Azrael wrote:... the very first section of their manifesto is titled Anti-Zionism. Link removed.
Could you clarify why that's a problem?
Derek wrote:Except that, according to the except from Wikipedia that you posted, they don't advocate "a space to live amongst others who share ones principles", but "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity". These are two very different things.
"Collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity" is equivalent to fascism to you? What do you think of the Civil Rights movement of the '50's?
Jave D wrote:How exactly would this be any better for the environment? It'd be giving total leave to various groups - whatever groups - to pollute and shit all over their "community" chunk of the environment. Because it'd be oppressive and statist to say otherwise.
I hate to say this, but changing "nation state" to the term "tribe" doesn't magically eliminate any of the problems inherent in states. And having a multiplicity of states with less control and less standardization could only add to, not remove, state conflicts and especially environmental concern. Instead of a thing of the past, state vs state warfare would increase.
I'll admit to not having a source for this, but my gut feeling is that more locally-governed areas will tend to be better cared for, because people will have a real connection to the land they live on. I can't think of a tribal society off the top of my head that has destroyed their environment, even those who have adopted modern technology - I don't think the Kalaallit ever over-hunted the reindeer they base their livelihoods on for instance, despite having the capability to do so. Lobster fishing in maine was historically preserved in similar fashion http://lingitlatseen.wordpress.com/2011 ... lectivism/
As for your latter point about war, the Icelandic commonwealth (which i use here as an example because the floating system of chieftancies is pretty close to the idea of states that compete for members) at it's most violent period of full-blown war, had a per-capita murder rate lower than the modern day U.S.
Pizzazz wrote:What load of nonsense. You haven't answered or addressed anything. You start by supposing that everything would be decentralized, but you have no way to ensure that states do not gather together and centralize. You also assume every individual makes everything they need without trade or does not care for police protection or any other benefit of being in a state (and that patriotism/nationalism don't exist) and that no one has any reason to ever want war. As for why people would remain part of nations even if not necessary, people like to be part of groups. We're social animals.
Your rambling on capital is no more informative. Massive amounts of industrialization occurred and strides were made in mass-production (and as a result, efficiency) with close to no government intervention (see: pre-Great Depression US). If you want me to believe that one of the simplest, most basic, and easiest to prove results of economics is false, you had better have a damn good reason. Your link seems to contain a great many claims--perhaps you could summarize the argument you think they are making that mass-production is less efficient?
I'm not even sure what your last 2 lines are supposed to mean. Copyrights are not rent-seeking; their existence strongly encourages creation by allowing creators to profit from their creations, and a world with no copyright would be a very sad world indeed.
Obviously there's a limit to the efficiency gain--you can't make anything infinitely efficient (or even 100% efficient). But that doesn't mean there is no efficiency gain, and if the gain exists people will want to take advantage of that. And your system both 1) should allow them to, and 2) has no means to stop them from doing so.
Ok. Thanks for taking the time to respond with such a rigorous argument.
Has there ever been a period when a population has been clamouring for war and persuaded the government of the time into it against it's better judgement? My country has only started three wars in my lifetime - and before every one there were mass movements calling for them not to occour. The state rode roughshod over the people's objections however. I think thats the general pattern - central state starts war against the wishes of the general public - relies on coercive force to provide it with the resources to do so (or alternatively a large and well-funded propaganda arm). In a system where people are more self-sufficient, I'm working on the assumption that the govt loses its ability to be coercive. We're not doing very well at coercing the Taleban not to fight occupying forces, for instance.
As for the capital argument - here goes. The pre-great Depression Industrialisation you reference was only made possible through the developement of national transport infrastructure - and that infrastructure was developed expressly at the urging of government - incentivised through massive government subsidy to railroad concerns, the excercise of emminent domain to make the routes themselves possible, and the reform of tort law to exempt common carriers from many kinds of liability. The state effectively combined many small, local markets into a single large one, then artificially lowered the costs of servicing that mass market, giving an incentive for greater concentration of capital, and making mass production seem more effecient - because the agregate costs of distributing goods from a mass-producing factory/large scale agribusiness are artificially socialised. As a modern-day example, you pay through your taxes for the upkeep of the Interstate system - and the majority of the damage to that system, which necessitates the repair costs, somes from mass transit. If Walmart for instance had to pay the actual cost of transporting its goods, it would quickly lose its price advantage over more local businesses. Ditto for local over national factories, regional agricultural co-ops over large agribusiness etc. From my source;
Homebrew Indusrial Revolution wrote:the so-called "internal economies of scale" in manufacturing could come about only
when the offsetting external diseconomies of long-distance distribution were artificially nullified by
corporate welfare. Such “economies” can only occur given an artificial set of circumstances which
permit the reduced unit costs of expensive, product-specific machinery to be considered in isolation,
because the indirect costs entailed are all externalized on society. And if the real costs of long-distance
shipping, high-pressure marketing, etc., do in fact exceed the savings from faster and more specialized
machinery, then the “efficiency” is a false one.
(chapter one is the only one I'm really referencing - and I'd ask you to please read it, simply because I feel like i'm doing the arguments a disservice. It's only 18 pages)
I'd definately argue that copyright is rent-seeking, and I don't see it as having particularly great consequences for invention. Thomas Newcomen famously patented the steam engine, for instance, and stifled innovation until his patent expired, allowing Watt to greatly improve on the design.
Pizzazz wrote:More relevant: you assume free migration of people between groups. What if some group's philosophy calls for restriction of inflow (eg Orania, or a hippy commune that doesn't want racists) or of outflow (if, for example, some group provides education to every child but doesn't want them all to leave for the libertarian state next door as soon as they have their training) of people?
I don't think there should be any obligation to accept someone into your community - freedom of association and all that. I really admire the Oranians - they're holding on to their culture in the face of adversity, and by all accounts its a model community. I'm less sure about your hypothetical second group, but perhaps a contract with their students? I think those students have a right to leave, and preventing them doing so would be difficult.
Thanks again for the debate
"Thought must be the harder, heart the keener, Spirit shall be greater, though our strength lessens"