Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 109. (Read 288348 times)

That's what you think. But if only one person disagrees with that, your theory goes to the trash can.


I might as well use Harry Potter as a reference. I mean, the bible and Harry Potter are both fiction literature. I mean, you realize that there are atheists in here, don't you?


Universal Evolutive Plan? That sounds like religion to me. I'm an atheist.


I'll repeat it: Lightrider says that "there's no freedom" because he BELIEVES that "There is no free will". But science, at this moment cannot confirm not deny whether there's free will or not, because there's this little thing called Heisenberg uncertainty principle, therefore we DON'T KNOW right now if we live in a causal deterministic world or not. Therefore you cannot scientifically state that there's no free will.

We just don't know.

 You will continue your actions until you experience the consequences of them. That is why our main focus as an movement is making people aware that there are alternatives and that we can choose a better way of life.
[/quote]

THAT'S IT LIGHTRIDER !!!! THIS IS THE LIGHT YOU ARE RIDING !!!

Well, from one extreme to the other.....what a fight !!


"There is no freedom"----------->"You are a member of a cult/set". I am not going to comment on this dispute.

"We all are subject to the laws of nature and the common reality we share"------------>"Science just shows you how nature works, and it's you that have to decide how to apply that knowledge to fulfill your dreams/objectives/morality" .This I like and I am going to comment.....

Of course we are all subject to Nature laws, everybody can agree on this. We, as individuals, are part of a whole and contribute, with our thoughts that generate emotions and feelings that transforms into actions, to a much greater plan of which we are not even able to perceive its existence.

The common reality we share, is thus created by the interactions of our thoughts and, our thoughts, are related to our own "little Worlds". Therefore we all have different thoughts that are linked to the reality we have lived in and continue to live right now. Of course not all the thoughts are different. This is easy to understand

To understand how nature works by means of scientific methods, is very important and meaningful. And It is true that this knowledge, if properly applied, would be useful to fulfill your ambitions.

But, what are these ambitions that we have ? Surely all of us have different goals and different levels of personal satisfaction, but if we scream off all the surface and go deep into the real meaning of our ambitions, we would see that we are all searching for the same thing :  Loved.

This might sound strange to most of you but try to suspend your judgment for a while in order to follow this little piece of knowledge that I am sharing with you.

In order to be Loved, we should first learn how to Love. This is a "spiritual law ". Actually the most important one. References can be found in the New testament when Jesus said to his disciples : " I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another". John 13:34. There are others of course.

The word Love, does not have to be misunderstood as a term that describes a "sentiment", this is not the case. By Love it is intended a total let go of our material interests in order to follow the Universal Evolutive Plan.

In order to do this, Freedom is essential. Cannot be otherwise. Saying that there is no freedom and that we are all subject to the law of nature, my dear Ligthrider, it is not possible since one thing exclude the other ! But I might have missed your point on this and if this is the case, I apologize.

I'm still not sure how these ideological allegiances relate to a "resource based econonomy". Is the world economy today not already "resource based" in large part? How is it beneficial to give this concept such a vague name? It's hard to be against something as broad as a "resource based economy", it's basically something that goes without saying for economies everywhere to some degree.

Do you know anything of physics at all? SCIENCE and PHYSICS tell us that, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we DON'T KNOW right now if we live in a causal deterministic world or not. Therefore you cannot scientifically state that there's no free will.

But this is something too deep for the mind of a sect/cult member, I must recognize.


You can create dollars from debt. But dollars are not debt.

You release shit to the world every time you go to defecate, but that doesn't mean you are a shit-man   Indeed there's more shit created by you than your body mass, and in the same way there are more dollars than debt at any given time.

Never minds if there's free will or not for this case. I agree with you in that: if you accept determinism there's no such thing as free will. But when we talk about freedom we just mean the opposite of social control.
What we can't understand is how you disable people from wasting resources without any kind of money nor social control/planned economy.
Just with education?
Ok, but that's not new: Jesus also believed that education was enough to achieve social harmony.
Are you that innocent?

Not always. The fed issues dollars simply by buying things. If what they buy is, for example, US bonds or a debt (at interest) from a bank, then you're reasoning can be applied. But they can buy stocks, ETFs, gold, bitcoins or just tons of shit if they want.
Not that I like the Fed, but that's how it works.

