Political Crossfire Forums

[CCS]

Hi,

I would define myself as a socialist and a liberal but often find myself arguing with my peers who claim to share the same believes as I do.

For example, I believe Social Welfare is wrong because it pacifies the poor. For example, near where I live their is a wealthy land owner who has more land that he could possibly need. There are also a number of people in my town who are unemployed and my belief is that those who are unemployed should go down and take half the rich landowners land. Then they should farm this land and provide for themselves. Instead, the poor are given handouts and they are therefore denied the type of ambition that I have been lucky enough to receive from my parents. For example, one of my school friends dropped out of school when he was 16 and is now collecting garbage for a living - he has never been interested in bettering himself. And personally I can't see why people would blame the government for this. Surely local people are more to blame for the ills of their community rather than some distant government.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start world war 3 here, but I am interested in establishing if more Socialists out there agree with me.

I'm also against pacifism. I believe that the American, French and Irish revolutions were all worth while with regard to improving the standard of living in each respective country. I also believe that different nations should not interfere with each other. We mightn't like the fact that the Middle East treats its women poorly, but how about the way in which we consume - and use poor people to make products for us? I dont think were in a position to lecture anyone.

I also have a huge problem with the "Make Poverty History" movement. Geldoff and Bono live in mansions and drive flash cars. Who do you think makes all this stuff? Poor people. You cannot reduce poverty in the third world or any where for that matter by attending some rock concert. Instead people need to change their behaviour and stop consuming goods made by people poorer that them. But does anyone bother doing this?

OK back to my friends. I finished school last year and turned down a place in University to remain in my home town, and I have been working with the Forestry Commission here ever since. I turned my back on a high paying job in order to help my community. Yet my friends who claim to be socialist, and go to rallies etc, are all working capitalist jobs in a nearby city. How can they claim to be socialist?

Anyway, I believe very strongly in the idea that people should help there local community. I don't believe in the idea that people should be free to move where ever they want, in the same way that I believe that people shouldn't be free to own as much land as they want. But do most socialists share this belief in general? Or are they simply suiting themselves? Its more glamorous to live in a city but does it help society? There are very few young people in my town and it is because of this that there are little opportunities for them. Are cities not simply by-products of capitalism anyway? Is a liberal/conservative divide not created by so many young people moving to the cities? People are very concervative where I live, but it wouldn't be as bad if my friends had stayed here rather than moving away.

Anyway, I've tried researching political movements that are both socialist, non-racist (yet intelligent and non hysterical on the subject), but also against migration and I can only find one source that shares my general beliefs -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_%28Politics%29

but this source has no references. Anyway, I thought localism was just a way of describing people in favour of regional assemblies which decide local issues only. Are there any organisations out there that share my believes fully, or am I virtually on my own? Are there any articles out there that show the negative effects of migration from a socialist perspective. I really like this idea of local independence as presented on that website.

Thanks all for you help,

Charley.

[Korimyr the Rat]

You're probably on-track with the "socialist" label. Don't confuse the "liberal left" with actual Socialism-- that's Republican hyperbole. Your objection to the decadently wealth and their "anti-poverty" efforts suggests a far stronger strain of Marxism in your personal ideals.

You don't sound so much nationalist as you are dedicated to your home community, and you seem opposed to capitalism due to exploitation.

Other than your objection to people moving freely, I might almost recommend that you look into the various flavors of anarchism.

[daxuesheng]

I would call you a communist. A socialist generally follows policies in which through taxes the government tries to regulate what goes on. Communism is generally more direct and forcefull, ex: you wanting to deny people the right to own the ammount of land they can afford, forcing people to live in certain areas.


Yea, you are a communist. Im not someone that uses the term lightly either.

[halcyon~sky]

You have to understand that because of innate human greed, there will always be someone taking advantage of someone else. The American Federation of Labour started out as a Marxist type movement in the late 1800s, but the leaders got corrupt and used the member dues to better their own decadent lifestyles. Thats why communism/socialism/anarchy will never work; people are at heart lazy and selfish.

The best way to reach some point of class equality is to disban unions but make laws such as minimum wage so that workers aren't taken advantage of. You've seen what the unions are doing to industry.

