An Original Parable about Voluntaryism

in #anarchism8 years ago

Or, "Why I am not an anarchist."

Once upon a time there was a magical land called Voluntaria. Voluntaria had no government, so people were free to associate with whomever they wanted. There were no taxes and no public services. If anybody wanted anything, they'd have to pay for it explicitly. If you owned something, it was your right and sole responsibility to make something profitable out of it.

In Voluntaria, there was a river that ran from the town of Mises to the town of Friedman. The Misians and Friedmen (as the towns' inhabitants were called) ran their barges up and down the river, trading with one another freely. Mises had the greatest stonemasons and quarries in the world, whose wares and services were traded for the bountiful harvests of grain and livestock that Friedman was known for.

Now it just so happened that a man named Ben lived on the river halfway between the two cities. In fact, the river ran right through the center of his property. This land had been in his family for ages, and he ran a tidy little logging business in his forests. His logging business provided him with enough to feed him and his family, but Ben wanted more.

Ben was as cunning as he was resourceful. One day, he decided he'd leverage his ownership of the river to make a little cash. So he built a wall across the river, and put one little gate in the middle. He put up two big signs on either side of the river and said "Because this is my river, anyone who wants to sail a barge from Mises to Friedman will need to pay me a river toll. It's my section of river, and you can't tell me not to build a wall across it and charge tolls."

The bargemen, the farmers of Friedman, and the stonemasons of Mises weren't happy with it, but there wasn't anything they could do about it without resorting to violence (for example, breaking down Ben's wall). They couldn't even apply some kind of self-defense principle, because that section of river belonged to Ben and he could do whatever he wanted with it.

Ben, individually, had caused very little harm. Commerce was still booming, and at worst, Ben was just siphoning off a bit of it for himself. It's important to note that Ben himself wasn't providing any meaningful or useful service to the bargemen; he was merely taking wealth away from them.

Unfortunately, Ben started a trend. All up and down the river, anybody who owned land on both sides of the river asserted their un-challengeable claims over the river itself, and built their own walls, and charged their own tolls.

One by one, the hard-working bargemen started going out of business. It started with the oldest and smallest barges, and many people shouted "we're just weeding out the weak ones! If they had wanted to stay in business, they'd have invested in better equipment!" Unfortunately, over time, all but the newest and largest barges had to be taken out of service and mothballed. Thus, a great deal of productive and socially-beneficial work simply ceased to occur.

Of course, this was devastating to the stonemasons and farmers as well. Unable to move their goods to market efficiently, many of these formerly-productive members of society joined the growing ranks of the unemployed.

Voluntaria entered a period of crushing economic decay. Even the river-wall operators (like Ben), who had profited grandly from their tolling operations, saw their revenues dwindle as the quarries were shuttered and the forests encroached upon the farmers' fallow fields.

Nobody could do anything about it. If one river-wall operator lowered his prices altruistically, another river-wall operator would see the resulting increase in barge traffic and raise his prices to capture the revenue. Any time the river-wall operators tried to band together and agree to lower prices across the board, one of them would inevitably defect (more often than not, it was Ben).

Overburdened by these paradoxical free-market restrictions to trade, Voluntaria devolved into a collection of backwater villages that offered no resistance a generation later when the barbarians came to conquer this once-thriving community.

Moral of the story

I'm not a voluntaryist because anarchism/voluntaryism do not offer, or typically even propose, any means by which we can protect the commons. In settings like above, centralized coordination is extremely helpful for trade, which is probably a necessary ingredient for modern civilization as we know it.

Certainly, my story is only what I claimed in the title - it's a parable. I write it to convey my ideas, and welcome all comers to upvote me and then pick apart my analogies bit by excruciating bit.

Sort:  

Hello. Here are the parts of your story, early on, that I think there's a problem with:

Now it just so happened that a man named Ben lived on the river halfway between the two cities. In fact, the river ran right through the center of his property.

One day, he decided he'd leverage his ownership of the river to make a little cash

So he built a wall across the river, and put one little gate in the middle.

The implication is that the protagonist would face no legal repercussions for building the gate. That assumption is not warranted.

