On 02.11.2012 14:19, StealthMonger wrote:
My main quarrel would be that when he writes of doing things "as a
society" he probably means single decisions applied to all and
imposed
on dissidents by force.
Yes, sometimes single decisions are needed. Such as the descision
that poluting the river is not allowed. And yes, sometimes "dissidents"
need to be restrained by force, such as those that persist in poluting
the river.
Denying this fact is not helpfull, it is more helpfull to develop new
ways that we can address this in a transparent, networked, and just way.
What's more, is that such social functions as environmental justice
(among many others) are socially necessary functions that we can not do
without, and as a result, no matter how badly the State performs these
functions currently, we will not be able to move beyond the State until
we have actually existing alternative means of performing them better.
The same is true for the management of money. So long as we use any
form of money, we will need to counter-balance economic cycles and
sectoral balances. This is a simple macroeconomic fact. Not doing so
will result in monatary instability, price instabality, unemployment,
etc.
To do this we need control the supply of money. Taxes are a one of ways
this is done. If we want to move beyond state money, then, just like
with environmental justice, we will need ways to replace the function of
the state,
Thus, networked public forms will none-the-less require taxation,
certainly more just, and certainly as voluntary as possible, but not the
less required.
Best,
--
Dmytri Kleiner
Venture Communist
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
