Government is...

[saxitoxin]

Your use of "cooperative" is simply another term for "local government". It must be, else those functions you claim as necessary could not be maintained.

incorrect

in hypothetical XYZ County there is:

"A" People's Library Cooperative
"B" People's Library Cooperative
"C" People's Library Cooperative

everyone may freely choose to which cooperative they associate, or may choose to associate with none at all if they do not want library services

perhaps cooperative "A" provides superior services to cooperative "B" or cooperative "C" ... then cooperative "B" or "C" will be compelled to enhance their services or face an unsustainable loss in membership

perhaps cooperative "C" has a sharing agreement with cooperative "B" whereby members of each can enjoy the facilities of the other

there is market competition without profit motive, where everyone is equal and no one is subject to coercive forces by oligarchs - where consumers also become producers and visa versa

In the filthy capitalistic west you are compelled to have your property seized to pay for a library system you may not want - or a library system you may want but derelicts into inefficiency. You have neither options nor choices.

There is no freedom without the freedom to disassociate.

[Woodruff]

Your use of "cooperative" is simply another term for "local government". It must be, else those functions you claim as necessary could not be maintained.

incorrect
in hypothetical XYZ County there is:
"A" People's Library Cooperative
"B" People's Library Cooperative
"C" People's Library Cooperative
everyone may freely choose to which cooperative they associate, or may choose to associate with none at all if they do not want library services
perhaps cooperative "A" provides superior services to cooperative "B" or cooperative "C" ... then cooperative "B" or "C" will be compelled to enhance their services or face an unsustainable loss in membership
perhaps cooperative "C" has a sharing agreement with cooperative "B" whereby members of each can enjoy the facilities of the other
there is market competition without profit motive, where everyone is equal and no one is subject to coercive forces by oligarchs - where consumers also become producers and visa versa
In the filthy capitalistic west you are compelled to have your property seized to pay for a library system you may not want - or a library system you may want but derelicts into inefficiency. You have neither options nor choices.
There is no freedom without the freedom to disassociate.

You still haven't answered his question (which you conveniently snipped with your response), which would describe how these cooperatives (if not the equivalent of local governments) would raise the funds for those functions which you recognize as necessary. Were you going to, or were you just going to keep hiding from it?

[saxitoxin]

Your use of "cooperative" is simply another term for "local government". It must be, else those functions you claim as necessary could not be maintained.

incorrect
in hypothetical XYZ County there is:
"A" People's Library Cooperative
"B" People's Library Cooperative
"C" People's Library Cooperative
everyone may freely choose to which cooperative they associate, or may choose to associate with none at all if they do not want library services
perhaps cooperative "A" provides superior services to cooperative "B" or cooperative "C" ... then cooperative "B" or "C" will be compelled to enhance their services or face an unsustainable loss in membership
perhaps cooperative "C" has a sharing agreement with cooperative "B" whereby members of each can enjoy the facilities of the other
there is market competition without profit motive, where everyone is equal and no one is subject to coercive forces by oligarchs - where consumers also become producers and visa versa
In the filthy capitalistic west you are compelled to have your property seized to pay for a library system you may not want - or a library system you may want but derelicts into inefficiency. You have neither options nor choices.
There is no freedom without the freedom to disassociate.

You still haven't answered his question (which you conveniently snipped with your response), which would describe how these cooperatives (if not the equivalent of local governments) would raise the funds for those functions which you recognize as necessary. Were you going to, or were you just going to keep hiding from it?

That depends on the cooperative.

Producers cooperatives are self-sustaining in the way for-profit corporations supposedly are now.

Consumers cooperatives sustain themselves by membership fees, which is no different than taxes paid to government but is non-coercive in form.

Obviously taxation (on producers cooperatives, not the working proletariat) continues to exist for those necessary and critical services that could not be organized under the cooperative model, such as self-defense / international liberation forces.

[Woodruff]

You still haven't answered his question (which you conveniently snipped with your response), which would describe how these cooperatives (if not the equivalent of local governments) would raise the funds for those functions which you recognize as necessary. Were you going to, or were you just going to keep hiding from it?