This article from FEE is instructive. Here's one of the relevant paragraphs:

The other doctrine, which prevails in most western states, is called the appropriation doctrine. According to it, water rights may be acquired by either riparian or nonriparian landowners on a “first-come, first-served” basis. The first to make “beneficial” use of water acquires the right thereto, and in case of water shortage the rights acquired later in time have to give way first. This is not a system of pro rata distribution but a system of priorities in which prior (in time) water rights are entitled to be fully satisfied before subordinate rights can claim any water at all. These appropriation rights are rights to use certain amounts of water during specific periods of time for certain purposes. The holder of the right cannot ordinarily change the use without losing the right and cannot sell the water to someone else to use for any other purpose at any other place. The continuance of the right is dependent on exercise of it. Failure to use the water for a period of time results in forfeiture of the right.

Here's Murray Rothbard talking on the subject.

It is immediately clear that the route to justice lies along the appropriation rather than the riparian path.

Rothbard was an advocate of the appropriation doctrine. So at least to the extent that the hypothetical ancaps are Rothbardians in this respect, it seems likely that this approach to water ownership and use would be the one used on the island.

Under this doctrine, the barge operators have already homesteaded the right to use the river for their operations

Ben, by setting up his gate, is interfering with the exercise of that right. He should expect a legal challenge to his actions.

Perhaps the real moral of the story is that if you think of a scenario that seems like a difficulty for a voluntaryist order, it's a good idea spend a little extra effort to search for solutions that thinkers in this tradition have already proposed.

This is all so new to me, I have to ask - how do legal challenges work in anarchism? It seems to me that where you have laws and methods of enforcing them you have a de facto government.

Hi @spetey. I understand this isn't easy to intuit. But thankfully law and its enforcement doesn't require a state. State, in this context means (something like) a territorial monopoly on the right to initiate violence and ultimate decision making authority. The best works I've seen talking about the provision of (polycentric) law under stateless conditions are David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom - I made an illustrated summary video here:

And Micheal Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority is great too.

Faced with the alternative of 133 pages, I opted for the video after all! It was quite fascinating and gave me a much better glimpse into how anarchists think it might be a better system, thank you. I was especially intrigued by the idea of, in effect, doing price discovery on my legal values: "I am firmly opposed to all torture, but I guess I could go with the Rights Enforcement Agency (REA) that tends to contract with arbitration courts that allow torture to death, if it saves me $7,566 a year ... but not if it saved me only $7,528!"

I still have major hesitations, though perhaps those too have answers. I'll sketch them here in order from least to most worrisome. Maybe I'll try to make a separate post on them.

  1. The practical burden of all this research into the various "laws" available: IIUC, I have to know all the many competing REAs, their favored Arbitrators with each of the other REAs, how each of those Arbitrators tend to settle, and who all the other people I might interact with contract with. (I can smoke tobacco around this friend because their REA did not negotiate against second-hand smoke, but not around this friend and this friend ...) Especially when it's not at all clear that the information I'm getting is any good. Back when I was a libertarian I tried to imagine private alternatives to the FDA, and it ended up so convoluted I had to think in the end it was something of a natural monopoly. It may sound whiny but I'm really not sure it's workable. I'd have to hire some firm to decide what firms to hire, and find a way to figure out whether that firm is actually acting in my interest ...
  2. Letting laws be determined by market forces basically means the rich get to set the laws; if I am rich enough to contract only with REAs that will ruthlessly pursue the interests of their very rich clientele (to violence when necessary, even assuming violence is "more expensive"), then I can have my way and get richer; if I am too poor to afford an REA who really can defend my interests then of course I'm just going to get poorer (if I'm lucky). Perhaps many libertarian/anarchists types think this is justice - that rich should make right - but I think it's far from the case.
  3. "Rich makes right" still sounds a tiny bit better than "might makes right", even to me, but I still don't see why it wouldn't devolve into might makes right again. We are supposing there are powerful agencies out there to protect interests. Why would they be happy with salaries from the very rich who do not already have their own armies? Why wouldn't they simply take from the otherwise defenseless rich? Because violence is "expensive"? How expensive is it to take from someone defenseless? Would that REA be shunned by others? Sure, but if they're powerful enough, it doesn't matter, and if they're not powerful enough, then the same problem repeats with that more powerful REA - why doesn't it just take what it wants? We need to band our non-looting REAs together into one, to protect group interests? That sounds familiar.