Progress occurs in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. Trade secrets, patents, copyright and a corrupt legislative and legal system work to inhibit the free flow of ideas, cooperation and faster progress. We are stuck with medieval institutions and methodologies that have been around for centuries despite our enormous advancements in productivity and capability. Servicing the profit motive is no way to make things better for people. If we each understood that the individual does better when all of society does better, then personal profit would not be rewarded as much as it is now.


There is no free will. Your actions, thoughts and ideas are limited to the experiences and environment you have developed in. You will continue your actions until you experience the consequences of them. That is why our main focus as an movement is making people aware that there are alternatives and that we can choose a better way of life. Our model has nothing in common with historical failed experiments in social control.

Dollars are debt. The creation of dollars starts with loan origination. All dollars are brought into existence through loans. All dollars represent debts.

That is one of the fascinating things about free will trades. Neither party would engage in it if they thought they would be worse off. Hence the only logical conclusion is that both parties are better off after these exchanges. In our example war would not be a necessary outcome, since if the price was not acceptable to the one party they would simply not engage in it.

Prices are the result of perceptions and those perceptions guide people to decide what projects to tackle, what work to accept or reject and what products to buy. It indicates roughly to them what effort they are supposed to expend to get what they want. Since they can only get what they want by giving others what they want, this is how society is built economically and progresses. It is what drives innovation and is responsible for all the computer based technological advancement in the past 40 years. Speeds double every year due to profit seeking, not academic science. Engineers and scientists are hired to solve the problem of increasing computer capacities and apply their skill set to that problem. This in turn leads them to discover that which would have laid undiscovered had it not been for an economic price motivation. So both economic prosperity and science are furthered. To cut out one is to cut out both, progress will completely stop.

Here is what it boils down to. If you perceive my actions as wasteful and I refuse to act differently out of my own free will, you must either suffer the collapse of your model or resort to central planning to get me to act differently. If I do not submit to the central plan, then again you must either suffer the collapse of your model (since people are acting "wastefully" and not co-operating) or you must somehow force me to do it.

Historically this is what has happened to communist countries, if the absence of free will action, and being unwilling to suffer the collapse of their model, communist governments have resorted to forcing their populous as gunpoint to execute the central plan. Once this forcing mechanism is in place things deteriorate rapidly as people are no longer able to make their own subjective decisions about what is good for them and are told to continually submit to some "authority" on the matter.

There it goes. You are a member of a cult/sect, you just demonstrated it with the "there's no freedom" sentence. BTW:

There's no scientific theory on whether you should use nuclear power plants or solar panels. You are comparing science with politics and morality and that's absurd. You might think that you haven't entered the realms of morality and politics but you HAVE. Maybe you will disagree on this subject, but then I must conclude that your reasoning is blocked by you sect/cult.

Science says something like: nuclear power plants harvest a lot of energy per mass of uranium, and create nuclear waste. Solar cells are created through a process that contaminates a lot of liters of water and releases a lot of CO2, and harvest energy from the sun with a 15-20% efficiency. Science, and the scientific method, does NOT tell you which option to choose. Science just shows you how nature works, and it's you that have to decide how to apply that knowledge to fullfill your dreams/objectives/morality.

Science doesn't tell you if you should gun somebody. Science just tells you that the bullet will hit that person at a certain velocity and it will probably provoke his death. Should you shoot that somebody? should you build that bridge? Should you use currencies or a resource based economy? Should you create prisons? Should you live in a planned economy society? Science won't decide any of that for you.  Science will (maybe) make some predictions on the result of your decision, but making the decision is absolutely out of the realms of science, and of the scientific method.

Such use would have been developed over time with tradition being the enforcement mechanism. Any sufficiently advanced society is held together by tradition, the propagation of the dominant culture. Once again, its value is based on opinion, as opposed to the obvious value of necessary resources, animals, food and manufacturing material. Certainly its value as a currency is obvious, but beyond that it would be subject to all the forces that affect currency. Group A might have a different opinion about the worth of gold since they live in an area with far more of it than group B. The enforcement mechanism in this case is force of violence if the groups do not come to an agreement.