That depends on the cooperative.
Producers cooperatives are self-sustaining in the way for-profit corporations supposedly are now.
Consumers cooperatives sustain themselves by membership fees, which is no different than taxes paid to government but is non-coercive in form.
Obviously taxation continues to exist for those necessary and critical services that could not be organized under the cooperative model, such as self-defense / international liberation forces.

In other words, the cooperative is simply a different way of organizing the local government. Thank you for finally admitting that.

[jefjef]

Obviously taxation continues to exist for those necessary and critical services that could not be organized under the cooperative model, such as self-defense / international liberation forces.

Saxi is absolutely correct! Taxation is necessary to sustain the United States armed services liberation/security forces.

[saxitoxin]

You still haven't answered his question (which you conveniently snipped with your response), which would describe how these cooperatives (if not the equivalent of local governments) would raise the funds for those functions which you recognize as necessary. Were you going to, or were you just going to keep hiding from it?

That depends on the cooperative.
Producers cooperatives are self-sustaining in the way for-profit corporations supposedly are now.
Consumers cooperatives sustain themselves by membership fees, which is no different than taxes paid to government but is non-coercive in form.
Obviously taxation continues to exist for those necessary and critical services that could not be organized under the cooperative model, such as self-defense / international liberation forces.

In other words, the cooperative is simply a different way of organizing the local government. Thank you for finally admitting that.

Hmmm ... hate to deny you a "gotcha" moment but I think I "admitted" it in my very first post.

(And not just local government, all government.)

[jimboston]

So Credit Unions have nothing to do with profit seeaking and/or nothing to do with private property?

If there were no private property, there would be no need for credit unions.

If no one cared about profit (i.e. making money), then there would be no one to work at, manager, monitor, etc. the functions of the credit unions.

Credit Unions can fail

Savings Accounts at credit unions are still Federally Insured... otherwise they would not be able to compete with savings accounts at other institutions.
===

You lose me then same way extremist libertarians lose me... when they assume that because we want as little Gov't as possible they think it means we want no Gov't. I would like to see Private or Cooperative libraries...but without Gov't help they just won't exist and/or will only exist to serve elites. Though I don't think Public Libraries are a necessity... I believe they add value to local communities. Therefore I feel this is a case where local gov't (not federal... not even state) should make an investment. The investment by local gov't in some things pays off for all members of the community in the long run. For example... even if you don't use your local library, if it is good it raises the value of your home.

[jimboston]

Hmmm ... hate to deny you a "gotcha" moment but I think I "admitted" it in my very first post.

(And not just local government, all government.)

So all gov't should instead be arranged as cooperatives?

Yet you agreed earlier that we need Gov't for Armies and for Large Scale Road projects.

So should we form a cooperative army in this, the 21st Century? Think that would work?

[BigBallinStalin]

We dont need no guv'ment.

guv'ment needs us

[Metsfanmax]

Government is the means with which a society funds things that would not be available to everyone individually. Individually we can not all afford a standing army, a road network, police, healthcare, or garbage collection. Sure, government will rarely keep the best interest of the country to heart if you aren't constantly kicking them in the ribs, but they are necessary for a society to survive.

Q4E

Government is a societal tool, and nothing more. Anyone who looks at government as something that is separate from its society (e.g., OP) is misguided.

[saxitoxin]

So Credit Unions have nothing to do with profit seeaking and/or nothing to do with private property?

If there were no private property, there would be no need for credit unions.

If no one cared about profit (i.e. making money), then there would be no one to work at, manager, monitor, etc. the functions of the credit unions.

Credit Unions can fail

Savings Accounts at credit unions are still Federally Insured... otherwise they would not be able to compete with savings accounts at other institutions.
===

You lose me then same way extremist libertarians lose me... when they assume that because we want as little Gov't as possible they think it means we want no Gov't. I would like to see Private or Cooperative libraries...but without Gov't help they just won't exist and/or will only exist to serve elites. Though I don't think Public Libraries are a necessity... I believe they add value to local communities. Therefore I feel this is a case where local gov't (not federal... not even state) should make an investment. The investment by local gov't in some things pays off for all members of the community in the long run. For example... even if you don't use your local library, if it is good it raises the value of your home.

To everything above the line: this was addressed already.

To everything below the line: because Jim feels public libraries "add value" the State should deploy forces of armed men (AKA police) to confiscate people's possessions at gunpoint to pay for them? Because Jim feels they "add value?"