Anyway I have more to think about, thank you. Though I still think anarchism would be even worse than the imperfect system we have now, I have a better idea of why some think otherwise.

Loading...

Thanks for the link! I hope to watch someday (though I'd generally rather read than watch a video, myself). Meanwhile I have to wonder how these laws are enforceable if there's no threat of punishment (backed by an ability to follow through that does seem to imply violence if necessary) behind them.

Meanwhile I have to wonder how these laws are enforceable if there's no threat of punishment

There are threats of violence against would-be property rights violators. There's a free PDF version of a previous edition of TMOF here: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Do not underestimate the effects of ostracizism: if Mises and Friedman boycotted the logs that Ben sells until the gate issue is resolved and also told people they will have reservations about trading with people who use Ben's logs, Ben's life becomes increasingly hard to manage while tolling the river because he will lose business and acceptance in the town. Also the concept of DROs or dispute resolution organizations is one that is just recently beginning to be explored.

Ok, I'm going to pick apart your entire post bit by excruciating bit, just like you asked. I will only focus on the sentences that are wrong though.

"There were no taxes and no public services. If anybody wanted anything, they'd have to pay for it explicitly." - Yes, there would be no taxes, that is true. But that doesn't mean there would be no voluntary charities , mutual aid societies/networks, co-op owned businesses, non-profit agencies, etc.

"Ben was as cunning as he was resourceful. One day, he decided he'd leverage his ownership of the river to make a little cash." - Ben doesn't own the river because Ben nor his family built the river. They didn't even build the section of the river their property happens to fall on. Ben owns a logging company. It's possible Ben also owns a forest to cut trees down because his family planted the trees for the sole purpose of cutting them down later. But no, Ben doesn't own a river just because Ben says he owns a river.

"So he built a wall across the river, and put one little gate in the middle. He put up two big signs on either side of the river and said "Because this is my river, anyone who wants to sail a barge from Mises to Friedman will need to pay me a river toll. It's my section of river, and you can't tell me not to build a wall across it and charge tolls."' - Ok, yes. Ben can build a wall and door across a river if he wants to waste his money. Nobody is there to stop Ben from being a moron. Meanwhile, anyone interested in trading between the two towns, will simply go around Ben's dumb wall. Maybe someone will divert the river around the dumb wall and charge less than Ben does. Maybe someone will create a transfer service onshore around Ben's dumb wall for less. Maybe someone will build a road so people don't have to use the river anymore. Maybe the river isn't the only way to transport goods between two cities.

"The bargemen, the farmers of Friedman, and the stonemasons of Mises weren't happy with it, but there wasn't anything they could do about it without resorting to violence (for example, breaking down Ben's wall). They couldn't even apply some kind of self-defense principle, because that section of river belonged to Ben and he could do whatever he wanted with it." - Actually, that section of the river doesn't belong to Ben because Ben didn't build it so yes, Ben is the aggressor in this case if he is restricting people's right to travel freely along a river that Ben doesn't own. Self-defense would actually be justifiable.

"Unfortunately, Ben started a trend. All up and down the river, anybody who owned land on both sides of the river asserted their un-challengeable claims over the river itself, and built their own walls, and charged their own tolls." - No Ben would not start a tend by building a wall across a river, because people who used the river would hate Ben and they would stop buying logs from Ben's logging company. People along the river would not want to jeopardize their own livelihoods in order to build walls. Ben would become an example of how to piss off your neighbors and become an outcast in society. As far as unchallenged claims over the river, again, Ben has no claim over the river, because Ben didn't build the river and neither did his family. No one has a claim of ownership to the natural river.

The rest of your story falls apart there because it would never happen. It then goes into this ridiculous fairy-tale as if nobody in either town could ever possibly find a solution to Ben's wall, or that everyone would just be ok with Ben building that wall in the fist place and simply pay Ben for something they were receiving for free until Ben decided to be a dick, and the even more ridiculous notion that everyone else along the river would be as dumb as Ben and do the same thing he did.

"There were no taxes and no public services. If anybody wanted anything, they'd have to pay for it explicitly." - Yes, there would be no taxes, that is true. But that doesn't mean there would be no voluntary charities , mutual aid societies/networks, co-op owned businesses, non-profit agencies, etc.

