![posthumanism:
whakahekeheke:
themostdistantstar:
whakahekeheke:
(fuckyeahemergence:tryingtofollow)
It seems to me that we systemically underestimate each other in a very illogical way. Does it make sense, for instance, that we would vote in governments to take money from us by force for bureaucratic welfare programs, but we would not voluntarily give money and time otherwise? We don’t need the middleman.
I’m a VISTA Volunteer (under Americorps). I love the system and I think that it represents a great socialist program (I, myself, am a Democratic Socialist) and proves that such things could work in the US. My political affiliation is why I joined Americorps.
I think that, in a perfect world, people would just give everything to humanity’s pool of resources and no one would be sick and hungry, but sadly we live in a selfish world where people have been taught that the only important person in the world is number 1 and that is it. Its a cultural thing as there have been plenty of examples in history that show that not all civilizations and peoples are like that. I think Socialism is a great thing and could benefit us in the way it has Germany and various other countries…I also wish for a world where Communism could work free of human corruption. (If you think about it, to get nerdy for a second, Star Trek presented an awesome view of communism and how things could be structured so that it would work.)
Hmm if people are the problem, how does the state help anything? The state is just a group of people, and a group of people who have an ideologically institutionalized monopoly on the power of legitimized coercion at that. Do you really think politicians are selfless? Do you think a top-down program funded by proactive coercion is going to be efficient or optimal given the incentive structure of this monopoly? And if you believe in state democracy, why would people vote to have their money taken by force to help people but not voluntarily donate it? Also, doesn’t it make sense to localize volunteerism? It’s always more effective if you’re dealing on a person-to-person basis without a middleman.
Can I know what makes you happy better than you know what makes you happy? Can politicians or government bureaucrats? If not, then how are you going to aggregate “humanity” other than by individual humans voluntarily revealing what they value?
I’m not too familiar with the VISTA program, but I have studied the economics side of Americorps. I’m sure there are good people with good intentions doing good things through that service, but it is incredibly inefficient and helped foment the financial crisis through pressuring the government to legislate home-ownership subsidies and forced loan quotas.
If the organization is funded by coercion rather than by voluntary human interaction, you are inevitably going to have (1) incentives conflicts and (2) calculation problems that lead to inefficiency, parasitism, and ultimately unsustainability. This often makes the organization counterproductive to the noble ends it was created for, and cannibalistic on the productivity of the human beings who are coerced.
I haven’t watched a lot of Star Trek, but I’m pretty sure being part of anything was individually voluntary and they were allowed individual property… so I’m not sure by what definition it’s communist. [Actually, I think the Borg were supposed to be communist - where the collective replaced voluntary individual choice].
I think this is an overly conspiratorial view of the state. No, politicians are not selfless. Of course our government has its problems with inefficiency and corruption. But we still live in a country where those representatives elected to office are elected. You voluntaryists seem to have a lot of faith in the ability of people to come together voluntarily, but not in their ability to (voluntarily) exercise their right to vote for representatives. As for the first blogger: as a matter of fact, I do vote for those representatives whom I know favor more socialist policies of redistribution — by, yes, taking my money. The welfare system is far from perfect but I know people who’d be dead or dying without them. I also happen to vote for those representatives who will take money from me to do things like build roads and hospitals and schools. And no, I’m not coerced into it.
But! I am not saying you are totally wrong. Power does corrupt and we need a better means of getting rid of that corruption. Yet I don’t think eliminating government involvement to the degree you theorize will necessarily make things all better. Volunteering in communities is well and good, but can it support the nation’s 37 million who live below the poverty level in a way that is both consistent and reliable? Volunteering at a local level is exactly that — local. It has a limited scope of effects and limited, differing means (depending, obviously, on the nature of the volunteer or volunteer group) of providing aid. 34% of it is religious aid? Fuck that shit! I don’t want people with a religious agenda helping me out! I’d much rather it be secular!
