Anarchist Discussion Forums

what if there was simply a volenteer group that housed and feed 'tourist' these 'tourists' could do the same thing in their hometowns, or work in the 'tourist dstination'. or there is the option like 'couchsurfing' where you have people come stay at your house and visa versa

When the leave is for the whole family will create memories that last a lifetime. Planning is important to take the joy of a family vacation, and it is important to do something for everyone. Consider these ideas for a family vacation to travel, everyone loves it. Tropical holidays are the perfect holiday for everyone. There is so much to see and do as well as a joy just to relax on the beach. Stay at a family resort with activities for all ages, and activities for the whole family to participate together. Family Resort is ideal, because there are other families and children, beach life and a way for yourself.

summer

[color=blue] falls into the localist trap. 9The idea that every small area should be self sufficent). </font color=blue> <br> <br>I see nothing wrong with ensuring all bioregions are self-sufficient. Actually, it can be quite beneficial.

andrewflood - Sorry, I didn't see your original post about this, but I have a question. What do you mean by localism being a trap? Do you mean it's not possible for every community to produce everything the people there need? <br> <br>It seems to me that some communities would not actually be able to directly produce what they need, but they would be able to produce enough to trade with other communities to cover what they don't produce. So they wouldn't be self-sufficient in isolation, but would not have to be subsidized by some external donor. <br> <br>I think a vacation spot would fall into this category, since its location would not primarly be productive (in terms of arable land, etc.). However, it seems to me that the people to keep it running would be the people who are there - both residents and visitors. <br> <br>You mentioned universities. Could you describe how you see those functioning? (If it's not too off-topic.) <br> <br>

it should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar and a self-admitted asshole. <br> <br>his one and only purpose in participating on these forums is antagonization. <br> <br>this is to be expected from a supporter of capitalism and zionism. <br> <br>YMMV, but it's doubtful.

[color=green]Probably better to pick a resort in the US or Europe as an example where current earning differentials are not quite so enormous and which may have some resemblence in a post revolutionary set up to the way they are run today. </font color=green> <br> <br>Okay - the best example I can think of is Monaco. The city-state's income is almost completely from tourism (for resort, for gambling, for racing, etc... it's amazing what they fit in that little city). It has a standard of living (based on per-capita GDP) easily on par with the rest of Western Europe. <br> <br>[color=green]Finally Golbez 'replied' to me with some bizarre bit about goods coming from mexico city but people from mexico city not wanting to go to Cancun. I have no idea what this point is about, unless the idiot imagines anarchists favour a return to barter! </font color=green> <br> <br>Yeah, hi, ya know, I can hear you when you talk out loud. And people think I'm the troll? [img]/wwwthreads/images/icons/mad.gif[/img] <br> <br>You said: [color=blue]If so then they will be providing a useful service and so entitled to import the goods needed to keep that service going. </font color=blue> What I took issue with was the "entitled to import" part. Why is a tourist trap more "entitled to import" than any other region? And, if they aren't, then why even mention an entitlement?

I think in the case of somewhere like Cancun people staying in exchange for doing chores does not make sense and falls into the localist trap. 9The idea that every small area should be self sufficent). <br> <br>In terms of toursit resorts its probably more realistic to think of them as service industries like universities which cannot be simply broken up into small local pieces. So we can expect two things <br>1. A transformation of these industries (ie Cancun stinks if you have to work there BECAUSE its based on econmoic relationship of a couple of dollars a day construction workers and badly paid service workers with 100+ dollar a day earning gringos and Europeans. Probably better to pick a resort in the US or Europe as an example where current earning differentials are not quite so enormous and which may have some resemblence in a post revolutionary set up to the way they are run today. <br> <br>2. As a service industry workers there can expect that they will receive the goods they need for production of that service and for their own needs. It's no different in that way from a bus factory. <br> <br>Finally Golbez 'replied' to me with some bizarre bit about goods coming from mexico city but people from mexico city not wanting to go to Cancun. I have no idea what this point is about, unless the idiot imagines anarchists favour a return to barter! In reality just as we are now only marginally aware of where the goods we produce go so it will be then. The important thing is that they are wanted somewhere, not that we have a direct relationship with every end point consumer!

(On the off chance that some insight into anarchism can result from this thread ....) <br> <br>Responding to the original post, there are ways an "average" location may deal with visitors, or with people who want to live there and not work. But it sounds like the intent of the question is about a places where there is an overwhelming volume of visitors (who may or may not want to work while visiting). I imagine that the people who live full-time in such a place would institute a hostel-type system, where people could stay and get basic services in exchange for a little help with the chores. This exchange does not have to involve money. The converse of this may be that the doors get shut to people who want to visit for a while and not work, if this gets to be a problem. <br> <br>

[color=blue] I expected better from you, Morpheus. Then again, I used to from Kevehs, too. </font color=blue> <br> <br>Your dishonest debating "tactics" eventually drive everyone who tries to be civil with you to eventually cease doing so. Eventually, even oddasudda will get fed up with you.

Golbez I haven't voiced an opinion about your posts before. The reasons I took exception to your post are: 1. This is the anarchism 101 thread for newbies, no heavy theory etc. and not the place to attack or antagonise people. 2. You attacked an ex poster who explained they would not be posting for a while and who you knew wouldn't reply to you. 3. You dressed it up as being helpful, which I think was dishonest. <br>If you want to discuss it further feel free to PM me. <br> <br>As for your original post I find it too vague. I am assuming you're talking about the various options available in an anarchist society. If so I think talk of things being free or not is likely to be irrelevant. Many anarchists envisage a society where items and services have a social rather than monetary value. The decision as to the people in Cancun wanting to remain as a resort would be theirs. If some enjoyed meeting new people regularly then they would be free to continue doing that, just as those who didn't want to would be free to leave and pursue something more to their tastes. <br> <br>As to how the goods and services would be distributed I envisage it would be based on need. If people wanted to visit Cancun they would receive food and shelter to meet their needs. In the same way if people from Cancun wanted to travel to your hometown they would expect to receive food and shelter to meet their needs. That way the rigid roles of tourist and worker would be broken down. <br> <br> <br>

I'd be more than happy to continue my discussions with Golbez somewhere else if you'd stop flooding the boards. However, you aren't spamming because of me, you're spamming because of him. Thus, the decision rests with you - believe me, I'd rather have there be discussion about capitalism than copy-and-pastes of the same god-damned crap.

lol! as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. <br> <br>i don't have any beef with odda. <br> <br>it was suggested to me that i should take my comments about the poster "Golbez" into private communication. since you are one of the few people who seems interested in continuing such discussions with the poster in question, maybe you should consider taking them private? it certainly seems that i'm not the only one who is tired of seeing the cycle of lies followed by apologies follwed by more lies. if you want to participate in that sort of thing, maybe you could consider sparing ther rest of us?

it should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar and a self-admitted asshole who is on this forum for the sole purpose of antagonization. <br> <br>note how he once again openly lies about his behavior on these forums. note how he once again is trying to make it appear as if he has or will ever reform his behavior. <br> <br>note how, despite promising to ignore anonymous posts, he is unable to resist referencing them. <br> <br>this is the kind of behavior that can be expected from supporters of capitalism, who are unable to support their position without lies and deception. <br> <br>YMMV, but it's doubtful. <br> <br>

it should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar who has time and again feigned an interest in discourse in order to antagonize. <br> <br>YMMV, but it's doubtful. <br> <br>

ir should be noted that the poster "Golbez" is a self-admitted liar who is now obviously and openly flaunting it in your face.