True. And would 'have to pay for it explicitly' seems off too. It's very possible that many services would be bundled and provided together in exchange for a 'membership fee' of some sort. This doesn't sound like 'pay for it explicitly' to me.

Yeah, I was pretty thoroughly oversimplifying the whole thing. Guilty as charged. But some really interesting things have come out of this discussion, and I started a new one over here:
For a discussion on the commons in an anarchist society, check out my new discussion on the commons in an anarchist society.

So your opposition boils down to two points:

  1. Ben can't own the river
  2. "People" would punish Ben economically because they're pissed at him

In an effort to distill my thoughts, let me give you my quick rebuttal:

  1. Why can't Ben own the river? Who decides this? If he doesn't own the river, who does? Your decision that land can be owned but a river can't is arbitrary.
  2. "People" isn't an agent. "People" is a collection of uncoordinated individuals. If 100 people don't want to buy Ben's logs, then one person will come along and buy them at a discount - but it's not a foregone conclusion that he'll be driven out of business simply because people are annoyed with him.

You could own a river if you built a river. You don't have any claim of ownership over something simply because you claim it's yours. That's what governments do. People in this imaginary land don't acknowledge governments. You can only claim ownership over something that you put your labor into, bought with your own money, someone (who had legitimate ownership of it first) gave it to you, or you inherited it. You can't just walk up to a river or a piece of land and say you own it.

So you're opposed to homesteading rights?

The problem of rent-seeking is by no means an exclusive problem of a propertarian anarchist order. On the contrary, it is the defining problem of a statist one. The state is essentially a gigantic, parasitical, rent-seeking entity, with a dash of extreme violence mixed in.

You say that a voluntaryist order neither offers nor proposes solutions to this problem, and yet one such solution has already arisen in the form of easements. These are a limited grant of access to someone else's property, especially for the purposes of unimpeded travel through it, based on either agreement (contract) or pre-existing usage. In fact, in the situation you describe river travel and trade has gone on long before Ben decides to enforce tolls, so you almost surely have people contest his right to bar the river due to that long-standing usage. Even from a hyper-autistic atomistic libertarian perspective, they could easily claimed to have homesteaded access rights to the river, and not even invoke concepts like easements.

The other problem with your scenario is that everyone on this island are so pig-headedly selfish that they would actually prefer to make themselves poorer and destroy their industry just for the hope of an ever-diminishing profit. As trade declines, they will have fewer and fewer people willing and able to pay the tolls. Who would act like this, especially in the face of competition from other sources (say, an enterprising road builder or a canal trust that diverts water access away from that part of the river)? If people actually behaved like this, a sophisticated market economy would simply not be possible.

But then one day, a guy called Satoshi landed on the island and told everyone about block-chains. Nobody had any idea what he was talking about, so he showed them how if they all agreed to a set of immutable rules, they could all live happily.

Collectively, the community decided upon the smallest number of voluntary rules to live by. Simple rules like

  • We will trade between each other when it is mutually beneficial
  • No coercion

They all agreed, but later down the road, Ben tried to start raising the toll prices again. Mises and Friedman decided to stop trading with Ben and only between themselves.

Mises and Friedman soon became economic powerhouses of freedom. While they had to take longer less efficient routes transporting their resources, they worked within their limits and carried on.

Ben then lowered his toll price inviting Mises and Friedman to start trading with them again. But wouldn't you know it? Mises and Friedman were well aware of his tricks and his bad reputation, they said "no."

Ben's town quickly fell apart as everyone left to join the free and voluntary towns of Mises and Friedman.

Are those other, less efficient routes somehow unowned in this continuation of the story? Or are the people along those routes under some kind of enforceable agreement to keep them from doing as Ben did?

The real question is why anyone would push their property claim to the absurd state where they are destroying their own income, as in the scenario. There are privately owned toll roads and canals that exist right now. Why don't they keep increasing their fees at a rate that asymptotically approaches infinity? Because no one would pay them. The simple fact is that producers are not free to set any price they wish in the market. They are constrained by the willingness of consumers to pay their fees. If it were not so, the price of everything would be infinite.

The OP posits that there is a sort of reverse cartel defection effect at work here, where all the members of the River Transit Guild are induced to defect against a decrease in prices necessary to save their business, but in fact it would be the opposite. Raising the prices at your gatehouse while everyone else lowers theirs doesn't mean that you will make more money, it means that more people will avoid going through your gatehouse.

