended to kill him. The motive of the crime is why you intended to kill him.

So you won't take reasoning into consideration? If the person were insane? If they were acting in self-defense? If they were underage, and unable to comprehend the consequences of murder?

That's exactly the same thing. Opposition to authority being a crime is the same as saying that attacking authority is illegal. Now as I've demonstrated, claiming that this is the case in the majority of the criminal code is incorrect.

No, opposition to an authority, as in, in an attempt to replace that authority with one's self.

It'd be easy enough to just steal things from suppliers if no one is going to stop you. And regardless of its luxury, maybe Ron likes eating babies so much that he will accept being inconvenienced if it means he still gets to eat babies.

In the case that there is a significant threat in which someone will risk death to practice the progression into Communism wouldn't be completed until that threat were neutralized.

The fact that they come to decisions of what actions to take and then suggest these in their capacity as council is what makes them an authority, even if they don't enforce it with brute force.

If you want to redefine authority in this way, then yes, they are an authority.

It's not really democracy here. Democracy is 51% being able to force the other 49% to obey them.

But in this example, if, no matter what an individual does, he is acting in his capacity as a councillor, his action is just as authoritative as the next guy's. So when two people conflict, there is no ability to resolve that dispute without an overarching authority.

You haven't explained why this authority needs to exist.

Having police is not the defining attribute of authority (don't ask me what is, however, I'm trying to figure that out in my jurisprudence classes by debating with the lecturers).

So you're simply throwing the word around without any concept of what it actually means?

What I mean is, the media have such an authoritative presence that they can rally people to take action. Vigilante mobs have been influenced by what the media says, people have become shunned by society because of the way the media represents them (even if they didn't actually commit the crimes alleged), and so on and so forth. The media hits at peoples' minds and hearts, and unfortunately many people are susceptible to that kind of influence.

If this is the way you wish to define authority then there is most definitely an authority in a communal society.

I did presume there was no monetary system in your world, but given as you were talking about "market dominance", I presumed there was something to be gained in that.

There is respect to be gained, recognition, and just an understanding that your product controls the market in which it exists.

It's the same position the web browser market is in right now.

Greed will always permeate the human heart. It's... dare I say, human nature. Many of us have risen above it in time, but they've always been the minority.

Really? Biology says otherwise, but I suppose your unsupported statements are more reliable than a science.

Define "right" in your world then. That's not my definition of it, because I'm not sure what my definition is (again a matter I intend to discuss in my classes), but I'm certain that without an authority to ensure that your rights are inviolable, or indeed to determine what rights you have, they simply do not exist.

There are two different types of rights- social rights and legal rights.

Legal rights: You have the right to do anything.

Social rights: You have the right to do anything so long as you don't restrict someone else's right to do anything. You have the right to access whatever products and services you wish so long as they are offered to you, you have the right to be offered whatever products and services you wish so long as you don't restrict someone else's right to do anything.

Where as legal rights are consciously known, social rights are situational, and grow out of their own context.

Relying on the fact that "good" propaganda will outweigh "bad" propaganda in number isn't a good defence, because presumably those with sufficient influence as a result of their "market dominance" could distribute any propaganda they wanted too. Or maybe Ron would just steal all the resources he can, like paint, and just spend all day painting over the good propaganda with his bad. And again, there's no one to stop him.

I imagine he'd be more focused on finding food and drinking water, so he can live rather than attempting to outweigh the nearly effortlessly globally distributed and professionally designed propaganda created and acknowledged by the community.

That's what propaganda is - it's to influence the mind. If you want to promote certain behaviours, you are essentially telling people to think "that behaviour is good, therefore I should conform to it".

You're reminding people that these activities exist and the general stance of the community regarding them.

Citizen's arrest is a legal concept, and as such can only be used in a situation where law has been violated. Society's acceptable behaviour isn't law, but it's authoritative in that, for example... where society has created a "rule" in terms of conduct (not law), they criticize those who do not conform to it. If they then make this person into a social outcast, he may not be legally punished, but society's authority is still being exerted.

Okay.

You have legislatures, is the point, where democratically elected officials, and a large variety thereof, have to vote on something before it becomes law (oversimplification of the legislative process but w/e). There is no Parliament in my system, effectively.

The legislators exist only to make suggestions to the president. If the president doesn't agree with their suggestions he is free to veto them. The legislators, in comparison, have very little actual power.

It would have to be delegated, clearly. But they would each be supervised, whether by me or by others. Mistrust would hopefully be enough to prevent them all from letting those they are watching or each other get away with anything.

Again, this is what we have today.

I can't, because I'm not being altruistic. I want that kind of authority to meet my own ends. My own ends, however, are to do Justice, and only those who oppose that need worry about my ambition.

How will you remain impartial then, when not being impartial will be far more beneficial to your self?

I wouldn't be doing it out of some kind of moral obligation to society. I wouldn't be doing it because I care about other people. I'd be doing it because I want a world where every time I wake up I don't have to be disgusted by stories about pathetic wastes of human life inflicting themselves upon the world.

Don't listen to them. You're a supreme leader, everyone bellow you exists only to serve you. Why should you care if they eat cake? Especially when taking away their bread means more cake for you.

If the good die young, I'll live forever.

So you'll either be a terrible leader, or a you'll die fairly quickly?

Well I was just commenting on the quote.

Okay.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I've never played Top Gear, so whatever.

It's a British TV show about cars.

A majority of Linux distributions, which is the primary kernal of choice for supercomputers and network servers, are distributed via BitTorrent protocol.

I'd bet a sufficiently large amount of moolah that 80% of all internet shareware is not Linux stuff.

I have no comment on what the technology will be, other than it will exist, just through the concept of how technological progression works, its purpose, and its history.

The argument for the need for menial workers was, however, stronger when Marx wrote the Manifesto and 98% of work was done directly by humans. Now that less than 2% is done directly by humans, that argument is not quite a strong, and our current state is one predicted by Marx, allowing him to consider the possibility of a successful communal society.

Don't ask me where those numbers are from, by the way. I read them somewhere, though I haven't the slightest idea where, if they are reliable, or if they are even the same numbers I read. However, it seems fairly obvious we've moved in the general direction of having less menial work and more intellectualism.

I very much doubt that 98% of work is now done by robots, and I doubt even more that we've moved towards intellectualism at all.

Ok.....

So you're saying you agree with this philosophy or...?

No, I'm saying it's a myth how humans are born moral.

Prehistoric, personal disagreements were defined by Marx as the original class split. It is not clear if this split is pre-human, however, this seems to me to be the most realistic possibility, as chimps very obviously display a class split of sorts, showing that a class split is not specific to humanity.

We did not have a class split until we had surplus. When this surplus came about is debatable.

So you're suggesting that every individual at that point was a class of one.

And like I've said, just because you disagree with someone on one point, a point that is often focused on in the novel, one doesn't have to disagree with the person in his entirety.

And yet you argue that it isn't possible to have a communist state with authority or government, as it contradicts the idea of communism.

But since that's the point that is focused on in the novel, and no point of support in favour of Goldstein/Trotsky is focused upon in the novel, to argue that the novel was pro-socialist on the basis that Goldstein is Trotsky is ridiculous. So as I argued initially, the novel may have a political Y-axis slant, but not X-axis - it leans neither left nor right, simply towards the bottom of the authoritarian/libertarian bar.

