I almost to the point....

[Undertoad]

Collectivism: I dunno, I guess what I'm driving at with the word is that it is a collective, whether it's big government, small government, a home-owners association or a voluntary bulk purchasing agreement.

Wikipedia says collective is defined as "a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest" and collectivism is "any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being", so I guess I have overextended the word collectivism here.

Still, there is a collective act in the bulk purchase and that is the part that interests me today.

[henry quirk]

Here's the problem with, "You expect to get the benefit of collectivism"

I expect nothing...my expectation of others is zilch (more accurately: I expect each person to exercise his or her self-interest as he or she sees it...including the 'self-denying' types like Spexx who, though he says otherwise, is still motivated by his own wants and needs...that he includes as a want or need for everyone to play nice and 'give' despite lack of benefit is still an expression of his self-interest).


As for 'collectivism': while I'm certainly capable of idiosyncratically defining 'collectivism', in this case, I'm going with...

1.The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

2.The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.

What have I posted that would lead you to believe I support either position, or, that I seek to profit from either position while not participating in either position?


For a variety of reasons (none of which are germane here), I've taken on certain responsibilities for helping to raise my nephew. These commitments mean I live fairly close to the boy (a township in south Louisiana). I prefer a mobile life but -- for the past five years, and for at least the next five -- I'm rooted to the spot. I pay my bills (the ones I accrue) including water, garbage, etc. and have no problem doing so. By way of sales tax, other monies of mine funnel into local roads, libraries, and -- to an extent -- public education. As I see it: in no way am I supporting a collective, in no way agreeing to put the need(s) of any group over my own interests, in no way assigning control over 'me' to a governor or governors, in no way agreeing to be overseen in my work or my living.

From my perspective: I'm simply paying, locally, for what I use locally, paying for services rendered to me (and mine).

#

"you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan."

And they demanded initially that I participate in a plan I didn't want or need.

*shrug*

#

"Your non-participation made the plan less attractive to the market. In the bulk buying negotiation, you were one fewer buyer."

Not my problem. However, having given it some thought, ya know what I'd probably do? When the main cracked or broke, I'd probably find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket. It might be pricey, but (1) in the long run it'll cost me less than consistently forking up for the half-price maintenance I don't want or need, and, (2) not a soul amongst the 'collective' could tell me shit about shit then.

Win/win: I'm left alone, largely I keep my money, and the collective (and I) gets water.

If, however, it became a habit (the 'collective' actively fucking around with me, demanding my attention and money): I might just burn my house to ground one night, salt the ground, and book it out of town with my typewriter in one hand and my coachgun in the other...

#

The balance between 'I' and 'we' is never static...it wavers, sliding back and forth...what the 'we' must recognize is that the 'I' prefers its 'self'; what the 'I' must recognize is that not every one wants to 'be' 'one' and many prefer the safety and comfort of the 'we'.

[Undertoad]

"you demand the price the neighborhood got, even though you didn't participate in their plan."

And they demanded initially that I participate in a plan I didn't want or need.

*shrug*

No. If you had opt-out, it was not a *demand* on their part. But it turned out you wanted the benefit of the deal when the water main broke. I was surprised by that.

I'd probably find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket

You most certainly would not. You'd find the best deal you could.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

When I say 'proxies and services' I mean EVERYTHING currently done by federal, state, and local 'government'.

A proxy -- in this context -- is not a private provider (though I'm certainly not opposed to private providers instead of 'government') but rather 'government' and 'governors' assuming the constitutionally dictated role of 'servant', not 'leader'.

That sounds wonderful, just like they taught in grammar school.

For example: I've no need for any president, congressperson, judge, governor, state representative, mayor, city councilperson, etc. to 'lead' me, 'provide' for me, or 'save' me. I don't need to be coddled, preached to, stood up for, directed, or protected. What I want for these folks to do is maintain the esoteric and physical infrastructure of the nation, the state, the town and leave me alone.

Unfortunately, without some of these people standing up for you, and protecting you, you'd find yourself living in a democracy. Then you'd be really pissed.