Well I am new to these discussions and am not an economist so I may be missing something. But this seems again to assume that other routes are available. I'm guessing real-world privately-owned toll roads do not drive their prices up because there are other public routes required by the you-know-what.

In @biophil's scenario, if I understand correctly, we can first suppose that tromping through the (unowned?) jungle instead of the handy river imposes a cost $X. This means people along the river can collectively charge just under $X, right? If any one of those along the river impose a toll that puts the total over $X, then they all lose out; but if the total fees along the river are under $X and one actor lowers their toll by some small amount, that just means another can raise the toll by that small amount and it is still better for the traders to take the river.

Then we suppose that the jungle (and air and sea and underground and ... ) are all owned (is there any reason they wouldn't be in the anarchist utopia?), and I have to say I get confused, so maybe you can help. People along the jungle route realize they can play the same game Ben does. Of course if they charge too much, people will go back to the river - if the river tolls don't add up to be too much. In these kind of rent-seeking scenarios, I take it, each owner may as well charge something, since they are no worse off than when they were letting people through for free if the people decide not to go through at all.

I agree with @discombobulated that the main problem is how to handle private coercion and might making right - and I think @biophil agrees too, in this post. And when it comes to @discombobulated's interesting analogy of world governments, there it seems we are left to settle things by might making right - which I'm inclined to think is unfortunate.

@biophill hit the nail on the head with that post and it is exactly my concern as well. But, since the problem of might makes right already exists between nations, that doesn't make it a great reason to stop thinking of ways to try and make voluntaryism work. Even if we were only able to enjoy a brief period of it before reverting back to coercion, it would still be worth it in my opinion.

For a discussion on the commons in an anarchist society, check out my new discussion on the commons in an anarchist society.

The fable in the OP forgets the fact that since the barge-men were doing well at the time the wall was built, they could have just negotiated with all the land owners in between their two towns and built a canal and the contracts would have priced in reasonable tolls anyway.

Besides this, it is likely that the barge men would also have had the option to buy up all of the actual river property on the way down the river as a consortium and the wall builder would have been given the choice of sell it or make a contract of rental, which would have made him happy and money anyway.

This story is typical of people who think in terms of the commons still existing in an anarchocapitalist society. This cannot happen. It interferes with business, and despite what these anti-capitalists might think, it is the whole purpose of traffic routes to allow traffic through because it fosters trade between people along the path. In as far as money is needed to maintain the route, there has to be some scheme of gathering money from those who benefit from this route. Those who use it to do business with those people pay it anyway through their trade with these stakeholders.

So you favor the abolition of the commons? Fascinating. Everybody else who replied to my post said "well, at least you have to keep the commons." I was about to write a post discussing this. In fact, hang on a sec - I just did. For a discussion on the commons, check out my new discussion on the commons.

Of course, your answer is the right one. Your solution to the coordination problem is to coordinate. To organize, to unionize, to band together to exert the functions of government (though, under a different name). And then pray that it all stays non-violent.

All good points. Perhaps my choice of a river as an exploitable commons was clumsy?

But it's important to understand that your last paragraph is missing my point entirely. Gatehouse operators aren't competitors; their services are not substitutable without additional costs. It's not like a barge operator can say "I will use gates 1, 2, and 4, but 3 is too pricey so I'll just not go through that gate." Maybe 2 and 4 could collaborate to build a portage, and this could be used to control 3's price, but to enforce the cartel price upon 3, 2 and 4 would have to operate the portage at a loss. All of this is avoidable economic inefficiency.

Thanks for humoring me in all this - all this writing is a great way for me to distill my thoughts on the subject.

By the way, I'm seeing if I can get another one of these discussions going. For a discussion on the commons in an anarchist society, check out my new discussion on the commons in an anarchist society.

It doesn't really matter, there are plenty of alternative solutions for them to employ. If people block the river route, then take to land. If they block the land routes, then take to the sea or air. There's always another way of doing something.

The sea and air are unowned? Or are the owners of sea and air under some kind of enforceable agreement to keep them from doing as Ben did?

It doesn't matter if the sea and air are treated as unownable common spaces or if they are owned. The hypothetical proposes that everyone owns every piece of accessible real estate or travel corridor, and they're all determined to cut off their noses to spite their face. This is both wildly implausible and inconsistent with how we know people in these sorts of situations actually behave right now. It's a "just so" story.