Apparently not at the expensive of the working class, if they left their positions of power.

?

Not at all. You're attempting to manipulate a communal system to fit within a governmental system, understandable, however, impossible, as they are mutually exclusive.

The council is as much an authority as I am right now- telling you what I believe.

They're hardly mutually exclusive. A "government" in a communal system wouldn't necessarily tell people what to do or what not to do or prohibit people from doing anything, they'd simply deal with administrative affairs and make things possible from a beauracratic point of view rather than everyone having to deal with that stuff themselves.

And I'm telling you that it couldn't be that, because, where as a rise in support of Socialism/Communism would make sense considering the current situation, a sudden wave of uneducated Communists educating themselves does not. What is the reasoning behind this? It's as logical as claiming the copies of these books were actually bought up by space-fairing aliens.

It's a lot more logical than that, come now. It COULD be that, you know it's actually possible, it's simply unlikely. The 25-factor increase was in what, one shop? In a single area that could explain it.

With free speech comes organization. When you have two people who come together who agree on something- whether it be a disagreement with your government, a favorite video game, or a call for revolution it is organization.

An organization would be people forming a protest group of some kind. People agreeing on something does not an organization make. Me and John, for example, agree that there is probably no God. That does not make us an atheist organisation.

If we acted on this and organized demonstrations, then it would be organization, and that would simply not do. Free speech is not the same as free action.

And both of these procedures can be easily protected against.

I'll address the second one first: In the second case it is impossible to follow with any sort of legal action because of the peer to peer nature of file sharing. Furthermore, I can fairly easily make it look like I'm sending and receiving whatever information I want it to look like I'm receiving, and I can make it look like I'm receiving in from and sending it to whoever I want.

I don't think so. You can name a file something, but that won't change the content of the file. You'd have to make it a totally different set of data, which means that you wouldn't be sending the same file.

And how do you mean it'd be impossible to follow with any sort of legal action? If the evidence is there, that's all they need.

I would argue that with the withering of the State comes the withering of religion, however, suppressing it is not necessary.

Many people, however, would argue that Marx simply had bad experiences with religion, and religion can help sustain a communal system.

I would, of course, disagree with them.

Well if I argued that authority could help sustain a communal system, you would clearly vehemently disagree. So either you think that there are different ways of doing communism while deviating from rather important tenets of Marx's glorified fantasy, or you agree that there is only one way of doing communism "correctly".

So you won't take reasoning into consideration? If the person were insane? If they were acting in self-defense? If they were underage, and unable to comprehend the consequences of murder?

That is nothing to do with motive. That is to do with the ability to actually form intention. It's not what I would do, by the way, this is the law in England and Wales.

A man is only guilty when his mind is also guilty, and as such when you commit a crime, there is an actus reus requirement (guilty act, in murder that is the unlawful killing of a human being), and a mens rea requirement (guilty mind, in murder this being intention). If you are insane, you are unable to form the mens rea requirement of intention when it comes to murder, and therefore are not guilty by virtue of insanity. If you were acting in self-defence, then again that's little to do with motive, because you were not committing an unlawful killing. If they were underage and unable to comprehend the consequences of murder, they are still punished by law (as in the case of R v Venables and Thompson) but not to the same extent precisely because of the fact that they are unable to comprehend the consequences of murder. Again, however, this has little to do with intention.

Motive only comes into it when A) it comes to hate crimes and B) when the police are investigating the crime to begin with to help them find the perpetrator. And C) it can affect sentences sometimes.

No, opposition to an authority, as in, in an attempt to replace that authority with one's self.

Again, that is not a majority of criminal offences. Hell, that's not even a large amount of criminal offences.

In the case that there is a significant threat in which someone will risk death to practice the progression into Communism wouldn't be completed until that threat were neutralized.

So you admit, then, that where deviance is possible, your little fantasy world cannot operate.

If you want to redefine authority in this way, then yes, they are an authority.

Authority has some level of legitimacy, in a way - people accept the council as an authority, people accept the government as an authority, and so on.

You haven't explained why this authority needs to exist.

Because where two people are equally authoritative and they have a dispute, you need someone to give an authoritative decision about what to do. This is what the court system is for.

So you're simply throwing the word around without any concept of what it actually means?

I know what it means, I just can't define it. As I say, authority tends to be a case of legitimacy. People accept an authority as a guiding "force" even if they don't use brute force. I can't define it because words escape me.

If this is the way you wish to define authority then there is most definitely an authority in a communal society.

It is a form of authority.

There is respect to be gained, recognition, and just an understanding that your product controls the market in which it exists.

It's the same position the web browser market is in right now.

But "markets" don't exist without some degree of profit or otherwise. Respect can't possibly be enough.

Really? Biology says otherwise, but I suppose your unsupported statements are more reliable than a science.

I'd rather believe my own statements that come from years of being a human who hangs around other humans and has studied human behaviour than your own unsupported statements.

There are two different types of rights- social rights and legal rights.

Legal rights: You have the right to do anything.

Social rights: You have the right to do anything so long as you don't restrict someone else's right to do anything. You have the right to access whatever products and services you wish so long as they are offered to you, you have the right to be offered whatever products and services you wish so long as you don't restrict someone else's right to do anything.

Where as legal rights are consciously known, social rights are situational, and grow out of their own context.

That's not how legal rights work at all, and a prime example is the European Convention on Human Rights. Every single article consists of the right, and the exceptions to that right, which basically follow a similar pattern to those social rights - you have the right to do X, subject to Y.

Except those social rights seem to have been pulled, not to put too fine a point on it, from thin air. Where have they come from? What authority has laid down those rights? Who defines those rights? Why are they the only rights, no more, no less? Who decides on when a right has been violated or not? That last point is especially important when it comes to the fact that they are "situational" and "grow out of their own context", because you need someone to stand there and say "this right applies here". An arbitrator.

I imagine he'd be more focused on finding food and drinking water, so he can live rather than attempting to outweigh the nearly effortlessly globally distributed and professionally designed propaganda created and acknowledged by the community.

But he could just as easily do it all. Steal his food, steal his water, steal his propaganda-creation devices. And you have no way of stopping him.

You're reminding people that these activities exist and the general stance of the community regarding them.

With the end purpose that they should take note, and preferrably follow the community's stance on the issue. Peer pressure.

The legislators exist only to make suggestions to the president. If the president doesn't agree with their suggestions he is free to veto them. The legislators, in comparison, have very little actual power.

I remember briefly studying this in Public Law, and specifically remember a part where Congress can apparently get around that veto, then the President can issue a second veto on that, and Congress can get around THAT somehow. There's a back-and-forth process IIRC, but we didn't go into it into detail at all.

Again, this is what we have today.

Hardly, since people keep *****ing about how closer supervision will cause us to be "sleepwalking" into a "Big Brother" state. So corruption is rife precisely because firstly, there is not enough monitoring done, simply investigation, and secondly because the officials in question are corruptible to begin with.

How will you remain impartial then, when not being impartial will be far more beneficial to your self?

