|
Post by ahinton on Jul 12, 2015 6:05:26 GMT -5
>>> The point that you persistently and wilfully miss here is that, even if the passenger does not pay, someone has to, otherwise no service would be provided or even be able to exist! That so-called "point" is "missed" only because it is quite invalid. To you, perhaps - and possibly to a handful of others - but not to most people, including me; someone always has to pay, otherwise nothing gets achieved, produced or distributed. With no money (or some universal and viable alternative thereto), how and on what do you suppose anyone would live? May we respectfully suggest that the member read up on his anarcho-syndicalism? It might be more "respectful" were "we" identify themselves before making such - or indeed any - suggestions; having said that, however, this member has no anarcho-syndicalism and, in any case, even your average anarcho-syndicalist (a concept as arcane as it has long since became archaic) does not advocate the wholesale abolition of "money", "nations" or "work-forces" or the making of mere mention of them illegal, nor indeed the abolition of all kinds of "marriage" as "an unmentionable shame of the uncivilized past", as you put it in your initial post, let alone the deportation to some island of unspecified size and location of all those found (by whom and on what grounds?) to have contravened these "rules" of your evidently over-fertile invention. In regard to the "money" concerns so persistently raised by the member These concerns are, on the contrary, raised by you and merely responded to by me. We at once note do we not the expressions "equality", "money-tainted", and "no one owned any one else." Do these not convey a thrill to our members' innermost, even? Do not his concerns simply evaporate? Will not the little man one day bring his grocery orders without need of a silly signature? The wilfully and persistently unidentified "we" is getting rather tiresome. As to the rest, these expressions seem not to convey anything at all to "our members", since only one such has responed to you on this. There are indeed certain human equalities that are broadly achievable and desirable, but humanity itself places obvious practical limits on the attainment of both in order to distinguish what is commendable and possible from what is mere illogical pie in the sky. I've no idea what you mean about these grocery orders, but the groceries ordered will have to be paid for, as will the grocer's staff, its distributor and the growers from whom the distributors obtain the food supplies among those groceries. Orwell is all very well, but the kind of social (dis)order that you seek to prescribe and advocate is another matter altogether. Nothing is or need be "money-tainted" unless such taint is wilfully introduced as such, which of course it does not have to be. The reference to "no one owned by anyone else" seems effectively to refer to the notion of slavery and, whilst this despicable phenomenon is by no means as defunct today as some might like to think, it's mercifully no longer as widespread as once it was and the opposition to it is vastly more widespread and vociferous than it used to be. Somehow, I suspect that very little of what you appear to propose and commend would cut much ice with the wise, forthright and courageous Pope Francis any more than it appears to do with the tiny membership here... Enough said, methinks - not least because no other member here has yet participated in this exchange (I wonder why? - or at least I might do so if I could be bothered)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 14:42:18 GMT -5
A little advice to those of our members rightly quailing at the prospect of a Dutch trim: 1) Abolish "money" and make the mention of it, even, illegal. 2) Abolish "nations" and make the mention of them, even, illegal. 3) Abolish "work-forces" and make the mere mention of such illegal. 4) Abolish all kinds of "marriage" and regard it only as an unmentionable shame of the uncivilized past. 5) Introduce "non-domination" and "absolute equality", to be granted at once whenever and by whomever requested. 6) "Persons" (loosely) not adhering to these new rules will be sent off to some island with limited facilities and left there separately to become socialized. Upon the introduction of this system, our readers will find themselves in a new world of unlimited delight. How are you going to pay the Dutch barber for his work, Sydney?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 20:40:44 GMT -5
How are you going to pay the Dutch barber for his work, Sydney? Are we not obliged to the progressive member for his stimulating contribution? The old word "volunty" comes from the Latin "voluntas", will, and "vol-, velle" TO will. Therefrom derived we in our turn have "voluntary" which as applied to feelings, und so weiter, means "arising or developing in the mind without external constraint; having a purely spontaneous origin or character", and, in application to actions, "performed or done of one’s own free will, impulse, or choice; not constrained, prompted, or suggested by another." "By another mind" we presume that to mean. We note there in particular the expressions "purely" and "free will." In the thrustless new world of human equality the performance of all labour is voluntary and the confused old concepts recompense, remuneration, accounts, debt, discharge, settlement and so on become unproductive and drop unlamented away. Has not Gellner warned us that "[ Mr. H.'s] Will to Power is a far, far more disturbing, more corrosive idea for human optimism than the domination of the human psyche by sexuality."?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 17, 2015 5:07:12 GMT -5
How are you going to pay the Dutch barber for his work, Sydney? Are we not obliged to the progressive member for his stimulating contribution? The old word "volunty" comes from the Latin "voluntas", will, and "vol-, velle" TO will. Therefrom derived we in our turn have "voluntary" which as applied to feelings, und so weiter, means "arising or developing in the mind without external constraint; having a purely spontaneous origin or character", and, in application to actions, "performed or done of one’s own free will, impulse, or choice; not constrained, prompted, or suggested by another." "By another mind" we presume that to mean. We note there in particular the expressions "purely" and "free will." In the thrustless new world of human equality the performance of all labour is voluntary and the confused old concepts recompense, remuneration, accounts, debt, discharge, settlement and so on become unproductive and drop unlamented away. Has not Gellner warned us that "[ Mr. H.'s] Will to Power is a far, far more disturbing, more corrosive idea for human optimism than the domination of the human psyche by sexuality."? Your post above answers neither kleines c's most recent specific question nor my earlier more general one following my observation that "someone always has to pay, otherwise nothing gets achieved, produced or distributed" - namely "with no money (or some universal and viable alternative thereto), how and on what do you suppose anyone would live?"; rather than concern yourself with what Gellner may or may not have warned any of us, it would be apprecaited if you could provide hose answers. Thank you in advance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 6:21:00 GMT -5
Very soon now England will find itself again full of monasteries and even Member H must then perceive the vanishing importance of his present enquiries. An inspection of this article about the goings-on in monasteries, and all the glorious photographs, should suffice to correct the minds and imagination of our membership and turn them towards new lives without "money" or "commercial labour". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastery
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 17, 2015 6:43:12 GMT -5
Very soon now England will find itself again full of monasteries and even Member H must then perceive the vanishing importance of his present enquiries. An inspection of this article about the goings-on in monasteries, and all the glorious photographs, should suffice to correct the minds and imagination of our membership and turn them towards new lives without "money" or "commercial labour". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonasteryOK, let's unpick this one bit at a time, for there are several issues here. The first assertion is notable only for its absurdity. How "full" is "full" in any case? Clearly nowhere near sufficiently so to be able to accommodate more than the tiniest proportion of England's 55m+ population and an even tinier proportion of its Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, agnostic, atheist and other non-Christian and non-Buddhist occupants (and I assume that, by "monasteries", you refer to Buddhist as well as Christian ones). Why only England and not Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in any case? Do you believe that new monasteries are not about to be built in any of those countries and, if so, why and on what grounds do you conclude that those countries' building policies appear to be any different to those of England? I have no particular "enquiries" to make other than those that I have already put to you and to which you have still omitted to respond; it would accordingly appear that the only thing that is "vanishing" about these is not their "importance", perceived or real, but their presence on your chosen radar. Where on earth did you get this fatuous idea from in any case? Who do you suppose is going to build these monasteries and where? I'm not aware that any planning applications have lately been submitted, let alone granted, for the erection of monasteries anywhere in England. And, perhaps most importantly in the present context, from what source would the necessary money be drawn to build them, to connect them to mains water, sewerage, national grid, telephone, broadband and other services, to maintain them, to pay due taxes on them and all the rest? You might do well to bear in mind that, like so many other words in curent English parlance, "monstery" derives from the Greek. In the light of what is now the increasingly parlous and fragile state of that once great nation, one might warn "beware of Greeks building monasteries" but, having done so, one might well contend, with more seriousness, that Greece and the Greeks seem now set to continue travelling on the ill-made road to a moneyless society at such velocity that it and they might soon find themselves having to bypass any and all opportunity to make - as the advert for the now long since defunct Commercial Union insurance company almost had it - "a drachma out of a crisis" ("crisis" being yet another Greek word, of course). What you write becomes ever more fanciful and fantastic (in the sense of being pure fantasy, as I have already pointed out) in a kind of gradus ad absurdum manner that I imagine to be unique to you, so I will at least award you full marks for consistency if little else!
|
|