Score one for the Anarchists

[Mycroft]

Yes it is.

If that’s true, then you should be able to easily find a thesaurus that agrees with you.

I'm not shifting any burden of proof.

Uh-huh.

No it isn't. It would be rational for him to ignore the people promoting the belief about it not being "permitted" to take goods without "payment", and to just take what he needs anyway.

Is that what you do? If not, why not?

Physics.

Which one is more energy efficient? Have the goods transported to the nearby facility and taken there by the people who need them, or have them transported to a further-away facility and have people transport themselves there individually to take what they need?

Assume that a person is 100 kg and the good 1 kg. Assume that it is equally efficient to transport the good to either facility (suppose it comes in batch by truck from some much-further-away central distribution facility). Nearby and further-away here mean relative to the location of the people who need the goods.

So many unfounded assumptions in that.

Why assume one facility is further away than the other? Why assume they are supplied from the same source? Why assume only one source? Why assume weight and distance are the sole aspects of efficiency? Most importantly, why would you disregard established relationships that depend on the exchange of money to make these transactions happen?

You really don't need to squint your eyes to see what pile of crap that belief system you promote is.

The only “flaw” you identify is that a person can’t just take whatever he wants without paying for it, but you overlook the tens of thousands of people who are able to easily obtain fresh produce and goods from all over the world. That’s a very strong benefit that you purposefully ignore.

Let's walk through it. Suppose a rational person has a need for a good and goes to the closest facility which stocks it. There they meet you.

Sure, only your scenario wasn’t very realistic so I’ve made some modifications:

Person: *takes good* *Attempts to steal product* and thereby fulfill need.

You: "You must go to this other facility which is further away to take this good." “That will be $4.99. Cash, check or charge?”

Person: "Who the hell are you?"

You: "I'm the manager. I solve the problem of distributing goods to people who need them.". “I run this store, which provides quality foods and goods from local farmers and from all over the world. I see you fancy that jar of Olives imported from Greece. I’ve tried them personally, and they are very good, but you can’t just walk out with them. They cost $4.99.”

Person: "Well you seem to be doing a crappy job. It incurs less of a cost if you simply call in for more such goods to be transported to your facility rather than me individually fetching them from a further-away facility. I'll just ignore you."

Manager: “Look, if our customers don’t pay for their merchandise, then we can’t resupply because we wouldn’t have the money to pay for it. We also wouldn’t have the money to pay our employees, pay the electric and water bills, maintain the building, pay the rent, keep the parking lot in good shape and all the other expenses that go with running a business. If we do charge for our goods, then we’re able to provide a huge variety of products to tens of thousands of people every month. Giving away merchandise for free sounds great, but we wouldn’t be able to keep this store open for very long.”

Person: “Okay, that makes sense. Here’s a $5.00 bill. Keep the change.”

Manager: “And another $0.35 for the sales tax.”

Person: “@#$%!”

You: "If you ignore me then I'm calling a gang to attack you."

Person: "Wow, not only are you incompetent at your task of distributing goods to people who need them, you've apparently got some serious attention-seeking issues as well."

You: "You can of course always hand me over some money so that I won't do that..."

Person: "Ah, a bribe, how unexpected."

You: "Well I like to call it a 'purchase' rather than a 'bribe'".

Person: "Right, gotcha, nudge nudge wink wink."

Why should you be manager of the facility, if you're so crappy at the task of distributing goods to people who need them, and can find nothing better to hide your incompetence behind than taking bribes and calling upon gangs to attack people who ignore your incompetent "management"?

 

[caveman1917]

Person: *takes good* and thereby fulfills need.

You: “That will be $4.99. Cash, check or charge?”

Person: "Who the hell are you?"

You: "I'm the manager. I run this store, which provides quality foods and goods from local farmers and from all over the world. I see you fancy that jar of Olives imported from Greece. I’ve tried them personally, and they are very good, but you can’t just walk out with them.”

Person: "Of course you can. Look, I'll prove it to you." *walks out with them*

 

[Belz...]

You're really not very good with this burden of proof thing, are you?

I'm starting to see a pattern, here.

 

[dudalb]

This discussion is no longer fun. And since fun is the only reason to get into a debate with a hard line anarchist,I am out of here.

 

[Mycroft]

Person: "Of course you can. Look, I'll prove it to you." *walks out with them*

Very pithy, but supermarkets already deal with a certain amount of theft. This fantasy theft in your scenario may feel satisfying to you on some level, but it doesn't change the fundamentals of economics.

Wanting a world where everyone gets everything they want just for the taking is a beautiful dream, but it will take a lot more than magical thinking and rage to make it happen.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Of the status quo? Sure. For instance, given that you've brought up the subject in your OP, suppose someone walks into a supermarket and takes what they need - they'd get attacked by your "police" gang while they're ranting about something called "shoplifting". A clear initiation of violence, so it seems a good place for you to start, given your earlier appeals to something called "non-violence".

I think I have a solution to this supermarket dilemma, that simultaneously allows the supermarket to exist, properly funded, and also allows people to take what they want if they need to.

Set it up on a co-op model. Merchandise will be priced to meet expenses and operating costs while also maintaining a reasonable economic cushion.

RFID technology already exists to scan an entire grocery cart, so we'll use that.

It's assumed that most but not all people who use the supermarket will pay for their items. They can pay full price, above full price, or any fraction of full price they feel is appropriate to their situation including nothing at all.

A running total is kept of merchandise taken and merchandise paid for.

"Full price" includes the cost of your merchandise, plus a "tax" to cover the merchandise taken but not paid for. Because this tax could change from day to day, it's posted so people know ahead of time. "The non-payer tax today is 7%", or whatever the math happens to come to.

Such a system would be very socially conscious, and stable so long as it's not abused too badly.

 

[theprestige]

Unfortunately a co-op would still require anarchists to produce something, so it's a non-starter.

 

[caveman1917]

I think I have a solution to this supermarket dilemma, that simultaneously allows the supermarket to exist, properly funded, and also allows people to take what they want if they need to.

Set it up on a co-op model. Merchandise will be priced to meet expenses and operating costs while also maintaining a reasonable economic cushion.

RFID technology already exists to scan an entire grocery cart, so we'll use that.

It's assumed that most but not all people who use the supermarket will pay for their items. They can pay full price, above full price, or any fraction of full price they feel is appropriate to their situation including nothing at all.

A running total is kept of merchandise taken and merchandise paid for.

"Full price" includes the cost of your merchandise, plus a "tax" to cover the merchandise taken but not paid for. Because this tax could change from day to day, it's posted so people know ahead of time. "The non-payer tax today is 7%", or whatever the math happens to come to.

Such a system would be very socially conscious, and stable so long as it's not abused too badly.

What if nobody pays (or at least not enough)?

 

[Ziggurat]

Wanting a world where everyone gets everything they want just for the taking is a beautiful dream, but it will take a lot more than magical thinking and rage to make it happen.

Indeed. It would take actual magic.

 

[Mycroft]

What if nobody pays (or at least not enough)?

Then it would be a failure, but I think enough people would be willing to pay that it wouldn't be. There are many museums and other attractions that charge a "suggested donation", and the majority people pay it.

What's your opinion?

 

[caveman1917]

Then it would be a failure

And then what? No more goods distribution?

What's your opinion?

People won't pay. Which leads us to the question: why should they? If people can take what they need for free then what should the workers be paid for?

 

[Mycroft]

And then what? No more goods distribution?

If the store fails then it cannot distribute goods.

People won't pay. Which leads us to the question: why should they?

Enlightened self interest or altruism? Why do people at Starbucks drive through often pay for the order of the car behind them? Why do people give to charity?

If people can take what they need for free then what should the workers be paid for?

Which workers are you referring to?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

Then it would be a failure, but I think enough people would be willing to pay that it wouldn't be. There are many museums and other attractions that charge a "suggested donation", and the majority people pay it.

What's your opinion?

Are there any museums that subsist entirely on such donations?

 

[theprestige]

And then what? No more goods distribution?

No more goods production.

 

[caveman1917]

If the store fails then it cannot distribute goods.

The store didn't fail, you failed to manage it properly. If you have too few incoming tokens relative to your required outgoing tokens so as to replenish your stocks, then you either have to acquire more incoming tokens or reduce your required outgoing tokens. Such is elementary.

Enlightened self interest or altruism?

No that's not what I mean. If goods are free then why would workers still need to be paid? What would they use the money for if they can just get what they need for free?

Why do people give to charity?

Because indulgences have fallen out of favour.

Which workers are you referring to?

The ones at the distribution facility you are taking the role of managing.

 

[Mycroft]

The store didn't fail, you failed to manage it properly. If you have too few incoming tokens relative to your required outgoing tokens so as to replenish your stocks, then you either have to acquire more incoming tokens or reduce your required outgoing tokens. Such is elementary.

On what basis do you assume the store wouldn't receive enough "incoming tokens"?

No that's not what I mean. If goods are free then why would workers still need to be paid? What would they use the money for if they can just get what they need for free?

I think it's up to you to answer questions about your pet system, isn't it?



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Are there any museums that subsist entirely on such donations?

Yes, but I'd add that for the ones that don't supplemental income in addition to what they collect at the gate is the norm.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[caveman1917]

On what basis do you assume the store wouldn't receive enough "incoming tokens"?

On what basis do you assume it would?

I think it's up to you to answer questions about your pet system, isn't it?

My pet system? You're the one who just made it up.

 

[caveman1917]

No more goods production.

Why would that be?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would that be?

Because there's no longer a reason to produce goods.