How can I be partial to any two parties in a dispute when the only bias I have is to the doing of Justice? If Justice favours one party over the other, then it's hardly bias.

Don't listen to them. You're a supreme leader, everyone bellow you exists only to serve you. Why should you care if they eat cake? Especially when taking away their bread means more cake for you.

Sweeping injustice under the carpet won't make it go away. I know that it goes on even when I'm not paying attention to the news, I know there are a variety of stories that don't even make it into the news, and every single day I yearn for the power to make it all stop.

Everyone below me would exist to serve my needs, but clearly you ignored the part where I said my needs are the doing of Justice. I don't care if people eat cake, I'm not a totalitarian. I wouldn't be there to tell people how to behave, I'd simply be there to regulate the parameters of their behaviour. And it would be unjust to deny them bread so that I could have the luxury of cake in their stead.

Besides, I don't even like cake.

So you'll either be a terrible leader, or a you'll die fairly quickly?

Naturally it would be in the interests of Justice for certain technological research to be devoted to methods of life support. Which if successful would then be used to keep me alive beyond my body's breaking point.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

It's a British TV show about cars.

Ah, we were apparently thinking of two different Top Gears.

I'd bet a sufficiently large amount of moolah that 80% of all internet shareware is not Linux stuff.

First, I don't think you understand what the word "shareware" means. I will assure you that 0% of the Internet's shareware is not Linux, as Linux is not distributed under a shareware licenses. I think the statement you were looking for was, "I'd bet a sufficiently large amount of moolah that 80% of all peer to peer file-sharing is not Linux stuff."

Of course it's not. There's music, art, film, games, other software, other operating systems, etc...

However, that only stands to support my argument.

I very much doubt that 98% of work is now done by robots

Not by robots, per se, but through non-human means.

and I doubt even more that we've moved towards intellectualism at all.

Really? You think there were less people doing physical labor work rather than intellectual work 200 years ago?

No, I'm saying it's a myth how humans are born moral.

Really? I'm confused then. Why were you citing a book which argues that humans are born with inherent morals?

So you're suggesting that every individual at that point was a class of one.

No, I'm suggesting that humans (or prehumans) worked in egalitarian pacts, before a surplus was achieved and a class split existed where the most prominent hunter/gather/whatever began to be considered of higher quality than everyone else. Thus was born the original human class split and the slave state.

And yet you argue that it isn't possible to have a communist state with authority or government, as it contradicts the idea of communism.

It's not possible to have a Communist state, however, I'm not sure how that applies to my statement...

?

'expense', rather.

They're hardly mutually exclusive. A "government" in a communal system wouldn't necessarily tell people what to do or what not to do or prohibit people from doing anything, they'd simply deal with administrative affairs and make things possible from a beauracratic point of view rather than everyone having to deal with that stuff themselves.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Government is the body within any organization that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws, regulations, or rules.

Yes, yes they are mutually exclusive.

It's a lot more logical than that, come now. It COULD be that, you know it's actually possible, it's simply unlikely. The 25-factor increase was in what, one shop? In a single area that could explain it.

The increases in Amazon sales seems more notable as those are global. Point being, however, that there is not MOTIVATION for your explanation, while the opposite is true for the simplest explanation, i.e., sales have increased because there is a greater interest.

An organization would be people forming a protest group of some kind. People agreeing on something does not an organization make. Me and John, for example, agree that there is probably no God. That does not make us an atheist organisation.

If we acted on this and organized demonstrations, then it would be organization, and that would simply not do. Free speech is not the same as free action.

No, people agree on something does not make an organization. However, people meeting to discuss what they agree on is the definition of an organization.

I don't think so. You can name a file something, but that won't change the content of the file. You'd have to make it a totally different set of data, which means that you wouldn't be sending the same file.

Not thinking something doesn't really hold up to knowing something after several years of formal computer networking training and a general interest in the subject.

No, services such as Tor, Privoxy, I2P, etc... already exist to circumvent what you're describing. These services allow me to send information to another server and allow that server to send to my intended location, making it look as if I had simply contacted an external server. Tor and Privoxy constantly shift from one proxy server to the next, allowing the appearance of normal traffic. I2P creates a network of peers and passively uses the peers as proxy portals. This is even harder to trace than Tor/Privoxy, as there will never be a dedicated proxy server.

BitTorrent protocol itself is hard to track because one sends information in a non-linear fashion, which makes it almost impossible to detect exactly what is being sent unless you are able to intercept every packet sent or recieved, again, this is almost impossible unless there are only two active peers on a connection.

Torrent clients also offer (and most have turned on by default) encryption which, even if the torrent is fully intercepted, make it difficult to figure out what was being sent.

One can also encapsulate any BitTorrent packet within another, more essential-to-the-internet packet type, and send it along looking as if it is that packet.

Finally, services already exist which denote transfers from known bad IPs (governments, Media Defender, etc...) and warn you about them before you initiate a download.

And how do you mean it'd be impossible to follow with any sort of legal action? If the evidence is there, that's all they need.

I think the point I'm making is that you'll be left asking, "What evidence?"

Well if I argued that authority could help sustain a communal system, you would clearly vehemently disagree. So either you think that there are different ways of doing communism while deviating from rather important tenets of Marx's glorified fantasy, or you agree that there is only one way of doing communism "correctly".

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that the statement literally makes no sense. If you have authority you no longer have a communal system, so it can't help sustain a communal system, as it is the prime quality of a non-communal system.

It's like saying yellow could help sustain the color purple. Purple is purple because it lacks yellow.

That is nothing to do with motive. That is to do with the ability to actually form intention. It's not what I would do, by the way, this is the law in England and Wales.

A man is only guilty when his mind is also guilty, and as such when you commit a crime, there is an actus reus requirement (guilty act, in murder that is the unlawful killing of a human being), and a mens rea requirement (guilty mind, in murder this being intention). If you are insane, you are unable to form the mens rea requirement of intention when it comes to murder, and therefore are not guilty by virtue of insanity. If you were acting in self-defence, then again that's little to do with motive, because you were not committing an unlawful killing. If they were underage and unable to comprehend the consequences of murder, they are still punished by law (as in the case of R v Venables and Thompson) but not to the same extent precisely because of the fact that they are unable to comprehend the consequences of murder. Again, however, this has little to do with intention.

Motive only comes into it when A) it comes to hate crimes and B) when the police are investigating the crime to begin with to help them find the perpetrator. And C) it can affect sentences sometimes.

And you will decide who is and who is not insane? And who is and who is not acting in self defense/too young to understand/etc....?

Again, that is not a majority of criminal offences. Hell, that's not even a large amount of criminal offences.

I can't think of a single criminal offense which was not created as a result of an intention of gaining power or capital.

So you admit, then, that where deviance is possible, your little fantasy world cannot operate.

No, deviance is always posssible. Communism will not opperate until the Community realizes that acting to better the Community is the best way to better one's own existance.

Authority has some level of legitimacy, in a way - people accept the council as an authority, people accept the government as an authority, and so on.

Authority requires legitimacy, legitimacy does not entail authority.

Because where two people are equally authoritative and they have a dispute, you need someone to give an authoritative decision about what to do. This is what the court system is for.

Why do you need this?