In the cooperative model you would be free to have libraries, parks, buses - whatever you like - in a non-coercive, non-compulsive, non-violent, democratic way. This is the anarcho-communist reality.

So should we form a cooperative army in this, the 21st Century? Think that would work?

Probably not. Fortunately the Proudhon anarcho-communist model doesn't call for that.
This was addressed many, many posts ago.

I can succinctly diagnose why you're falling back to this imaginary point, though. You have become befuddled by an interpretation of cooperatism that was not the version you'd been sold. You are shocked to learn it is more like the American "Libertarian" philosophy, that it is a democratic system of natural equity, and are now attempting to argue an interpretation of anarcho-communism that the bosses have spent the last 75 years telling you is reality, not the version I just explained. You do not like learning that what you thought was the truth is merely a pack of filthy bourgeois lies and The Insect's propaganda.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't either.

This is a different version of schizophrenia. The undiagnosed schizophrenic will cling desperately to his imagined companions rather than face the reality that everything he has known - his family and his closest friends - was nothing more than an illusion. This is why the final component of anarcho-communism - the Dictatorship of the Proletariat - is necessary. It is needed to force open the people's eyes so they can see what has been hidden from them - what they are too terrified to look at.

Who does not move, cannot realize their chains. - Rosa Luxemburg

[saxitoxin]

Who does not move, cannot realize their chains. - Rosa Luxemburg

BTW - as regards this quote, did you know that today - 90 years after she was killed by proto-Nazis - the German secret police have an active and ongoing surveillance at the Luxemburg memorial in Berlin where anyone visiting is tracked, cataloged and put in their files?

And this is a "free, western democracy."

[jimboston]

Saxi... your BS in entertaining.

I will give you that.

We wouldn't / don't have public libraries because "I" think they add value.

In a democracy (or a constitutional republic for that matter)... we have public instituions becuase the majority of people think they add value.

The problem in the US (and I generally only talk about what happens here, because that is all they really matter to me)... in the US the Federal Gov't has gotten too large and as taken away authority and responsibilities that should remain at the local level.

At the local level we (the people) are more likely to have our voices heard.

The fact that the Federal Gov't has grown too big is natural... but it is not desireable. It is the nature of any organization to grow and to try to get more power/respect/authority etc. This is true of all organizations. Likely because these organizations are run by people.

People are selfish and always work towards their own best interest. Thus cooperatives as you describe can't exist for any extended period of time. There's really no way around this.

The only illusion is your actual belief in what you profess... based on everything else you say and write it sounds like you are living the capitalist's high-life. Moving around California, world travel, taking your entourage with you... nice.

[Metsfanmax]

In the cooperative model you would be free to have libraries, parks, buses - whatever you like - in a non-coercive, non-compulsive, non-violent, democratic way. This is the anarcho-communist reality.

Yes, you would be free to have all of that. And as a result, you would have none of it.

[Phatscotty]

...nothing more than a corporation that can force you at gunpoint to purchase their services.

discuss

Not true.

How is that not true?

[saxitoxin]

In a democracy (or a constitutional republic for that matter)... we have public instituions becuase the majority of people think they add value.

Jim, whatever else I may say I do enjoy going tete-a-tete and jawboning with you. You always raise interesting and thought-provoking points in a polite and mature manner.

Anywho, that is certainly one model - whereby 51% of the population can impose its will on 49% of the population (similar to mid-90's Rwanda). There are other similar models, like 10% imposing their will on 90% (such as in apartheid South Africa), etc. There is nothing "special" in the number "50+1" other than the breathless statements by the bosses that it is a "wondrous and magical" number that "somehow" equals justice.

For me, I'll take the model where no one imposes their will on anyone else. Where everyone is empowered to realize their full worth and potential free from interference or molestation either by the intrinsically illegitimate government or by whorish capitalist perversions such as McDonalds or the Nazi-backed BASF.

Yes, you would be free to have all of that. And as a result, you would have none of it.

A logical fallacy. The fallacy of false causes.

I choose to deal in Reason and Logic. You, of course, are free to operate using other cognitive processes, but I won't be of much use talking to if you do.

[jimboston]

Thanks Saxi.

Just to clear the record... I never said the magic number was 51%.

I think in this country, in order to get something done, you really need a lot more support than 50%. Anywhere from 30-60% and (generally) nothing gets done.... which I like to think is generally for the best.

BTW... is it really "imposing the will of the majority on the minority" if the examples we are talking about are Libraries? Do we have to be so extreme???

I mean... ok "the majority" asks every to chip in a few dollars so we can have a Library. OK so some in "the minority" pay and never use the Library. OK... not fair. Nothing is fair.

... but wait. Because we have a nice Library, property values increase, and even the the people who never used the Library benefit.

Oh... and also... likley there are some things 'the minority' use that everyone pays for... maybe a park or police service; and maybe these are paid for in part by people who don't use those services but do use the library.

HMMM... sounds cooperative in nature there... no?

I am not hard core Libertarian... I do like local control of such things though.

If you look to move and one town has high taxes... then don't move there... but they probably have a nice library and good parks too. Versus the town with low taxes and no Library. So YOU do decide. Hmmm... wow... what an idea.

[saxitoxin]

... but wait. Because we have a nice Library, property values increase, and even the the people who never used the Library benefit.

as long as you own property

[RobinHood3]

I was waiting for someone to start a topic on government.

The problem in the US (and I generally only talk about what happens here, because that is all they really matter to me)... in the US the Federal Gov't has gotten too large and as taken away authority and responsibilities that should remain at the local level.

At the local level we (the people) are more likely to have our voices heard.

The fact that the Federal Gov't has grown too big is natural... but it is not desireable. It is the nature of any organization to grow and to try to get more power/respect/authority etc. This is true of all organizations. Likely because these organizations are run by people.

this^ is so true. Government doesn't need to be big, it is there just to make laws so that people can't kill and steal. Healthcare is NOT an enumerated power (in the US constitution), why is the government fooling around with it? Healthcare and hospitals/doctors should be in the private sector.

[Phatscotty]

The government is there to protect liberty and act as the upholder of the peoples rights in judicial disputes and in defense.

We are so far off course, I am gently surprised we still can even remember where we come from and who we are.

[saxitoxin]

The government is there to protect liberty and act as the upholder of the peoples rights in judicial disputes and in defense.

[Metsfanmax]

A logical fallacy. The fallacy of false causes.

I choose to deal in Reason and Logic. You, of course, are free to operate using other cognitive processes, but I won't be of much use talking to if you do.

In no way can this be a logical fallacy, because it is inherently a consequentialist statement. I am not asserting that, by its nature, a society which has no motivation to establish social enterprises is incapable of actually establishing them; rather, I am asserting that empirically, it is evident that humans will not sacrifice their own resources in the name of societal welfare if there is not some organizational body which requires or reminds them to do it. Instead of making false assertions about the logic of my statement, why don't you actually respond to its content?

[saxitoxin]

empirically, it is evident that humans will not sacrifice their own resources in the name of societal welfare if there is not some organizational body which requires or reminds them to do it

in denying the antecedent you are now committing a second logical fallacy

you did this previously, where you assume "Not X" implies "Not Y" just because X = y

Again, I regret can only respond to arguments based in Logic and Reason. Arguments based in other cognitive modalities are of no interest to me.

Thanks, Mesfanmax!

[Pedronicus]

Government is...owned by the banks and no longer serves the good of the common man.
Everything is corrupt, everything is bent, nothing is as it appears.

Frankly I'm surprised that Obama is getting this healthcare past all those lawyers and corporations who make far more from healthcare remaining in the hands of the private sector.

Jims never left America, so he knows no different. Strange that he has such strong views on healthcare after only experiencing only one side of the coin.

[Metsfanmax]

empirically, it is evident that humans will not sacrifice their own resources in the name of societal welfare if there is not some organizational body which requires or reminds them to do it

in denying the antecedent you are now committing a second logical fallacy

you did this previously, where you assume "Not X" implies "Not Y" just because X = y

Again, I regret can only respond to arguments based in Logic and Reason. Arguments based in other cognitive modalities are of no interest to me.

Thanks, Mesfanmax!

Yet again, you mistake an argument based on empirics for an argument based in logic. I am making the argument that in cases where there was no organizational body, society collectively failed to engage in social enterprises.

I'm beginning to believe you don't really believe in all that communist BS you spout, since you can't seem to defend it properly...