Conservatives and libertarians love to talk about how “institutionalized, bureaucratic charity programs” like welfare are inefficient. You bet they are — they’re underfunded, corrupt, and mismanaged. Worst of all, they perpetuate the idea that those who need them are frail, helpless, needy, lazy… the list goes on. It has its own way of marginalizing those it seeks to integrate, and this needs work. Serious work. But we live in a capitalist economy, and it leads to massive discrepancies in wealth — which leads to discrepancies in quality of life — and that requires, in my opinion, some form of redistribution. That is, as long as we have this current economic backbone and this kind of government structure that enables the gap between the rich and the poor to be so astronomically wide. Which I really don’t think I am totally down with, but that’s another story for another time.
The idea that charity should be left up to the individual is really just a nicer way of saying, “I want to be able to reserve the right for myself to be a selfish dickhead should I want to be a selfish dickhead; no one should ever force me to contribute my hard-earned money to those who weren’t good enough to make a sufficient amount of their own.” I don’t know if those who back this individualist ideology are trying to fool others or themselves, but it’s just dressed-up greed under the guise of “logical efficiency.” That figure looks real cute, but it’s a mere three-year analysis. I’d like to see the rest of this chart, please. And I’ve yet to see any hard evidence that localized volunteer work alone, in a capitalist system based mostly on individual consumption rather than charity, can support the poor and working poor. The millions of them.
HEY POSTHUMANISM LET’S BE FRIENDS, K?
WE ARE SOCIALIST GIRLS, THEREFORE WE KICK ASS.
OH, and whakahekeheke, FYI communism (in theory) eliminates private property, not personal property. In other words, means of production (and profit) are publicly owned and used for the public good, rather than personal gain; however, people can still have personal possessions. So don’t fret, we can keep our iPods and oh-so individualized music collections.
Gah I’ve edited this the most times. CORRECTION: *My preferred brand of* communism. Also, it’s a shame that libertarians and socialists don’t get along better. They tend to have a lot of beliefs in common. They just disagree on how to achieve their goals.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ky878wRYZ31qz5stso1_400.jpg)
(fuckyeahemergence:tryingtofollow)
It seems to me that we systemically underestimate each other in a very illogical way. Does it make sense, for instance, that we would vote in governments to take money from us by force for bureaucratic welfare programs, but we would not voluntarily give money and time otherwise? We don’t need the middleman.
I’m a VISTA Volunteer (under Americorps). I love the system and I think that it represents a great socialist program (I, myself, am a Democratic Socialist) and proves that such things could work in the US. My political affiliation is why I joined Americorps.
I think that, in a perfect world, people would just give everything to humanity’s pool of resources and no one would be sick and hungry, but sadly we live in a selfish world where people have been taught that the only important person in the world is number 1 and that is it. Its a cultural thing as there have been plenty of examples in history that show that not all civilizations and peoples are like that. I think Socialism is a great thing and could benefit us in the way it has Germany and various other countries…I also wish for a world where Communism could work free of human corruption. (If you think about it, to get nerdy for a second, Star Trek presented an awesome view of communism and how things could be structured so that it would work.)
Hmm if people are the problem, how does the state help anything? The state is just a group of people, and a group of people who have an ideologically institutionalized monopoly on the power of legitimized coercion at that. Do you really think politicians are selfless? Do you think a top-down program funded by proactive coercion is going to be efficient or optimal given the incentive structure of this monopoly? And if you believe in state democracy, why would people vote to have their money taken by force to help people but not voluntarily donate it? Also, doesn’t it make sense to localize volunteerism? It’s always more effective if you’re dealing on a person-to-person basis without a middleman.
Can I know what makes you happy better than you know what makes you happy? Can politicians or government bureaucrats? If not, then how are you going to aggregate “humanity” other than by individual humans voluntarily revealing what they value?
I’m not too familiar with the VISTA program, but I have studied the economics side of Americorps. I’m sure there are good people with good intentions doing good things through that service, but it is incredibly inefficient and helped foment the financial crisis through pressuring the government to legislate home-ownership subsidies and forced loan quotas.