I know what it means, I just can't define it. As I say, authority tends to be a case of legitimacy. People accept an authority as a guiding "force" even if they don't use brute force. I can't define it because words escape me.

If this is the way you want to describe authority then there is definitely an authority in a Communal society. The community is the very obvious authority.

It is a form of authority.

All forms of authority are conscious efforts. Therefore, there is not authority in a communal society as there is no conscious effort on the part of any one body to impose authority.

But "markets" don't exist without some degree of profit or otherwise. Respect can't possibly be enough.

While the term 'market' is capitalist in origin, it has been adapted to noncapitalist products.

I'd rather believe my own statements that come from years of being a human who hangs around other humans and has studied human behaviour

So all of your statements are completely anecdotal in nature?

than your own unsupported statements.

Altruism in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Origins of Virtue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nice Guys Finish First - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FirstSearch: Session Ended / La sesin termin / Session termine
FirstSearch: Session Ended / La sesin termin / Session termine
Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_an..._(World_War_I)

That's not how legal rights work at all, and a prime example is the European Convention on Human Rights. Every single article consists of the right, and the exceptions to that right, which basically follow a similar pattern to those social rights - you have the right to do X, subject to Y.

The difference is the before mentioned social rights are allowed by the community unconsciously, and are an effect of the communal structure.

Except those social rights seem to have been pulled, not to put too fine a point on it, from thin air. Where have they come from?

The communal system and the collective individual reactions to it.

What authority has laid down those rights?

There is no authority.

Who defines those rights?

They are passively defined by the human response to a communal structure.

Why are they the only rights, no more, no less?

They seem to be an accurate description of how human interaction would settle within a communal structure.

Who decides on when a right has been violated or not?

No one. Consequences are the unconscious response of the collective.

That last point is especially important when it comes to the fact that they are "situational" and "grow out of their own context", because you need someone to stand there and say "this right applies here". An arbitrator.

No, you do not. We do not need an authority to stand around and tell us that killing is wrong. It is inherent in our biology.

But he could just as easily do it all. Steal his food, steal his water, steal his propaganda-creation devices. And you have no way of stopping him.

Yes, the point is, he wouldn't.

You have the same issue in this system today, or in your proposed system. What if everyone, one day, decided that they wanted to go on a killing spree? The question is moot because it wouldn't happen. The cons far outweigh the pros in this situation.

With the end purpose that they should take note, and preferrably follow the community's stance on the issue. Peer pressure.

Of course. That's far different from expecting the community to follow whatever propaganda is distributed without question. For example, if propaganda promoting baby-eating were distributed few people would agree with it as it disagrees with humans biologically.

I remember briefly studying this in Public Law, and specifically remember a part where Congress can apparently get around that veto, then the President can issue a second veto on that, and Congress can get around THAT somehow. There's a back-and-forth process IIRC, but we didn't go into it into detail at all.

And with our government split along party lines few vetos will ever receive the 2/3rds votes needed to override a veto.

Hardly, since people keep *****ing about how closer supervision will cause us to be "sleepwalking" into a "Big Brother" state. So corruption is rife precisely because firstly, there is not enough monitoring done, simply investigation, and secondly because the officials in question are corruptible to begin with.

We are already pretty closely monitored. We can worry about it happening as much as we want- this doesn't discredit the fact that it has already happened.

How can I be partial to any two parties in a dispute when the only bias I have is to the doing of Justice? If Justice favours one party over the other, then it's hardly bias.

Sweeping injustice under the carpet won't make it go away. I know that it goes on even when I'm not paying attention to the news, I know there are a variety of stories that don't even make it into the news, and every single day I yearn for the power to make it all stop.

Everyone below me would exist to serve my needs, but clearly you ignored the part where I said my needs are the doing of Justice. I don't care if people eat cake, I'm not a totalitarian. I wouldn't be there to tell people how to behave, I'd simply be there to regulate the parameters of their behaviour. And it would be unjust to deny them bread so that I could have the luxury of cake in their stead.

Besides, I don't even like cake.

Why is your only purpose justice when injustice will be far more beneficial to you? You've told me that you'd want to serve justice, but you haven't explained to me why you would do so.

Naturally it would be in the interests of Justice for certain technological research to be devoted to methods of life support. Which if successful would then be used to keep me alive beyond my body's breaking point.

And if they don't come to exist before you die?

Originally Posted by 8bit

Ah, we were apparently thinking of two different Top Gears.

Clarkson's is superior. D:

First, I don't think you understand what the word "shareware" means. I will assure you that 0% of the Internet's shareware is not Linux, as Linux is not distributed under a shareware licenses. I think the statement you were looking for was, "I'd bet a sufficiently large amount of moolah that 80% of all peer to peer file-sharing is not Linux stuff."

Of course it's not. There's music, art, film, games, other software, other operating systems, etc...

However, that only stands to support my argument.

I would still say that the majority is not user produced, or if it is, it's such poor quality that there's hardly a demand for it.

Not by robots, per se, but through non-human means.

So robots, just not androids.

Really? You think there were less people doing physical labor work rather than intellectual work 200 years ago?

I never claimed more people were intellectual back then, I'm simply stating that I doubt we've moved so far, since so many people still do physical labour today, and most of the jobs that needed doing back then still need doing today.

Really? I'm confused then. Why were you citing a book which argues that humans are born with inherent morals?

Because I cited wrongly. To make myself clear, then, I was making the point that the Noble Savage theory is a myth.

No, I'm suggesting that humans (or prehumans) worked in egalitarian pacts, before a surplus was achieved and a class split existed where the most prominent hunter/gather/whatever began to be considered of higher quality than everyone else. Thus was born the original human class split and the slave state.

I would doubt that humans had a communal system up until the so-called "class split", considering pre-humans would have been pretty much animalistic.

It's not possible to have a Communist state, however, I'm not sure how that applies to my statement...

As I said, "but since that's the point that is focused on in the novel, and no point of support in favour of Goldstein/Trotsky is focused upon in the novel, to argue that the novel was pro-socialist on the basis that Goldstein is Trotsky is ridiculous. So as I argued initially, the novel may have a political Y-axis slant, but not X-axis - it leans neither left nor right, simply towards the bottom of the authoritarian/libertarian bar."

'expense', rather.

I understood that you made a typo. I just didn't know what you meant by the general statement.

Yes, yes they are mutually exclusive.

Um, okay, I was thinking more those who deal with administration but being as "as long as they make and enforce rules they are governments", then fair enough. I'm not sure what word I would use to describe what I was talking about (an administrative body).

The increases in Amazon sales seems more notable as those are global. Point being, however, that there is not MOTIVATION for your explanation, while the opposite is true for the simplest explanation, i.e., sales have increased because there is a greater interest.

Well, Occam's Razor and all.

No, people agree on something does not make an organization. However, people meeting to discuss what they agree on is the definition of an organization.

Again, just because me and John get together in a room to talk about how there's no God doesn't really constitute an organization.

Not thinking something doesn't really hold up to knowing something after several years of formal computer networking training and a general interest in the subject.

