>>Certainly. But all they have lost is an argument. The context is conflict of *interest*, I have never said there would be no disagreements about priorities. But this came up in the context of the need for legal arbitration of disputes and I was merely pointing out that decisions about economic priorities would be arbitrated by vote, not according to a set of rules.
>
>What people decide democratically is what rules to adopt. Also they do it _according to_ rules of democratic procedure.
Yes. We disagree what the basic constitution of a socialist society should be though. Simply put, you advocate that society should be able to make and enforce political rules governing how people must behave. I say the only legitimate function of government in a socialist society is democratic management of the socially-owned means of production. There is no need and it has no business telling people how to live their lives.
What is significant is that this form of economic democracy would not require any violent methods of enforcement, the means of production is an interdependent web of supply and demand. Even if a group of people attempted to take control of parts of the system, to monopolise them for their private ends, it would be possible to prevent them with non-violent means. Merely by disconnecting the renegade plant from the supply chain.
The corrupting influence of a police force with special coercive powers would be unnecessary to defend the socially-necessary means of production from being usurped into private hands.
I believe it is important to avoid creating such political power if the aim is a truly free society. There risks of totalitarian power outweigh the supposed benefits. Though obviously there would be nothing to prevent local communities or other groups from organising however they saw necessary. But they would have no way of using economic coercion to build a power structure, only free association. Such activities should not have any special privileges or official power and the organisation of the economy should not have any connection with such activities.
I see that we're creeping back into the area you didn't want to debate though. Sorry about that, I'm incorrigible. ;-) BTW, have you got an answer to me legal question about whether private prosecutions of criminal offenses is permitted in the US?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas