What would happen if we had no boarders?

Originally posted by yo its me
You're a bit like my brother too, he sees a problem with every peaceful, possitive, optomistic idea I have.

Shavixmir is one of our well known Socialist posters. One of his quotes:

"Only horses and slaves work."

And then there's

"I don't care, take care of it. Feed me and give me beer so I don't have to work and can do something creative."

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Shavixmir is one of our well known Socialist posters. One of his quotes:

"Only horses and slaves work."

And then there's

"I don't care, take care of it. Feed me and give me beer so I don't have to work and can do something creative."

Yeah I've seen him say that but he works

Originally posted by Redmike
Dunno about 1st come 1st served.

People can then just grab more than they need.

But, if everyone has a fair share, there's no reason why you can't keep what you produce from the bit of land you live on.

I think it has been amply proven that ownership of the land instills a certain responsibility in the owner to do the best he/she can to make the best produce they can. If you don't own the land, you tend to get shipshod, who cares if that fertilizer goes into a stream and ends up making a toxin for the fish, big deal, it's not my land. You can't have a
communist style 're-education camp' for that kind of thing. You get a lot more responsible if you own the land and are responsible for everything that happens like toxic waste, efficiency, etc. Efficiency is never on the minds of a tenant farmer, just what is the easiest thing to do.

Originally posted by yo its me
You're a bit like my brother too, he sees a problem with every peaceful, possitive, optomistic idea I have.

Aren't you seeing problems with the peaceful, positive, optimistic idea of laissez-faire, free market economics?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Aren't you seeing problems with the peaceful, positive, optimistic idea of laissez-faire, free market economics?

Perhaps I would if I really looked into it, but I'd proberly find that it differrs from my ideal too.

Originally posted by yo its me
Perhaps I would if I really looked into it, but I'd proberly find that it differrs from my ideal too.

It basically means pure capitalism, like what we have now, but fewer laws and regulations.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It basically means pure capitalism, like what we have now, but fewer laws and regulations.

Well comunisim is an evolutionary thing, that progresses form capitilisim, so maybe it's a step inbetween?

Originally posted by yo its me
Well comunisim is an evolutionary thing, that progresses form capitilisim, so maybe it's a step inbetween?

No, it's the theory that led to capitalism from the old idea of mercantalism.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, it's the theory that led to capitalism from the old idea of mercantalism.

Oh. It's going the wrong way then!
No indeed I'd not want that I'm sure.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because if you don't, your Soviet Union collapses due to lack of motivation among the workforce.

Soviet Union wasn't mine.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]But, if everyone has a fair share, there's no reason why you can't keep what you produce from the bit of land you live on

How much land does one live on?

What if Bob is a really hard worker and John is lazy. How come John can't subcontract out to Bob, sell him his land and become an itinerant (how do you spell that?) scholar? Are these serfs?[/b]

I guess how much one lives on depends on
a) how much land there is;
b) how many people there are (who want to live off it).

Not everybody would work on the land. If Bob did, and John did something else, that's fair enough.

Originally posted by Redmike
I guess how much one lives on depends on
a) how much land there is;
b) how many people there are (who want to live off it).

Not everybody would work on the land. If Bob did, and John did something else, that's fair enough.

So it "depends" how much land an individual gets? Some people get more than others?

Originally posted by Redmike
Soviet Union wasn't mine.

Ok. If no one owns land, there's little motivation to work hard. What are you working for? You can't invest your profits in land...Profit beyond personal luxury is pointless under socialism/communism (unless you have a martyr personality) and therefore there's a cap on how productive people will be.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So it "depends" how much land an individual gets? Some people get more than others?

It depends, amongst other things, how much is available.

But yes, some may get more than others, depending on their needs, but maybe also on the quality of the land.

You can't just divide a map into squares like a huge chessboard and give everyone a square. Then some would get a good square, and others a poor square.

Basic idea is from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Ok. If no one owns land, there's little motivation to work hard. What are you working for? You can't invest your profits in land...Profit beyond personal luxury is pointless under socialism/communism (unless you have a martyr personality) and therefore there's a cap on how productive people will be.

I don't think that follows at all.

There's no reason why people wouldn't work for the common good.