Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 110. (Read 288348 times)

I really think everyone new to this thread should read this message:

Is any of the RBE crowd interrested in answering my concerns about the function of pricing mechanism or do you folks want to sling accusations of irrationality around all week?

Pissing back and forth about who's future dream is "right" or will be "right" is a waste of time, you must go find ways to routinely put into practice what you believe.

You want an intellectual discussion? help me figure out how to creatively use apartment space to get maximum vegetable production out of it. what systems have you used? what number of varieties have you planted and what kinds? What were your yields thus far?

How many people has TZM brought fresh water to? Number of people fed for life? Number of houses built?

Ok, so we must change our values. But should the government make us learn values?
What's the difference between absolute values and "non distorted values"?


Actually more like an old philosophy. But since I want to flow too, I want to know if there's going to be a government in my way to teach me how to do it, to rule on top of nature. I'm not proposing to abolish the laws of nature if that's what you understood.


I promise you freedom, but not for controlling you, just to create a counterexample: you will be freer if you use free software instead of proprietary.
Don't you like the word freedom?

The "best qualified" "educate" the "less qualified"

Then how can any scientific conclusions be drawn today about the link between education and population growth?

How are you going to "educate" people and enforce their compliance with said "educating"?

What is an undistorted value? Aren't all values "distorted" by the subjective emergent nature of the universe?


Yeah because there is no intellectual or productive conversation to have with anyone in your movement because its a moralistic ideaology that mistakes philosophy, economics, and social science as science and you're attempting to impose this value system on others either through persuasion on forums, documentaries, or whatever "education" system you're proposing.

It seems when people get convinced their decisions aren't really their own they feel less responsible for doing bad things and do them, while when people are convinced they are responsible for their decisions they are nicer to people (and to puppies etc). At least that is what the results of that experiment suggest.

Lostya man...

I heard about this experiment where they found out that when told there is no such thing as freewill people tend to act less like nice people....

You can, if you can not find a good answer then maybe it was a terrible idea. Pricing however was the basis for the accurate prediction of the end of the soviet empire.

That really sums up the movement for me, absolute collectivism.

I don't doubt that you and other advocates have good intentions, but this is why I will never comply with such an ideology.

You can ask that about anything

Cult or no cult, the issue of the pricing mechanism is absolutely key to this whole issue. If pricing is truly the appendix of societal behaviour then the RBE view is correct.

So again;
*Is the money naturally emergent or only due to enforcement? (Question to follow on this one)
*Do I have the right to misspend my own resources on what someone else deems irrational expenditures?

lol   

(Cult)

No. In an emergent universe, things change constantly, and as such, our values must be updated according to our new found knowledge. The problem is that we have not done so, and held to the distorted values and associated institutions that began centuries or millenia ago.


There is no freedom. We all are subject to the laws of nature and the common reality we share. Anyone who promises you freedom of some sort is just looking to control you for their own benefit.

Yeah that's a good summary.

Summarizing:

As findeton said, science doesn't tell you what is good (after reading Nietsche I'm not comfortable using that word) or bad, just creates models that predict how nature will act. Using these models models to attain a specific aim is engineering. To chose these specific aims you need morals.
Since I don't believe in natural law nor absolute values, I feel imposing morals to others is wrong.

Money is not needed to survive, it's just needed to trade. If everybody valued goods and services the same way, we couldn't even trade.
If you reject trade, you have to chose between self sufficiency with no specialization nor division of labor or some people imposing values to others (kind of communism).
If you accept free trade, you have to chose between some form of money or barter as a tool for trading.

1) Do you believe that absolute values exist?
2) Do you reject free trade (and thus freedom)?

If you answer yes to one of these questions, you should put that at the beginning of all TZM materials so people like me could stop listening and don't waste their time.

Specifically "and the entity who enforces its use"

OK, previously you agreed money was emergent. If I wasn't clear, let me clarify I meant, money existed in a stable form before governments began enforcing it, do you agree?

Also do you agree that the opinion of whether I want a $5 latte even when a cheaper alternative is available, it is still my right to expend my resources on an overpriced item if I so choose?

You haven't answered my arguments. So I'll repeat it, because it looks like we've reached your soft spot:

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.