Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 830081" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Are resources that unequal to begin with or does the idea of a pre-eminent culture prohibit all manner and type resources from coming into play? For example, could some cultures (we'll call Alice, Ted and Carol) use some form of vegetable oil in place of petro but then if that happened and that idea caught on among others, what would that do to Bob's culture that held the pre-eminent position obtained by privilege? What would happen to Bob's superior culture's monetary unit if it was based on petro oil and some vegetable or other plant oil thanks to Alice began to replace it on a larger market? What if Ted and Carol preferred Alice's monetary unit over Bob's, would Bob need to enforce his monetary unit privilege (we'll call monopoly) to maintain economic if not total superiorty? </p><p> </p><p>If Bob no longer held control of production and distribution over Alice's oil, how could Bob tax it or even regulate it in any way? Could just any local yocal grow the plant, press it for oil and run it in his own car? What would stop Alice and her friends from forming a local non-profit co-op to grow, press and distribute oil in their local community to the economic benefit to all? How could Bob control Alice's production for the purpose of economic planning or Alice control Bob's for that matter when all are free to seek out the best available resources and thus use best allocation of resources to those ends? </p><p> </p><p>This also begs the question, would a true free market harm a pre-eminent society who had used heirarchial privilege, which we call Bob and then actually benefit a more equitable environment to the equality of Alice and even allow her to compete on equal terms with Bob? Does this then benefit an economic environment based on mutual benefit to all and not to Bob's one sided manifest destiny and exceptionalism? In a true free market, can Bob use a granter of privilege as an enforcer of said privilege to force Alice to labor and pay for Bob's privileged position? If true freed markets make impossible for someone to hold a position of monopoly as privilege issuer in the first place (no one to give Bob his goodies), how can any privilege thus causing the inequality to even exist in the first place?</p><p> </p><p>And lastly, would the privilege enjoyed by Bob's exceptionalism been a result of naturally occuring events or would the privilege have come at the hand of force and who would own this monopoly of force so as to disadvantge Alice in order to advantage Bob?</p><p> </p><p>Or consider this scenario. Bob held the superiority position and Ted found oil on his land. Problem was, Ted was under a culture run by Carol and Carol was willing to let Ted do with the oil as he pleased since the oil was on his land and thus his. Now this arrangement harmed Bob's economic situation so Bob conspired with Alice to remove Carol from her position and then once Alice had everything under her control, Alice would nationalize Ted's oil. What Ted was unaware of, on the surface Bob was constantly condemning Alice and her actions yet behind the scenes, Bob had John acting as his agent and was buying Ted's oil from Alice at cheap prices but Alice greatly benefited from other reciprocial agreements with Bob. The only thing Alice had to do was control Ted and Carol with an iron fist so they never discovered her arrangement with Bob. Hmmmm!</p><p> </p><p>Just a few thoughts and questions of my own!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 830081, member: 2189"] Are resources that unequal to begin with or does the idea of a pre-eminent culture prohibit all manner and type resources from coming into play? For example, could some cultures (we'll call Alice, Ted and Carol) use some form of vegetable oil in place of petro but then if that happened and that idea caught on among others, what would that do to Bob's culture that held the pre-eminent position obtained by privilege? What would happen to Bob's superior culture's monetary unit if it was based on petro oil and some vegetable or other plant oil thanks to Alice began to replace it on a larger market? What if Ted and Carol preferred Alice's monetary unit over Bob's, would Bob need to enforce his monetary unit privilege (we'll call monopoly) to maintain economic if not total superiorty? If Bob no longer held control of production and distribution over Alice's oil, how could Bob tax it or even regulate it in any way? Could just any local yocal grow the plant, press it for oil and run it in his own car? What would stop Alice and her friends from forming a local non-profit co-op to grow, press and distribute oil in their local community to the economic benefit to all? How could Bob control Alice's production for the purpose of economic planning or Alice control Bob's for that matter when all are free to seek out the best available resources and thus use best allocation of resources to those ends? This also begs the question, would a true free market harm a pre-eminent society who had used heirarchial privilege, which we call Bob and then actually benefit a more equitable environment to the equality of Alice and even allow her to compete on equal terms with Bob? Does this then benefit an economic environment based on mutual benefit to all and not to Bob's one sided manifest destiny and exceptionalism? In a true free market, can Bob use a granter of privilege as an enforcer of said privilege to force Alice to labor and pay for Bob's privileged position? If true freed markets make impossible for someone to hold a position of monopoly as privilege issuer in the first place (no one to give Bob his goodies), how can any privilege thus causing the inequality to even exist in the first place? And lastly, would the privilege enjoyed by Bob's exceptionalism been a result of naturally occuring events or would the privilege have come at the hand of force and who would own this monopoly of force so as to disadvantge Alice in order to advantage Bob? Or consider this scenario. Bob held the superiority position and Ted found oil on his land. Problem was, Ted was under a culture run by Carol and Carol was willing to let Ted do with the oil as he pleased since the oil was on his land and thus his. Now this arrangement harmed Bob's economic situation so Bob conspired with Alice to remove Carol from her position and then once Alice had everything under her control, Alice would nationalize Ted's oil. What Ted was unaware of, on the surface Bob was constantly condemning Alice and her actions yet behind the scenes, Bob had John acting as his agent and was buying Ted's oil from Alice at cheap prices but Alice greatly benefited from other reciprocial agreements with Bob. The only thing Alice had to do was control Ted and Carol with an iron fist so they never discovered her arrangement with Bob. Hmmmm! Just a few thoughts and questions of my own! :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
The Conundrum of Any Free People
Top