Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:39 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:33 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:25 pm (i.e. you seem to be objecting to the very idea of majority rule here)?

I'm not so much objecting to the idea of majority rule as to the idea of FPTP, which your system is based on, even if in a different way than traditional legislative elections.

One could of course object, conversely, to party-list parliamentarian politics on the basis of that the average voter has very little control over the actual politics of the parties if they are not specifically a member of a particular party and involved in its internal politics.

Look over there!

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:33 pm

Travis wrote:One way for this is to have groups established to help provide capital to proposed new companies, funded by other councils such as those for geographical areas or companies, but in a hands-off fashion so as to allow them to specialize in their role of establishing new companies which other organizations would be less suited for, with councils for geographical areas acting in a more general oversight role, just like how municipalities in our present society control things like zoning and utilities.
[...]
I would say that the councils corresponding to geographical areas would get the last word if there were conflicts.

Torco wrote:land in such a system wouldn't be expensive, as you can't profit out of owning it personally, and councils who own land have an incentive to, well, give them to their members (and, depending on the decisions made by provincial councils, might even be free), and having acquired a plot people could probably pick between building one themselves (it's not thaaaat difficult, especially if there's UBI to keep buying food while you build) or comissioning the construction of one to their local mason's guild in exchange for good old money.

I think both these replies miss the NIMBY problem. ("Not In My Backyard.") If people run a neighborhood their impulse will be to keep outsiders out. People don't like change, don't like their views obstructed, don't like a charming one-story bungalow replaced by a six-story apartment house, don't like a big store or factory moving in, prefer the vacant lot over there as a park rather than as a new house, don't like new houses they consider cheap, don't like new houses they consider extravagant.

Leftists often get into a bad habit of blaming "capitalism" for everything. It may make things worse, but it is not responsible for all housing problems. As I noted, an owner-managed building can have spectacular, even unhinged internal politics. And co-ops with impeccable leftist credentials may be no better. Give a local council total control over their area and I guarantee they'll act as described above.

I don't say these problems are un-solveable, just that they require more attention than "oh the councils will happily manage the land."

FWIW, for one group on Almea (the elcari) I posited a very different model of ownership: you own the tools and land you use, you don't own the tools and land you don't. So empty space, including a house no one lives in, can be taken over.

I don't know if Chile is like Peru or Brazil in this regard— generally open land in a shantytown will get used by someone because no one really has land title anyway. But you know, some urban planning is a good thing: it's a hassle to get electricity and water in those shantytowns, or connect them to a sewer system. A better system would keep the ability to claim and build on unused land, but provide better ways to integrate it into the urban infrastructure.

One solution to the NIMBY problem would be to propose NIMBY-prone projects at a higher level than the local neighborhood councils, specifically to give them a degree of insulation from local NIMBY-ism.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:40 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:39 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:33 pm I'm not so much objecting to the idea of majority rule as to the idea of FPTP, which your system is based on, even if in a different way than traditional legislative elections.

One could of course object, conversely, to party-list parliamentarian politics on the basis of that the average voter has very little control over the actual politics of the parties if they are not specifically a member of a particular party and involved in its internal politics.

Look over there!

Yes, this problem is not limited to party-list parliamentarian politics; I was just pointing out that party-list parliamentarian politics is not an automatic solution to problems found in democratic government.

Of course, FPTP representative government does have the definite problem that it's very hard to have more than two major parties due to the strong tendency of third parties to act as spoilers. However, I don't see how the concept of spoilers is really applicable to a council republic, especially as delegates would not be beholden to parties in the first places.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:43 pm

One solution to the NIMBY problem would be to propose NIMBY-prone projects at a higher level than the local neighborhood councils, specifically to give them a degree of insulation from local NIMBY-ism.

Might work. Might be politically difficult in a culture and society which holds the idea of the greatest possible local control by the most local councils possible as one of its most fundamental underlying principles, though.

Of course, FPTP representative government does have the definite problem that it's very hard to have more than two major parties due to the strong tendency of third parties to act as spoilers. However, I don't see how the concept of spoilers is really applicable to a council republic, especially as delegates would not be beholden to parties in the first places.

