XPost: alt.anarchism, alt.politics, alt.politics.socialism   
   XPost: alt.politics.liberalism   
   From: jamesd@echeque.com   
      
   > > > The best way to take back the commons is to abolish   
   > > > the money system, but we can keep on living like we do   
   > > > in a modern world.   
      
   James A. Donald   
   > > But if you abolish money and keep on living like we do   
   > > in the modern world, this requires a central plan to   
   > > manage "the commons" -   
      
      
   "Roger Johansson"   
   > No, each individual decides for him/herself what to do.   
      
   But this only works with the primitivest commons, of digging up roots   
   with a digging stick.   
      
   Building a car requires coordination - and you can provide that   
   coordination with money, the market place and the manager, or else   
   with the gulag, the killing fields, and the commissar.   
      
   > When all work is voluntary, and all workplaces are run by the workers   
   > democratically each workplace makes its own decisions, and each   
   > individual decides for himself what to do.   
      
   But if the workplaces are run democratically, each individual does   
   *not* decide for himself what to do.   
      
   And if he did, he would probably decide to play the guitar.   
      
   Further, why should any workplace vote to produce anything?  If money   
   is abolished, what is in for them?   
      
   > A practical example:   
   > The democratically elected county council discuss the issue of   
   > building a new bridge over the river. They get feedback from the   
   > citizens who live in the county and then the vote for or against the   
   > idea.   
      
   And after voting, have to make someone do it, and get the resources   
   from somewhere to do it - which if you have abolished money requires   
   you to hold the peasant's child in fire till the peasant reveals where   
   the seed corn is hidden.   
      
   In our world, when the council votes for a bridge, it votes to *fund*   
   the bridge, which means it offers people money to build the bridge for   
   them. If money abolished, bridge must be built using slave labor.   
      
   > If the majority vote for a bridge the plans for the bridge are sent to   
   > the technical office in the county. The people who work there can   
   > choose if they want to build a bridge. If enough workers are willing   
   > to build the bridge it will be built.   
      
   But if it is a matter of volunteers choosing to build the bridge, then   
   why the vote, for the vote will have no effect on whether the bridge   
   is built.   
      
   Further, while you might get volunteers to build a bridge, the   
   prospect of getting enough volunteers to build me a car seems fairly   
   remote.   
      
   > > general secretary of the central planning committee.   
      
   > When each individual is free to decide for himself what to do the   
   > system is very de-centralized.   
      
   As I said, building a car requires coordination.   
   --   
     ----------------------   
   We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because   
   of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this   
   right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.   
      
   http://www.jim.com/      James A. Donald   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)