Topic: Your dream political system - page 2. (Read 2979 times)

No, it's not what I meant. If we go back to the early days of liberalism, which Benjamin Constant explained truly well, the government has only two purposes. To protect the citizens from foreign invaders, and to police the streets. Nowadays, millions of people see it as normal that government organizes healthcare, regulates the work place and so on. That's the issue: how to prevent liberal republic from becoming socialist nightmares.

Elective monarchy, maybe? It can be a solution for such dilemma... Nobody will run around your daughter if new monarch is elected by people's assembly or appointed by council of lords.

Cant really respond to the previous science post i dont understand science on the same level as you but i will preorder a lightsaber

As regards this one, if gold were made for cheap im thinking as regards money & stores of value we'd just shift the goal posts elsewhere.  If we truly did find ways to produce something out of virtually nothing star trek style then perhaps.... to quote the NLP founder "Information is the currency of the future" & maybe that should be extended to things like creativity etc.  In star trek they seem to have a social order haha

A variant of this, sometimes played with by Mensans, is that after one person describes their ideal system a second person gets to choose a role for the first person within that system. Things then become very messy as the implications dawn.

Corny example:

A: I would pick a monarchy. I've always wanted to be king/queen.
B: OK, monarchy it is. You are a peasant within the monarchy and one of the arrogant nobles has just noticed your daughter. Is it still your system of choice?
A: No, no, of course not. Umm - I pick a completely flat egalitarian system then. Nobody has any special ranks, privileges, entitlements and so forth.
B: OK, egalitarian it is. You are a megalomaniac within that flat system. You are sure that you know best. You crave power and you need to be the boss. Is it still your system of choice?
A: No, I guess not. Umm - I know - the golden rule - do unto others - will be the only rule in my system.
B: OK, golden rule it is. You are a masochist within that system, begging others to beat you. Every time you come upon a sadist they refuse to do it. Is it still your system of choice?

Crazy-making stuff.     

If you've done that you've reduced the cost of energy down to basicly 0 and made it an (for all purposes) unlimited resource. As money is a store of economic energy, which is a function of biological / physical energy, you've ended the need for storing economic energy by creating unlimited, free energy and so unlimited free resources.....

If economics is the problem of limited resources and unlimited wants, you've killed economics.

would be a creepy social structure if that happened, my money is on raise of dictators (with lightsabers?)

I think so.

Einstein's energy - mass equivalence, e=mc^2

so (simplified) to create mass we need energy, e/(c^2)

it then boils down to (assuming we have the tech to do this and just needed energy) energy efficiency or, restated, how much useful energy can you extract from a fuel source?

Because our present energy systems are of low absolute efficiency (for example, cars have about 35% from wikipedia, so only 35% of the energy is able to be used for work) the amount of energy to create mass is unphysical (the fuel resources are not cheap and there not getting cheaper)

So (again, assuming the tech is there, which is really, really isn't) a CHEAP energy source would be required, such as the energy released by nuclear reactions (fission, released energy by splitting atoms or fussion, releasing energy by fusing them together)

But even with all this energy in order to induce these reactions like this particle colliders are required (because presently, the most efficient way to provide this energy to induce a reaction to turn lead into gold or star trek it is by accelerating tiny particles to near the speed of light iin multi-billion dollar miles long particle colliders).

star trek tech requires on demand mini neuclear reactors and mini particle colliders that are the size of small countries.

Which sucks because I physicked because I wanted a lightsaber :/

So if you find a way to make gold for cheap you dont tell anyone, its kinda like if you've hacked bitcoin.

lmao @ lightsabers, hold on now i need to watch a video on nuclear fission -  this is the only way?

Please add "Social-Democratic" country here

I guess it gets to the point of debating semantics, RBE doesnt necessarily have to be described as communism i dont think.  Communism as a word has a lot of bad stigma attached to it, in simplest form just means sharing resources right?  I guess its unfair to label RBE as just communism. 

I wish TZM would use their donations to start actually designing a decentralized resource allocating system.  What you reckon?

Fuck my life, ADHD kicks in and I read something that wasn't there! sorry.

We will achieve equality and prosperity, but never communism!

Fundamentally we can create star trek stuff.

We can, right now, make gold from lead.

Problem is........... we can't make something from nothing, even in star trek world we still require energy to be converted to mass of relevant particle  types and bonded etc which requires fuck tons of energy. and the most efficient way to provided that energy atm is through the kinetic energy of firing little particles at big ones.

That why we don't make gold, too expensive in terms of energy.

Where do we get the energy? Not fossels, not wind or solar PTV. Has to be neucleur fission, ie, miniature suns.

Would be awsome though, because if we have mini suns for aa batterys, you fucking know we've got lightsabers!



 

Haha yeah watched this when it came out.  If it was possible an RBE sounds ideal way to live to me i find it very interesting.   Seem like right now all they have is a philosophy? - Kinda like if we all said money should be like bitcoin  but we didnt have the bitcoin design.

I do think RBE is just Communism 2.0 but at some point we will find a way to achieve "communism" i believe or we will evolve to the point where the debate is no longer relevant.  Star Trek technology etc or actual human physical evolution.

Great debate concerning the 'RBE' put forward in the Zeitgeist vs Free Market Anarcho-Capatalism

Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtv5E6CkLE&index=6&list=PLMNj_r5bccUyhGtICwGaW8gFdMyB5nwAE

Analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jh_lN9TWw&index=7&list=PLMNj_r5bccUyhGtICwGaW8gFdMyB5nwAE

Oh, it's the Zeitgeist Guy/Owner/Whatever (technoLenin) vs. Stefan Molyneux

Couldn't recommend it more!

If you feel the need to 'truncate' your viewing, just watch the Analysis.

Well is this topic philosophical/ideological or whats practically realistic?

If we are talking whats the best practical solution for society at this point in our evolution i would pick anarcho capitalism as my personal choice.   Anyone with a decent level of power in society already likely wont agree.

If we are talking what would be the very best possible society for humans the RBE put forward by the zeitgeist movement sounds amazing way to live to me.   - Assuming a human being is something like the current configuration so we haven't evolved into some kind of spirit/gas in which case we might not even need "physical resources" to survive.... who knows.

Absolute monarchy with me being the King.

Think this is everyone dream here as there are only two things we desire, money and power.

BitCoinNutJob, are you talking about Taylorism?

Soviet-type planned economy (STP) was the first full-scale attempt to implement the resource-based economy, which was based on ideas of Social Taylorism. Though, there were some critical or even fatal efficiency issues due to centralized management. Hungarians have solved this problem in the 1960s (within a conception of so-called "kadarism"). Others were considered that abandoning the centralized management is not an option... Despite the fact that even Lenin thought the same about inefficiency of centralized management and made significant steps to abandon it in 1920s.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8501546

 

This.  Isnt a resource based economy the best type of political system in theory? can anyone point out why not? (remember this is a working RBE)

You'd have no economic concerns with RBE and could just spend your time exactly as you wanted to no? Efficiency of an RBE means you'd likely have far more choices then any billionaires around right now.

Can an RBE be implemented tomorrow? - no, but this is theory topic no?

Principle of separation of powers to independent legislative, executive and legislative branches is purposed to do that. However, according to some scholars (mostly communists and socialists), it doesn't work as proposed due to corruption. Personal and financial freedoms, given by liberal republic to all its citizens, are resulting with absence of control for relationships between government officials and rich members of society.

I think that the only way to stabilize liberal republic is revoking some freedoms for government officials, otherwise it eventually results with fascism under democratic guise.

Anyone can only like Absolutism or Totalitarianism if he intends to be the king or the dictator.  

Except that the USA originally envisioned evolved into USA today so the USA originally envisioned failed in what was originally envisioned and is itself then a failure.