Your best bet is to steer away from socialist type governments and adopt what I call "Socio-Libero-Capitalism." This is basically a system that advocates equality, free speech, and free will, but also recognizes the importance of limiting the power of the masses because of the understanding that competition and expansion (which is capitalism at heart) is the basis for a progressive society, as long as the capitalists are not allowed to put their workers in unlivable conditions.

I think that we currently have too much regulation on commerce in our system. The unions have way too much power. A hundred years ago the workers would perform mass walk outs (strikes). Now it's industry's turn.

[Korimyr the Rat]

daxuesheng wrote: you wanting to deny people the right to own the ammount of land they can afford, forcing people to live in certain areas.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think he considers land something a man can own-- or, maybe, he believes that the only land that a man can own is the land he occupies.

It's not quite as repressive as you make out, nor as prone to exploitation by the lazy, selfish government agents that Halcyon is concerned with.

I also don't think it's actually workable without either massive centralization of authority or catastrophic failure of government on every level. He seems rather too "local" to be advocating the former.

[THEXRATED]

Quote: For example, I believe Social Welfare is wrong because it pacifies the poor. For example, near where I live their is a wealthy land owner who has more land that he could possibly need. There are also a number of people in my town who are unemployed and my belief is that those who are unemployed should go down and take half the rich landowners land. Then they should farm this land and provide for themselves. Instead, the poor are given handouts and they are therefore denied the type of ambition that I have been lucky enough to receive from my parents. For example, one of my school friends dropped out of school when he was 16 and is now collecting garbage for a living - he has never been interested in bettering himself. And personally I can't see why people would blame the government for this. Surely local people are more to blame for the ills of their community rather than some distant government.

You have to consider where the unequality in this case spoils down from. Poor in this case being one group of people who have to rely on social welfare. They are not the only group and not even the largest group. When distribution of wealth is not encouraged to be more equal you will have increase in poverty overtime, as the cap between rich and poor increases. Its a cycle.

Quote: I'm also against pacifism. I believe that the American, French and Irish revolutions were all worth while with regard to improving the standard of living in each respective country. I also believe that different nations should not interfere with each other.

Pacifism is probably not what you are after here. You believe that civil war can be justified sometimes, but war against other independent nations is not.

Quote: Anyway, I believe very strongly in the idea that people should help there local community. I don't believe in the idea that people should be free to move where ever they want, in the same way that I believe that people shouldn't be free to own as much land as they want. But do most socialists share this belief in general?

Restricting the movement of workforce and private ownership of land are not related solely on socialism in my opinion.

Quote: Or are they simply suiting themselves? Its more glamorous to live in a city but does it help society? There are very few young people in my town and it is because of this that there are little opportunities for them. Are cities not simply by-products of capitalism anyway?

No they are not products of capitalism per se. Just consider history. Today, the bigger and bigger cities are result of industrialization in my opinion, which made large part of workforce to search employment in cities and their surroundings.

Quote: Anyway, I've tried researching political movements that are both socialist, non-racist (yet intelligent and non hysterical on the subject), but also against migration and I can only find one source that shares my general beliefs -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_%28Politics%29

Political movements seldom stick with their original ideology in a long run.
Another group that might be close to your preference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarian.

[CCS]

Thanks all for your helpful replies. I appreciate it.

>> Other than your objection to people moving freely, I might almost recommend that you look into the various flavors of anarchism.

I'm not an anarchist. Well, I like the idea of people being free to do what ever they want (provided its moral) but the fact is were no where near civilized enough for that concept to be realised yet. Instead I would see my ideas as something of a stepping stone. Anarchism is like each person being an independent country, and in order to achieve that you need to bring power closer and closer to individuals. Europe becoming more and more integrated into a centralised federation should be an anarchists worst nightmare. Nationalism is an improvement on Federalism or Monarchism/Unionism, and "Localism" is an improvement on Nationalism because power is getting closer and closer to home.

