All systems of false authority are games, and poorly designed ones at that. Anything with artificial rules and boundaries should not be holding humanity back from reaching its highest potential.
Minecraft disagrees
Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 54. (Read 288348 times)
Minecraft disagrees
All systems of false authority are games, and poorly designed ones at that. Anything with artificial rules and boundaries should not be holding humanity back from reaching its highest potential.
Since AnCap can't prevent non-AnCap governments from taking over, it seems to be an inherently unstable political system.
"Non-AnCap Government" uses force or the threat of force to achieve it's ends. They would be considered (and treated as) criminals in an AnCap society.
Indeed in Civcraft they are. Anyone verifiably using coercion or fraud is prosecuted by the rest of the ancaps (no one is forced to do this, most ancaps are solidary like that) and pearled (imprisoned) until the person committing the wrong pays restitution. Violence is never used against non-violent people.
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures.
This sounds like fun
I tried to get into this and discovered that minecraft is not free software? Help!
Yes, that sucks. Still, it's worth your while. Stallman's compromise with the enemy to find our way to a free software / society.
2) Market forces clearly chose governments as the most economic way of organising humans and providing the maximum overall utility to society.
You would be right if coercion were a market force. It's not. as I noted before, it introduces distortion into any market it is involved in.
Agreed. I have a hard time considering conquest and revolution (violent acts that describe how all governments gained power) as a "market force", given that I consider the market to be the sum total of voluntary non-violent interactions.
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures.
Don't know how to play this game, what kind of political system ancap cities are using?
None. They just play and resolve disputes by agreeing on a respectable member of the community to render judgment. The chosen guy, of course, gets paid for his services.
Since AnCap can't prevent non-AnCap governments from taking over, it seems to be an inherently unstable political system.
"Non-AnCap Government" uses force or the threat of force to achieve it's ends. They would be considered (and treated as) criminals in an AnCap society.
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures.
Don't know how to play this game, what kind of political system ancap cities are using?
Uh.... AnCap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures.
This sounds like fun
I tried to get into this and discovered that minecraft is not free software? Help!
It's funny to me how people just accept violence as normal. I suppose it's much like in some cultures where cannibalism is normal. Whatever you are exposed to becomes acceptable. Maybe some of you nice folks put guns in people's faces daily, but I have never had that happen to me. And you are grossly exxagerating the threat of government force unless maybe you are currently incarcerated. It's all just fear and superstition. I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware of these things, but violent people are not such a serious threat to civilization. As observed by Spock "It was far easier for you as civilized man to act as barbarians, than for them as barbarians to act like civilized men." It is easy to spot the problem folks and help them if we allow ourselves to do so.
2) Market forces clearly chose governments as the most economic way of organising humans and providing the maximum overall utility to society.
You would be right if coercion were a market force. It's not. as I noted before, it introduces distortion into any market it is involved in.
I contend that there is no such line in the sand to distinguish between coercion and non-coerciveness.
Fortunately, it's not my (or your) responsibility to define these words. Coercion is a specific action:
E.g.: I could be coercive in many ways, perhaps by tricking you
Fraud. Not coercion, but another action just as distorting to markets it's involved in., propagandizing you managing your opinions with Public Relations,
Advertisement. Accepted practice, hardly coercive. You're trying to convince me, not bully me into buying your product.negotiating intensely,
Well, that depends on what you mean by "intensely." If it is sufficiently "intense" that I feel threatened by you, a case could be made that you were attempting to coerce me. inspiring fear with subtle threats or my private Mob and more.
Now that is coercion. Remember, using force or intimidation. 2) Market forces clearly chose governments as the most economic way of organising humans and providing the maximum overall utility to society.
You would be right if coercion were a market force. It's not. as I noted before, it introduces distortion into any market it is involved in.
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures.
Don't know how to play this game, what kind of political system ancap cities are using?
I read again the OP's post, there are some really good points, especially the cruel competition part
Imagine in a RBE, everyone will be allocated 50BTC per month, and after a year, someone will have more than 200BTC saved, someone will use up every coin they get and try to borrow from those who have saving
This is how today's world shaped, even we could remove money and allocate resource to each person equally, sooner or later some of them will become rich, some of them will get debt, this is related to each person's behavior
And money works as an incentive, without money, how could people have incentive to come out with new ideas to improve the life of other people?
Maybe, a game based society could be close to RBE, where each people will share the way of improving the gaming experience to others, without consider their income
Is there any such kind of social system existing in second-life? Someone can just create such a community virtually and see if it works
Imagine in a RBE, everyone will be allocated 50BTC per month, and after a year, someone will have more than 200BTC saved, someone will use up every coin they get and try to borrow from those who have saving
This is how today's world shaped, even we could remove money and allocate resource to each person equally, sooner or later some of them will become rich, some of them will get debt, this is related to each person's behavior
And money works as an incentive, without money, how could people have incentive to come out with new ideas to improve the life of other people?
