Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 01:54:34 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ... 124 »
  Print  
Author Topic: A Resource Based Economy  (Read 261030 times)
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 12:34:06 PM
 #421

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

I think the misunderstanding here is that the benefit of the individual and the benefit of the whole are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, the more you strive to have both at the same time, the more likely you are to reach an equilibrium, where you can't eliminate "unhappiness", but you can to maximise happiness to the extent that is physically possible.

Social darwinism is highly detrimental, and produces inequality, wars, social segregation, neuroses, stress and overall a worse quality of life for most people.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480816474
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816474

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816474
Reply with quote  #2

1480816474
Report to moderator
1480816474
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816474

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816474
Reply with quote  #2

1480816474
Report to moderator
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 12:35:39 PM
 #422

In the hierarchy of human needs that essentially "care of an individual by another party should always be voluntary" and that this will occur naturally when basic human needs are met. Using automation to meet basic human needs should be no real effort given today's level of technology. QED

+1.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 12:39:28 PM
 #423

Anyways, I agree a post-scarcity situation being possible but not as fast as you guys may think it can be built [...]You need proper and gradual incentive and that comes from many iterations of products.

I agree, and that incentive historically has largely been the betterment of mankind as a whole, the search for knowledge and many other non-monetary factors.

The most powerful contributions to society did not come from corporations seeking profit. Nikola Tesla did not establish alternating current electric power because he was out to make a buck. Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, the Wright Brothers, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton did not make their massive contributions to society because of material self-interest.
 
While it is true that useful inventions and methods do come from the motivation for personal gain, the intent behind those creations typically have nothing to do with human or social concerns, for detached self-interest and survival are really the true motivations.
bittersweet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224



View Profile
June 30, 2011, 01:52:58 PM
 #424

The most powerful contributions to society did not come from corporations seeking profit.


1. There is nothing wrong with seeking profit. It's part of human nature and people fighting with it are plain dumb.

2. You confuse the roles of inventor and producer. Without producers most inventions would be useless.

3. You are wrong about inventors - majority of them do seek profit, even if it's not their only motivation. The bad part is they use state violence (patents) to ensure to make a buck. It's funny you mentioned Wrights, considering they started aviation company along with major industrialists and sold their patents for 100 000 USD. Also Tesla, Pasteur and Einstein did patent their inventions.

My Bitcoin address: 1DjTsAYP3xR4ymcTUKNuFa5aHt42q2VgSg
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
 #425

1. There is nothing wrong with seeking profit.

Errr, there is.

http://goo.gl/DP977

Quote
It's part of human nature and people fighting with it are plain dumb.

Human nature?

I studied human behavioural biology, evolutional biology and neuroscience, and I could not find any scientific peer-review publication to support such a claim.

Can you enlighten me and redirect me to the relevant research that suggests such a thing?

Quote
2. You confuse the roles of inventor and producer. Without producers most inventions would be useless.

Without producers most inventions would be useless  Huh

Invention and innovation, when useful, drive production, because it's needed, not because you want to sell it.

It's necessity that drives production, the profit motive is just an obstacle and a distortion.

Quote
3. You are wrong about inventors - majority of them do seek profit, even if it's not their only motivation. The bad part is they use state violence (patents) to ensure to make a buck. It's funny you mentioned Wrights, considering they started aviation company along with major industrialists and sold their patents for 100 000 USD. Also Tesla, Pasteur and Einstein did patent their inventions.

The fact that they patented is because that's what required by the current market system, but it doesn't tell you anything about their motivation.

If you read the literature, you'll find out that the greatest minds were and are not driven by monetary gains.

That was the point of the discussion, not if people patented inventions.

And even if you counted that, how do you explain Albert Sabin, who not only dedicated his entire professional career to the elimination of human suffering though his groundbreaking medical advances, who also waged a tireless campaign against poverty and ignorance throughout his lifetime?

jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 07:21:11 PM
 #426

If you don't mind, I'll try to organize a bit our discussion by marking my answers with 4 main claims:

1) Scientifically directed evolution assumes good is an absolute concept

2) The end of scarceness and strategic conservation conflict between them.

3) Private property and free trade are best recipes for non coercive society

4) Interest is a flaw of a technology called money with evil effects for both the society and the environment
Gesell describes its social effects very well. For the environmental consequences maybe you want to read Bernard Liater.
Anyway I'm happy to answer any question you have.

Please stop insulting me. I've studied systems theory.[...]

Fair enough, I apologise.

In return, please don't use false associations with loaded terms such a any-ism, which brought me to believe that you haven't studied.

Accepted. But I can't promise I won't write more the suffix -ism. I'll do it when I mean a concept that written like this.

Quote
Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?

I dont' really understand the question, but I guess the direction we propose is Dynamic equilibrium with the planet.