If you want to take it to this extreme... Let's say Ben saw Mises building his home in a valley surrounded by mountains with only one entrance and exit. Ben sneakily builds a wall blocking the path thereby imprisoning Mises in the valley. Can Mises do what it takes to escape? Who is justified in their action if there is no government to resolve this conflict of interests (I think that is the point you are trying to make)?

Either way, someone is going to have to make a decision on the matter. Whether you decide to pay and give control to a coercive government to make the determination, or come up with a mutually beneficial agreement on your own, a decision will be reached regardless.

In this example, if Ben wants to be malicious, then Mises would do whatever it would take to survive. Meanwhile, the rest of the community will be seeing how Ben is treating Mises and would decide how they want to respond to it.

Let's say North Korea somehow was able to imprison South Korea. Would we need to create a world government to resolve it?

I really wish I could believe in your story, but you're sweeping too much under the rug.

You talk of the towns as rational decisionmakers, but they aren't - they're just collections of rational people. Your argument for anarchy assumes a degree of coordination that anarchy itself rejects.

My story was just a simple contradiction to yours and was not meant to be the go to guide for voluntaryism. It was meant to counter your primary argument. If someone acts maliciously in a trade for their own benefit and is not mutually beneficial, then it is easy enough to just not agree to the trade. The malicious actor is then barred from future trades and suffers the consequences.

But even throwing my little story out the window, just take a look at the world right now. We have a bunch of independent countries all acting for their own benefit. There is no world government telling each country how to act, so they do so according to their own needs. There are trade agreements and the UN etc., but what happens if countries don't follow the rules or act disreputably? Sanctions. AKA refusing to trade. If this can be done on an international scale, I would think it can be done on smaller scales between people, cities, states etc.

I love these ideas but the biggest flaw to anarchy/voluntaryism in my mind though is protection from violence. What is to stop groups from just using violence to impose their will on citizens again and bring people back into coercive governance? Or if groups do build their own protective forces to prevent this, what is to stop some rogue commander to stage a coup?

The old chestnut, 'But wouldn't the warlords take over?'. No, they wouldn't because voluntary agreements with multiple competing security providers would exist, and those providers would have agreements with each other when violent incursion affects each other on a scale that is outside the limits.

Note also that historically, such as the war of independence and the civil war, it was a mix of regular and irregular forces that came to win in the end. This is something that can only happen when anyone with the will to pick up arms and learn how to use them and who makes the effort to be communicative with the more formal, organised forces near them, can produce defensive capability that can repel all but a greatly overwhelming size of force. The bigger the force, the greater the chance that more people from a wider geographical region would get involved.

Capitalism has the advantage that people who adopt it as strictly as in the anarchocapitalist form of it, are both wealthier and more peaceful. It would be extraordinary for an outside force to come into play or even an internal force that does not understand that production and productivity are the key to winning wars, would not be less equipped at waging war. The USA was the main winner of World War 2 not because of anything other than its long period of relative peace and capitalism had provided far more resources and capital in the form of productive capability, that the soldiers had more power per person than either side of the enemy.

The warlords wouldn't take over because they'd be so tightly organized and intertwined with the economic order as to be indistinguishable from a government. ;)

re op: 'his ownership of the river' ? I would think people wise enough to set up such a society would make sure not to allow the private ownership of vital water ways. How does Ben become any different than the state at that point?

On 'all agreed to a set of immutable rules, they could all live happily.'
Wouldnt that kind of absolutism lead to coercion?


thoughts: I dont see how Voluntaria would deal with criminality and security.

Problems that will exist so long as we labor under a system that pits people against one another, creates mass concentrations of wealth. Why cant we seem to even imagine moving beyond the old paradigm of work wages and competition? and use technology and our strong social dynamics in the wisest ways possible, by fucking taking care of the basic needs of and education humanity? (answer bc the global power elite depend on poverty, war and drugs)
It seems to me that this can only happen if we free ourselves from the underlying disease of competition and the accumulation of personal wealth. What are essentially vestiges of nature-born scarcity, that we have created an economic system based on it, so that even while we produce surpluses scarcity in the form of planned obsolescence, is manufactured. While we destroy the planet and a Fed note is worth more than a person's life. At what point and how, do we leave it behind?