I'm not about forcefully stopping migration. Instead I'd prefer to explain to people why it is wrong. Take my community in Scotland for example. It is both poor, pessimistic and extremely conservative. There are very few liberal people here to promote liberal ideas - they simply keep leaving. But I do my best. For example, last year I was involved in a discussion with a number of people including the local Viker. He made a remark about how abortion was the worst type of sin and I remarked that if I was a woman and raped I wouldn't want to have the child. The other men agreed with me. The fact is, I was respected by these men and therefore they listen to me. If I was some dizzy hippy who never did a days work in my life and simply started ranting on about how men are abusing women by denying them their rights, then I would simply have turned the men off and they would have sided with the person they had the most respect for - the Vicar. You need to have a person's respect to preach to them, and most socialists are completely alien to this concept. The fact is, if I hadn't passed that remark, the men would simply have agreed with the Vicar. This is why it is import for rural areas to keep their young, and this is why rural areas in America vote bush while urban areas vote kerry. Yet socialists will blame the "stupid rednecks" for being so narrow minded when in fact it is up to liberals to promote their ideology. How can people blame bush for the state of America? Has anyone ever heard the expression "If he had half a brain he'd be dangerous"? It up to liberals to educate people of their belief, rather than blame the ignorant when tyrants get elected.

There is a town in America that banned the devil a few years ago. How insane is that? Why is this town so backwards? The fact is there are no liberal people in this town who are respected enough to highlight how crazy such a law is. Its the same with homophobia. Gays move to cities where they are more welcome, but this does not help those young gays who must grow up in rural towns and villages. Gays and their supporters need to take a stand rather than running away from the problem. Otherwise generation after generation will be bullied through out their childhood. I remember talking to some homophobic people once about the issue of homosexuality. They claimed it was in the bible that homosexuality was wrong and I pointed out to them that in the same book of the bible it states that you shouldn't grow more than once crop, that the law of the land should not prohibit you from practicing animal sacrifices in your backyard and that men must cover their temples.

"You shall not round off the peyos of your head" (Leviticus 19:27).

And I managed to convince a few of them at least that there is no religious bases for homophobia. I think I also remember saying "Sure there's more women for the rest of us". But so many liberals presume that people will magically think just like them. Again I new these people and they trusted me.

I simply believe that migration is a copout with regard to local and social obligation, and I have no problem being vocal on this issue.

>>I like the idea of people being free to do what ever they want (provided its moral)

Let me come back now to this statement I made earlier - "provided its moral". The problem is that people have different morals today and people need to better integrate at a local level in order for us to reach common grounds on issues. I believe in abortion, but I know most people where I live are against it. But I have no problem with this. The fact is, I think that in time people will accept abortion as morally OK or we might simply arrive at a better solution (a compromise) i.e. a world where women dont get pregnant unless they actually want to in the first place. Abortion isn't a big issue in Europe as it is in America. Do you know why? Because it was implemented on a more local level. Different nations adopted it when most of their people were ready for it. All of America got abortion at once, despite the fact that there are very different moral values in different parts of the country. It would have made more sense to let each state decide when it was ready for it. Introducing abortion to all of America at once was nothing short of Communist.

I'm also completely against emigration/immigration. I don't think emigration from Scotland to England, Ireland or the US has ever helped Scotland.

BTW, are there many socialists out there who oppose migration? Beside me that is. Are there any journals or articles on the issue which I might find of value?

Another think that really bothers me is the "Stupid White Men" notion. Recently I saw a feminist complaining on TV at the fact that boardrooms are only 2% female in Britain. And she had a problem with this? Women should be congratulated for being less exploitative than there male counterparts. Basically this women was complaining at the idea that women dont get to exploit people as much as men. Also, I'm tired of this idea that racism is the reason why Black people are poorer on average than the average American. The fact is, capitalism is colour blind. Capitalists don't care who they exploit. The reason Black people are poor is very simple. 150 years ago, the Irish were the poor of America. They came to America as unskilled labour and as a result worked the lowest income jobs. Later in the 30's, African Americans began to migrate to the cities of the north from the southern states. They became the new unskilled and with their arrival the Irish were promoted to the middle classes. Most migrants to the US today are skilled, and as a result Indians-Americans etc. are quite prosperous under American Capitalism. Indeed, if America was racist, then why are Jewish Americans the richest group in the world? Poor minorities need to abandon capitalism and stop working in such places as Walmart and McDonalds. Then they need to fight for what is rightfully theirs in the world. Blaming others though has never achieved anything. I stopped blaming the English for the state Scotland is in a long time ago. Its up to the Scottish people to make Scotland a better place.

