Re: frustration
posted by rick on November 19th, 2004 at 3:36PM

consensus forces everyone to be informed, so long as one informed person exists.

How? Consensus is just voting where the cut-off is 100% instead of 50%. How does consensus force people to be informed any more than simple voting?

i seriously think that any issue worth resolving can get 100% consensus ... [snip] which valid issue do you think will not be able to get resolved, and, more importantly how is the lack of resolution a problem

Well, garbage collection, apparently ...

which system do you think promotes abuses of the system?

Any system can be abused. Take your system for example. You're giving everyone their basic essentials for survival. They don't have to do anything for it. Why would they contribute to the community then? Or if they do, they will do the absolute minimum required to make it look like they are contributing so that their neighbour thinks they are productive. That's /community spirit/ at work.

And now you say, <cite>"you don't know that's going to happen ... people might decide that contribution is good for the community and for themselves."</cite> Well, that /could/ happen, just like how the previous scenario /could/ happen. Just like how in capitalism people /could/ work together for the benefit of the community, or they could not.

all evidence from my own experiences of the world show that people are co-operative beings

Something to think of: even in a capitalist society there's nothing stopping you from forming your own anarchy-like systems, such as at home or in the workplace.

Me: In theory, neither has an advantage over the other.

You: i know.

Uh ... okay. So you acknowledge that neither is better than the other in theory. So what are we arguing about? You can't compare an *application* of capitalism to the *theory* of your system.

money is evil because it separates value from work.

Money *gives* value to work.

Link