The crux of Catchamber's argument appears to be that for society to even do anything it absolutely needs to have a central pervading authority to do anything, or organize anything. And seems to imply that organizationally flat, non-democratic institutions are incapable of doing good; [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation]when they do[/url]. And seems to more-or-less ignore the fundamental flaws in regards to putting all your resources into a single political or NGO-organization. Allyster Smith discusses this in part in the Dictator's Handbook, basically the most powerful governments have the most resources concentrated into a single aspect of their rule, but this aspect or pillar has so much concentrated power that there's not many other pillars around it holding it up, so when it decides to rebel or is destroyed the supporting government collapses and so does the distribution network it upholds.

Cat seems to be proposing that groups or people should hold absolute authority of the means and ways of production, which ended well for the Russian economy when the USSR collapsed (it didn't). He also seems to believe that a group invested with all the surplus food production to feed the poor or everyone else will totally not use this material influence to form its own clique within government to challenge the status quo.

It may be hard to imagine it in the western world, [url=https://seanmunger.com/2015/02/25/the-hunger-of-war-the-somali-famine-of-1991-92/]But interrupting the flow of food and commandeering it to make it go where you want it to go, damn everyone else[/url] isn't an unheard of tactic in recent, contemporary history. To put the full weight of distributing any resource on a single group and individual to people incapable or otherwise procuring it is a setup for disaster or corruption.

We also rope back around to the notion of pride-in-work which I guess by this point is entirely ignored or forgotten.

But you also shoot yourself in the foot over this, and you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You make a point, Cat, that this automated food-growing process is open source which is really the entire anti-thesis to the notion of investing any sort of reliance in single groups or people to advance a project or a mission, since the whole notion of open sourcing is to allow anyone to access the project to use it or further its abilities organically, democratically, and with a management structure.

So really, comparing this to your other thread I can't tell if you're willfully failing to understand what you're saying because you still believe you're right; or you're angry anyone can ever disagree with you so you want someone to say, 'ur rite kiddo'.