RE: Stuck at the Hospital: Recap of the Larken Rose/Chase Rachels "Public Property" Debate (nobody really "wins" when self-ownership is off the table)
Everything has a cost. Food, clothing and shelter have a cost in life energy. The question is how are we going to pay. In the past mind control (government) it was thought could create solution that were needful. We see where that has gotten us. The thing is that privatizing how we create food clothing and shelter provides the opportunity for corruption we have today.
I don't think society should tax people money for the duty that society would have in providing food, shelter clothing. I think people will be willing to give say 3 hours a week as their reciprocal duty to society. That way it is capitalism with the chaining of people power taken away from money. It makes money the trading exchange it is supposed to be. This can be done with public land to grow food, public factories producing a variety of clothing. Public contractors building shelter. All funded with the life energy of the volunteers. who want the advantage of not having to worry about those life necesites.
Of course if you can find a non-violent alternative I would be all for it. However I suspect any other type of system is going to have some form of coercion. While my idea incorporates volunteerism with the current economic system with the change being where the advantage is. Instead of corporations applying the hidden coercion of lack of food, shelter, and clothing, and using the fact that everything requires life energy to obtain such, the individuals produce voluntarily the food, shelter and clothing for one another. No participation in the necessary production of the necessities is voluntarily opting out of the benefits. No force of anything needs to be applied. That is what I like about the idea. Thanks for you comment and I recognize that all of the bugs in my idea are not worked out. I also recognize your comments as necessary to flesh the idea out or decide it won't work and move on to the next idea. Thanks for you valuable comment.
Not having something isn't coercion. You aren't entitled to anything. Even absent capitalism and corporations, you aren't entitled to anything. You have to work for yourself, or you'd starve to death, or freeze to death, or anything else.
I'm not sure what you mean by life energy. Do you mean effort expended to pursue a certain goal? If that's the case, then what you're talking about are opportunity costs. Or do you mean something else? Cause right now all I'm hearing is that "society" should provide for "everyone" by producing "food, shelter, and clothing."
Can you also clarify what public means? Because right now, your idea would require force to be used in order to exclude individuals from homestead unused land or, worse, taking land and property from others to be used for "public factories" and "public lands."
We are not even entitled to life really. "You have to work for yourself, or you'd starve to death, or freeze to death, or anything else." Yep this is true and I can't help but think that this is the natural law and order of things. What I am against is the leveraging of our life energies (labor) in favor of corporations.
The idea that people won't work if there is nothing to force them ie the fact that they need food, shelter, and clothing is frankly bull. What they won't work for is peanuts or corporations producing military hardware or corps like Monsanto. The excuse that "I have to feed my family" by destroying the land or producing death for other human being won't fly anymore for obvious reasons.
"Cause right now all I'm hearing is that "society" should provide for "everyone" by producing "food, shelter, and clothing." I wouldn't say it that way simple because this kind of thinking was predictively programed into us. Society right now is in theory providing so called employment for everyone through commerce. Check the constitution and you will find the mind control (government) has the right to police commerce. How they do it is really back door welfare for corporations.
How I would put it is that society has to learn how to feed, shelter, and cloth themselves. This transfers the leverage to the individual by taking away the ability of industry to force cheap labor. It makes it so that people will be able to decide what they want to do to buy the extras of life.
" Because right now, your idea would require force to be used in order to exclude individuals from homestead unused land or, worse, taking land and property from others to be used for "public factories" and "public lands.""
Actually the idea is being put to use by a really communistic community called Ubuntu. They want to take commerce away from private industry. They want to do away with money altogether. They have gotten people to agree voluntarily to produce exclusively for their political ideology for free labor. This shows that the idea that we would have to rob and steal from people to be a falsely planted predictive programed response. Another fact that proves this is the fact that there are enough public lands to feed everyone in America without asking anyone for their property.
Another obvious fact is that we would not have to implement the idea on a massive scale, but could do some small scale testing. This of course depends on people getting past the predictive programming of this very monopolizing system and start working for ourselves instead of the very small elite.
Thanks again for your comment. It required me to think of ways of expressing things I have had in the back of my mind for a very long time. To me the truth is the welfare for the people is meant to divert people from taking care of themselves and thus not threaten the monopoly or elite. The welfare for the corporations is actually designed to enslave us to corporations and mind control. We as a society have to learn to work for ourselves.