Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 12. (Read 288384 times)

This observation is essentially the same that I came up to myself, though from an entirely different starting point. I was asking myself about what can actually be called mine in a true, absolute sense of the word. If something can be taken from me (by force or whatever), can it truly be called my property? A human body is made up of atoms (and whatever makes up them), but do they really belong to the mind (or soul) that dwells in this body?

And what is left then when we thus strip an individual of his claimed "possessions"?

You can have murder without guns. You can't have fascism without capitalism.

Guns are what enable murder?

Its that capitalism is a tool, depends how it is used. Capitalism in it's core it's blank, it's only if you fill it with unethical practices and uncompetitiveness, is when it's dangerous.

If you leave the sheep to be guarded by wolfs , then its bad.


If competitiveness is maximal, and power is balanced, then I dont see any harm with it.

Capitalism is what enables fascism.

Perhaps our mind is a blank canvas,but not our genetics, we behave in a certain way because we evolved for millions of years to fit this enviroment.

And all the emotions and irrational behaviour that humans show are actually making a sense, but only from biological standpoint, and not rational.

I dont think humans can be 100% reprogrammed to become better, but with real education, they may show signs of improvement.



That aspect of it can be changed if you remove the corporate shield, that aristrocrats put in place in the 19th century.

Capitalism (in a very primitive and opressed form) existed since the ancient times, but pollution only started since corporations were born.

And that my friend is no longer capitalism, it's called fascism.

Capitalism destroys and pollutes the real environment we all share and depend on for the imaginary and temporary profit of a few.

Because an RBE gets right down to the heart of what a real economy should be like: creating abundance through automation and the scientific method, in stark contrast to free-market capitalism (herein: "FMC"), which may create, among other things, artificial and contrived economies, in some sense, such as adoration of a person or brand, for example, which is then strengthened and reinforced through marketing: imprinting or brainwashing, in other words. Poison economy is another type, where it is profitable to hide some kind of poisoned product or polluted process, such as toxic-waste dumping, only to be discovered years down the line, when it's too late.

FMC is about profit, which non-profit org:s are not; hence they don't belong there. Their creation was only done to market a person or product, indirectly.

I'd like to think of us more as a blank canvas, we can do good things and bad things. If we are bad at the moment of birth there really is no point we might aswell all top ourselves as RBE wont save us either way.

I completely agree with you here, but where is to say that RBE is the best solution?

If you have a problem with culture, society and the moral values in a society then why are you changing it with an economic system, it makes no sense?

Isn't more logical to setup nonprofit asociations to promote those moral values, instead of reshaping the entire economy into a marxist-leninist global tyrrany?

I don't see where those 2 fit in. It's one thing to blame culture and society, and it's another thing to just redesign everything and in the process make everything worse.

We have limits.

wrong answer, try ask any scientist or academician.

Robert Morris Sapolsky - professor of biology, neuroscience, and neurosurgery at Stanford University
Dr Gabor Maté - professor in the Faculty of Criminology, Simon Fraser University.
Richard Gerald Wilkinson -  Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham
Dr. James Gilligan - Psychiatrist & Expert on Violence,  New York University, professor  of psychiatry in  the  School  of  Medicine

to save your time, here is the brief summary

Modern psychological and sociological study has found that human actions are susceptible to environmental influence. What is rewarded by the culture tends to be perpetuated. For example, it is commonly considered a "moral" issue when a corporation engages in deliberate pollution to save money. Many outcry that the corporation's people must be "corrupt" who would allow for such a thing. The flaw, however, is in the assumption. If we exist in a system that allows us to "save money" and hence be more "economically efficient" by being exploitation, abusive or indifferent, why should we not expect it to occur, especially in a system based on competition where advantage is always sought?

In other words, "corruption" is being reinforced. Therefore the solution is not more "laws" to try and stop this behavior. The solution is to create a social system (Replace capitalism with RBE) that doesn't reinforce or reward such behavior at all. Laws are mere "patches" that work against the internal logic of the system as it stands.

Thats what humans are. If you look for a paradise, you are not going to get it with humans, because we are corrupt by design.


And how is capitalism extorting everyone?

Capitalism is about creation not about destruction, so I`m confused about this.

answer this, where do you think those traits coming from?

Everyone.

Well there are stuff that is not for sale. I cannot claim ownership of the sun, but there are people already claiming ownership of the moon, which is a bit ironic and sad, but in the future it might mean interesting opportunities.

Humans have developed a moral standard, so they dont treat their property like trash. Even the farmer doesnt treat his animals with utter viciousness.

But by that logic, you can also say that we are the children or property of the Earth. And Earth doesn't have any problem in raping us with natural disasters, so where does that logic fit into that?


It's an immoral claim on an asset. Property is relative and I think morality should be the ultimate decider of that.


Who is the victim?

Capitalism is extortion.

That's typical standard libertarian reasoning, which unfortunately fails to that in order for you to work, you need energy which ultimately comes from the sun and the earth which was here long before humans roamed it and started calling it "theirs". Also, according to that statement, a libertarian would be perfectly fine with a father raping his daughter, because he is merely "enjoying his property".

RealBitcoin, a tax is not an asset, but a burden, an obligation, meaning that if it's "yours", you are admitting to that liability.

There's a difference between threatening someone and utter a threat, whereas the former examines the subject's state of mind, the latter inquires into statement itself, objectively, meaning a mobster saying "I know where you live." could mean a threat in his mind, but the objective test must necessarily fail.

Well, RealBitcoin, do you have to pay tax? Are they your taxes, or someone else's?

Hands up! Give me your tax! I don't have one.

What do you mean by "your tax" , what does that mean?

Do you mean a specific tax in your country or what?

Because of the "your tax" and "under U.S. law"

" Failure to pay this tax is punishable by prison" = a reasonable threat
" Failure to pay your tax is punishable under U.S. law " = non-threat.

Oh yes, there is a lot of difference between steel bracelets on your hands vs ropes. Ropes can cause alergic reactions, while nice steel bracelets are sterile.

And the police van has a much comfortable seats than a mob van. Not to mention prison cells ,nice 2x2 m cell is my life's dream, while the mob will just put people in a closet or something.


Seriously man, I don't get your logic. Care to explain my why they aren't synonymous? Why?