I'm certainly willing to pay a mutually agreed upon fee for the benefits I get from that maintenance, but, I will not pay for that which offers me no benefit.

School taxes are the biggie. If you have no kids, or they are grown, do schools benefit you?

Look at it this way: if my nephew stops up the toilet with TP (and I can't unclog it myself), I'm happy to pay the plumber to come and break the clog...I won't be so happy, however, being expected to pitch in to have my neighbor's clog broken...that toilet (and clog) is HIS problem and he can pay for his own benefits.

That's true... until your drain gets to the street. Then if your neighbor insists on flushing diapers and gerbils that plug the branch on your street.. you pay.

[henry quirk]

UT,

"No. If you had opt-out, it was not a *demand* on their part. But it turned out you wanted the benefit of the deal when the water main broke. I was surprised by that."

I think you've struck at (without intending to, I'm sure) the essential silliness of your scenario (one which I've stuck to and operated within, faithfully).

While it's wholly possible for a neighborhood to come together and strike a collected bargain with a plumber to access half-price services and products for each residence in the collective, it's unlikely that neighborhood, existing within the bounds of a municipality, would have any direct say-so as to repairs effected on a water main. Such repairs would fall within the sphere of the municipality itself and would be effected by municipal workers, and would be paid for through the individual water bills of those served by the main and/or through discretionary funds in place for such things*.

However...you laid out the (untenable) scenario and I played by the rules...I demanded an opt out (which you didn't object to)...I objected to having to pay more than the others (a function of paying for what I use, not what someone declares is 'fair')...you feign surprise that I would blunt my self-interest to 'play nice' or 'play fair'.

What if the scenario had played off the notion of a neighborhood striking a deal with a plumber to offer services at a reduced price with the understanding (among the neighbors) that with a heavy duty project, like repairing a main, the cost would be split along folks according to water usage (meaning, for example, the man living alone might pay less than the family of five because, according to the compared meters, he uses less than the family): would you object to such an arrangement?

#

"You'd find the best deal you could."

Of course I would! But only 'I' get to decide for 'me' what is a 'best deal'.

Within the silly scenario you generated: the best deal for me might just be to find a plumber on my own and -- without consulting a soul -- pay for the expense out of my own pocket. It might be pricey, but (1) in the long run it'll cost me less than consistently forking up for the half-price maintenance I don't want or need, and, (2) not a soul amongst the 'collective' could tell me shit about shit then.

In other words: 'best deal', for 'me', in your scenario, might have little to do with the actual monetary cost of main repair and everything to do with giving a finger to the collective.

##

Bruce,

"just like they taught in grammar school"

Huh?

#

"without some of these people standing up for you, and protecting you, you'd find yourself living in a democracy"

Question (to anyone who cares to play): please list any and all protections afforded you by 'government'. I'm betting I can illustrate the threats you pay to be defended from are illusory (you pay to fend off fictions), or, were generated (and are maintained) by the folks you pay to keep you 'safe'.

As for democracy: I don't abide 'now' (in a constitutional republic), so, what makes you think I'd abide 'then', in a democracy? Half a dozen of one, six of another to me.

#

"School taxes are the biggie. If you have no kids, or they are grown, do schools benefit you?"

I have no kids, but my nephew is rather important to me and as his Dad opts to send him to public school, I make no big stink about paying into that system.

Kinda hard to completely opt out of it now any way since -- as I mentioned up-thread -- I'm currently stationary and some portion of local sales tax revenue goes to the public school system here.

Question: if a body has no kids, why should he or she support public education?

#

"if your neighbor insists on flushing diapers and gerbils that plug the branch on your street... you pay."

Sure. Part of the price one pays for remaining stationary...I kinda said that up-thread, which you'd know if you'd bothered to actually read any of my other posts...










*the only case where your silly scenario could actually play out is in some kind of communitarian 'commune' (where I wouldn't be allowed), or, a 'libertarian' enclave (where I also wouldn't be allowed)...as an aside: it's always fascinated me how much in common libertarian and communitarians have in common...for all the talk of individual liberty (the king of fictions!) the libertarians are as rule-bound and restrictive as the commies.