>>I would call you a communist. A socialist generally follows policies in which through taxes the government tries to regulate what goes on. Communism is generally more direct and forceful, ex: you wanting to deny people the right to own the amount of land they can afford, forcing people to live in certain areas.

I hate communism, and your completely off the mark referring to me as communist. I'm not an advocate of the top down approach - I'm not an authoritarian in other words. I'm a liberal. I believe that it is up to me to convince people that my ideas are right. Communists have given Socialists a very bad name and I personally see little difference between Nazis and Communists.

>>Your best bet is to steer away from socialist type governments and adopt what I call "Socio-Libero-Capitalism." This is basically a system that advocates equality, free speech, and free will, but also recognizes the importance of limiting the power of the masses because of the understanding that competition and expansion (which is capitalism at heart) is the basis for a progressive society, as long as the capitalists are not allowed to put their workers in unlivable conditions.

>>I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think he considers land something a man can own-- or, maybe, he believes that the only land that a man can own is the land he occupies.

Yes I do believe in ownership of land. For example, my father inherited his farm from my grandfather. My grandfather was an alcoholic and the farm went to ruin under him. My mother and father dont drink and are extremely hard workers. They totally transformed the farm and built an orchard, a mill and a milking palour. Communists tried to lump farmers together and as a result the laziness of one man influenced the productivity and self esteem of the next. Communism has been a disaster for China and Russia. I'm proud of my parents farm - my brother owns it now. Imagine if an artist was always forced to work on a painting with other artists. It just doesn't make sense to me. The sense of achievement wouldn't be the same - and thats what life is all about after all. Remember also that the size of the farm - in terms of area - has never changed. Its just what happens on the farm thats significant. Different people will have different plans for their land after all. I have a few acres of crops and I don't spray pesticide on them, and my brother thinks I'm mad because of this. Maybe I am, but its better than the two of us arguing about whether to spray them or not. Were independent of each other in other words and free to do our own thing.

But having said all that, there is no reason why a community can't supply each of its citizen with enough land for them all to grow their own food on. But once this land is provided, people are on their own. I don't believe that I should be anyone elses backbone. People need to learn to stand on their own two feet. This idea reminds me of an article I read in a newspaper once. In it a physiologist was explaining a case he came across once where a couple were having serious problems with their eldest son who was 19 years of age and getting into all sorts of trouble. The parents asked "How can this be, we show our son nothing but love and were always there for him". To which the physiologist replied "Have you tried kicking him out"? To which the parents were horrified. We live in such a sedated society today. The fact is, sometimes a good kick in the backside is what a person needs to put their life back on track. People were always making excuses for my grandfather and that never helped him - he never changed. Maybe when he was younger and found one day that he had nothing to eat he might have changed his ways. And the funny thing is that when I make this argument to my "socialist" friends, they call me right wing. Its crazy. There is a set of sedated wishy-washy beliefs that have become fashionable in today's world and if you believe in anything else youre referred to as racist, right-wing or narrow-minded. And all of this is in the context of a society obsessive in it consumption, pollution and exploitation. There is nothing right-wing about me. My beliefs are based on what I believe to be best for society in general and in the long run.

Like the article I linked to in my first post, I hate the idea of giving charity to the third world. But not because I'm racist, but because I believe it is better in the long run for the people of the third world. For example, there was an earthquake in Pakistan recently, and socialists were giving out that the west hadn't given enough charity to help those effected. The fact is, the Pakistani government is spending crazy amounts of money on nuclear missiles and thats why they have no infrastructure or recourses to help their people. If we didn't give charity to Pakistan, then I believe people there would be quicker to appreciate this fact and overthrow their government and put something better in its place. But we insist on being the back bone for these people and as a result they have forgotten to how to stand on their own two feet.

Who liberated Ireland? The Irish pesentry of course, not good old freedom loving America or anywhere else. Its a simple fact in my book that you have to earn your freedom and all the whinging in the world wont change that fact.

I believe from a morally perspective, we should all grow our own food. Why should someone else have to do it for you? Why should people have to stand on assembly lines putting carrots into bags when you can walk out side and pull them out of the ground. Also if you're anti-GM, or anti-pesticide, then your free to do whatever you wan't with your own food - no red tape, protests or laws required. Of course if you say this to the average socialist they'll agree with you - but do nothing about it. Thats why I like the term "Pseudo-Socialist" or better still "Lazy Socialist". Theres an episode of South Park in which Cartman says “Damn Hippies, talk about saving the planet all the time, but sit around smoking dope all day instead”

Capitalism often boasts about how efficient it is, when the reality is we don't need most of the junk that capitalism produces. The carrot bag for example. I often see people coming out of the local supermarket with bags and bags of food - all of it processed and completely bad for you. Then they complain if the label says its low-fat when it isn't. I'm sick of hearing people complaining about the quality of food etc - grow your own if you don't like it. People are so unbelievably lazy today. One of my friends said lately "58 channel and nothing on any of them". If you don't like whats on TV then don't watch it, otherwise start you own TV channel. I coach a boy's shinty team 2 nights a week and play music in the local pub at weekends. But people find it easier to complain than to get up and do something for their community. One of my biggest gripes with so called left wingers is their tendency to complain all the time or else blame someone else for their own mishaps. I remember one day at a parish meeting someone complaining about the state of the local school, to which I replied "How about if we ask all the local builders to get together over the weekend and repair it". "But who will pay them she asked"? "Who pays me to coach shinty?", I relied. Why do people keep expecting some far flung government to do everything for them? Are we all completely legless?

[Blind-God]

I would say that you are a communist for several reasons
1. You believe in equal land distribution, to the advantage of the proletariat.
2. You have a problem with Bob geldof over his "make poverty history" crap (which i fully agree with even though i am a neo-fascist)
3. As for your "localism" issue we have indeed got a problem as i live in a rural area, and the only young people who are here are the arrogant red-necks. (but for advice i have to say we have cities live with it if you wish to change thing attempt to create oppurtunities in your area the destruction of all cities is not a option)

thanks for listing your opinions i found them enlightening

[CCS]

>>As for your "localism" issue we have indeed got a problem as i live in a rural area, and the only young people who are here are the arrogant red-necks. (but for advice i have to say we have cities live with it if you wish to change thing attempt to create oppurtunities in your area the destruction of all cities is not a option)

Well if you can live in a city and still produce your own food then I guess you could define yourself as being rural.

[mojo]

Quote: >>I would call you a communist. A socialist generally follows policies in which through taxes the government tries to regulate what goes on. Communism is generally more direct and forceful, ex: you wanting to deny people the right to own the amount of land they can afford, forcing people to live in certain areas.

I hate communism, and your completely off the mark referring to me as communist. I'm not an advocate of the top down approach - I'm not an authoritarian in other words. I'm a liberal. I believe that it is up to me to convince people that my ideas are right. Communists have given Socialists a very bad name and I personally see little difference between Nazis and Communists.

I would have to say that you are a communist. Look at your original post. In that you wrote:

Quote: There are also a number of people in my town who are unemployed and my belief is that those who are unemployed should go down and take half the rich landowners land. Then they should farm this land and provide for themselves. Instead, the poor are given handouts and they are therefore denied the type of ambition that I have been lucky enough to receive from my parents.

For one thing how is giving land anfter taking it from another person not a handout. That sounds like a handout to me. Who's it for the government or the collective people to decide whether that person should have the right to their land. How can those people be ambitious if they expect the government to give them what they should earn. To forcefully take the land of someone successful to give it to someone who is not is an extremely communist idea.

[CCS]

>>For one thing how is giving land anfter taking it from another person not a handout. That sounds like a handout to me. Who's it for the government or the collective people to decide whether that person should have the right to their land. How can those people be ambitious if they expect the government to give them what they should earn. To forcefully take the land of someone successful to give it to someone who is not is an extremely communist idea.

No you’re totally missing the point. I'm saying that they should forcefully take the land, not receive it as a handout. For example, in Scotland there are many lords who still control vast areas of land, land which their ancestors stole, and these lords still receive taxes from their tenants. I think these farmers should simply stop paying rent, and reclaim fully the land which was originally theirs in the first place. Who's going to stop them? I'd like to see the public reaction if the British army was sent in to "solve" the issue. I'm saying people should fight for what's rightfully there’s rather than expecting it to be handed to them by some government or what ever. Complaining or protesting is quite ineffective in my opinion; you need real action.

The fact is most people in my area have enough land already to grow their own food. The way I envisage such a localist system working is that the town would meet and distribute excess land to those who need it. Once that's done there should be no excuses as people will have the resources to provide for themselves. There is more than enough land on this planet for all of us. Under communism though, the land in an area is lumped together, and the farmers work together on this one parcel of land. Under localism each family would have their own land. This is a similar idea to when American pioneers received a parcel of land on which to build their home and provide for themselves.

Under the US Homestead Act of 1862, any resident of the United States could obtain up to 160 acres of open land provided that, for five consecutive years, the homesteader continuously lived on and cultivated the land.

[mojo]

CCS wrote: >>For one thing how is giving land anfter taking it from another person not a handout. That sounds like a handout to me. Who's it for the government or the collective people to decide whether that person should have the right to their land. How can those people be ambitious if they expect the government to give them what they should earn. To forcefully take the land of someone successful to give it to someone who is not is an extremely communist idea.

No you’re totally missing the point. I'm saying that they should forcefully take the land, not receive it as a handout. For example, in Scotland there are many lords who still control vast areas of land, land which their ancestors stole, and these lords still receive taxes from their tenants. I think these farmers should simply stop paying rent, and reclaim fully the land which was originally theirs in the first place. Who's going to stop them? I'd like to see the public reaction if the British army was sent in to "solve" the issue. I'm saying people should fight for what's rightfully there’s rather than expecting it to be handed to them by some government or what ever. Complaining or protesting is quite ineffective in my opinion; you need real action.

The fact is most people in my area have enough land already to grow their own food. The way I envisage such a localist system working is that the town would meet and distribute excess land to those who need it. Once that's done there should be no excuses as people will have the resources to provide for themselves. There is more than enough land on this planet for all of us. Under communism though, the land in an area is lumped together, and the farmers work together on this one parcel of land. Under localism each family would have their own land. This is a similar idea to when American pioneers received a parcel of land on which to build their home and provide for themselves.

Under the US Homestead Act of 1862, any resident of the United States could obtain up to 160 acres of open land provided that, for five consecutive years, the homesteader continuously lived on and cultivated the land.

The difference was that the homestead act gave away governement land which they had every right to give away. This would give away private land which is a big no no.

If your system is based on need then whats the incentive for success and growth. I mean if you become wealthy using your land whats to stop the government to taking away that land as well. Because need would be placed before greed wouldn't that result in a race to the bottom. If success is punished and unsuccessfulness rewarded where is the incentive for innovation and progress. People will be racing to become poor and unsuccessful in order to receive the benefits of your proposed program. It is absolutely illogical.

[CCS]

>>If your system is based on need then whats the incentive for success and growth. I mean if you become wealthy using your land whats to stop the government to taking away that land as well. Because need would be placed before greed wouldn't that result in a race to the bottom. If success is punished and unsuccessfulness rewarded where is the incentive for innovation and progress. People will be racing to become poor and unsuccessful in order to receive the benefits of your proposed program. It is absolutely illogical.

No. Under localism a community is its own government. So lets say you live in BallyA and BallyA has 300 citizens, then those 300 people form the government and what ever the majority believes, goes. So if the majority decided to ban abortion, then so be it. And those who appose this ban would be left with no option but to try and convince a majority to legalize it again. Also, there is no escape route. If you live in a town with no abortion, you can't go elsewhere for one - there is no migration under localism. These are the principles of the system as I see it. The idea is that through debate, the community will eventually arrive at some class of long term civilized solution to its problems. Instead in the capitalist / pseudo socialist worlds we live in today, liberals bash conservatives and vice versa and were going no where fast. In terms of government, we ping-pong back and forth between right-wing conservatives and pseudo-liberals.

So lets say there are 50 poor people on welfare in BallyA. The Localist solution to this problem would be to give the poor a plot of land and say "There you go, now make the most of it". After that point there will be no charity and no excuses. Localism address the basic needs that people have - food and shelter, but after that it is up to individuals to make the most of their lot.

My parents are well respected in our community. Their hard work at home is reflected in their work for their community. Likewise these beliefs have been passed on to me and I coach children's sports and play music in the community. Under localism there is no way that the rest of the community would gang up on us and strip us of our wealth - that wealth being the crops in our fields and the buildings on our land that we built and our ancestors built. To do otherwise would be illogical.