No, services such as Tor, Privoxy, I2P, etc... already exist to circumvent what you're describing. These services allow me to send information to another server and allow that server to send to my intended location, making it look as if I had simply contacted an external server. Tor and Privoxy constantly shift from one proxy server to the next, allowing the appearance of normal traffic. I2P creates a network of peers and passively uses the peers as proxy portals. This is even harder to trace than Tor/Privoxy, as there will never be a dedicated proxy server.

BitTorrent protocol itself is hard to track because one sends information in a non-linear fashion, which makes it almost impossible to detect exactly what is being sent unless you are able to intercept every packet sent or recieved, again, this is almost impossible unless there are only two active peers on a connection.

Torrent clients also offer (and most have turned on by default) encryption which, even if the torrent is fully intercepted, make it difficult to figure out what was being sent.

One can also encapsulate any BitTorrent packet within another, more essential-to-the-internet packet type, and send it along looking as if it is that packet.

Finally, services already exist which denote transfers from known bad IPs (governments, Media Defender, etc...) and warn you about them before you initiate a download.

That's why I said I don't "think" so. I don't fully understand what you've explained but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt being as you clearly know what you're talking about there.

Although I know about the existence of encrypting data, but I figured that was far more complex than something that people who would download anime illegally would need.

I think the point I'm making is that you'll be left asking, "What evidence?"

Well if there is evidence, then there will be action. You seemed to be saying that just because it's peer-to-peer, there could be no legal action whatsoever.

It's not that I disagree with you, it's that the statement literally makes no sense. If you have authority you no longer have a communal system, so it can't help sustain a communal system, as it is the prime quality of a non-communal system.

It's like saying yellow could help sustain the color purple. Purple is purple because it lacks yellow.

The thing is, that idea of authority seems to rely on the idea that those in authority are above those who are not in authority, whereas under the Rule of Law, no man is above the law, and everyone is equally subject to the authority, including those who have that authority. So in a communal system, where everyone is equal, just because some people exercise authority over others does not mean they are superior, unless you do have a case of "some are more equal than others".

And you will decide who is and who is not insane? And who is and who is not acting in self defense/too young to understand/etc....?

Evidence helps. We already have laws to ascertain those who are insane (insane in law meaning "a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind", and so those pleading insanity would have to prove this), evidence indicating self-defence, and evidence indicating that the child is indeed too young to understand. For example, Venables and Thompson were 10, below the legal age of criminal liability, and they were still convicted because they clearly knew that what they were doing was wrong. They weren't sentenced the same as an adult simply because they didn't have the same capacity as an adult to comprehend the ramifications of that wrong-ness.

I can't think of a single criminal offense which was not created as a result of an intention of gaining power or capital.

Murder, manslaughter, arson, criminal damage, rape, common assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm (with intent). Theft is clearly an example of gaining capital, but to say that theft being an offence is a construction of the bourgoisie to stop the proletariat from stealing from them is Marxist thought, which is the same as saying it's a conspiracy theory.

No, deviance is always posssible. Communism will not opperate until the Community realizes that acting to better the Community is the best way to better one's own existance.

But until everyone is conditioned to think that, and as long as deviant thought patterns exist, this will not be the case, correct?

Authority requires legitimacy, legitimacy does not entail authority.

Actually, it kind of does. If the people consider a body legitimate, they will accept it as an authority. If not, they will not accept its authority.

Why do you need this?

Because otherwise the dispute will either escalate, or will not be resolved, and so one party will be unjustly "enriched" and the other unjustly "penalized". The law is not self-evident, because if it were, the court system would not be necessary. When it comes to these so-called social rights, where two people disagree as to whether or not a right has been violated, you need an independent and impartial party to decide on that. A court.

If this is the way you want to describe authority then there is definitely an authority in a Communal society. The community is the very obvious authority.

All forms of authority are conscious efforts. Therefore, there is not authority in a communal society as there is no conscious effort on the part of any one body to impose authority.

If you're consciously exerting influence as in the community propaganda example, then it is still an authority.

While the term 'market' is capitalist in origin, it has been adapted to noncapitalist products.

Alright, but I still don't get why market dominance can really matter in a communal society.

So all of your statements are completely anecdotal in nature?

If humans were all naturally altruistic, there would be less injustice in our world, capitalism wouldn't actually exist, and governments would not be necessary to prevent people's wrongdoing. This is not the case.

I'm also going off a variety of case examples that I've studied, anecdotes, the simple fact that I'm not naturally altruistic and I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who is, and my theory on "selfishness" in those threads where it has come up (that is, as all actions by an individual are a result of his conscious choice to do so, the only truly "selfless" act is one done without the presence of the mind, or against one's will).

Altruism in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Origins of Virtue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nice Guys Finish First - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FirstSearch: Session Ended / La sesin termin / Session termine
FirstSearch: Session Ended / La sesin termin / Session termine
Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Tit for tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reciprocal altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Live and let live (World War I) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay that's a lot of support. I've not really got time to look at them in detail, but I think again, my above statement stands that if it were true that humans were naturally altruistic, the world would be a different place - it is not, and therefore it cannot be true. Plus some of those articles seem to concern animals, whereas there's a distinct difference between animals and humans, that being rational thought.

The difference is the before mentioned social rights are allowed by the community unconsciously, and are an effect of the communal structure.

The communal system and the collective individual reactions to it.

So they are "law" because society accepts those as rights. This is not how the communal system and the collective has seen it, however - this is how you have defined them. Where have they come from? Have you just made them up as your idea of the only legitimate rights? Or do you have an authority from which they stem.

There is no authority.

There must be, otherwise those rights hold no weight whatsoever.

They are passively defined by the human response to a communal structure.

But this is not the case right now. This is how you have defined them.

They seem to be an accurate description of how human interaction would settle within a communal structure.

But they are an incredibly basic set of rights as you described them. Surely there must be a list of that which you have a right to do without infringing on another's right to do that, but then you have the issue of what that list is, and whether or not the individuals in society would agree on it. And then you need authority to decide that for them, and an authority to decide when a right has or hasn't been violated.

No one. Consequences are the unconscious response of the collective.

Unless everyone had exactly the same mindset, in a Brave New World-esque fashion, there would be disputes when a right has been violated or not.

No, you do not. We do not need an authority to stand around and tell us that killing is wrong. It is inherent in our biology.

If that were the case, it would not happen every day. You need an arbitrator to sit a case where someone denies that they killed, or that they killed with justification (self-defence, for example), so that the arbitrator can decide whether the killing was indeed justified and in-line with the rights or not. You need someone to actually decide when rights have been violated. It is not self-evident in every case, if it were then we wouldn't even have courts today.

Yes, the point is, he wouldn't.

You have the same issue in this system today, or in your proposed system. What if everyone, one day, decided that they wanted to go on a killing spree? The question is moot because it wouldn't happen. The cons far outweigh the pros in this situation.

So bringing up the example of baby-eating was moot, because that just "wouldn't happen" either. The point is, what if he did? It doesn't matter whether or not everyone would decide to go on a killing spree, because in your proposed world, the system can't even account for one person deciding to do that.

In my proposed system, if those who were not in authority decided to ignore authority and violate it, those with the power to enforce the law would enforce it. If even those enforcing the law decided to go on a killing spree, then clearly it would fail. But at least my system can account for the individual deviant.

