>>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.
>
>I see. So these democratic decisions would be unenforceable. Just sorta suggestions.
Suggestions endorsed by a majority. Which the majority has the power to enforce.
>Except for the part (below) where we cut off power and resources to the peiople we don't like. But that's not coercion. Coercion would be bad.
I didn't say it wasn't coercion. I clearly said the economy would have to be governed by democratic means. The people are entitled to make choices about economic priorities. But this doesn't mean "people" would lose their rights to access resources they need personally. So society wouldn't be cutting off power and resources to "people", but collectively exercising control of the socially-necessary means of production.
>>I'd prefer there be no cops in the future, but that isn't micro-management, it is strategic.
>
>Well, obviously, if democratic decisions are uneforceable, then you won't require an enforcement agency.
I've explained that democratic decisions about management of the means of production would be enforceable and I've explained how. The enforcement agency would be the people who work in every other industry that each individual plant and industry depends on.
There would be no centralised enforcement agency. That is a safeguard, enforcement requires active and widespread endorsement of the need to enforcement.
> Sociopaths and the criminally incdrrigible will have a field day, but I guess that's OK. A few serial killers on the loose will be a small price to pay for freedom from coercion.
We get a few of them now too, your police seem to be in vain. So there isn't much to lose by a new approach of eliminating the conditions which lead to anti-social behaviour. That is, an anti-social economic system. Together with a more community-based system to deal with the psychologically troubled residue. Mind you, if someone does persist in acting really obnoxiously, there's nothing to prevent someone else from slitting their throat. Except social disapproval.
>>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.
>
>But the boycott is also unenforceable. And boycots (like all collective action) is hard to maintain without a structure of, uh, coercion to make it go. Suppose the Rabdroids, frustrated by being denied electricity and supplies, take them at gunpoint, if they cannot bribe or sweet-talk enough people into braeking the boycott?
Bribe them with what? But let's say they get their supplies, what have they achieved? So they make their intended commodities, presumably by forcing their neighbours into slavery at gunpoint, what are they going to do with the products they manufacture?
I've already explained their real problem, there is no market, they have no means of profiting from the goods they have seized.
I suppose there might be some extremely rare products that people may desire, that could not be produced in sufficient quantity to share with everyone. Mammoth meat for example, it would be tricky to mass produce this. I guess there might be a way to create a demand. But the problem remains, how are our hypothetical Rabdroids going to profit from this?
They have the commodities, let's say 500 tonne of pre-packaged frozen mammoth meat. Hacked from the frozen tundra of Siberia by a chain-gang of surly slaves. The Rabdroids have willing customers, thanks to an imaginative leafletting campaign in the suburbs of Chicago, which claims that mammoth meat boosts intelligence, charm and perspicacity. But what price are our Rabdroids going to ask? They would need to invent a currency, which is no use unless someone else will exchange something the Rabdroids can't already get from the free stores for the currency. And our Rabdroids can already get everything they need and more from the free store.
The whole exercise seems utterly futile.
> ANd what makes you think a boycott isn't coercive?
A boycott is coercive. I didn't say otherwise.
>> >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.
>
>But you couldn't make them see the head-shrinker, right? That would be coercion? And I wasn't talking about stealing. There is no law, so no property, so no theft, remember? Would you prohibit capitalsit acts among consenting adults? Of course not! How could you.
OhmiGod Billy! Are you playing MONOPOLY? Stop it, or you'll go blind.
Seriously though, playing capitalist sounds like a harmless game. So long as the people playing the role of wage slaves are consenting adults. ;-)
> You think these acts would be rare? Why so? A society where everying is avialbale for free would be very poor.
Come again? It goes without saying that a socialist economic structure could never succeed in a very poor society, it is only possible in a very rich society, capable of producing enough for everyone. Historical materialism 101. If the means of production is developed sufficiently to supply everyone's needs, why do you imagine that supplying everyone's needs unconditionally would take that society back to being a very poor one? I just don't understand what your reasoning is here?
> The ambitious and those desiring more would tend to set up capitalist-style enterprises, appropriating some of thi sfree property for their own use, defending it with guns with private police forces, and hiring those who are discontented with little. Or perhaps using their guns to gety forced labor.
Defending it from whom? Everyone else can get what they need from the free store, hoarders would evoke from their neighbours concern for their mental stability. Your argument seems entirely based on the bald assertion of widespread scarcity. You need to explain the logic of the assertion.
>The tyranny of the majority is a problem, but as Mill and Tocqueville point out, it doesn't require state power. You haven't avoided it. And misuse of democratic power isn't, by definition, totalitarian.
You avoid it by supplying socially-produced goods and services unconditionally, without political government. The tyranny of the majority then applies only to the management of production, not consumption goods. Except to the extent that the majority can largely determine what consumption goods are socially manufactured. I'll be voting to cease manufacturing handguns or any concealable weapons.
You would still be free to smelt your own iron and other raw materials and manufacture a handgun in the kitchen though, its a free country.
>>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!
>
>As I said, I believe that your society would be extremely poor. The angle is: this isn't working. Do it our way and we can be richer. ANd they'll be right.
What is your reasoning for this belief that socialist society would be extremely poor? Anyhow, if it was, I would agree with you. Socialism won't work in poor societies.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas