wasteofo2
- 477
- 2
I would play music for free.
And I'd be more than glad to receive health-care for free.
And I'd be more than glad to receive health-care for free.
Smurf said:Do you have one now?
The problem with criticizing anarcho-socialist theories by saying they can't easily get certain products is that most individuals usually can't get them under this economy either.
A cook that also built your house and programmed your OS?Pengwuino said:Of course not but how effective would you be if you're juggling 3 different types of jobs? What kinda cook do you think you'd have if on monday he cooks, tuesday he programs software, and wednesday he builds houses?
Smasherman said:Would you truly wish to devote your entire life to only one type of job? That sounds rather repetitive to me.
Smurf said:A cook that also built your house and programmed your OS?
Who says we'd build a ferari for every dink that wants one?Pengwuino said:Well for one, what kinda society would you be having if you took the actual manhours out of hte system to build luxury cars for every citizen that wanted one? You're trying to compare systems when the original selling point is that by itself, its a great system.
Pengwuino said:See how rediculous it would be. You can't do 3 jobs and be any good at any of them.
Smasherman said:One could cook in the morning and program during the day. One could undertake a building project for however long needed, doing less cooking and programming as a result. Though perhaps a little less efficient, people could conceivably be happier with a variety of tasks to occupy them. Happier people tend to be more efficient, possibly offsetting the decrease in efficiency from not streamlining.
Smurf said:Who says we'd build a ferari for every dink that wants one?
Pfft. i easily have more worshippers than you.Pengwuino said:I Am God.
Smasherman said:Perhaps it would be best to perform an experiment involving one group of people who do one job over and over again and another group of people that diversify their jobs.
Colleges look for students who do non-academic things, correct? Why is this? Is it because diverse individuals are more productive?

Hey now. While I'm not even sure that you've used proper English, I am pretty sure that I've just been insulted.Smurf said:Patty's understanding of anarcho-socialist thought it rough at best.
Of course not. My insults are far more creative than that. That was me excusing you from your position as thread monitor. It's a hijacking without actually changing the subject. Quite clever, really.pattylou said:I am pretty sure that I've just been insulted.
The idea is that if there is something you enjoy doing, you might do it - and thereby relieve your boredom.Pengwuino said:Hmm... living in a world with only basic needs? BORING.
got that right.pattylou said:Smurf is terribly clever, and Patty has not been insulted.
They were also maletheists. They believed their gods would love nothing better than to destroy them and made human sacrifices to appease them. I'm sure working hard for your community made it less likely that you'd get the sharp end of the dagger or be used as a guinea pig for cranial experiments.cronxeh said:I'm sorry.. are we forgetting about the Teotihuacan ?!? That was the greatest civilization before Aztecs! They've had just the society you are thinking of, Patty. Not to mention their far greater pyramids than some lame Egyptian ones
http://www.crystalinks.com/mexico.html
TheStatutoryApe said:They were also maletheists. They believed their gods would love nothing better than to destroy them and made human sacrifices to appease them. I'm sure working hard for your community made it less likely that you'd get the sharp end of the dagger or be used as a guinea pig for cranial experiments.
----edit----
The pyramids are also pretty clear evidence that there was slave labour in their society.
Slaves or tlacotin (distinct from war captives) also constituted an important class. This slavery was very different from what Europeans of the same period were to establish in their colonies, although it had much in common with the slaves of classical antiquity. (Sahagún doubts the appropriateness even of the term "slavery" for this Aztec institution.) First, slavery was personal, not hereditary: a slave's children were free. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. Slaves could buy their liberty, and slaves could be set free if they were able to show they had been mistreated or if they had children with or were married to their masters.
Typically, upon the death of the master, slaves who had performed outstanding services were freed. The rest of the slaves were passed on as part of an inheritance.
Another rather remarkable method for a slave to recover liberty was described by Manuel Orozco y Berra in La civilización azteca (1860): if, at the tianquiztli (marketplace; the word has survived into modern-day Spanish as "tianguis"), a slave could escape the vigilance of his or her master, run outside the walls of the market and step on a piece of human excrement, he could then present his case to the judges, who would free him. He or she would then be washed, provided with new clothes (so that he or she would not be wearing clothes belonging to the master), and declared free. Because, in stark contrast to the European colonies, a person could be declared a slave if he or she attempted to prevent the escape of a slave (unless that person were a relative of the master), others would not typically help the master in preventing the slave's escape.
Wooden collar.
Enlarge
Wooden collar.
Orozco y Berra also reports that a master could not sell a slave without the slave's consent, unless the slave had been classified as incorrigible by an authority. (Incorrigibility could be determined on the basis of repeated laziness, attempts to run away, or general bad conduct.) Incorrigible slaves were made to wear a wooden collar, affixed by rings at the back. The collar was not merely a symbol of bad conduct: it was designed to make it harder to run away through a crowd or through narrow spaces.
When buying a collared slave, one was informed of how many times that slave had been sold. A slave who was sold four times as incorrigible could be sold to be sacrificed; those slaves commanded a premium in price.
However, if a collared slave managed to present him- or herself in the royal palace or in a temple, he or she would regain liberty.
An Aztec could become a slave as a punishment. A murderer sentenced to death could instead, upon the request of the wife of his victim, be given to her as a slave. A father could sell his son into slavery if the son was declared incorrigible by an authority. Those who did not pay their debts could also be sold as slaves.
People could sell themselves as slaves. They could stay free long enough to enjoy the price of their liberty, about twenty blankets, usually enough for a year; after that time they went to their new master. Usually this was the destiny of gamblers and of old ahuini (courtesans or prostitutes).
Motolinía reports that some captives, future victims of sacrifice, were treated as slaves with all the rights of an Aztec slave until the time of their sacrifice, but it is not clear how they were kept from running away.
Evo said:Funny, the only thing you couldn't get me to do for any amount of money is take care of children. I didn't even like children when I was a child. Once in a blue moon an intelligent child comes along that I can tolerate, but it's rare, very rare.
She's that very, very rare child, (and her sister) and they know it.cronxeh said:and then there's the Evochild, right?![]()
It's called realism, Smurf. People who win the lottery do not go back to work and the USSR wallowed in mediocrity because there were no rewards for doing good work. Just because what you imagine can exist inside your head does not mean it can exist in reality. In your head, you are able to ignore the contradictions and flaws. In reality, what you imagine simply cannot work.Smurf said:![]()
Finally proof that Russ understanding of english doesn't include "contribute to the common good".