Also, under localism according to Wiki, there is occupational equality. People provide their own basic services therefore after that, all service are provide by people on a voluntary bases - because they want to. For example, if you want to be a doctor, then you would work with a local doctor and learn from them. Likewise if you are sick, you simply request the help of a local doctor who will be glad to assist you because thats what doctors do. So under localism, all basic services are provided by people themselves, and society is stripped of all low income/low moral type jobs (poverty jobs) and indeed all federal/beurocratic/judicial and business type jobs. The community will act as court. People will work because they like their job and in order to gain respect from the fellow citizens. Thats what all normal people want at the end of the day - respect from those around them. Indeed there should be no need for money under localism. This is exacly why Firefox is such a success. It is created by people "for free" who simply want to make our world a better place. The result is a product that is superior to the best that Capitalism can offer, i.e. Internet Explorer. Also, don’t waste your time accusing me of communism because I believe in a system without money. Money is a very new concept with regard to human existence. And remember also that there has never been as much crime, poverty, deprivation and misery in the world as there is today. In many respects we probably need to go backwards in order to go forwards.

>>The difference was that the homestead act gave away governement land which they had every right to give away. This would give away private land which is a big no no.

Land they stole from the Native Americans you mean... Ironic thing though is that Native American didn't believe in ownership of anything.

[jeechoscopy]

You are an archaic kind of socialist. As your curiosity to know yourself, it can be said that you would develop more.
Grow with the world, grow with your surrounding.

Good wishes to faithful thoughts!

[mojo]

CCS wrote:
No. Under localism a community is its own government. So lets say you live in BallyA and BallyA has 300 citizens, then those 300 people form the government and what ever the majority believes, goes. So if the majority decided to ban abortion, then so be it. And those who appose this ban would be left with no option but to try and convince a majority to legalize it again. Also, there is no escape route. If you live in a town with no abortion, you can't go elsewhere for one - there is no migration under localism. These are the principles of the system as I see it. The idea is that through debate, the community will eventually arrive at some class of long term civilized solution to its problems. Instead in the capitalist / pseudo socialist worlds we live in today, liberals bash conservatives and vice versa and were going no where fast. In terms of government, we ping-pong back and forth between right-wing conservatives and pseudo-liberals.


So you basically believe in pure and unadulterated democracy. With Majority rule. That is absolute tyranny. The majority would be able to tyrannize the locals. Not to mention the rampant special interest groups of this local community that would spring up to bribe individuals with power. Since the minority is not allowed to move in your system they become enslaved to the system. Becoming the whim of the majority. In this localized system which you propose the individual has zero rights and the minority will continuously be persecuted for personal gain. What you fail to realize is that human greed is inevitable. Capitalism is the best most class fluid means of distributing success to those who earn it through innovation and work ethic above and beyond the rest.

Quote: So lets say there are 50 poor people on welfare in BallyA. The Localist solution to this problem would be to give the poor a plot of land and say "There you go, now make the most of it". After that point there will be no charity and no excuses. Localism address the basic needs that people have - food and shelter, but after that it is up to individuals to make the most of their lot.

Why should the producing provide for even the needs of those people. Afterall if its just going to be given to you why work for it at all. FI I was a farmer in this area why even try and work if the community os just gonna give me my plot fo land and food anyway.

Quote: My parents are well respected in our community. Their hard work at home is reflected in their work for their community. Likewise these beliefs have been passed on to me and I coach children's sports and play music in the community. Under localism there is no way that the rest of the community would gang up on us and strip us of our wealth - that wealth being the crops in our fields and the buildings on our land that we built and our ancestors built. To do otherwise would be illogical.

So your system basically rewards the person with the most connections with those in authority. Afterall if their nice people why should they be forced to produce.


