Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

At least for some things, a diagnostic check of the thing that went blooey as well as a timesheet of people who were using it when and for how long should at least solve some of the "Who fucked up?" question.

Just because you were using it at the time it exploded, doesn't mean you did it, hence the diagnostic.

[Helgoland]

But who didn't repair that thing, who was responsible for it not blowing up in the first place? You need a systematic solution to this problem, otherwise you'll just wind up with a load of well-intentioned but ineffective rules along with a horrible state of things in general. This is one of the few cases where using Soviet Rusia as an example is appropriate
The same thing applied to fascism, as I read in a book about the Mafia: "They soon discovered that inside the iron fist of fascism was the greasy open palm of corruption."

[SalmonGod]

One thing I do struggle with is the idea that there are people who would rather let everything go to shit than grow the fuck up and get stuff done.  Even though I've seen enough examples at this point, I still have trouble comprehending it.

Still, while division of labor will always be necessary for an advanced society, the question is whether or not we've explored all methods of managing it.  I don't think we have.  Even the worst people can be motivated by something other than threats.

And it's my belief that every social relationship is different, and it's up to the individuals involved to figure out what works for them.  Any overarching system will work for some but not others, and those others are shit out of luck.

[Helgoland]

Still, while division of labor will always be necessary for an advanced society, the question is whether or not we've explored all methods of managing it.  I don't think we have. Even the worst people can be motivated by something other than threats.

Treats? But yeah, following incentives is a good idea.

And it's my belief that every social relationship is different, and it's up to the individuals involved to figure out what works for them.  Any overarching system will work for some but not others, and those others are shit out of luck.

And that's why we look for the best system that exists, not for the best system that might exist - Anselm's ontological argument is false, after all. There needs to be a framework for people to work in, and a bad framework can do far more damage than all bad individuals put together - again, Soviet Russia, Red China, etc etc. I'd even go so far as to say that every person is willing to let everything go to shit if the framework is bad enough.

[ed boy]

At least for some things, a diagnostic check of the thing that went blooey as well as a timesheet of people who were using it when and for how long should at least solve some of the "Who fucked up?" question.

Just because you were using it at the time it exploded, doesn't mean you did it, hence the diagnostic.

But there are plenty of things that can go wrong where nobody is to blame. Imagine we all share a communal car, and one day there's a hurricane, and the car gets destroyed, the wreck blocking a major road

[Mr. Palau]

I believe in rejecting the concept of property, while retaining the concept of direct possession.  Two very different things, but our culture isn't very good at differentiating them.  In other words, the changes I would like to see to the functioning of our society hinge on our culture rejecting the idea that a person can claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a direct personal relationship with.  If somebody doesn't directly interact with something or directly depend on it for their well-being, then it's stupid to allow them to restrict access to or otherwise exert control over it.  But this is definitely something that requires some deep cultural re-wiring.

Why is it stupid to allow people to maintain control over the portions of their property that they do not maintain a direct personal relationship with? Exactly what would constitute a direct relationship with your property? What constitutes a direct dependence?

I presume that an example of indirect property under your definitions would be an overseas factory or a part of your business whose governance you have delegated to others correct?

The house you live in is your personal possession.  The house that you own just to charge someone else to live in is property.  That's a very stark contrast and there are plenty of other examples where things could get fuzzier, but hopefully you get the idea.  And without the concept of property, there wouldn't really be such a thing as a business.  The whole idea is to make consolidation of resources into the hands of a minority impossible, and make allocation of resources more a product of direct democracy.  I am essentially a libertarian socialist.

I understand the distinction, but what about someone who lives off of and directly depends on income from rent generated from houses he built or bought? Would he be able to keep those houses, seeing as he directly depends on them for his livelihood?

[SalmonGod]

I believe in rejecting the concept of property, while retaining the concept of direct possession.  Two very different things, but our culture isn't very good at differentiating them.  In other words, the changes I would like to see to the functioning of our society hinge on our culture rejecting the idea that a person can claim ownership of anything that they don't maintain a direct personal relationship with.  If somebody doesn't directly interact with something or directly depend on it for their well-being, then it's stupid to allow them to restrict access to or otherwise exert control over it.  But this is definitely something that requires some deep cultural re-wiring.

Why is it stupid to allow people to maintain control over the portions of their property that they do not maintain a direct personal relationship with? Exactly what would constitute a direct relationship with your property? What constitutes a direct dependence?

I presume that an example of indirect property under your definitions would be an overseas factory or a part of your business whose governance you have delegated to others correct?

The house you live in is your personal possession.  The house that you own just to charge someone else to live in is property.  That's a very stark contrast and there are plenty of other examples where things could get fuzzier, but hopefully you get the idea.  And without the concept of property, there wouldn't really be such a thing as a business.  The whole idea is to make consolidation of resources into the hands of a minority impossible, and make allocation of resources more a product of direct democracy.  I am essentially a libertarian socialist.

I understand the distinction, but what about someone who lives off of and directly depends on income from rent generated from houses he built or bought? Would he be able to keep those houses, seeing as he directly depends on them for his livelihood?

If no one else is hoarding resources they aren't using, then what need does he have for an income?

[Tack]

The house you live in is your personal possession.  The house that you own just to charge someone else to live in is property.

Not at all related to your point: But it would be rather interesting if there was a one-house policy for people. I can think of a few ways it would seriously chance the economic landscape, short and long term.
Of course, because of the long term, and the concept of free markets, it's not exactly viable, but hey.

[Frumple]

What exactly do you mean by a one-house policy, though? How would it effect something, like... well, my own situation? Family owns some "spare" homes (sometimes they're rented out)*, that from time to time have housed other family members that were down on luck, having trouble, etc. Most of the homes titles are held by a particular couple. If things were limited to one title per person (especially if married couples were counted as a single person, or single households only allowed to have one), well... I know a fair handful of people that would have been in pretty bad shape. Myself and most of my immediate family included.

I can see what the concept is trying to avoid, I think, but even outside of profit-minded stuff there can be very good reasons for a individual to (want to) hold title (that is, legally/socially accepted control over a particular land parcel and its contents) over more than one home.

*And that'd be a question to SG's quote, I guess. What about stuff that's in between? Some folks live in a place part of the year, rent it out the rest (sometimes this is because leisure, sometimes because work-type stuff, sometimes it's family/tradition (religion, etc.) related), or will rent over a period and have non-renters live there over another. Where would stuff that's not strictly one or the other fall?

[Jelle]

Not replying to anything specific (thread still goes way to fast for me), just popping in to say this discussion got me to reading up on some marxist literature. It has been most insightful so far, so thanks for that.

[Helgoland]

Every good capitalist should have a well-grounded knowledge of Marxism. Knowing what you're doing is very helpful in exploiting the masses

[Lagslayer]

Every good capitalist should have a well-grounded knowledge of Marxism. Knowing what you're doing is very helpful in exploiting the masses

It is always important to know and understand the opposition, regardless of which position you support.

[Morrigi]

Not really, the New World had
a) Plentiful amounts of resources (gold, forests, fertile land)
b) Was actually reachable at an affordable cost
c) Didn't need constant supplies from the other side to survive

Also, the colonization of the Americas was motivated at every step of the process by the promise of highly profitable trade. We know from the start that that's going to be an impossibility with space.

Going to have to call bullshit on that one. Mars has many of the natural resources necessary for industry, and could also be a stepping stone to the asteroid belt which has untold riches.

It also has had major geological activity in the past, probably liquid water in the past as well, it has an atmosphere, etc.

With sensible propulsion technology (say, nuclear-thermal), the trip could be made in a few months.

Furthermore, there is the culture factor. Once the Mars colony matures, it will develop its own customs, technologies, and trade goods. This can be seen with the rise of the United States in its time as a developing nation.

And of course, it would allow great progress in various fields of science as well as a test bed for future, more capable technologies that will allow for the continued exploration of the solar system as well as, in time, insurance against most major extinction events.

It would be a great achievement for the human race. Think of the Apollo program and how it and its successors advanced technology.



Oh, semi-related note. The moon is shit for a major colony. Too much radiation, no atmosphere, and you can't grow plants on any real scale there because it's tidally locked.

[Descan]

The only really good thing the moon would be useful for is as a jumping off point. Easier to launcher a rocket from the gravity well of the moon than earth.

Until we build a space elevator.

[Pnx]

The only really good thing the moon would be useful for is as a jumping off point. Easier to launcher a rocket from the gravity well of the moon than earth.

Until we build a space elevator.

Question:
If you've gotten something to the moon, and plan on sending it elsewhere, why have you not just skipped the moon entirely, and therefore avoided having to escape two gravity wells instead of one?