We should be competing against physics, music and math, not one another except in productive ways. We can educate, house and feed everyone on earth with the goal of ultimately harvesting the global potential of human mental and creative ingenuity. Imagine anyone could study any field they loved. Academia would not be poisoned by money. Just look around the whole of global society. It corrupts almost everything and breeds far more misery than anything else.
Profit has driven the technological marvels we see today. At the same time,nearly 20k babies below the age of 5 die every day bc the water they have to drink is not as clean as what I use to flush my toilet. The world is so fucked up im sure sure of this is a blessing or a curse.

A paycheck would not be necessary bc we would want for nothing. Somehow striving towards a world like this strikes me as more important given the double-edge nature of technology, the mind-blowingly destructive state of things as they are (drugs and war are the two biggest money-makers for the establishment) and the gulf between the haves and the have-nots.

Imagine a world with no notions of financial profit because money is no longer necessary. Because this is unprecedented it strikes us as hopelessly naive and idealistic and yet it's not outside the realm of possibility and given the benefits, people would take to it bc it would be a vast improvement over what we have now. And of course, automation would be the main catalyst. It could be implemented gradually by taking money back to what it should be: a means of exchange. It simply requires the overthrow of the central bankers/military industrial complex.. I'd like to think the Romanian model on a global scale could work. Of course no immediate change is possible but with gradual change with that end goal in mind, we could far better live up to our potential as a species. Looking at how fucked up the world is I just dont think it will ever happen so we can stop imagining now.
-pardon this long rant, if anyone even reads it, pardon any repetition, im tired/

You are proposing communism. But that went so well every other time in the past when it was tried. Surely your scheme would work where everyone else's failed?

Do you know that the reason why the USSR did not die of starvation was because Lenin basically allowed agriculture to be a free market? This is why even still today in Russia most farms are family concerns and average size is 5 acres.

The problem with your scheme of ubiquitous commons is that human beings are not commons. Who gets to decide whose is the greatest 'need'. When you boil it down, and I am going to be a bit nihilist here, nobody needs anything. You don't need to be alive. Need is no metric. Humans survive in very extreme situations although if it goes on for a long time it usually ends their lives prematurely.

Everything everyone wants is a want. There is no needs. We don't need you, you don't need me. We are here, and the real question is how can we both profit at each other's gain.

You are actually not unanimous in thinking that the commons should be preserved, and this is really interesting to me - so I wrote another post:
For a discussion on the commons in an anarchist society, check out my new discussion on the commons in an anarchist society.

The river is not an unlimited resource. Therefore it can not be a common. It will get clogged up with boats and nobody gets any value out of that. Nothing that is limited can be a common. Who profits most from it should be who uses it, since their profits flow into more business, more spending, or, even, just holding money off the market and making others' money more valuable.

There is no good outcome from any common property, except when the multiple owners are a very very small group, like family sized. And ultimately the kids grow up and want their own private piece of their own anyway.

what do you mean by 'you are not unanimous?' The ambiguity of the english pronoun 'you' is very troublesome in my view. In most languages the plural is also formal. Why would we all be unanimous, some here are also unicorn land of non-scarcity socialists also.

(btw, I am a follower of yours, but I am not afraid to rattle some cages every now and then =P hopefully you don't take my comments personally, just my own opinion)

No, your comments are great - thanks for the engagement. I knew when I posted this that I'd get 100 people telling me I was wrong.

@biophil

nice false dichotomy. Got some logical arguments to make?

You seem to presume no other routes existed or can exist. Also, how is it beneficial for the toll setters to have tolls that throttle a route to extinction? Toll roads today have low prices because if they didn't, people wouldn't use that route. If everyone had a chunk of road and charged for use of it, people would avoid expensive toll routes to save money, which would force that route to drop its prices to make any revenue.

Competition forces prices down, and someone would drive a road through to bypass the river route if it became too pricey. Before it got to the level you describe, someone would sell their barges and start negotiations with people to drive a railway between the two towns. Alternatives to the dystopia you describe exist, and people would seek them out. Just because you can't think of a way doesn't mean no one can.

Your example of what voluntaryism leads to is so simplistic it becomes a complete strawman of that system. Got logic? Because this ain't it.

Loading...