: tee hee, although that would be naughty.Yeah, but your an anarchist, you are an anti-christ, you don't know what you want- but you do know how to get it, you want to destroy, possibly.....
: It still means raising production to near infinite levels, unless the catch all term 'need' is given absolute values.
No, it means raising production to meet the needs of the people, production would be geared towards needs, and at the same time (corresdponidgly) needs would be geared towards realistic satisfaction.
: From each according to the degree to which they believe their abilities will serve each they value serving. I think its a very difficult proposition, rather unresolvable withour recourse to a massive change in human thinking.
Not that massive, humans need to do something, and part of teh rewards would be friendship and community, basically people would work to try and fulfil their own/ the communities needs.
: 'your wool'? is the sheep farmer sanctioning a right to property.
No, everyone owns the wool, thus it is as much the chair makers wool as it is the shearers wool.
:The siutation I describe is precisely the black marekt activity that can occur when direct democratic decisions result in perceived disbenefits to the subjects of those decisions. Otherwise its anarcho-private-propertarian-with-pleasant-benevolence-all-roundism (gosh, what a mouthfull)
You mean objects of the decisions, i.e. those as are effected by, rather than those who enact the decision- since the chair maker would have made teh chair for a speicic use she agreed to a priori, and will have voted herself, and decided teh vote (and agreed with it) I don't think such situations would actually happen, unless a feeling of scarcity and inequality began to set in.
: by individuals
Working co-operatively and socially.
: sounds like trade
In a sense, but its not monetary trade, nor is tehre compulsion behind it- which is what sperates it, pace Joel, from exploitation, it is voluntary work.
: they always have been, the above requires 'different' outlooks by the same people
No, nowadays we work for money, and wealth is supposed to be respected, however, it odes not represent respect for a specific skill or attribute of the human, rather than for their station and wealth.
: Ah good, away with guilds. Still some areas take years of study (eg doctors) and 'proffesional' exclusive associations can occur. these people can have that 'power' I described.
Indeed, but I doubt they would try an monopolise their skills, plus with the spread of knowledge we could increase the availablity of some of the most commonly needed health skills. Further, epopel would still only be voluntarilly doctors.
: Why have a voting process then, why not have the 'lets just build it' anarcho-trader-pleasant-folkism (im just trying some variety, I get fed up of saying anarcho-capitalism)
Because we build what we need, we need the agreement of the builders, and of the epople who will use it, live near it, etc. All as are affected have a right to a say.
: That could seriously disadvantage otehr, whether by intent (ha, the fools wont be able to stop me taking all the wood") or by accident ("oops, i didnt realize they wanted some, ho hum")
You talk to each other, and take responsibility for yourself and your consumtion.
: If so, then we would see a greater evidence of such. It seems to break down in complex societies because of increasing 'disorder' in variety of interests which conflict. ie a dozen randomly selected people might have agreement on various issues (especially if they share commonalities in age, sex, sports club, whatever), but 12,000 dont.
A shared interest in owning their society would give them a commonality of purpose, and would break down some of the distinctions between people.
None.
