legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002
I'm not talking about an unequivocal definition, I'm talking about morals. No matter how many research they make on human happiness, spiritual health and the like: I will still want to measure and seek my own happiness myself.
I just don't care what the experts say is good, because I don't believe in good. Talking about experts on happiness and quality of life reminds me the Inquisition and its moral experts.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and his mental health was enforced.
You are discussing the sex of the angels.
Do you agree that starve to death, being enslaved, drink polluted water, have no house and no access to education is
not a desirable thing?
It's certainly a not desirable thing for me. I can't tell if it's not desirable for everyone in the world and for those still to come.
If some rare monks decide they want to starve to reach the nirvana, I wouldn't coerce them to stop their death.
Anyway, the critical point here is education. I don't want a centrally planned education. I don't want a designed culture.
The dog whisperer educating stable dogs comes to mind.
States are coerced by corporations and then states coerce any other corporation/individual that tries to compete. What I claim is that private property and free market is not enough for monopolies to appear. Coercion is needed.
Play it as you like, it's because of profit that all this happens. Try to take you hands off your keyboard, stop thinking, close your eyes, pause, then think again.
You might get it.
That's your answer? No coercion is needed, is all because of profit?
I'll reverse it then. How do you propose to avoid corporations coerce governments? And what do you think it's reason they do so, if it's not for profit and power?
I would remove the incentive for corporations to corrupt governments. The reason, as you said is profit and power. Corporations access this power through governments.
The more governments regulate, the more advantage from the regulations big companies get.
The more big public projects, the more resources go to the big companies that can develop them.
So to reduce the damage of corruption, I would reduce the size and power of the state.
It's because it would destroy the fucking market, that's why. People won't have to enslave themselves, and will have time to read some books, think for themselves and realise that this system is fucked up.
That's why.
If it were for free, you'd do it immediately despite the "fucking market".
Only if enough people had the right values and culture. And they don't.
So you could build the RBE right now but you're waiting for the people of the world to reach the right values?
That's why we want to change the culture.
I want to change the culture too. But you don't need public education (coercion) to change culture.
Sure. In a system of universal access and infinite resources private property would be nonsense.
Corrige: in a system of universal access and
finite resources private property would be
very impractical and useless for most goods.
No. With finite resources private property is very important. Public property results in the
tragedy of the commons.
Private property is compatible with sharing. You're confusing individual property with private property.
I own some tools and games collectively with friends. But we've decided to do so, nobody forced us.
I'm not against voluntary communes.
I just don't believe such a system is possible. If you mean universal access only to food, we still private property for the rest.
Let's start with universal access to the necessities: food, water, house, transportation, education.
You mean the public sector takes care of it. I'm against.
Then you can have all the private property you want, I don't care, as long as it's sustainable.
We can't do anything beyond the carrying capacity of the earth just because it's physically impossible.
Ahahahahahahahahahahah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_DayWe already passed it, a long time ago.
I was including energy reserves such as oil. Maybe I should have said just capacity instead of carrying capacity.
Interesting concept though.
There will be also a day when these "natural savings" won't influence our management of resources. We will manage them within closed cycles.
You mean without reducing the future carrying capacity. You mean thinking in the long term.
Any other way to think about it?
Yes, in the short term as we do today.
The Earth is a system with cycles.
A very complex system complex system indeed, that you claim can be managed centrally. Who's the anthropocentric?
Science can tell us a lot more about soil destruction today, but that technical attempt to end starvation has only lead us to an increased population size and to soil destruction.
Talk to a biochemist, please, or read some scientific literature.
What am I asking them?
Can you just tell me why you think I'm wrong instead of trying to discredit me?
Profit does not require growth. Not even monetary profit. You can make profit, for example, by producing the same good in a more efficient way. By downsizing your company.
Exactly! Technological unemployment.
So, the more efficient you are, the less people will be able to work, the more will starve in a system without universal access.
Don't you see the complete idiocy of this wretched system?
Technological unemployment is another point of disagreement between us.
I think it's just temporal and people will just find another valuable ways to serve one another.
I'll make a prediction about a recently released technology.
Google's Accessory Development Kit (on open source hardware based on arduino and developed for profit) will enable a revolution in automation and will create thousands of new jobs.
Many people will starve to death during the coming energy crises (unless we make a disruptive discovery or invention, like economic nuclear fusion).
No, we won't. We already have disruptive technologies, but underused and underdeveloped due to the profit-structure.
You know what will happen if we discover nuclear fusion? Patents, corporations, same shit over and over, prices just a litte lower than the competition, huge profits.
Fuck that. Let's liberate humanity from this nonsense.
If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.
False.
I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to prove (again) that central planning doesn't work? Fuck that.
False.
False.
In Boole's algebra:
-(-If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve) = If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.
We don't have to speculate, billions are starving right fucking now thanks to your beloved free market.
Time to change, for the better.
We don't have a free market right now. There's more regulations today than ever in history.
The monetary system is flawed and managed by "financial experts" (and indirectly by governments).
Our current monetary system is a great example of a non free market.
But to replace the exponential monetary system you don't want any monetary system at all.
What qualities should have a monetary system for the transition period?
As I stated, what I care about is universal access of basic necessities and sustainability. You can have the monetary system of your choice within those boundaries, I don't care.
It doesn't matter if the monetary system is flawed and leads to unsustainability?
Can RBE lead us the "good" path? You've already agreed with me that there's no such thing as good.
SECOND TIME:
You are discussing the sex of the angels.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out the conflicts between the absence of absolute values and your proposed central management of resources.
Do you agree that starve to death, being enslaved, drink polluted water, have no house and no access to education is
not a desirable thing?
On the subject of feeding the people of the third world, I would prefer to give them the rod rather than the fish.
5 words: "Confessions of an economic hitman".
Do you agree or not? What I'm going to find in that book?
Also stop abusing them instead of "trying to help" them.
Africa was pretty well fed before our governments (and then our macro-corporations) went there to coerce its peoples.
You are amazing! That's exactly right. And... you know why they did it? That's right! Yes!
PROFIT!Yes, power and profit.
And rapers do rape looking for sex, but that doesn't make sex a bad thing.
What Africa needs is we stop our coercion, not that we stop to seek profits.
"We're in a free market and we have plenty of problems. Therefore, free market causes a lot of problems."
That's not a logical reasoning even if it seems to you.
Furthermore, the premise is false. We're not in a free market, there's more regulations than have ever been.
You've not provided any evidences that prove the free market is incompatible with economic and social sustainability, just examples of non sustainable actions and industries.
Non sustainable actions and industries act on the sole motive of making profit, and that's why they act this way.
So, if you can prove that the "free market" does not seek profit, you may have a point.
Many people in the free market seek monetary profits, I don't deny that.
I deny that's the cause of problems you mentioned.
We're not on a free market and if we where and we still had problems, you still couldn't assure (logically) that the free market is the cause of those problems.
If I kill 40 people within a free market, you can't blame the free market.
Anyway, you haven't answered my question. I'll ask again:
Against all available evidence that shows exactly what i am saying, tell me how that could be possible.
Please, illuminate me.
I've already answered your two questions and you've replied "evidences all around say you're wrong", "Is evident that I'm right, if you can't see it, you've not been properly educated".
What part of my logic is wrong?
What premises are false?
Don't confuse examples and data with proved conclusions.