Any reasonably pluralistic society is going to have different political tendencies and points of view, even if they're not officially called "parties". And my problem with FPTP is not only the two-party/spoiler thing, but the whole possibility that a party or, in your society, tendency might get a lot more or a lot less representation in elected institutions than would be proportional, depending on how their support is geographically distributed.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:53 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:43 pm Of course, FPTP representative government does have the definite problem that it's very hard to have more than two major parties due to the strong tendency of third parties to act as spoilers. However, I don't see how the concept of spoilers is really applicable to a council republic, especially as delegates would not be beholden to parties in the first places.

Any reasonably pluralistic society is going to have different political tendencies and points of view, even if they're not officially called "parties". And my problem with FPTP is not only the two-party/spoiler thing, but the whole possibility that a party or, in your society, tendency might get a lot more or a lot less representation in elected institutions than would be proportional, depending on how their support is geographically distributed.

One solution to this problem would be to make use of multiple delegates per lower-level council with ranked-choice voting for selection, where the top N choices get elected, as you seemed to suggest. As for your objection to recalls in this scenario, one solution to that problem would be to limit recalls to those who voted for a given delegate, so if delegates Alice, Bob, and Carol get elected, but then delegate Bob did something to piss off the people who voted for him they could vote to recall him, but people who only voted for Alice or Carol could not choose to recall Bob. The only problem with this, though, is that it would make it impossible to implement a secret vote, so if a secret vote is desired, then it would be necessary to vote for a recall on any of the delegates and vote for them together all over again, where people could again vote in Alice and Carol but could choose to vote for Dave instead of Bob.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 6:04 pm
One solution to this problem would be to make use of multiple delegates per lower-level council with ranked-choice voting for selection, where the top N choices get elected, as you seemed to suggest. As for your objection to recalls in this scenario, one solution to that problem would be to limit recalls to those who voted for a given delegate, so if delegates Alice, Bob, and Carol get elected, but then delegate Bob did something to piss off the people who voted for him they could vote to recall him, but people who only voted for Alice or Carol could not choose to recall Bob. The only problem with this, though, is that it would make it impossible to implement a secret vote, so if a secret vote is desired, then it would be necessary to vote for a recall on any of the delegates and vote for them together all over again, where people could again vote in Alice and Carol but could choose to vote for Dave instead of Bob.

OK, that could work! Thank you for thinking about this.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:40 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:33 pm
FWIW, for one group on Almea (the elcari) I posited a very different model of ownership: you own the tools and land you use, you don't own the tools and land you don't.

Hm, if I understand Travis correctly, that seems to be more or less what he's proposing in that regard.

Yes, that is essentially what I am proposing.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:33 pmI think both these replies miss the NIMBY problem. ("Not In My Backyard.") If people run a neighborhood their impulse will be to keep outsiders out. People don't like change, don't like their views obstructed, don't like a charming one-story bungalow replaced by a six-story apartment house, don't like a big store or factory moving in, prefer the vacant lot over there as a park rather than as a new house, don't like new houses they consider cheap, don't like new houses they consider extravagant.

Leftists often get into a bad habit of blaming "capitalism" for everything. It may make things worse, but it is not responsible for all housing problems. As I noted, an owner-managed building can have spectacular, even unhinged internal politics. And co-ops with impeccable leftist credentials may be no better. Give a local council total control over their area and I guarantee they'll act as described above.

I don't say these problems are un-solveable, just that they require more attention than "oh the councils will happily manage the land."

FWIW, for one group on Almea (the elcari) I posited a very different model of ownership: you own the tools and land you use, you don't own the tools and land you don't. So empty space, including a house no one lives in, can be taken over.

I don't know if Chile is like Peru or Brazil in this regard— generally open land in a shantytown will get used by someone because no one really has land title anyway. But you know, some urban planning is a good thing: it's a hassle to get electricity and water in those shantytowns, or connect them to a sewer system. A better system would keep the ability to claim and build on unused land, but provide better ways to integrate it into the urban infrastructure.

