>So what is it that people decide democartically when they get together? That machines should do thus and so? Machines,a las, won't do anything just because you tell them. But if the people direct, democratically, that people should use machines thus and so, they are directing people how to live their lives at least in that respect.
No, they would be deciding how the machines should be used. No-one would be obliged to use the machines thus and so, they would be free to go on a picnic instead. I thought I made that part clear? No economic or political conscription of labour.
>Well, you don't want to cops to have guns, then? I don't have strong feelings about this, It strikes me as the sort of Owenite micromanagement of the future that helped maked Marx allergic to utopian socialism.
I'd prefer cops not to carry guns in the present. It has always struck me as a bit dangerous for those young fellows to be strutting around with loaded guns, in situations where a gun is not likely to be needed. I'd prefer there be no cops in the future, but that isn't micro-management, it is strategic.
> But there has to be an enforcement mechanism. If the people decide that we are to build so many hospitals, but some folk divert resources to other ends--not necessarily selfish ones, maybe ones that they honestly albeit undemocratically think would be socially better--there has to be a means a means to stopping that behavior.
I explained the mechanism. The decision could be enforced (or not) by a boycott of those folks diverting socially-owned resources. They won't get far if the electricity and supplies are with-held. No need for guns and sheriffs. They can still build hospitals if all the necessary industrial suppliers continue to supply them with their needs in spite of the democratic decision of course, but that is an awful lot of industries. Then it would still need to be staffed and like everyone else, all medical staff would have to volunteer.
> In our society, a nonviolent court order usually does the trick. The court ulatimately has the power to call in the marshals or the sheriff, but it's extremely rare to use it. In four years on the appeals and district court, I've seen it used once. (A witness refused to show up and testiofy, and we had to have her arrested and produced.)
Its extremely common for people to default on fines though. At least it is in my neck of the woods. And I had a bit of trouble getting my landlord to comply with a court order a year or two back. But I think we might be digressing again.
>>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.
>
>Well, maybe. But suppose someone decided to privately appropriate property?
Stealing would be an odd sort of crime in a society where nearly everything is available for free, don't you think? I don't say it would never happen, but you'd want to call a head-shrinker, not than a sheriff.
>>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.
>
>Uh, who's talking about totalitaian powerr? I advocate democratic power.
The two things aren't incompatible. Otherwise you wouldn't need a bill of rights.
>>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.
>
>Yeah, right. So the Randroids set up a little capitalist community. You don't use the economic coercion of a boycott to destroy their experiment. You don't have cops to shut them down. What do you do?
Think about it. In this society goods and services are free. The Randroids little capitalist enterprise will have to come up with one hell of an angle to compete in that kind of market environment!
A market economy cannot survive surrounded by a genuinely socialist economy, any more than a non-market economy can exist within a predominately market economy.
>>BTW, have you got an answer to me legal question about whether private prosecutions of criminal offenses is permitted in the US?
>>
>
>Yes I have an answer. It is abolutely not permitted in the US, or any other modern society as far as I know. I actually had to cite this principle in a case I drafted recently.
It is permitted here and Australia is a much more modern society than the US. After all, you people still cling to first-past-the-post voting and imperial weights and measures! ;-)
I assumed it was an old English common law tradition, but don't really know. A private prosecution is risky of course (because of the danger of being up for costs or worse) and therefor very rare. In some jurisdictions the state is also entitled to take over the prosecution, I gather (so it could take it over and then drop it.)
A friend of mine did it a few years ago though, even got legal aid for the private prosecution. He was an environmentalist, who was threatened by a local farmer and former municipal Councillor while driving along a country road. The farmer deliberately swerved his 4WD to run him off the road, in the context of a lot of harassment of local environmentalists. But the local cops refused to take any action. As I recall, my mate failed to secure a conviction on any of the charges though. Or maybe he got a conviction of one of the minor charges, I forget exactly. Either way, he put the wind up them and didn't have any further such troubles, so maybe deterrence does have some value?
Anythow, it looks like you don't have that option to keep law enforcement agencies honest unfortunately. It was just something I was curious about.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas