It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The owner of the well would sell the water because it is in his best interest to do so.
He gains nothing by hording and everything by selling.
Indeed, he even gains by simply giving the water away if he has enough on hand to do so, since this would gain him the good graces of the people needing the water.
The reason why he would sell the water rather than give it away if the water was in limited supply is not only to acquire profits, but also to ration the water.
Those most in need of getting a drink would be willing to pay the higher prices, while those least in need of a drink would wait until the price comes down.
Under a socialist system, the State would ration the water, not based on need, but based on arbitrary political reasons.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
Archy: A suffix properly meaning a rule
Anarchy means no ruler.
It does not mean no hierarchy
Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
Archy: A suffix properly meaning a rule
Anarchy means no ruler.
It does not mean no hierarchy
Then I must assume the owner of my company does not have rule over me.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
A socialist commune requires a leader to distribute the goods.
Who decides how resources are to be distributed in a socialist commune?
Everyone votes on it?
The water situation is a great example of the waste socialism produces.
If we say there was not enough water for everyone to get a full drink, is it more beneficial that the water be equally distributed among all the people, resulting in a half glass for each person, or is it more beneficial that a full glass of water be given to those who are most in need of a drink?
Under a socialist distribution system, wouldn't everyone want their share of the water whether they were thirsty at the moment or not?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Correct.
Working for someone is voluntary between the two.
Either one can reject the other at any time if they feel they are not benefiting from the arrangement.
There is no rule and no force involved.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by 46ACE
The simple fact is that we give up a few of our rights (like the rights to kill, rape, steal, and assault) for the basic protection of our life, liberty, and property. Some philosophers have said the only thing you really have protection of is your basic right to life, and they had arguments to back those statements up.
Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
So he has no say in when I must work, or when I must take a lunch break, and he cannot terminate our contract if he failed to outline such things when we agreed to write said contract?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
So he has no say in when I must work, or when I must take a lunch break, and he cannot terminate our contract if he failed to outline such things when we agreed to write said contract?
Whether you decide to follow his "rules of the workplace" is entirely at your discretion. You face no violence if you disobey him or decide not to work for him any longer. Disobeying the agreed upon rules of your employment however may result in him terminating the employment agreement between you though.
Ah, but my premise was that we had not agreed on certain rules of his workplace (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Who then should be held responsible is my question?
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arcane Demesne
Ah, but my premise was that we had not agreed on certain rules of his workplace (whether intentionally or unintentionally). Who then should be held responsible is my question?
If you had not agreed to work for him, yet you were working for him, then you would be considered a slave and he your master.
Obviously, this requires violence on his part to keep you enslaved.
Agreeing to work for someone under certain terms necessarily requires a contract, either verbal or written in agreement.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously, this requires violence on his part to keep you enslaved.
Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Originally posted by 46ACE
Of course "Direct democracy" equates to"mob rule";and 51% can vote anything they want from the other49%. An issue addressed by a constitutional republic( where individual rights are supposed to suercede the "rights of the state".
You would need 100% of the population to agree on what % a vote requires to pass a law. That is up to the commune. some may require 99 or 100% vote rate every time, some may not. democracy doesn't inherently mean, majority rules...I don't think it does anyway.