There are no rights. My reaction to your perceived wasteful behavior depends entirely on my previous experiences in the environment that sustained me. If I have had a limited education and lacked the skills or abilities necessary to engage you with different and possibly better ideas about resource management, then I might use force as my only option. If you lack the education or critical thinking skills to understand that my ideas are better, or have an aberrant value set that doesn't allow you to understand the consequences, and I am unwilling or unable to use force to alter your behavior, then we both suffer for your wasteful actions, assuming that they do in fact lead to negative outcomes. I know that is not a simple answer, but it is necessary to point out the inadequacy of your question.

Well here I disagree because two societies could trade with gold because both realised it served as a good medium of exchange. No central enforcement was necessary. Both parties were willing to accept it, both recognized it as being in their best interest. This is important since they had an independent yard stick by which they could measure the worth of their production and the production of others. With sound money you can only enrich yourself if you produce what others need and are willing to trade for.


That is not what I asked. Do I have the right to misspend what I've produced?
Or rather, do you have the right to force me to spend or produce in a fashion you deem better than my own judgement, even if you are correct?

Let me try to summarize your words since you seem to have difficulties with straight answers.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but try to be concrete.


LightRider: Although money is emergent it has to be enforced. Money is a mechanism for enforcement that emerges in pre-scientific societies.


LightRider: Moral is relative but there are "good" governments (RBE/scientific governments).

Sjalq, it seems he avoids to answer your questions and, at the same time, contradicts himself from time to time.

A COMMENT ON THE VENUS PROJECT


This is taken from the Venus Project at http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy

"Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such."
[Quoted]


Absolutely True ! In the article the author advocates that in a Resources Based Economy, all the Earth Resources become a common heritage for all humans, this making the monetary system no more needed and thus allowing a generalized growth for all people that would experience a better ( enhanced ) life - style. In addition, he states that : " our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival." [Quoted]
This rationing comes from the unproper use of the available resources that must be rationed since we are wasting them.


What else could be more appropriate for our world survival ? My hat off to you, Author.


Now, Human Intellect is also a natural resource. Most of the times it is , unfortunately, rationed through money and wasted even thought Human Intellectual is not a Scarce Resource.
Could be argued that Human Intellect is not a resource for survival, but I think this is a far fetched hypothesis.


The whole thing is therefore addressed to a better use of the available resources promoting thus a MUTUAL BENEFIT for all people.


My previous post (Basic Staff - Part Three) goes exactly on the same direction.


I haven't deepened my knowledge of the Venus project to such an extend that I can see if they have a starting point for the whole project, any entry. Most probably they have and they are already operating it ( would be glad if someone points my in the right direction about this matter so that will save me a lot of time ).


My project, instead, has a very clear starting point : the world wide web and more specifically the USERS of the web. All of us.


Good Theories are always welcome, but they need to be practical and applicable, possibly in the Near Future.


As I have already said, I am working, with a very restricted team of people, on a new web based project that would involve actively the Users. The project aims, at first , to gain control of the web by the users by re balancing the economy of it. Than goes on and on......



Anyone interested in sharing some thoughts, can contact me privately at [email protected].

No, I do not think so. I am sure he will elaborate something for us 

Because he believes that dollars are debt.

Knowing and understanding the underlying mechanics of a monetary system is fundamental to not being abused by it. Currently, the vast majority of people are unaware of the destructive and unfair nature of our current fractional reserve banking system, and that makes them vulnerable to all the abuses we see today.
[/quote]

HI Lightrider, why don't you elaborate a post that would put some light on the mechanics of the current monetary system ?

As I said earlier, money was emergent as was societal structures that developed enforcement mechanisms also. Barter had been dominant due to the simple and local nature of trading and it did not require a third party to enforce arbitrary values. Money can only exist when the dominant culture enforces arbitrary and opinion based values on others. But as with many emergent behaviors and technologies, they give way to newer and better ones.

There are no "rights". You behave and act in accordance with the dominant culture and society that you have developed in. Your ability to cause positive or negative outcomes depend on what is tolerated, incentivised and punished by your environment. Your choice to be wasteful is predicated on what your environment allows for.

They are only concerned with getting you to call yourself apart of TZM and puking its visions all over the internet.