There's a technobabble answer on the site, but the short version is, you don't, you apparently just talk about it all day until *poof*, Nirvana comes and we all live in harmony with no need for private property or capital or any of those icky things that evil capitalists enforce upon The People.

Seriously CM, do you go out of your way to find all these things? I haven't exactly done a survey, but you've got an excellent collection of variations on the same thing. Granted none of them have answers for the criticisms that were asked the first time you posted one of these things, but I have to give you credit for persistence.

He's a 15 year old who rides the short bus to school every day... Haven't you figured that out, strat?

@Thucy: Why would it need to be enforced?

@Draug: My mom drives me actually. I live to far away to walk (2 miles) and the bus doesn't come down to where I live.

@Draug - I reserve hope, he's shown a willingness to change his views when smacked by a large enough clue bat

@ CM - ok, if you're not going to enforce it, how are you going to get the huge number of people who would see it as foolhardy to conform?

@stratagos: Convince them it's not foolhardy.

Most likely by starting a small mutualist community to show that it is possible.

Well, *here's your chance*! Convince me.

Note that convincing me will require a better response to questions about how problems would be handled than just basically stating "that won't happen. Duh", which is effectively what you've done before

@CM -

You're either the most idealistic person on the planet (not necessarily a bad thing), or completely crazy. Part of the problem with mutualism is that it gets exponentially harder to implement as the group gets larger. Once you start talking about an entire nation of 350 million people or so, you're looking at something impossible to implement. Just because it works in a small mutualist group doesn't mean it'll work on a large scale.

Oh and another problem, in your small mutualist community, EVERYONE will want to get it to work, meaning it might actually work. In real life, not everyone will want to get it to work, hence your problems increase.

@Stratagos: As I said I'll convince people by showing them it can work, but I'll still try to convince you. Now, what exactly do you see that is wrong with my system.

If you're going to perform an honest experiment, your community will have to be completely self sufficient, as input from outside 'capitalistic' sources would skew your results. How do you intend to grow enough food? How do you intend to manufacture what you need? How do you intend to generate power? How do you intend to entertain people?

If you can't meet those four goals in a way that is perceived as superior to the current system, what motive would people have to switch?

"...what we always meant by socialism wasn't something you forced on people, it was people organizing themselves as they pleased into co-ops, collectives, communes, unions.... And if socialism really is better, more efficient than capitalism, then it can bloody well compete with capitalism. So we decided, forget all the statist s**t and the violence: the best place for socialism is the closest to a free market you can get!"

And it turns out that it cannot compete with capitalism.

Conservative Man, at least I credit you with wishing to respect individual rights. It is a trait that the left all to often fails in. It is not that you want to leave capitalism as such, but rather than you want people to behave differently in a laissez-faire system. I have much more time for that view than for the view that people should be forced into doing what someone else thinks is right.

"In real life, not everyone will want to get it to work, hence your problems increase." So you're saying that people will WANT to make society not work? Because that makes no sense.

Using star trek replicators and antimatter is cheating, btw ;)

"How do you intend to grow enough food? How do you intend to manufacture what you need? How do you intend to generate power? How do you intend to entertain people?" If I have a large enough community (say, 50,000) those will all function as they do now.

Really?

Can you name a single community of 50,000 that is completely self sufficient in food production, manufacturing capability, and power generation?

No CM, I'm saying not everyone will want YOUR society of mutualism to work. They will want to hold on to capitalism or socialism or whatever form of government they currently have. Some people aren't going to be convinced by a very small scale success and thus, when you try to implement a larger scale project (Side note, how would you actually get this to happen? Have government decide to eliminate itself?) people wouldn't be willing to assist/do the necessary things for the system to work.

Also, like TGM, I applaud your respect for individual rights. That at least, is one thing we can agree on 100%. Government tramping on citizens' rights is a big no-no.

@Drano: But if everyone accepted my society, then everyone will want it to work. I don't plan on starting it large-scale until everyone wants it.

@stratagos: We don't know if it could because all communities currently get benefits from the outside. However, with that many people, I have reason to believe that there would be enough people to provide all of those services.

CM -

The problem is that you're still not giving any real answers. You're just saying "It will work the same way" or "I have reason to believe". Well "We have reason to believe" that it won't work. Is that an acceptable response to your criticisms? We're throwing out real arguments and you're just throwing back straw-man answers.

@Ghost: But I believe that I have a right to do anything. I have a right to kill you. You of course also have the right to not be killed, so you have the right to defend yourself if I were to try to kill you. As I posted on another thread: Don't like murder? Then don't kill someone, and shut the fuck up. Don't like theft? Then don't steal, and shut the fuck up.

@Drano: That is why I'm going to test it out. You are using a straw-man by not acknowledging that I will test it out.

@Drano: I told you why I had reason to believe. That is an argument.

No, I believe earlier in this thread (or another) that I gave my blessing to your trial. But a small community trial of say 500, is NOT representative of society as a whole. You can't say that because it works for 500, it'll work for 500,000 or 5,000,000 or 300,000,000.

I just think you're underestimating exactly how complex society is and just how hard it is to get everything working. The common man (myself included) has absolutely NO idea how much work is done to keep society running.

What 'reason', CM? Have you done an analysis of the requirements to house and employ 50,000 people? What generating capacity will be required? What the power source will be, and where the fuel will come from if you're not relying on renewables?

The acreage that will need to be in cultivation? The ideal mix of crops? The percentage of the labor force that will be involved in agriculture? The percent that will be manufacturing tractors? The source of fuel for those tractors? The source of pesticides?

The area that will have the raw materials available to build a self sufficient community? The substitutes that will be used when elements are not present in the area? The current political structure of the area, and the likelihood that the inhabitants will be willing to either move or join the program?

The skills that will be necessary? What to do if not enough people want to take the garbage out or be doctors or mine coal or farm?

You have a vague idea. If you want people to risk their lives - and that's exactly what you're requesting - you're going to have to do a little better than that

@Drano: After it works for 1000, I'll increase to 10000, then 50000, then 100000, and so on, until it stops working (which I don't think it ever will).

@CM - 50,000 people is not enough to have a self-sustaining community. Also, it's not just about the number of people bu tthe acreage and the quality of the land. You can't just plant crops anywhere. you need a reliable water table with fertile soil. And you need more fertile soil to grow the grasses for your livestock. You'd need 15,000 acres to feed a 50,000 person community using all the most modern equipment and you won't have that equipment becasue of the seclusion required for your experiment. So you'll need 8-10 acres per peron, or 450,000 acres of farmland just to feed your 50,000 people. That's 700+ square miles just for the farmland. The entire Greater Cincinnati area (2 million plus people) is about that size. And then you need a place for them to live and not everyone is going to have the aptitude or willingness to work on a farm. And what happens when someone gets sick or hurt. You need doctors and nurses and a hospital (at least one) and a university to train them (do you really want the widwife to take out your appendix when it is about to burst?) It's a pipe dream and not realistic. even if you got manufacturers to go along and move their businesses, they have outside supliers and you'd need coal and oil and water with a sanitation plant as well as some means of producing electricity. you aren't going to convince people your way is better by showing them they can go back to the 19th century when people read books by candlelight in the rural areas. People will *not* give up the luxuries we have come to expect as basic needs like clean fresh water and sewers and electricity.

@Stratagos: I'm in high school. I still have a while before I try to implement this.

@Drano: "The common man (myself included) has absolutely NO idea how much work is done to keep society running." That's true, but I am sure that the work does not need to be performed by the government.