Of course. That's far different from expecting the community to follow whatever propaganda is distributed without question. For example, if propaganda promoting baby-eating were distributed few people would agree with it as it disagrees with humans biologically.

Again, if this were the case, people just wouldn't do it. But they probably have. You'd need to perfect the human model and ensure that every single human has a similar make-up to ensure that human behaviour were genuinely so simple as biological restraint. If you could honestly do a Brave New World, then yes, a communal system might work, and yes, the "humans are biologically altruistic" argument might work. But from your moral high-ground, you'd probably avoid such an attempt at rebuilding humanity from the ground up, or subjecting them to such conditioning. This is why I advocate my system - I don't care about violating certain moral parameters to make it work.

And with our government split along party lines few vetos will ever receive the 2/3rds votes needed to override a veto.

It's still possible.

We are already pretty closely monitored. We can worry about it happening as much as we want- this doesn't discredit the fact that it has already happened.

It really hasn't happened to the significant degree that I'd want under my system though. People can still get away with things in private, and those who watch are not watched as closely as they watch. Qui ipsos es custodes and all that.

Why is your only purpose justice when injustice will be far more beneficial to you? You've told me that you'd want to serve justice, but you haven't explained to me why you would do so.

Why do I need a reason? That is what I want. Justice gives me pleasure, therefore it is in my interests not to do Injustice, because pleasure is good.

And if they don't come to exist before you die?

Then at least, as long as I was alive, Justice was done. Maybe the system would be so rigidly perfected by that time that it wouldn't need a driver at the wheels, but without that driver, society would stagnate.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I would still say that the majority is not user produced, or if it is, it's such poor quality that there's hardly a demand for it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-are-legal.ars

So robots, just not androids.

Sure, if you consider washing machines, dish washers, and microwave ovens to be examples of robotics, however, it's a stretch to say that all technological progression which will reduce the amount of effort required to produce, distribute, and maintain products will be in the field of robotics.

I never claimed more people were intellectual back then, I'm simply stating that I doubt we've moved so far, since so many people still do physical labour today, and most of the jobs that needed doing back then still need doing today.

I'd argue that little of the work needed doing 200 years ago needs doing today, and the little that is still needed is eased by today's technology. How many people can you think of which don't use an invention of the last two centuries in their work?

Because I cited wrongly. To make myself clear, then, I was making the point that the Noble Savage theory is a myth.

It's fine for you to say that, but you have nothing to back it up.

I would doubt that humans had a communal system up until the so-called "class split", considering pre-humans would have been pretty much animalistic.

I don't see why that's an issue- community is the defining factor of social animals, of which humans are a member.

Well, Occam's Razor and all.

Indeed.

Again, just because me and John get together in a room to talk about how there's no God doesn't really constitute an organization.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In sociology "organization" is understood as planned, coordinated and purposeful action of human beings to construct or compile a common tangible or intangible product.

So you'll allow organization which is as informal and adhocratic in nature, however, the violent nature of an organization isn't dependent on its formality.

That's why I said I don't "think" so. I don't fully understand what you've explained but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt being as you clearly know what you're talking about there.

Although I know about the existence of encrypting data, but I figured that was far more complex than something that people who would download anime illegally would need.

So you admit you can't possibly monitor Internet traffic?

The thing is, that idea of authority seems to rely on the idea that those in authority are above those who are not in authority, whereas under the Rule of Law, no man is above the law, and everyone is equally subject to the authority, including those who have that authority. So in a communal system, where everyone is equal, just because some people exercise authority over others does not mean they are superior, unless you do have a case of "some are more equal than others"

However, they don't present an authority, unless you mean to use authority as a synonym for influence.

Look at the Linux development hierarchy for a real world example. While the official Linux kernel, released by the Linux Foundation, is a standard and is recommended to be included in all distributions, you occasionally get a distribution who does not follow this recommendation for one reason or another.

Evidence helps. We already have laws to ascertain those who are insane (insane in law meaning "a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind", and so those pleading insanity would have to prove this), evidence indicating self-defense, and evidence indicating that the child is indeed too young to understand. For example, Venables and Thompson were 10, below the legal age of criminal liability, and they were still convicted because they clearly knew that what they were doing was wrong. They weren't sentenced the same as an adult simply because they didn't have the same capacity as an adult to comprehend the ramifications of that wrong-ness.

If someone breaks a law in a society which is constantly being watched couldn't it be argued that they are always insane?

Murder, manslaughter, arson, criminal damage, rape, common assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm (with intent).

It is not the actual crime, rather the intent which matters. I doubt there are many instances of any of those crimes which are committed with an intent besides gaining power or capital.

Theft is clearly an example of gaining capital, but to say that theft being an offence is a construction of the bourgoisie to stop the proletariat from stealing from them is Marxist thought, which is the same as saying it's a conspiracy theory.

You can't really have theft when you don't have private ownership.

But until everyone is conditioned to think that, and as long as deviant thought patterns exist, this will not be the case, correct?

Correct.

Actually, it kind of does. If the people consider a body legitimate, they will accept it as an authority. If not, they will not accept its authority.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In government, authority is often used interchangeably with the term "power". However, their meanings differ: while "power" refers to the ability to achieve certain ends, "authority" refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. For example, whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, many people consider only the courts to have the authority to order capital punishment.

The difference is that even as a legitimate and recognized source, the communal council would not have the ability to enforce any opinion.

Because otherwise the dispute will either escalate, or will not be resolved, and so one party will be unjustly "enriched" and the other unjustly "penalized". The law is not self-evident, because if it were, the court system would not be necessary. When it comes to these so-called social rights, where two people disagree as to whether or not a right has been violated, you need an independent and impartial party to decide on that. A court.

The thing is, these rights aren't inherit in any written document or any regulation. The consequential sections I included? Those are not the actions which should be taken by society if those rights are violated, those are the unconscious responses of the community.

If you're consciously exerting influence as in the community propaganda example, then it is still an authority.

I wouldn't consider influence a synonym for authority in this context.

Alright, but I still don't get why market dominance can really matter in a communal society.

For the same reasons non-profits and not-for-profits exist today, I suppose.

If humans were all naturally altruistic, there would be less injustice in our world,

What? There would be less? How do you know there already isn't less than there would be if we weren't altruistic?

capitalism wouldn't actually exist,

We've designed a synthetic social structure- why is this impossible?

and governments would not be necessary to prevent people's wrongdoing.

They are not.

I'm also going off a variety of case examples that I've studied, anecdotes,

Again, you're ignoring what is considered scientifically true for evidence which is anecdotal and uncontrolled?

the simple fact that I'm not naturally altruistic and I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who is,

You know this how?

and my theory on "selfishness" in those threads where it has come up (that is, as all actions by an individual are a result of his conscious choice to do so, the only truly "selfless" act is one done without the presence of the mind, or against one's will).

All actions are unconscious at some level.

Okay that's a lot of support. I've not really got time to look at them in detail, but I think again, my above statement stands that if it were true that humans were naturally altruistic, the world would be a different place - it is not, and therefore it cannot be true. Plus some of those articles seem to concern animals, whereas there's a distinct difference between animals and humans, that being rational thought.

Perhaps you're forgetting that humans are animals.

So they are "law" because society accepts those as rights. This is not how the communal system and the collective has seen it, however - this is how you have defined them. Where have they come from? Have you just made them up as your idea of the only legitimate rights? Or do you have an authority from which they stem.

Neither? They're the result of a society which respects a tit-for-tat social structure, one which humans are genetically programed to respect.

There must be, otherwise those rights hold no weight whatsoever.

But they are an incredibly basic set of rights as you described them. Surely there must be a list of that which you have a right to do without infringing on another's right to do that, but then you have the issue of what that list is, and whether or not the individuals in society would agree on it. And then you need authority to decide that for them, and an authority to decide when a right has or hasn't been violated.

Unless everyone had exactly the same mindset, in a Brave New World-esque fashion, there would be disputes when a right has been violated or not.

See above.

But this is not the case right now. This is how you have defined them.

This is the case right now- it's the class split which has distorted the altruism in humanity.

If that were the case, it would not happen every day. You need an arbitrator to sit a case where someone denies that they killed, or that they killed with justification (self-defence, for example), so that the arbitrator can decide whether the killing was indeed justified and in-line with the rights or not. You need someone to actually decide when rights have been violated. It is not self-evident in every case, if it were then we wouldn't even have courts today.

The courts today exist as a result of the class split.

So bringing up the example of baby-eating was moot, because that just "wouldn't happen" either. The point is, what if he did? It doesn't matter whether or not everyone would decide to go on a killing spree, because in your proposed world, the system can't even account for one person deciding to do that.

It would, in that that one person would be without the products of society.

In my proposed system, if those who were not in authority decided to ignore authority and violate it, those with the power to enforce the law would enforce it. If even those enforcing the law decided to go on a killing spree, then clearly it would fail. But at least my system can account for the individual deviant.

Unless, of course, the individual deviant is the supreme dictator.

Again, if this were the case, people just wouldn't do it. But they probably have. You'd need to perfect the human model and ensure that every single human has a similar make-up to ensure that human behaviour were genuinely so simple as biological restraint. If you could honestly do a Brave New World, then yes, a communal system might work, and yes, the "humans are biologically altruistic" argument might work. But from your moral high-ground, you'd probably avoid such an attempt at rebuilding humanity from the ground up, or subjecting them to such conditioning. This is why I advocate my system - I don't care about violating certain moral parameters to make it work.

I have no qualms with genetic engineering, however, 'rebuilding humanity from the ground up' is not necessary when we're already altruistic.

It's still possible.

In the history of the United States there have been 2562 vetoes, only 110 of which have been overridden, many of which were pocket vetoes, which don't require the 2/3rds vote.

It really hasn't happened to the significant degree that I'd want under my system though. People can still get away with things in private, and those who watch are not watched as closely as they watch. Qui ipsos es custodes and all that.

It's impossible to do to the degree in which you'd like.

Why do I need a reason? That is what I want. Justice gives me pleasure, therefore it is in my interests not to do Injustice, because pleasure is good.

And you claim you are not naturally altruistic?

Then at least, as long as I was alive, Justice was done. Maybe the system would be so rigidly perfected by that time that it wouldn't need a driver at the wheels, but without that driver, society would stagnate.

So the system you propose is one which can only exist for the next 60 or so years? I doubt one could even create a system such as the one you propose- doing so within 60 years is simply laughable, and even if you could, then what? 20 years of security? 40 maybe? And then we stagnate as a society. (assuming you're correct , which I doubt you are. A power hole would most likely occur, and your society would fall into chaos.)

Originally Posted by 8bit

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-are-legal.ars

Firstly, that's his own survey, he may be a teeny tiny bit biased considering the trial is against him, and secondly that's on one website even if it is true.

Sure, if you consider washing machines, dish washers, and microwave ovens to be examples of robotics, however, it's a stretch to say that all technological progression which will reduce the amount of effort required to produce, distribute, and maintain products will be in the field of robotics.

I'm pretty sure washing machines, dish washers and microwave ovens aren't doing all this stuff for us. We have to put everything in there, and well, we don't have machines cleaning our toilets for us, which was my original point.

I'd argue that little of the work needed doing 200 years ago needs doing today, and the little that is still needed is eased by today's technology. How many people can you think of which don't use an invention of the last two centuries in their work?

They're still using an invention that makes their work easier as opposed to sitting back and letting the invention do it for them.

It's fine for you to say that, but you have nothing to back it up.

That again was my point - I was citing a boook that Ron Mexico had cited in his own thread a while ago which basically debunked the Noble Savage myth, and I was getting the title wrong while trying to mention it here.

I don't see why that's an issue- community is the defining factor of social animals, of which humans are a member.

But there is much conflict between groups or "tribes" of animals, or even individual animals within those groups, which you claim is the first evidence of the "class split". Are these animals therefore also victims of the class-system?

So you'll allow organization which is as informal and adhocratic in nature, however, the violent nature of an organization isn't dependent on its formality.

The definition according to Wikipedia is therefore different to your own. Planned, coordinated, and purposeful action to construct or compile a common tangible or intangible product. Me and John getting together in a room to talk about how there's no God doesn't really constitute organization here, because it's not planned coordinated and purposeful action to construct a common tangible or intangible product. So people getting together to talk about how my government totally sucks isn't organization, but planned, coordinated and purposeful action to construct the product of bringing down or opposing my government is.

So you admit you can't possibly monitor Internet traffic?

That's not what I'm admitting, because you yourself say that it can be monitored, just those monitoring may not know what they're looking at. Entry into countries can be monitored, but that doesn't mean people can't find ways around being caught. Simply use the best at what they do, with the best equipment at their disposal, and the system may not be perfect, but it's as best as can be. Besides, if someone's looking over your shoulder to see what you're doing, then we don't simply need to rely on what we see you transferring to and from the internet. If something is suspiciously making its way from your computer to others and we can't work out what exactly it is, we have reason to believe you're trafficking suspicious material, giving us grounds to come round and see what it is.

However, they don't present an authority, unless you mean to use authority as a synonym for influence.

Look at the Linux development hierarchy for a real world example. While the official Linux kernel, released by the Linux Foundation, is a standard and is recommended to be included in all distributions, you occasionally get a distribution who does not follow this recommendation for one reason or another.

I essentially do, especially where that influence is powerful, and those doing the influences are known to be having that influence. If it's someone behind the scenes, then they're not that much of an authority because they are not recognized as an influencer.

That seems to be a different scenario to your proposal, where they are suggested to suffer ramifications by the influential parties for not following that recommendation.

If someone breaks a law in a society which is constantly being watched couldn't it be argued that they are always insane?

I've obviously thought about such an argument for an interesting dystopian situation I'd like to write about. A government which acts on the premise that all sane individuals obey the law, therefore those who break the law must be insane.

I don't see how being watched leads to that conclusion though.

It is not the actual crime, rather the intent which matters. I doubt there are many instances of any of those crimes which are committed with an intent besides gaining power or capital.

The state of mind is often what constitutes the crime, like intent to kill or cause harm being a primary factor in murder. Your motive for doing so has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your criminal liability. If you murder someone, it doesn't matter if you did so to make robbing them easier, or to get them out of the way so you could inherit from their will, or so on. All that matters, as far as the law is concerned, is that you killed them with intent to kill them or cause them grievous bodily harm, and similar with those I listed.

Only when it comes to hate crime does it really matter, i.e. you attacked someone because they were of a different ethnicity, or of a different nation, or of a different sexuality, or a different religion. The motive is also taken into account when it comes to sentencing for certain crimes - if it was malicious, then the sentence will be more severe than if it was benevolent but illegal.

You can't really have theft when you don't have private ownership.

This is true, but you can't really have "theft" unless you have a law to say that stealing is a crime either. Abolish the law, and theft becomes nonexistent, because depriving another of property becomes legal.

But in a society where resources are distributed evenly, if someone takes resources not meant for him from another, he may not be stealing because neither owns them, but it's hardly just, either.

Correct.

So how do you propose we condition everyone into that mindset without doing a Brave New World? Or do you propose that we do a Brave New World, which itself wasn't perfectly constructed either?

The difference is that even as a legitimate and recognized source, the communal council would not have the ability to enforce any opinion.

But by coming to an agreement on which opinion to promote, they essentially are, and by suggesting that people do enforce that opinion by discouraging the supply of goods and services to those who violate it, this is a form of enforcement.

The thing is, these rights aren't inherit in any written document or any regulation. The consequential sections I included? Those are not the actions which should be taken by society if those rights are violated, those are the unconscious responses of the community.

But where two people disagree on the just-ness of the response of the community, you need someone to impartially state who is correct and who is incorrect, who is just and who is unjust, who has taken the right course of behaviour and who has taken the wrong one. If no one disagrees, then fair enough, but as soon as a disagreement arises, there needs to be some form of dispute resolution process, or you end up with discontent.

I wouldn't consider influence a synonym for authority in this context.

Then we have a semantic disagreement.

For the same reasons non-profits and not-for-profits exist today, I suppose.

Charities don't really give two hoots about "market dominance" though. They seem to be happy doing their part however small as long as there are others doing it too. They don't want a monopoly or a near monopoly or to dominate the "charity market" so to speak.

What? There would be less? How do you know there already isn't less than there would be if we weren't altruistic?

Read the papers for just one day. If people like Josef Fritzl were naturally altruistic, they wouldn't be in the news.

We've designed a synthetic social structure- why is this impossible?

Capitalism, as Marx quite rightly said, relies on pitting one man against another, and relies on one man succeeding at another's expense. That was my point.

They are not.

They clearly are, because every day there are situations where, if the police weren't there to intervene, and the courts not there to sentence, a greater injustice would be done than was.

Again, you're ignoring what is considered scientifically true for evidence which is anecdotal and uncontrolled?

I'm ignoring books and papers and articles which say that the sky is green in favour of my own common senses which tell me that the sky is blue.

You know this how?

I answered that question pretty much straight afterwards.

All actions are unconscious at some level.

The fact that they have a degree of consciousness essentially defeats the notion that they are unconscious.

Perhaps you're forgetting that humans are animals.

We have rational thought, that sets us apart, and therefore evidence stemming from the thought-patterns or instincts of animals can't always be transferred to humans.

Neither? They're the result of a society which respects a tit-for-tat social structure, one which humans are genetically programed to respect.

See above.

So they'd have to be genetically programmed to respect those rights, by a person or persons who believes those to be the ultimate rights, and a person or persons who believes that to be the ultimate societal structure. So they have to come from somewhere, that being the person who sets up such a society. Rights are not self-evident, they need justification, and even that isn't enough to lend them any form of authority or legitimacy. For that you need law.

This is the case right now- it's the class split which has distorted the altruism in humanity.

That class split stems from a lack of natural altruism. If humans were naturally altruistic, therefore, there would be no class split.

The courts today exist as a result of the class split.

You're just throwing the term "class split" around now as a catch-all explanation for every dispute between persons. The courts have arisen out of a need for fair and just dispute resolution, whether you choose to call it "class split" or not. Animals have disputes too, and they don't have arbitrators, which results in what would be injustice if they had even an ounce of rational thought. This is not, in your argument, a "class split", and therefore it must not, in your argument, be one for humans either.

It would, in that that one person would be without the products of society.

And as I have suggested, if he is willing to take every measure possible to be able to take what he wants and continue doing what he wants, then your system is unable to justly stop him.

Unless, of course, the individual deviant is the supreme dictator.

In my system if the supreme dictator (i.e. me) violated his own laws he would probably be punished under his own laws. In an unjust monarchy the King is the Law, but in any respectable society the Law is King, as Arthur Dicey once said something along the lines of. I would not violate my own laws, or if I did, I would ensure that all see that I am punished for it, even if the sentence were to be unduly lenient because of my position. I could not respect myself if I didn't respect the Rule of Law in my government, and I wouldn't expect anyone to respect the Law if it is seen to be violated, even by the person who enacted it. The Law in my regime must appear as unmoving and uncompromising, for if it is seen to be flexible for certain people, then the people will try to push against it. The reason we don't bother trying to push against a brick wall is because we know it won't move.

I have no qualms with genetic engineering, however, 'rebuilding humanity from the ground up' is not necessary when we're already altruistic.

Without arguing the point of natural altruism again, you'd still have to adjust something fundamental about humanity and their love of injustice. But considering you don't oppose Brave New World-ism, then I can hardly argue. At least you're not trying to claim one thing but maintain a moral high-ground by rejecting something often perceived as bad.

In the history of the United States there have been 2562 vetoes, only 110 of which have been overridden, many of which were pocket vetoes, which don't require the 2/3rds vote.

But it's still possible. It may not be satisfactory, but it's still possible.

It's impossible to do to the degree in which you'd like.

It's possible to do it to a far greater degree than it's done now.

And you claim you are not naturally altruistic?

I'm doing it for me. My personal satisfaction. So I can't be.

So the system you propose is one which can only exist for the next 60 or so years? I doubt one could even create a system such as the one you propose- doing so within 60 years is simply laughable, and even if you could, then what? 20 years of security? 40 maybe? And then we stagnate as a society. (assuming you're correct , which I doubt you are. A power hole would most likely occur, and your society would fall into chaos.)

An idea would be to establish a government, establish aims for that government, establish a system under which that government would operate, then hopefully the wheels would keep turning without the need for a driver. There would be no need for a little despot to fill in the gap left by me, because I would try not to leave a gap. Perhaps with my superior judgment I could appoint someone I have evaluated to be trustworthy, but I don't trust anyone to be able to do the job that I would. Although while I was alive I would obviously push for some kind of life-extending technology, perhaps some form of preservative technology. If more resources were directed into that area than are now, maybe we'd achieve something quicker than we will at this rate.

Perhaps the system would cause humanity to stagnate, but yours is hardly better in that area. Both of our systems, in claiming to be perfect, leaves nowhere else for humanity to go. We aim for social stability, like in Brave New World, but in the process sacrifice advancement. If I could live long enough, in my system I would direct humanity, but without a directing force and with so much restriction they couldn't advance in the same way. In your system, a communal one, advancement wouldn't really be possible because it seems to be a fact that advancements are better made under competitive conditions - one side advances so they can beat the other.