I quite agree that a common problem with worker-council-based proposals have this flaw of assuming "don't sweat it man, councils will figure it out", but it may be less of a universal problem than one might think: not everywhere is a united states suburb. if there wasn't the expectation of selling your house for a profit, or of keeping the neighbourhood strictly residential and with zero transit options, things might be different. I myself am moving [if the bank allows it, fuck banks tbh] into quite a peripheral area of the metropolitan region [my neighbours across a dirt road will be lemon trees] and people there are not at all opposed to new construction, as being the only house in an area is associated with generally lower property values than being embedded in a zone with a lot of other houses. for another thing, having more neighbours means you're likely to get access to more services, since no one's about to open a minimarket in the middle of nowhere, or an electronic goods store,a sandwich kiosk and etcetera. it also means that you, yourself, might open a little store. getting new neighbours means a possibility of transit options opening up, as no one's about to build a train station in a hill where exactly one person lives, etcetera etcetera.

chile is not so much like peru or brazil, in this regard, though it's more peru-like than, say, france. we have some irregular housing developments and shanty-towns, to be sure, but they're relatively few and the vast majority of houses are built in a more or less orderly manner, according to municipal maps and so on, and irregular development is quite often torn down... then again, sometimes it's not, laguna verde near valparaíso is an interesting example of mostly irregular construction of housing turning into a rather orderly and unproblematic, lovely little town. many boroughs of santiago started out as what we call tomas during the late 20th century (tomas de terreno, meaning a group of people without houses organize themselves, take over a plot, and build. eventually, they get retroactively regularized, though nothing is certain. there are examples of "leave it up to people to build where they may" working not decently well).

i think i'd call the elcari outright comrades. i'm sure they have ways of solving disputes where, say, you use this area of land in the summer, i use it in the winter, no one uses it in the fall or spring, and we get into a pretty heated fight when the situation becomes known to both. I knew there was something iffy about that shoe i found on my land last year, it wasn't my shoe.

Torco wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 8:51 am

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 5:33 pmI think both these replies miss the NIMBY problem. ("Not In My Backyard.") If people run a neighborhood their impulse will be to keep outsiders out. People don't like change, don't like their views obstructed, don't like a charming one-story bungalow replaced by a six-story apartment house, don't like a big store or factory moving in, prefer the vacant lot over there as a park rather than as a new house, don't like new houses they consider cheap, don't like new houses they consider extravagant.
(...)

I quite agree that a common problem with worker-council-based proposals have this flaw of assuming "don't sweat it man, councils will figure it out", but it may be less of a universal problem than one might think: not everywhere is a united states suburb. if there wasn't the expectation of selling your house for a profit, (...)

NIMBY is a problem under the capitalist system; socialism probably wouldn't fix it, but I doubt any system really would, people being people.

Obligatory green tree-hugger quibble: empty or unused land may very well be valuable for its own sake, as natural space.

It can also be a terrible idea to build in some places; like right next to that insignificant little creek that causes spectacular floods once in a generation. (A common problem where I live, that.)

EDIT: the last bit being 'something to think about' rather than criticism... Our current ideas of property are terrible at handling anything related to the environment.

I think that yes, some forms of nimbyism are always going to be a feature of housed life. for example, ain't nobody going to like to live right next door to a sawmill (they're noisy) or a pig farm (they're stinky) or a prison. we might do in future without stinky pig farms, with clearner ways to raise pigs, but i'd be surprised if we did without sawmills.

but there's many other forms of nimbyism that are, as leftoids love to say, direct result of capitalism, or of even more specific features of culture. I'm always surprised when americans tell of their struggles against HOAs rules regarding grass. and of course, there's also the fact that capitalism often just incentivizes workplaces to produce goods in ways that are annoying to neighbours: it's not impossible to make a sawmill less noisy, it's just marginally more expensive.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:20 am Our current ideas of property are terrible at handling anything related to the environment.

Leave out the last four words, and the sentence still works.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 11:16 am

Ares Land wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:20 am Our current ideas of property are terrible at handling anything related to the environment.

Leave out the last four words, and the sentence still works.