If the organization is funded by coercion rather than by voluntary human interaction, you are inevitably going to have (1) incentives conflicts and (2) calculation problems that lead to inefficiency, parasitism, and ultimately unsustainability. This often makes the organization counterproductive to the noble ends it was created for, and cannibalistic on the productivity of the human beings who are coerced.
I haven’t watched a lot of Star Trek, but I’m pretty sure being part of anything was individually voluntary and they were allowed individual property… so I’m not sure by what definition it’s communist. [Actually, I think the Borg were supposed to be communist - where the collective replaced voluntary individual choice].
I think this is an overly conspiratorial view of the state. No, politicians are not selfless. Of course our government has its problems with inefficiency and corruption. But we still live in a country where those representatives elected to office are elected. You voluntaryists seem to have a lot of faith in the ability of people to come together voluntarily, but not in their ability to (voluntarily) exercise their right to vote for representatives. As for the first blogger: as a matter of fact, I do vote for those representatives whom I know favor more socialist policies of redistribution — by, yes, taking my money. The welfare system is far from perfect but I know people who’d be dead or dying without them. I also happen to vote for those representatives who will take money from me to do things like build roads and hospitals and schools. And no, I’m not coerced into it.
But! I am not saying you are totally wrong. Power does corrupt and we need a better means of getting rid of that corruption. Yet I don’t think eliminating government involvement to the degree you theorize will necessarily make things all better. Volunteering in communities is well and good, but can it support the nation’s 37 million who live below the poverty level in a way that is both consistent and reliable? Volunteering at a local level is exactly that — local. It has a limited scope of effects and limited, differing means (depending, obviously, on the nature of the volunteer or volunteer group) of providing aid. 34% of it is religious aid? Fuck that shit! I don’t want people with a religious agenda helping me out! I’d much rather it be secular!
Conservatives and libertarians love to talk about how “institutionalized, bureaucratic charity programs” like welfare are inefficient. You bet they are — they’re underfunded, corrupt, and mismanaged. Worst of all, they perpetuate the idea that those who need them are frail, helpless, needy, lazy… the list goes on. It has its own way of marginalizing those it seeks to integrate, and this needs work. Serious work. But we live in a capitalist economy, and it leads to massive discrepancies in wealth — which leads to discrepancies in quality of life — and that requires, in my opinion, some form of redistribution. That is, as long as we have this current economic backbone and this kind of government structure that enables the gap between the rich and the poor to be so astronomically wide. Which I really don’t think I am totally down with, but that’s another story for another time.
The idea that charity should be left up to the individual is really just a nicer way of saying, “I want to be able to reserve the right for myself to be a selfish dickhead should I want to be a selfish dickhead; no one should ever force me to contribute my hard-earned money to those who weren’t good enough to make a sufficient amount of their own.” I don’t know if those who back this individualist ideology are trying to fool others or themselves, but it’s just dressed-up greed under the guise of “logical efficiency.” That figure looks real cute, but it’s a mere three-year analysis. I’d like to see the rest of this chart, please. And I’ve yet to see any hard evidence that localized volunteer work alone, in a capitalist system based mostly on individual consumption rather than charity, can support the poor and working poor. The millions of them.
HEY POSTHUMANISM LET’S BE FRIENDS, K?
WE ARE SOCIALIST GIRLS, THEREFORE WE KICK ASS.
OH, and whakahekeheke, FYI communism (in theory) eliminates private property, not personal property. In other words, means of production (and profit) are publicly owned and used for the public good, rather than personal gain; however, people can still have personal possessions. So don’t fret, we can keep our iPods and oh-so individualized music collections.
Gah I’ve edited this the most times. CORRECTION: *My preferred brand of* communism. Also, it’s a shame that libertarians and socialists don’t get along better. They tend to have a lot of beliefs in common. They just disagree on how to achieve their goals.
