July 28, 2015

Joe American's Response to "A Geo-Mutual Panacea"



This is my response to an article written on Evolutionofconsent.com.  I suggest you read the entire document and then my response.  Though my response was written as I read the entire document.


A Geo-Mutual Panacea
Posted on  by WillDifficulty level not set for this Post
IntroductonThis essay will introduce a speculative model for a geo-mutual panarchist confederation. The purpose of the model is to incorporate various interest groups— economic, political, cultural, etc.— into a revolutionary organization capable of bringing about a geo-mutual panarchy.
 Geo-Mutual Panarchism“Geo-mutualist panarchism? What is that?” Well, geo-mutualist panarchism has those three parts: geo-, mutualist, and panarchism. Let’s dissect our terms, shall we?
Geo in geo-mutualist panarchism comes from the last name of Henry George, the founder of Geoism, or Georgism, and may also be understood to have a connection with the politics of geology or geography. Henry George believed that the Earth was rightfully common property, and that anyone who has an unfair share in the Earth should compensate society for it.
Mutualist in geo-mutualist panarchism comes from the mutualism of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who suggested that people have a right to free credit, or interest-free loans. Proudhon suggested that such loans should be provided by democratically-run credit unions, and that the effects of such loans would be the wide dispersal of capital, allowing workers to become self-employed in cooperatives.... Read more...

I'm about midway through and it just kind of sounds like an over complicated utopian dream that relies on individuals to respect the rights of other individuals.

Its central problem is that it would require a central authority of some kind... be them philosophers or elected representatives of each collective within.

It also says little about the individual and still creates a situation where even a person that wishes to be independent of any form of rule or communal living is subject to the rules of the masses.

So to say that if I wish to reject the idea of Geoism... then the whole rest of the philosophy goes with it.

"The notion that something that benefits people must be replaced with something better" denies or omits to whom is it to benefit. Where obviously some would argue that welfare benefits the people, and others would argue that it simply benefits the state. This general mechanism of implimentation does not cut to the core of the issue. What is just and what is a benefit? Who determines what a benefit is? Is it democratic? By 2/3'rds majority? By unanimous decision? With such varying degree's of personal philosophies being passed through your "umbrella" mechanism... how do we account for mere disagreement?

Your unity in difference seems only to cover individuals that do not wish to be controlled... and even sort of touches on those that kind of don't mind it... or rightfully or wrongfully believe their school of control to be better than some other school. And while you make room for it, it still does not address the individuals that simply wish to rule large tracts of land and people regardless of their individual ideology. The oligarchs and the corporate fascists is there room for them too? What about sweatshop capitalists and slave drivers? Or is their ideology rejected out of hand as morally bankrupt... and if so under what criteria?

Additionally this notion that profit, rent, taxes and interest are not of equitable creation, or that they are some form of monopoly given by the state... shows that labor is not understood. Labor is that which you do to receive bigger benefit than the work required. So that if I spend my time planting a field, It will provide me with my food, a wage, interest, profit and will cost me a tax. That is how I will determine the price of my goods when sold on the market.... If I was only paid the cost of the labor required to produce it... it would only make sense for me to produce enough for myself and no one else. cost is determined as a representation of benefit, cost in labor, demand, yield, capital investment, debt etc. Even over time this can never be made a stable time... as weather, age, demand and a host of other factors determine the rise and fall of prices and supply.

This idea of Owners, Renters and Rentiers is troubling. That anyone's right to vote would be taken away for any reason at all... would not sit well with that group of people very long if there interest was not being fairly represented. And, almost assuredly the very act of denying them a vote would likely cause them to break away from any such confederacy.

It really seems like a nightmare for political red tape so far as I've read (decisions).

The "Supreme Lawspeaker" also seems problematic. While you seem to set up checks and balances... its all in the name and its apparent how human nature will corrupt such a position.

A draft is a terrible idea too. Having any group that is in one case the subordinate and in another case the commander is folly and shows little knowledge of war or of defense.

I pretty much stopped reading as soon as I saw "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

It all seems like a consolidation of control and resources towards some misguided idea of loose collectivism while denying the existence of the individual or the sanctity of the true nature of voluntary exchange and gutting the heart of Liberty.

I can tell that you spent a lot of time working it all out... but I would suggest trying an experiment with a group of people... actors and willing participants. See how it works in practice. Theory is often divorced from reality. And to have come up with this all on your own merely as a collection and mish-mash of the best of the philosophies you have read kind of flies in the face of its own objective. That only a body of great thinking philosophers could come up with any sort of working master philosophy (in thought) but in practice we see that philosophers are still humans... and as a result simply resort to bickering and a desire to be right.

The most sure way to freedom... is individual freedom. Individual liberty. It can not be guaranteed... it is dangerous by nature.... and while it is a good idea to have a large group of support for such an idea... its universal application is by its very nature an impossibility due to the ever evolving mind of mankind as a whole.

So to say that as a human race we are fractured along different stages of development, and as a result of cultural influence, age of nation, geographical influence, scarcity of resources, abundance of resources, dialect, language and a host of other things that define us and narrow us all down ever so slightly to the smallest form of government.... self governance.

And with self governance comes the traditional problems that any government would face. And as a result of a lack of a large body, we are forever at war with ourselves and each other. Striking the balance between power, liberty, autonomy and brotherhood. It is for this reason that every generation of men must take it upon themselves to judge the state of the world and those responsible for bringing it about, and change the nature of things so that it suits the best good for the individual and for liberty. This can only be accomplished every generation. And those that seize the opportunity are rewarded, and in time will secede power to a new generation. Each growing more with the knowledge, labor and efforts of those before them.

Its when we do nothing, as we have, for so long... that a problem becomes so convoluted that our only reasonable solution is one that is equally convoluted. Its apparent what must be done... but we are conflicted... we have been made to be conflicted. THAT, is the nature of control. To fracture things in such a way, that we can not even come together for the most basic and admirable cause of individual Liberty.

Thats my ten cents anyway.

============================================================

This article may be updated as the conversation continues.  To follow the conversation, submit your e-mail below to receive information about updates, or head over to our facebook page for regular updates.

No comments:

Post a Comment