Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 47. (Read 288348 times)

Thank you for your enlightening contributions to the discussion.

Could you please stop being so condescending, basically calling people stupid and all?   Have you considered that maybe -- maybe -- you are the one which is ignorant and should learn more about stuff?

RBE, Venus Project and other Zeitgest movement piss me off big time.  I hate those guys.

You want to have machines work for you so that you can do things you enjoy instead of doing stuff you dislike just to sustain yourself?  Hell, so do I  !!   Everybody does.   The difference with you fucking stupid morons is that I don't think that this should be a political issue or anything.  If I want machines to work for me, I just acquire them, and the simplest way to do so is to build or buy some, not to wait for politicians to give me some.   That's why I own shares of companies, so I own a part of the machines used in the companies, and I have the right to receive dividends from the production.  As a result, I don't have to work.   Why don't you guys just do that?   You don't have money, maybe?  Well, how the hell do you manage to still be alive now, then?  How can you fund those many documentaries about your lunacies on YouTube??   Put your fucking money where your mouth is, and do acquire or build those machines you dream about.  But no, I guess you prefer let real, actual scientists and engineers build those machines, only to blame them later for not giving you the product of their hard work and talent..

Screw you.    Your dream of a fully automated society where machines would do all the work is great, but this is a technological goal, not a political one.  Until technology reaches that point, the market economy still makes sense.  Actually, the market economy is the only way to measure the advancement towards this goal, via the price system.  You want a society where everything is free?   Fine!  Just let the price of things drop down until it reaches zero.   Until then: get a job, you lazy communist bastard.

Nothing, this is ethical behaviour. Maybe I misunderstood.

To what slavery will I commit people when I encourage them to learn more and be less ignorant?

You will have, when you have transformed a sufficient number of free people to slaves. You see, I know this about you, even if you don't know it yourself.

I meant the first option, but the vagaries of our language leave it open to many interpretations. Both meanings are equally valid in my opinion.

I am! 


I am!! 


To all our benefit!!! 


Oooh, nice double-meaning sentence! You likely meant it as "those who talk to you and may lie to you, telling you you are free when you are not." In which case my regimentation is coming from me, and I am an unwitting slave to my own delusions, because I am being lied to.

But the sentence can also be interpreted as "those who tell you what level of freedom you are allowed to have, and will stop you if they believe you are exercising too much freedom." In this case my regimentation comes directly from those who are telling me how much freedom I am allowed to have, and I am a witting, though an unwilling slave to others.

Did you mean the first meaning of the sentence or the second? And did you make this have a double-meaning on purpose? Cause that's really neat!

I have no interest in telling people what to do. I only ask that you examine who is currently telling you how to behave, what to believe and how to think, and to what ends and who's benefit. Your regimentation is not coming from me, but from those who currently tell you just how free you are.

Damn.  The cage already got you.  Society and ignorance have conditioned you to oppose being forced to act in your own best interest*.  Woe is you who are unwilling to trade your cage for freedom**.



Seriously though, how many millions more have to die to this nonsense before the useful idiots*** pushing these schemes understand that they always end up on the dying side, and never on the ruling side?

*  As decided by your enlightened masters.

**  As defined by your enlightened masters.

***  Sadly, a term of art.  This is the soviet term for westerners that spread their poison for them.  The idiots in question are far from useful.

My personal, and only, fear is that you will tell me what I am allowed and not allowed to do, and what I am allowed and not allowed to own, and will use force against me to make sure I do what you say.

Thank you for continuing the discussion. It is unfortunate that several of you are misinformed, ignorant or otherwise unwilling to consider a broader perspective or a different point of view. I understand that it is not you personally who is at fault, but that the society and culture at large has failed you, indeed it has failed all of us. You are fearful of that which you do not understand, and it is in that cage of fear that you lash out from, and feel the most secure inside of. It is exactly where the dominant people of the world want you to be. I ask you to break free from your ignorance and fear and learn that you can live a life outside of that cage. You can help the world become a better place by recognizing the limitations of your own ideas and beliefs and learning to go beyond them. You may believe that your arguments are against me, but in reality they are against yourselves. They reveal the limitations of your imagination and your own ignorance of your environment. I cannot provide every answer to the questions you pose, nor can any one person ever do so. What is important to the future of our species is that we ask these questions of ourselves, and collaboratively come up with the answers to them.

We can have a technological society that provides for every human need and preserves the environment that supports us if we choose to have it. Please make that choice. You are the only one who can make it happen.

The "scientific method" Duh. Didn't you read the thread?   

Ok... so I guess you advocate allotting resources based on need, to those who need it mostt. But who makes that call? I imagine some type of system where if you need resources to accomplish some goal, or satisfy a desire to enhance yourself above others (ha, i know, but it's reality) you'd have to present it to some person, board, etc. Imagine "No" being the end of the road. How do you prevent the human factor from coming in to play? Corruption and greed would become the manner in which to achieve your goals, versus working hard and becoming wealthy by benefiting society (innovation, etc). People must compete and differentiate themselves, IMO best have that happen in some way that is best for everyone - I think I saw you say somewhere that greed, control, dominance etc are not actually human nature, but rather a learned behavior. I believe that side of us is certainly played upon for marketing, but I disagree with your statement in general - those things are as human as it gets. Hell, even animals are like this - although typically not to the degree of wealth accumulation but more about breeding and immediate resource control - but wealth accumulation is just a logical extension.

I don't see how this can ever work until humans are taken out of the decision making process. Perhaps replaced by some type global consciousness, AI, or alien overlords LOL. But seriously. Anytime you get people in the mix, they get corrupted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I think that quote is very accurate. America was setup to allow free innovation and the persuit of happiness whatever that may be, but look at us now - even with our system of checks and balances corruption and has taken hold and squelched innovation/progress for the majority to benefit the few. Imagine a system where yo get what you want you have to ask - then you'll have to know someone, pay off someone, fuck someone, manipulate someone to get where they want to go in life - that is the reality of your system. I'm not saying we don't need a change, we've gotten to that point ourselves but at least hard work still pays off sometimes, and you don't have to beg anyone for anything.

Rest assured people will want to get ahead of other people, people have different wants out of life - some people want to own expensive cars, some want to be tree hippies - best let them go after their goals in productive ways instead of corrupt ways.

I agree, you should keep learning. Hopefully you'll come to the conclusion that the only ethical economics system out there is one that recognizes that you own your own body and all the products thereoff, and that everything else stems from that (RBE can not stem from that)

Too bad for you, I'm staying right here. I for one am interested in seeing and learning from different point of views, if you don't you're free to ignore this thread.

This.   Definitely this.   Now can we please stop this annoying thread that keeps popping in my "new replies" link?

RBE is nothing but revamped communism.  Get the fuck out of here.

I was just using food as an example you know, not as my big high ideal. And I'm still undecided about what I really think about a resource based economy, although I am sympathetic towards the Zeitgeist movement and I personally resonate well with Peter Joseph's holistic approach and way of thinking. For some reason I just can't really bring myself to empathize with Stefan's point of view, he sounds too rational and cold to me and I think he misses many fine details. On the other hand Peter Joseph's view might seem a little naive and I think he may underestimate the practical implications of implementing a resource based economic model. But I do think the idea of a RBE is intriguing, and I truly hate the world of pervasive advertisement and greed we're living in right now so that kinda puts me off from free market capitalism as an alternative.

I posted a follow-up thread on the Peter Joseph VS Stefan Molyneux debate here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/zeitgeist-free-will-and-the-left-right-box-324866, but bringing attention to a "free will" element which I think affects how people behave, and could therefore affect people's economic modelling.

I didn't notice that this thread was in Economics, so I'm providing a link in case some people never visit the "politics and society" section.

Well, for one, there is actually not enough food to go around and feed everyone completely and with healthy foods. Don't forget, food doesn't grow everywhere, and thus must be transported to more arid places of the world, and transportion is very resource intensive and limited. And two, even if there was plentiful food and resources, that would only last until the population increased beyond the capacity of this system to support it. And no one will be bothering to figure out how to fix that problem until it's too late, because everyone will be well fed, and not even be aware of the looming problem.

Also, seriously? Being able to eat is the big high ideal you are striving for? That's rather low on our economic necesity at this point. We're all about high tech gadgets, curing deseases, making economy and law more efficient, and radically extending our lifespans now. A "utopia" where everyone can get food, shelter, and some tech stuff that someone else determines is enough to take care of your need sounds about as good as North Korea right now (even though it's the Best Korea).

Scarce doesn't mean rare, it means "not of infinite supply".

Any finite supply, no matter how massive, needs to be allocated.

There are really only two ways to allocate, by price on markets, or by force.

One of those ways always works, every single time it is tried.  The other, never works, no matter how often it is tried.

The failure of allocation-by-force, in all of the various names and guises it has gone under over the centuries, is never understood as a failure of the idea itself by those who mistakenly believe that they would be part of the ruling class.  They always believe that it would have worked, if not for some boogeyman thwarting the plan.

Also, it takes a really fucked up person to fail to see the hundreds of millions killed by socialism/communism in the last century as an essential part of the system.  If Stalin had been a frightening aberration, you could be excused, but every time this shit comes up, in every country, in every culture, people die by the truckload.  Slaughter is an essential part of allocation-by-force, no matter what name it is operating under, no matter who is doing it, and no matter how enlightened they pretend to be.

The world already has a resource based economy.  It is called free market capitalism*, and it works.  If you want to make it better and more efficient, lobby your government to stop fucking with it.

*  It is very popular these days to use force (aka Government) to meddle in some market, then pretend that the failures of the meddling are failures of capitalism.  If anyone is getting ready to do so, let me just say in advance, "Fuck you".