Should we move to local communities/economies?

Your mom…

Your fat ugly mom.

Why are moms always slandered? Can’t you all pick on Dads for once???

He doesn’t have one.

This thread started off useful, let’s stop bickering and give somebody a chance to respond to the OP.

I did respond to the OP. I should add that Australia would not be able to have local govts either for the same reasons as the Americas

@ Diethert
First of all I would like to thank you for this interesting topic!

Globalism is the Synthesis of liberalism/nationalism i[/i] and egalitarianism/communism i[/i]. (Cp. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Dialektik). According to Hegel the Synthesis will be set - after its success - as a new Thesis and will be attacked by a new Antithesis, and the latter is what McKibben has probably done. But I haven’t read McKibben’s book!

I agree. But unfortunately the devolopment of the globalism will end for 99% of the people in local economies anyway - very poor ones. So there will be no autarky, but very poor local economies - stemmed from exploited ex-nations - and very rich global economies. You can call this goal feudalism.

So the probability that local economies will not work is high. Let’s take the little chance?

Durability is very important when it comes to local economies because the enemy is not sleeping during that time.

This argument supports the idea of local econmies - b.t.w.: this idea is not new -, but this argument is not really needed because there can be a real energy crisis or a artificial energy crisis.

My thoughts on local communities are confident and unconfident ones. As idealist I want this idea to be realised, at first more partially, at last globally - without any globalic or globalistic rulers! But as realist I don’t want this idea to be realised, because the probability that local economies don’t work is high!

What do you exactly mean with the word “they”? The local communities? What do you exactly mean with “too deal in theory”?

Human beings are very greedy, but perhaps not greedy enough, so that local communities have a chance.

This reminds me of the question of my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? I asked this question because I am not sure and have to calculate with probability. 80% vs. 20% for example. 20% is not too less. There is a chance.

A “progress” isn’t always a progress. You know what I mean?

It is possible but very difficult to realise. So there is a little chance (see my text above).

20 years are too less time, I think.

Local communities must pay very much attention in order to prevent ( =; ) egalitarianism/communism (se my text above).

Therefore “local communities” is probably the wrong term, the wrong concept. What about the term, the concept “local corporations” or (for me: better!) “Allmende” or “Gemeinde”?

The probability that such local corporations will remain under the control of the globalists is very high because the globalistic corporations / companies are more powerful than all nations together - their business volume is higher than all gross national product / gross national income together - tendency: increasing!

Under the control of the gloablists local communities / corporations are unfortunately no autonomous local economies, no autonomous societies, no autonomous political units, and so on. So the probability that local communities / corporations don’t work is high. Let’s take the little chance?

@ Eric the Pipe

First of all I want to compliment you on your signature.

This sentence makes shortly clear what exploitation is and especially who the greatest exploiter is.

You don’t see any chance, even any little like I do?

If a critical point has passed, redistribution leads to poverty. That’s known. There is no exception in history.

That’s known. Nobody can deny that an overacted redistribution leads to poverty.

Social justice is merely a rhetoric term.

The „third party“ is always the ruler.

Thank you, it’s sort of a quote of a couple of other people that have said similar things. I claim no responsibility for its genius.

Eh, I am a curmudgeon. A lack of belief in people is a requirement. Regardless of intent, ultimately what decides what is redistributed and to who is still people. They are all bastards, I should know, I’ve spent some time as one.

Knowing the critical point would require understanding beyond what we are currently capable.

Yet many do.


Yes, but oddly, not necessarily does this require it to be government, in a official capacity. The Third party must have the power to enforce their beliefs, that is all.

Sorry, true.

James, I recommended you to open a thread: “AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY”. Here.
Now I recommend you to open a thread: “ANENTROPIC MOLECULARISATION”.

But please first “Affectance Ontology”, then “Anentropic Molecularisation”.

IN US (the new USSR) and EU (EUSSR) “communism” and “socialism” are alraedy installed:

You “merely” have to add “capitalism”. And that will never happen in US (the new USSR) and EU (EUSSR).

So local communities/economies could perhaps be a solution. But the rulers forbid them. So what will happen in the next decades?

Economic localism or regionalism is certainly a better alternative to globalism.

A lot more decentralized also. I would describe myself as an anarchist capitalist where local communities and economies would be the only way to go.

Of course I don’t see a lot of this happening until after the major nation states collapse because they will never tolerate that sort of insolence from us concerning their very centralized state planned economies.

Kriswest, a global government supporter in the making? Could it be?

Whispers in ear Your neo-liberalism is showing…

Do you support big daddy government?

Oh hon, I have been pro global government since I was a kid. Nope not, socialist nor communist or even capitalist. You figure it out. :slight_smile:

A stooge?

If labeling me is a convenient way for you to dismiss the substance of my post then this is all the response that you get.

Government is an inevitability. Do you want them to be nice, or do you want them to be mean?

Well, you do come off as a neo liberal.

When is government ever nice?

Yes, it is inevitable that a group of assholes want to come together in forming an organization who’s sole purpose is to control and oppress everybody else which such an organization is exactly what government consists of.

History however is a pendulum that swings back and fourth between government, chaos, and anarchy.

Government is inevitable just as much as its demise and collapse is also. Governments never last very long as history can allude to.

Governments are not always supplanted by another government either given that enough anarchy and chaos in motion can render a place stateless for a very long time. :smiley:

It’s all a matter of preference at the end of the day. It’s all a matter of what you prefer.

Really? A person that does not agree with you deserves to be insulted? Why? What do you get out of that?

That local or regional systems have to have their own financial system too, else the globalism exists furthermore. Only saying “ecomomic” is not enough, one has to say “economic including the financial system”, else the globalists say “yes” and save their financial system. That local or regional systems must have their own currency. So this currency must be absolutely isolated from other currencies. Politicians must be descended from the same local or regional society as the other members of that local or regional society, and politicians must be aged 50 to under 70 years. The local or regional society must have less than 1000 inhabitants. The rate of population growth must be always between —0.1 and +0.1. Ist that what you would like?