Caramel's Ideal Society

1a. i. Why would I need a source to show that the the rich are wealthy? ii. We take in more calories, therefore we are not slaves? iii. I said the wealthy have the automatic ability to control others. We are thus "slaves" to the whims of consumers. Con elects himself authority over interpretation of the term, demanding that "the sole criterion for slavery is the initiation of violence." It would be foolish to believe him; "slavery" is not a technical term, it is a philosophically debatable one. If I am correct and people can function with much more freedom and equity, then we certainly would be considered slaves by future generations who gain an insight into true freedom: where the poor are not indentured servants to the trivial whims of wasteful consumers 1b. I think it is a bit crude to say capitalism is where our rights of not being harmed or stolen are derived. We are not free because of menial labor, mostly service and manufacturing-based, which necessitates menial positions of employment. Capitalism promotes massive waste which in turn requires extra efforts (by the working class) to create. Limiting production to simply high-quality products would cut both human and physical resources, but capitalism promotes cheap disposable goods at the expense of our (temporarily) abundant physical resources and our non-liberated public (human resources) - thus capitalism is inefficient and especially inequitable for the working class. 2. Con doesn't have BOP but has made a tactical error in bringing up an argument he cannot defend, which is more than adequately relevant to our discussion. 3aa. Capitalism promotes crime by i. basing the system on greed, therefore promoting theft naturally. ii. concentrating wealth away from the majority, creating a lower class of people who feel pressured to steal to survive. iii. creating menial labor positions to fulfill wasteful consumer needs which creates a general feeling of angst towards productive labor. My system would reward frugality, while currently there is no taboo for being inordinately consumptive. 3ab. Machines are under produced in our current system because human labor is cheaper. Why buy an expensive machine when minimum wage will buy you a desperate worker? 3ac. Capital would be moot in a system with no currency, unless he is implying we simply would fail to utilize resources without capitalism. 3b. Just because Amish value the right to be left alone doesn't mean they are shining capitalists that prove my system is not "anti-capitalist," and I'm not sure what your point about monks is. Con keeps trying to link capitalism with the right not to be enslaved; my system does not promote slavery so this is moot. Territory would be preserved under my system. 3c. TOTC would be averted because personal interest is now not as dire; I don't have to struggle as hard to extract resources to stay afloat (vs. my competition who also draws on these resources). We also don't have to assign control over natural resources (e.g., you own a river or some fish) which is unnatural and outrageous. The community wishes, generally, to preserve the environment and this interest wins out because there is no strong counter-interest (unlike capitalism which promotes ruthless competition for profit). Checks and balances are moot when power is kept to a minimum. 4. Make a policy recommendation in an anarchist non-capitalist community? The only policy necessary is that any conflict of interests is handled democratically on a case-by-case basis. 5aa. This is overly simplistic; while we won't be able to specially mass-produce as much, we will offset this ability in many ways. i. less hording of resources by the rich. ii. less dedication of resources to whimsical endeavors (e.g., McDonald's, cheap plastic disposable crap, lawyers, insurance, banking, marketing, business, police, government in all its facets). The trade-off would be lopsided in favor of my system. iii. less restrictions on freedom of information (no need for patents or to hide technology from competing firms). 5ab. Developed nations like the US and China send multinationals EVERYWHERE to plunder resources in every conceivable location. Also, these places lack infrastructure and technology that we already possess. Our communities would not be "isolated" - they would be independent. There is no reason they would be completely cut off from one another. 5b. Rich people horde wealth - in cars, boats, homes, bank accounts, etc. Very few rich (if any) give sizable proportions of their wealth to charity. There is no need to "give more" when they simply didn't receive as much to begin with. 5c. Why develop a new processor then hide all your achievements so that they are not duplicated? Why make every single processor-developer go through and make the same mistakes instead of just letting the mistake be identified? Science is mainly trial and error, and works best when info is shared - not horded. 5da. Capitalist protection of the environment? So you own the tuna fish in the ocean to protect them? Absurd! 5db. Profitable firms can only minimize waste that does not exist as externalities. The profit motive necessarily creates externalities and therefore waste - because profit replaces the goal of sustainability. 5dc. Con attempts to frame environmental planners in a dubious light. Comprehensive plans, created for communities by planning agencies, include scientific, economic, and social interests. Profit replaces these all with exploitation. 5e. the government wouldn't "force" shopping centers away from houses; once the profit-motive is removed, they would disperse back into the neighborhoods from which they came because of convenience. Planners would help the people figure out the most strategic locations for shops. This sounds ridiculous to most because you have to study environmental planning to realize the benefits of planning a community from the ground-up to maximize efficiency, instead of just dicing up parcels and selling/zoning them for profit like we do now. 5f. Walmart sells cheap stuff that must be produced continually, eating up non-renewable resources and human labor - not to mention the menial nature of its jobs. 5g. Con continually forgets there is no "prices" in my system and thus presents moot arguments based on profit. And lowering output is a noble goal (i.e., sustainability). 6a. ...and this is terrible because we could be saving these resources by efficiently growing more - that means more resources to spend on leisure or developing new medicines. 6b. If our govt are not capitalists, then what are they? If many govt officials are active then why distinguish? 6c. Why? Because home-grown food is more nutritious, better tasting, and less processed. They wouldn't need to dedicate inordinate amounts of time to growing most produce - and they don't even have a chance to make that decision themselves right now because of time restraints (keeping consumers happy) and property limitations. 7a. How? More govt? How much resources are wasted paying them to make up for capitalism's short-comings? 7ba. Your tech point is irrelevant since we already possess the tech to survive better than the 13 colonies. 7bb. What about New Orleans? The supply chains were cut off because planners were not involved in the infrastructure. If planners had planned New Orleans, the first thing they would have said was "DON'T BUILD ON FLOODPLAINS." But profit dictated that they should. So even if its not directly to do with "supply chains," they still build sustainability comprehensively. 8. Those political favors were effective because of $. Only capitalism could create a haven for patents to exist. 9a. we can't live there voluntarily because our entire society is capitalist and all the land in the US is considered property and owned. 9b. $ is efficient for trade, but this is small consolation.