Quote: Also, under localism according to Wiki, there is occupational equality. People provide their own basic services therefore after that, all service are provide by people on a voluntary bases - because they want to. For example, if you want to be a doctor, then you would work with a local doctor and learn from them. Likewise if you are sick, you simply request the help of a local doctor who will be glad to assist you because thats what doctors do. So under localism, all basic services are provided by people themselves, and society is stripped of all low income/low moral type jobs (poverty jobs) and indeed all federal/beurocratic/judicial and business type jobs. The community will act as court. People will work because they like their job and in order to gain respect from the fellow citizens. Thats what all normal people want at the end of the day - respect from those around them. Indeed there should be no need for money under localism. This is exacly why Firefox is such a success. It is created by people "for free" who simply want to make our world a better place. The result is a product that is superior to the best that Capitalism can offer, i.e. Internet Explorer. Also, don’t waste your time accusing me of communism because I believe in a system without money. Money is a very new concept with regard to human existence. And remember also that there has never been as much crime, poverty, deprivation and misery in the world as there is today. In many respects we probably need to go backwards in order to go forwards.


There is no such thing as a bad job only bad people who are unwilling to work them. Try saying that those people at firefox dont have jobs outside of operating firefox. Or perhaps the large amounts of money they are receiving via donations. They created a superior product, good fo them, but I will not put food on their table over it.

So a doctor should be responsible for the entire community. Why a single doctor would not have the resources let alone the medical equipment available in your economy in order to do such a task. If individuals are not allowed to leave a community how are they supposed to get the resources that are not available in that community. Or should the citizens revert back to a medieval (at best) lifestyle in order to survive. What you are actually proposing is a tribal economy on a global scale. But that obviously didnt work out for anyone. For more reasons than I can possibly name at this present time.


Quote: Land they stole from the Native Americans you mean... Ironic thing though is that Native American didn't believe in ownership of anything.

That explains while they toiled for almost 4000 years not ever acheiving anything of any significance. They only got to produce what was the bare minimum of their own survival. Life was extremely hard and life expectancies were significantly lower. Is this the kind of society you worship. The society that never improves or progresses but stays in a static position. The Native American tribes were arguably the worst civilizations that still existed in that time. They worshiped the ideology of zero where the only of importance was their own survivial not their progression. While Greece and Rome were building vast empires with some of the greatest scientific acheivements ever in existence the Native Americans who were blessed with abundant resources could nto have the capacity to improve.

If you honestly worship The native Americans over the acheivement of the American civilization then you are truly lost. Check your premises.

[Rilzic]

I know what you mean about community and such when I got outa high school i felt much the same way about what you call localism. I was a idealist.

you should take a look at the American green party here are some of the things about them:



1. Community-based economics
2. Decentralization, e.g. via Bioregional democracy, sustainable agriculture
3. Ecological Wisdom, e.g. ending human-caused extinction, promoting ecological health
4. Feminism, e.g. health security especially for mothers and children, and thus a focus on environmental health, gender equity in government; also referred to as Postpatriarchal Values
5. Grassroots democracy, e.g. via electoral reform to improve deliberative democracy
6. Non-violence, e.g. via de-escalation, peace processes
7. Personal and global responsibility, e.g. moral purchasing, voluntary simplicity
8. Respect for diversity, e.g. via fair trade, bioregional democracy
9. Social justice, e.g. harm reduction rather than zero tolerance, a Living wage
10. Future Focus/Sustainability, e.g. measuring well-being effect over seven generations, leading to what is called seven-generation sustainability, Renewable energy and Conservation, New urbanism, Zero was

Now i understand that no party will fit you exactly. but you seem to be into personal economic and environmental responsibility, progressive social laws, ALOT of decentralization. Note that this is the American green party and is a bit different then green parties in Europe. I don't know if you are going to find a party with your beliefs about migration. as a personal view I agree and that’s cool but that’s pretty restrictive on personal right. being something of a Libertarian I would say you have the right to form a community like that and live their but you shouldn't force others to.

One thing i would like to ask you is why do you disagree with the charity concerts. personal charity is one of the best ways to help people. If that’s not how you like to help you have the choice to not buy into it. I wouldn’t go but if people want to goto them cool. Or if your only talking about the irony of rich people (the source you say of most of our poverty) are acting to help the poor and not attacking the root of the problem. I would say to that is that the first thing you can to is change yourself and lead by example and that seems to be what you are doing so I am cool with that.

As far as myself goes, I am not really a Libertarian in all their beliefs nor a republican but right now I think Libertarians are more useful. Just take what fits best and then keep evolving with time.