What you write about the effects of privatization is a correlation, not a cause. 1. In Germamy there are dozens of cases where privatization made things worse and more expensive, particularly water supply. 2. Privatization is different to private initiative. Often corporations buy in systems at VERY low prices that stand in any relation with the actual costs. Then investing is not as challenging as it would have been in first place. More examples: nuclear power plants, back then hyped as the ultimate source of energy. Highly sponsored by governments. Profits safe for private investors. Silicon Valley, the cliché of private entrepreneurship. Made possible only by heavy investments of the government.
Today’s privatizations are not at all good example for how bad governments work and how much better private corporations work. They are good examples for how private corporations manage to privatise surplus and socialize cost.
I don’t rememember large infrastructure projects without the participation of political actors. How many and which do you know?
Not really, the individual members of society are not all individually “doing their own thing” each individual is an input to the group decision making process for things that affect the larger group as a whole. The decision making is not done on an individual level - the decision is an emergent property of the individual inputs to the group,…was that clear…lol
I think the key point we are aiming for is not “privatization” which is a handy demonic buzzword , but “non-profit community owned”… The stakeholders fund the desired system for the good of the stakeholders.
That’s how MaidSAFE is funded (more or less) and a lot of other things could be funded that way too.
Good to hear - the situation is very different in my country, What controls do you have to prevent corruption and cronyism amongst those who run this wonderful operation?
Who audits the accounts? What salary do the hierarchy get?
In the road example we are talking about who makes the final decision in all cases if not the 3rd party you yourself recommended to “resolve” the issue.
The definition of “mediator” is irrelevant.
Lol…the decision making is centralised to the tosser …like most Corporations actually… and the method is “chance” as opposed to say Democracy…so yes it’s like gambling, but again irrelevant
Lol…no way is it the same concept…it’s the same concept as having shares in a lamp-post…
I too could bore you shitless about how communism is really the best of all possible systems if only we all followed the absolute true path of purest socialism on a worldwide basis - but I won’t bother.
However my arguments are every bit as valid as yours.
There is some solid evidence standing in your way there. But yes, if everybody was a brainwashed ‘socialist man’ and did everything exactly the way that you think they should, I’m sure the system would work. The problem is, people are individuals and have their own thoughts, wants, desires, passions and differences.
Whether your arguments are valid is besides the point. Whether they are true or not, that’s the point. And if your arguments are indeed valid, then their premises must be true for your conclusion to be true. But most of what you write is simply pronouncements or sophisms. I see no argumentation.
Just as ridiculous as having shares of a GB or TB eh? But isn’t that the whole point of safecoin? To monotize data? If one can divvy up data, or collectively own property or an organization then why not an object, which is in fact also property.
Been there done that. Given that I arrived at being an anarchist from an anarcho-communist/marxist path and then dated a couple of ancaps/libertarians lol.
Facepalm That would be the two parties engaged in negotiations which have requested the help of a mediator. They negotiate and come to consensus and JOINTLY make a decision. You really are struggling with this concept of there being no central authority that makes final decisions in all cases aren’t you? And no the definition of a mediator is not at all irrelivant as I have just described.
I could (and will) say exactly the same about your propositions - you waffle on about utterly unrealistic nirvanas to be reached only by doing stuff in a totally capitalist fashion.
Likewise I see most of what you write as simply pronouncements or sophisms.
We aren’t going anywhere, you wont convince me and I wont convince you.
But I know who will go to sleep with the cleanest conscience knowing I have squared my actions with my intellect and done the best I can for my fellow human beings locally, nationally and internationally.
Just to say Socialism doesn’t seem to preclude people from expressing these things I don’t think. Decisions that only affect individuals and don’t impact other individual members of the group are not made by the group, they are personal freedoms. In fact it could be strongly argued I think that providing social welfare etc provides more people with more personal freedoms.
Don’t count on it!. The Network will just autonomously “punish” those that don’t want to contribute to the Network/Community or behave anti -socially and you have a choice to accept the terms or not - exactly the same as a Liberal Democracy.
And anyway its the perfect expression of capitalism. Piano wire nooses are much more efficient- they don’t wear out like normal rope.
Ask Benito Mussolini.
They can often be recycled from the wreckage of the capitalists houses too - further saving of the earths resources
Although I was more of a garden-variety socialist.