Maybe, a game based society could be close to RBE, where each people will share the way of improving the gaming experience to others, without consider their income
Is there any such kind of social system existing in second-life? Someone can just create such a community virtually and see if it works
Civcraft http://civcraft.org/doku.php is a thriving game where you can choose to align yourself with your favorite political or non-political faction, and try the principles of your faction out. I recommend it. Now, I might be biased, but the ancap cities are the ones that have the most riches and best structures.
I read again the OP's post, there are some really good points, especially the cruel competition part
Imagine in a RBE, everyone will be allocated 50BTC per month, and after a year, someone will have more than 200BTC saved, someone will use up every coin they get and try to borrow from those who have saving
This is how today's world shaped, even we could remove money and allocate resource to each person equally, sooner or later some of them will become rich, some of them will get debt, this is related to each person's behavior
And money works as an incentive, without money, how could people have incentive to come out with new ideas to improve the life of other people?
Maybe, a game based society could be close to RBE, where each people will share the way of improving the gaming experience to others, without consider their income
Is there any such kind of social system existing in second-life? Someone can just create such a community virtually and see if it works
Imagine in a RBE, everyone will be allocated 50BTC per month, and after a year, someone will have more than 200BTC saved, someone will use up every coin they get and try to borrow from those who have saving
This is how today's world shaped, even we could remove money and allocate resource to each person equally, sooner or later some of them will become rich, some of them will get debt, this is related to each person's behavior
And money works as an incentive, without money, how could people have incentive to come out with new ideas to improve the life of other people?
Maybe, a game based society could be close to RBE, where each people will share the way of improving the gaming experience to others, without consider their income
Is there any such kind of social system existing in second-life? Someone can just create such a community virtually and see if it works
RBE
Efficiency can in some cases be enough to achieve sustainability but not always.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.
And a rising price is the signal to do both.
No, because our knee-jerk reaction is to just move on to consume other stuff in the same way we did with the old stuff.
I have an idea: just shoot the marketing departments!
If we didn't change society to prevent air pollution in the 70s then we would all live in smog everywhere. Such changes are not rought about by the market. They are real changes in society and expressed in laws and governance.
Government is not all bad. Not all institutions are useless.
In fact, i'd say most institutions are important for society.
On the contrary, The use catalytic converter and the phaseout of Tetraethyl lead was already in progress when those regulations came in. Advances in fuel technology would soon have made TEL completely unnecessary. Laws have always lagged behind societal changes. Government is not all bad. Not all institutions are useless.
In fact, i'd say most institutions are important for society.
Sure, laws and government are institutionalized forms of these changes. They serve as the compass.
The point was that the changes are not caused by a market correction but by humans.
But these humans constitute the market economy. They are the actors of the market. The "market" is just the "place" where supply and demand meet. Of course: the change is caused by the market participants: the humans. They will act on price changes and change their habits accordingly. They will not act on robodick telling them to use less energy.
Efficiency can in some cases be enough to achieve sustainability but not always.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.
No matter how efficiently you use the oil, it WILL run out.
So the actual solution is to use the natural resources efficiently and with care while we look for an alternative way that is sustainable.
And a rising price is the signal to do both.
Exactly, as I said before:
The higher price has at least 2 positive effects: It decreases demand and it triggers investment into looking for other solutions.
For some reason mobodick doesn't believe this is working. I'm really unclear about how his solution actually would look like: how do you change the minds of the "humans" and they way they act? I just don't see it: these buggers tend to think for themselves and maximize their own well-being. myrkul suggests that the pricing mechanism of a market economy will take care of this and I agree, adding that it will only work (in contrast to the current situation) if sound money is used that noone can print up. Without money printing we'd already be much more efficient.
So please, mobodick, tell me how you plan to effect this change of mind.
In what way do genes have an idea about what is a better choice and how does that affect their development?
They don't. Remember the slime mold?
The whole point is that the structure is just the one that happened to work well.
The 'choice' was almost completely driven by the environment, not the mold.
So again, not economical according to your definition.
But the slime mold made the most economical (there's that word again) paths to the oats. That it did this without volition is irrelevant. You yourself said earlier that decision making doesn't require consciousness.
Maybe it will make more sense in the morning. Just remember, "Every voluntary action is part of the market" and "Every decision is an economic one" are two different - related, but different - concepts. Attempting to conflate them only results in the sort of cognitive dissonance you're likely experiencing now.
A third concept that may help you to keep the other two separate is that government introduces distortion into the market by forcing involuntary choices... do this and we'll kidnap you, don't do this or we'll kill you, etc. When you make a choice like that, you're still making an economic decision (not going to jail is preferable to doing the prohibited activity), but it's not a voluntary one, because of the coercion that is present.
The market (to be more specific, a human market actor) can, and will, provide a solution, if you let it.
My point is that the markets solution is not necessarily serving humanity well.So long as there is no coercion involved, the best solution, that which serves humanity the best, will "float to the top."
Jump to: