A Resource Based Economy

[LightRider]

The indigenous were merely voluntarily exchanging their physical health, environmental viability and social well being for the ability of Texaco and the US to make more money. Nobody's arguing with you there. Continuing to asset that anything I'm proposing entails killing people doesn't make it true. You can come up with a different straw man/red herring if you can think of one. I would prefer if you were being honest or at least less ignorant though.

The history of your movement is written on the hundreds of millions of corpses filling mass graves all across Europe and Asia.  All that remains is for you to see that your system will only work if you are willing to add everyone that doesn't agree with you to that body count.

Yes, the Zeitgeist movement/Venus project mass grave sites are well publicized tourist attractions all over the world. Send me a post card the next time you visit.

[1714268506]

1714268506

[1714268506]

1714268506

[1714268506]

1714268506

[1714268506]

1714268506

[blablahblah]

You don't know the half of it.

I think you missed the part where he was showing that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Capitalism is about voluntary exchange.

Of scud missiles?

Oh, you mean buying and selling consumer items in some kind of market place? OK then, give me an example of a voluntary trade. Explain why the trade would still happen even though the buyer faces no systemic pressure to buy, and the seller faces no systemic pressure to sell.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Capitalism is just free trade. Free trade doesn't hurt anyone.

TEXACO is not a capitalist firm. It's a corporatist one, using the power of the government to do bad things. Stop equivocating, please!

[blablahblah]

Capitalism is just free trade. Free trade doesn't hurt anyone.

TEXACO is not a capitalist firm. It's a corporatist one, using the power of the government to do bad things. Stop equivocating, please!

You can't just move the goalposts when reality doesn't match your theory. You guys keep doing this all the fucking time. Don't like something? Unexpected loophole? Blame the government! Not our fault!

[LightRider]

In this day and age, there are no valid reasons to adhere to economic theories developed over a century ago. Things have changed since then. The only excuses for maintaining this madness is ignorance and fear, which I, and many others, seek to dispel. There are better ways and new ideas. Explore them and engage them, don't be a pussy reactionary that appeals to the scary stories designed to make you believe your piece of land and ideology is better than someone else's piece of land and ideology. For people so distraught with government propaganda, you sure do espouse a great deal of economic propaganda that is no longer relevant or sustainable. It must be difficult living inside your own head with all of the contradictions and dualities that you must maintain. I'm sure it's exhausting and you are agitated when these assumptions are challenged. If your ideas were so well formed and valid, it would not necessitate your continued emotional outbursts and sophomoric assertions. Please start questioning what is clearly wrong with your belief system. You will feel better and appreciate the clarity it brings.

[kjj]

The history of your movement is written on the hundreds of millions of corpses filling mass graves all across Europe and Asia.  All that remains is for you to see that your system will only work if you are willing to add everyone that doesn't agree with you to that body count.

Yes, the Zeitgeist movement/Venus project mass grave sites are well publicized tourist attractions all over the world. Send me a post card the next time you visit.

Just because you haven't seen that your scheme has been tried over and over again across the world doesn't mean that history hasn't happened.

I know this has been asked a few times before, but I'd like to draw your attention to it once again.  What do you plan to do with the billions of people that disagree with your scheme?

[Miz4r]

As long as there is no consensus a Resource Based Economy will simply not work, as the philosophy of a RBE does not permit coercion of any kind. That is also why I believe a RBE will remain a pipe dream for quite some time. At some point however I think we will realize that our technology has become so advanced that there really is no reason to keep people enslaved in silly unnecessary jobs and that there actually is an abundance of resources on our planet for everyone. Competition and survival of the fittest is not the apex of evolution. Cooperation, love, and sharing is. But maybe I'm just a stupid neo-hippie.

[blablahblah]

As long as there is no consensus a Resource Based Economy will simply not work, as the philosophy of a RBE does not permit coercion of any kind. That is also why I believe a RBE will remain a pipe dream for quite some time. At some point however I think we will realize that our technology has become so advanced that there really is no reason to keep people enslaved in silly unnecessary jobs and that there actually is an abundance of resources on our planet for everyone. Competition and survival of the fittest is not the apex of evolution. Cooperation, love, and sharing is. But maybe I'm just a stupid neo-hippie.

Don't worry, US-style Laissez-faire Capitalism will collapse if people maintain their hard-line stance that free trade is voluntary and good, and if they maintain their belief that "moral will" can be executed automatically and without personal intervention.

However, this does not bode well for the idea of putting computers in charge of resource allocation either.

[ElectricMucus]

@kjj I'd stop posting after that embarrassment. Socialism is not the same as fascism, even when some Libertarian talking heads claim that.

Mind you I'm no way defending Lightriders 'vison' and I think it's one of the dumbest things I've ever came across. But not because of possible faschistoidian properties (which the Zeitgeist "movement" is way too insignificant to even consider). It's because it's based on a impossible to accomplish task.
This benevolent computer ruler of mankind they think they can create can't be done. What they are describing would be mechanical and/or electronic life, which we, by definition can't create. It might be one day possible to enable mechanical and/or electronic life, but not create it. A machine on the other hand can never be sentient and/or autonomously improve itself, that is because of the definition of a machine. Should by an incredible coincidence life evolve out of something that used to be a machine it would stop being a machine at this point and it would be pretty darn stupid to give it power over us.

[herzmeister]

If your ideas were so well formed and valid, it would not necessitate your continued emotional outbursts and sophomoric assertions.

That's a wrong assumption.

It depends on the character and mood of a person if they "necessitate" "continued emotional outbursts and sophomoric assertions".

It also might happen to them when discussing with fundamental Christians, for example. Any continued display of ignorance might drive an opponent in discussion up the walls sometimes. It's got not much to do with the validity (or not) of any ideology. The question you rather might ask such an "emotional" person is why they are wasting their time with such fruitless discussion in the first place, especially on the internet.

[kjj]

@kjj I'd stop posting after that embarrassment. Socialism is not the same as fascism, even when some Libertarian talking heads claim that.

Any scheme to centralize control of economic decisions is either masturbation or murder.  Either you have a plan to deal with people that don't want someone else to run their lives (murder), or you need 100% buy-in, which won't happen (masturbation).

There is no middle ground possible, and I find it pointless to discuss masturbation on the forums, so what is left?

[ElectricMucus]

@kjj I'd stop posting after that embarrassment. Socialism is not the same as fascism, even when some Libertarian talking heads claim that.

Any scheme to centralize control of economic decisions is either masturbation or murder.  Either you have a plan to deal with people that don't want someone else to run their lives (murder), or you need 100% buy-in, which won't happen (masturbation).

There is no middle ground possible, and I find it pointless to discuss masturbation on the forums, so what is left?

Sorry I think you lost me. Ok the Venus project is a scheme to give centralized control to a a thing which is essentially oxymoron. That concludes some people who made the thing are the ones in control. So far so bad.
But then you talk about killing people an jerking off. 

[kjj]

Any scheme to centralize control of economic decisions is either masturbation or murder.  Either you have a plan to deal with people that don't want someone else to run their lives (murder), or you need 100% buy-in, which won't happen (masturbation).

There is no middle ground possible, and I find it pointless to discuss masturbation on the forums, so what is left?

Sorry I think you lost me. Ok the Venus project is a scheme to give centralized control to a a thing which is essentially oxymoron. That concludes some people who made the thing are the ones in control. So far so bad.
But then you talk about killing people an jerking off. 

I'm not sure how to make it more clear.

Control is control.  The control freaks always claim they are going to use "science" to allocate resources and labor to bring about a utopia.  The new scheme is to use "computer algorithms".  The name of the idol they hold up isn't important, the control is important.

If the control is mandatory, you need murder and the threat of more murder to keep people in line  If the control is voluntary, then it isn't really control, and what's the point?  We already have a superior voluntary system for the allocation of time and things.

P.S.  When the hell did I take you off ignore?

[Gordon_Freeman]

In this day and age, there are no valid reasons to adhere to economic theories developed over a century ago. Things have changed since then. The only excuses for maintaining this madness is ignorance and fear, which I, and many others, seek to dispel. There are better ways and new ideas. Explore them and engage them, don't be a pussy reactionary that appeals to the scary stories designed to make you believe your piece of land and ideology is better than someone else's piece of land and ideology. For people so distraught with government propaganda, you sure do espouse a great deal of economic propaganda that is no longer relevant or sustainable. It must be difficult living inside your own head with all of the contradictions and dualities that you must maintain. I'm sure it's exhausting and you are agitated when these assumptions are challenged. If your ideas were so well formed and valid, it would not necessitate your continued emotional outbursts and sophomoric assertions. Please start questioning what is clearly wrong with your belief system. You will feel better and appreciate the clarity it brings.

BOOM HEADSHOT!! LOL

Seriously though I've seen the Zeitgeist movies and read up on the concept of a resource based economy.  I've seen some interviews with Peter Joseph (are you him lol?) and while I disagree with a few of his points about human nature his vision and efforts should be supported by everyone.  As someone who would like to see the species and planet survive past 2050 I think it's the only way forward.  All of the stupidity and ignorance being displayed on this thread is PRECISELY what makes progress so difficult.

@Lightrider I am watching with great interest and I do believe positive change is coming, the signs are everywhere.  The Internet is proving to be the most liberating technology ever.  Bitcoin has the potential to be one of the most powerful forces since the creation of money.  The only question is, will the change happen fast enough before it's too late?  Only time will tell...

[ElectricMucus]

Control is control.  The control freaks always claim they are going to use "science" to allocate resources and labor to bring about a utopia.  The new scheme is to use "computer algorithms".  The name of the idol they hold up isn't important, the control is important.

I agree with you on that.

If the control is mandatory, you need murder and the threat of more murder to keep people in line  If the control is voluntary, then it isn't really control, and what's the point?  We already have a superior voluntary system for the allocation of time and things.

I don't think you can make the true distinction of voluntary and involuntary when it comes to fascism. It works by by the "boiling a frog" principle, slowly turning up the heat. And while the public perception shifts the victims can appear to enter their predicament 'voluntary'. I don't see the Venus project capable of this right now, they don't even have plans on how to handle 'dissidents' yet, or recognize that they would exist.
Arguing that it can evolve into a fascist system is obvious, and I agree it could. But the hard part is recognizing that it is simply a "innocent" cult right now which if they have their way can conclude in variety of different ways which may or may not be fascism.

P.S.  When the hell did I take you off ignore?

You don't hate me anymore?

[kjj]

If the control is mandatory, you need murder and the threat of more murder to keep people in line  If the control is voluntary, then it isn't really control, and what's the point?  We already have a superior voluntary system for the allocation of time and things.

I don't think you can make the true distinction of voluntary and involuntary when it comes to fascism. It works by by the "boiling a frog" principle, slowly turning up the heat. And while the public perception shifts the victims can appear to enter their predicament 'voluntary'. I don't see the Venus project capable of this right now, they don't even have plans on how to handle 'dissidents' yet, or recognize that they would exist.
Arguing that it can evolve into a fascist system is obvious, and I agree it could. But the hard part is recognizing that it is simply a "innocent" cult right now which if they have their way can conclude in variety of different ways which may or may not be fascism.

But there isn't the possibility of a happy ending for them.  That's my whole point.  Every single time this scheme is tried, it ends in mass bloodshed.  Just because they can't see the end of the road they are on doesn't mean that it isn't where they are going.

"Useful idiots" are idiots precisely because they don't see the clear lesson of history.

P.S.  When the hell did I take you off ignore?

You don't hate me anymore?

I never hated you.  I don't put people on ignore because I disagree with them.  I refine my ideas through debate, so I usually put people on ignore because of bad debate techniques, most often just repeating a position as if it were an argument.  But I also show hidden messages more than I should, and I un-ignore people from time to time if I see something good.

[ElectricMucus]

Ok my "can't see the end of the road argument." isn't really consistent, I see that.

However I do think a "happy ending" could be possible for them once they realize that their goal is systematically impossible to obtain, not a happy ending for "the movement" but more for the people caught up in it, granted. Second, I don't like comparing exploitative cults to fascist systems. Scientology for instance is a dangerous scam which has ruined many peoples lives, but they are not facists. They simply lack the political support because they get their followers from not catering to the masses.
If the Zeitgeist idiots ever get financial support I think they would involve something similar to Scientology.

Yes I know the whole "if the cooperation takes over society it's fascism" definition. The difference is that cults only take over the lives of their followers not over society, even if isolated cult followers still live in the same society as everybody else.

[DoomDumas]

The only way you can enforce a resource based economy is through totalitarianism (at a degree that is probably impossible). Otherwise, people will acquire wealth, and a money will emerge spontaneously.

May I disagree.. If anyone have plenty of anything they want.. greed should disapear by default.  The earth have enought to satisfy everyone.  The scarcity is a consequence of the actual monetary system, wich enforce this scarcity.  For the first time in human history, we have the knowledge and the technology to overcome any sort of scarcity.  History cant apply as we've never been so aware and technologicaly able.

We are seeing the begining of a new era, and the past milleniums of "trade" begins to show as possibly obsolete for the next society models..

The trade concept is prehistoric, when we will learn to do better, we may became a civilisation.  It's in our value that the shift must materialize.

[kjj]

The only way you can enforce a resource based economy is through totalitarianism (at a degree that is probably impossible). Otherwise, people will acquire wealth, and a money will emerge spontaneously.

May I disagree.. If anyone have plenty of anything they want.. greed should disapear by default.  The earth have enought to satisfy everyone.  The scarcity is a consequence of the actual monetary system, wich enforce this scarcity.  For the first time in human history, we have the knowledge and the technology to overcome any sort of scarcity.  History cant apply as we've never been so aware and technologicaly able.

We are seeing the begining of a new era, and the past milleniums of "trade" begins to show as possibly obsolete for the next society models..

The trade concept is prehistoric, when we will learn to do better, we may became a civilisation.  It's in our value that the shift must materialize.

No, sorry.  You are dead wrong about this.  Scarcity in economics is a consequence of the inability of a given atom to be in more than one place at a given time.  It has nothing to do with money.  I can't imagine where you got the idea that money is somehow causing scarcity.

It may, someday, be possible for many things to be too cheap for anyone to care much about, but they will still be scarce in the economic sense.  Also there is no reason at all to think that everything will fall into this category, and there are instead very many reasons to think that many things will never be in this category.

[Rassah]

The benefit, in this case, is capitalism, and the drawback is lack of capitalism. More specifically, the benefit is someone being a capitalist, participating in the capitalist system, and making wealth for themselves. The drawback is someone not being a capitalist, not taking advantage of capitalism, and then getting in trouble when they didn't bother earning or saving. If you are climbing a cliff, it's not the cliff murdering you if you let go.

This is the kind of lethal ignorance and sick egocentric mentality that allow these kinds of atrocities to happen repeatedly. Blaming the victims for the violent actions of their aggressors is one of the distorted values that capitalism teaches.

If someone has a choice between putting money into savings, or having kids/buying a new fancy car/buying a house they can barely afford, and then they get into financial trouble that brings them to the brink of starvation, whom am I supposed to blame?