[Ibby]

first a minor point, henry:

es·o·ter·ic/ˌesəˈterik/
Adjective: Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.

So, you think that government SHOULD be involved in complex or obscure issues, and in physical infrastructure issues? What issues are esoteric enough for government involvement?

Moving on to broader issues:
How do you calculate your "bill" for your benefit when, for example, a student who attended public schooling and a public university (which you believe you shouldn't have to pay for without personal benefit) then uses that education directly to invent a process that increases manufacturing efficiency across a wide range of products, which you can then purchase much more cheaply than you did before, thus saving you money?

How do you calculate your "bill" for the fact that some potential criminals may have been deterred by the threat of prison? Should victims of crimes have to pay more in taxes because they used the criminal justice system more?
Playing devil's advocate earlier, UT mentioned that 911 is a joke - but while self-defense against violent crime is certainly a personal responsibility, there is MUCH more to the way a government-run law enforcement and criminal justice system can extend "protection" to citizens than the immediate protection from immediate physical threat of violence.

And what about a "safety net"? Do you think that the destitute, or homeless, or even just unemployed, should not have access to roads, or phone lines, or police protection, or education, or life-saving health care, or ANY government support whatsoever, until they can pay for it? If so, how do you expect them to become able to pay for them?
relatedly: what causes poverty? Are the impoverished ALL just unwilling to make the effort to rise out of poverty? Is it possible to have a country where every single person willing to "try hard enough" can and does rise out of poverty, or can Bad Luck or circumstances beyond their control cause poverty or keep them impoverished too?
And if the poor can be poor for reasons beyond their control - is that just too bad, so sad, talk to the hand, Not My Problem?

[henry quirk]

I use 'esoteric' in place of, and to point to, 'culture', that is the intangible infrastructure of a nation.

My use is idiosyncratic...apologies for the confusion.

'I' think nations should cease to exist, but, if the USA is to continue, it should follow the blueprint (the Federal Constitution) which largely empowers the 'government' to maintain the esoteric (intangible) and physical infrastructures that fundamentally make the nation 'nation', and not much else.

#

"How do you calculate your "bill"?

In the first case: the student (now inventor) is compensated by way of the profit he or she makes in the sale or lease or his or her work. My 'bill' comes due when I decide to buy his or her work.

In the second case: please provide evidence that any crime has been deterred by the threat of prison.

If you use law enforcement, then pay for it; if you don't, then why should you pay? Three times I've been held up...twice I screamed 'fire' and the mugger ran, the third time I kicked him in the nuts...in none of those cases did the police 'protect and serve'...I kept my money (and life) because of 'me'.

#

"there is MUCH more to the way a government-run law enforcement and criminal justice system can extend "protection" to citizens than the immediate protection from immediate physical threat of violence."

The notion of which scares the hell outta me.

#

"Do you think that the destitute, or homeless, or even just unemployed, should not have access to roads, or phone lines, or police protection, or education, or life-saving health care, or ANY government support whatsoever, until they can pay for it?"

Taking things as they are 'now': it's impossible to deprive a body of access to roads or education or the police or health care or other gov support...the mechanisms are already in place (public education, public roads, etc.)...gimme a time machine and I might fix that for ya…

As for phones: folks are deprived all the time...even a pay phone 'costs' to use.

#

"Are the impoverished ALL just unwilling to make the effort to rise out of poverty?"

No, but not ALL are deserving of a hand up either. You address the problem(s) of an individual by addressing 'that' individual, not by lumping him of her in a 'class' or 'group'.

#

"if the poor can be poor for reasons beyond their control - is that just too bad, so sad, talk to the hand, Not My Problem?"

The answer you get is dependant on who ask...looking for universal solutions is hooey. For myself: as I wrote over in Dissident Philosophy just a little while ago, 'fundamentally: if I'm gonna share 'my' resources, 'I' get to decide who I share with, and why.'