Subject:
|
Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:10:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
324 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > Hm, interesting. We seem to actually be making some progress here. At a
> > quick read, Richard's proposal sounds like Liberatopia to me. I agree
> > with Larry that there needs to be more understanding of the flow of
> > money and power.
>
> Which flow of money? Apart from the minimal tax (admistration+State
> Responsibility fees (which pays for national defence and other things of • that
> nature)), the flow of money is entirely up to the aggregate group.
>
> Ie, a community, town, region, state, country etc could all decide to pay • extra
> tax and have some services provided, pay 100% tax and follow a • Marxist-inspired
> ideal, or pay the minimal tax and implement a Libertopia.
>
> Power goes up from the individuals only - never down.
> If no rights are being violated then:
>
> * A community can't tell an individual what to do
> * A Town can't tell a community what to do
> * A region or city can't tell a Town what to do
> * A state can't..
>
> At the top you have an embodiment of government, made up from council • workers
> from the lower levels, who have no power - whose task it is to implement, • who
> are directly accountable to those in lower levels.
>
>
> > It's interesting that when a vision for society is
> > created separate from the label "Libertarian" we end up with something
> > which looks remarkably Libertarian.
>
> The irony wasn't lost, believe me :)
>
> But the important difference in my mind, is that the freedom is there to • choose
> whether someone wants to live in a Libertarian area or not. If a bunch of
> Communists in one Town sold really nice potatoes to a bunch of Libertarians • in
> another town, which paid for the Communists Region fees.. then those towns
> could co-exist side by side.
>
>
> > I think Larry is right that there are a lot of Libertarian thinkers out • there
> > who don't realize they are Libertarian.
>
> I've never hid the fact that I agree with many Libertarian ideas, and this
> structure.. I hope.. supplies a mechanism to allieviate my fears.
>
> Ie. if a town has a problem with homeless, then they have the power to make
> sure that something is done about it - which is going to be, for the most • part,
> more altruistic and less sinister than leaving it up to a corperation.
>
> I didn't mention how corperations fit in. Basically Libertarians are right • when
> they say that the free-market would make them more efficient - and why not? • As
> no Social Grouping (community, town, city) is dependent upon their services
> when they have it in their power to provide their own. (1)
>
> Thanks for that - the first two responses haven't been as scary as I'd • feared
> :)
>
> Richard
>
> (1) It's my view that what makes a corperation efficient under free-market
> conditions, is the fact that they can't afford to be inefficient. What • makes
> civil-servants inefficient is a lack of motivation and ability to change. • When
> you start making government workings accessable, and when you factor in • that
> every level is accountable to the levels below it.. then that provides a • social
> and mechanical incentive to achieve efficiency.
What I read in your first post sounded a lot like how it is now, but that
you wanted all the "problems" to go away. In this second post, I found some
faults. I hate to jump in pointing out problems from the get go, but the
problem I see is so obvious to me that I think you should give it some
consideration. Lets say, for the sake of argument, there are two kind of
people: working people and lazy people. Now, if all the lazy people decide
to move to a region that is Marxist, what is going to keep the working
people living there? Their love for the land, their community, their
ancestry? I think once you get to the point where one person is working to
provide for say 5 (or maybe 10, 20?) other people, he might get a little fed
up, and even with the ties, decide to pick up and move somewhere where he
doesn't have to support all the others. At that point, who is going to
support the lazy? Just something to consider.
That makes it sound even more like the status quo than your first post.
Some places in America tax more than other. Some communities have a more
social atmosphere than others. People move to where they are comfortable,
or stay where they are uncomfortable because of their ties as long as they
can manage (or see no better alternative).
All that said, I think the basic idea is fine. I just don't think there
will be very many successful communities other than Libertarian communities,
if any true Libertarian communities exist. Kinda like comparing the Amish
country (1) in Pennsylvania to New York City. But you are correct, people
should have that choice, that freedom, and I don't think the ideas of
Libertarianism go against that at all. In Libertopia, an individual can
decide which community he wants to be a part of, and communities, all the
way up to the top, are formed by uncoerced individuals.
1 - just curious, could they subsist the way they do without government
help? Do they receive government help? I've never checked.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: RFC: An Alternative..
|
| (...) Which flow of money? Apart from the minimal tax (admistration+State Responsibility fees (which pays for national defence and other things of that nature)), the flow of money is entirely up to the aggregate group. Ie, a community, town, region, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