Hence why property should be abolished. But at the same time, a terra nullius scheme where any currently-unoccupied- and unused land is free for the taking by anyone who wishes to use it has its own problems, for the very reason mentioned above that it may be a good idea to keep some land unused (for the sake of preserving the natural environment) whereas if anyone can build anywhere they feel no land will remain unbuilt-on for long.

One approach would be to have the councils corresponding to geographical areas manage specifically unused land within their boundaries, rather than having this land simply be free for the taking, with land being set aside for the natural environment and land unbuilt-on but meant for development being dispersed to people building on the land in a democratically-controlled fashion.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 11:37 am
Hence why property should be abolished.

Not sure if I agree generally, but I kind of agree as far as property in economically important things is concerned.

Or in any case, outside of personal belongings, to which extent property rights should or shouldn't be respected should be decided based on what people think is beneficial policy, and not based on pseudo-philosophical notions about inherent rights that are somehow guaranteed by the laws of nature or something.

Suggested new rule: Whenever people use the word "property", as related to ownership, in writing, they should put it in scare quotes. Simply as a reminder that "property" is not some kind of inbuilt property (no pun intended) of the universe, but a human invention, created by human beings, which can be changed and adjusted by human beings.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 12:12 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 11:37 am
Hence why property should be abolished.

Not sure if I agree generally, but I kind of agree as far as property in economically important things is concerned.

Or in any case, outside of personal belongings, to which extent property rights should or shouldn't be respected should be decided based on what people think is beneficial policy, and not based on pseudo-philosophical notions about inherent rights that are somehow guaranteed by the laws of nature or something.

Suggested new rule: Whenever people use the word "property", as related to ownership, in writing, they should put it in scare quotes. Simply as a reminder that "property" is not some kind of inbuilt property (no pun intended) of the universe, but a human invention, created by human beings, which can be changed and adjusted by human beings.

I am of the view that there is no inherent right to 'private property' as it pertains to capital or land at all, and it ought to be replaced with possession based on use or occupancy, as I mentioned earlier.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 12:16 pm
I am of the view that there is no inherent right to 'property' at all, and it ought to be replaced with possession based on use or occupancy, as I mentioned earlier.

As I said, I agree on the "no inherent right" part, but unlike you, I think that to which extent it might be a useful policy to respect and protect property is very much up for discussion.

To get really deep into pedantic nitpicking, I generally don't believe in "inherent" rights, but I do believe in rights where it's a good thing when places are run in such ways that people there can generally expect to have those rights.

'Property' is a useful concept; I just don't agree with its carefully designed sacred cow status.

I know of the anarchist property vs. possession distinction, but tbh it feels more trouble than it's worth.

I don't think small scale ownership of land or capital is that much of a problem. I do recognize small landlords or business owners can be assholes; it's a problem of a vastly different nature than billionaires, and much easier to fix.

Small scale property allows some leeway -- it's not necessary a bad thing, I don't know, to invest in a company you don't work for.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:29 am

I know of the anarchist property vs. possession distinction, but tbh it feels more trouble than it's worth.

Agreed. Sounds like a typical example of the "way too obsessed with specific words and word choices" thing that's so common in some political camps.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:29 am 'Property' is a useful concept; I just don't agree with its carefully designed sacred cow status.

I know of the anarchist property vs. possession distinction, but tbh it feels more trouble than it's worth.

I don't think small scale ownership of land or capital is that much of a problem. I do recognize small landlords or business owners can be assholes; it's a problem of a vastly different nature than billionaires, and much easier to fix.

Small scale property allows some leeway -- it's not necessary a bad thing, I don't know, to invest in a company you don't work for.

The thing is that keeping 'small scale property' means you still essentially preserve capitalism and landlordism by the petit bourgeoisie. That is specifically against what is envisioned here, which is no capitalism and no landlordism, not just only 'small' capitalism and landlordism.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 5:29 amI know of the anarchist property vs. possession distinction, but tbh it feels more trouble than it's worth.

I quite agree. I think one of the ways human society makes ethical progress is in the limitation of what can be treated as property, so it's probably more practical to speak of "banning the ownership of workplaces" for example, than it is to "ban private property", which is comparatively less precise and less expressive.