This is clearly a point of misunderstanding and conflict between you and me. Let's put it the name you prefer.
I mark this matter with 1 (scientifically directed evolution).

Quote
As you said, you have to decide what you want to achieve first. But you assume we all want the same thing, that ethics are absolute or something.

We are not discussing all the realm of ethics. Just the basics: do we agree that we want the survival of the species on the planet and that we want to ensure the well being of all the people? That's what we are talking about.


I agree. I'm sure (?almost?) everyone does.
This is related with 1 and 2 (the end of scarceness and strategic conservation).

Quote
So your answer is education would be enough to control population growth. What if not?

As I said, it's a difficult issue, I don't know what if not, we'll have to discuss it. In any case, why not trying education, first?

And again, what is your proposal?

I'm for education. I'm sure it can solve many of our problems. I'm just against public education.
The planet can't feed an unlimited amount of people so can only promise food and water for everyone if you can control the population growth.
The problem I see is that if the priority is food production, the population would be adjusted to consume all those resources.
Maybe the optimal population size for say, cultural progress is lower than the maximum population size sustainable on the planet.
This is more of 2.

Quote
Quote
Sure, that's why we need strategic conservation, instead of wasteful infinite growth and a throw away society.

Isn't that incompatible with "everybody would have access to the resources"?

No, it's the basis for that. As I said a million times, you have to change the values before you change the system. First, people need to understand that their desires need to take into account what's actually possible in the real world, and that wanting a 500-rooms mansion in unsustainable, and that many people will suffer because of that.


Yes. Changing the values is needed. I don't think that people should want 500-rooms mansion.
My point was the same as in 2.

Quote
So there would still be corruption and self interest within the RBE.
Self interest probably reduced by education, right?

Greatly reduced, through education and a change of values. The same way we now consider horrible owning slaves. We evolve our culture.

Education and change of values can also be achieved with private property and free trade (3). The bodies of slaves are not their own property and that's disgusting.

Quote
No, "everything is for the greater good" sounds like religion.

As opposed to "everything is for the good a a very small elite that can impose its power on the rest of the starving population"?

Who claimed that?
Oh, I forgot you think it's a necessary consequence of private property and free agreements between people (3).  

Quote
Insulting Friedman doesn't prove he is wrong.
Yes, "free market always leads to either monopolies or cartels" is an opinion to be proven.

I addressed the fallacy of Friedman's arguments in the post below, I didn't just pick on him.

Anyway, here's a very clear rebuttal that explains why the free market proponents get it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw

I'll see the video after posting this. But I don't think you have proved in this forum that free market necessarily leads to monopolies.
You didn't even proved that monopolies are possible without coercion.

Quote
I'm saying planned obsolescence would disappear without monopolies and cartels.

... and they are a product of the profit-based market system, whether it is free, partly free, or socialist. The underlying mechanism doesn't change. See the video posted above.

3

Quote
   
I understood that all the production/distribution would be planned by the public sector using the scientific method and an improved form of democracy.
If it's not the public sector and the private sector (free market) will become obsolete, where operates the RBE?

Isn't the access to resources without private property controlled by the state?

If, by State, you mean the people directly, according to what they really need and what can be scientifically accomplished, yes.

If by State, you mean what we have now, a big and loud no.

By the state I mean the public sector (public property instead of private), no matter how perfect the democracy or governance system.

If by Free market you mean what we have now, I'm also against.

Quote
I'm not a believer in free market, just an advocate.

That's good to hear. Smiley

Quote
Are you an advocate of RBE or it's just self evident?

I advocate a way for the species to survive, without destroying the planet's resources and without forced slavery for billions of people.

What do you advocate, and how's the "free market" going to solve that?

The free market won't solve nothing, the people have to do it, as you said, changing their minds. But we can do it within a free market or under more coercive systems.

Quote
I propose to change the current monetary system in a way that makes the economy compatible with long term thinking and social justice.

So, it doesn't matter if we destroy the planet from which the depend in the process? And what is social justice? the richest 1% controlling 40% of resources is social justice? Billions of people starving to death is social justice? How's this "long term thinking" going to prevent that?

What makes you think that Ripple or freicoin will destroy the planet in the process of being accepted?
What you describe is the opposite of social justice.
The fact that the long term thinking is damaged by a flaw in the current design of money is bad for our relations with the environment and with ourselves(4).

Quote
I think we need to eliminate interest and get the government out of the issuance of money to achieve that. I think Ripple can make it, maybe freicoin too.

Again, the question is sustainability. How's that addressing the issue?

4

Quote
I'm also an advocate of decentralization and permaculture.
+1

I'm not very confident that TZM advocates for decentralization.

Quote
I love robots too, but I don't think they're going to end labor. I see many people employed extending arduino in the near future, for example.
+1. When we say that labour will be reduced, we talk about jobs that don't produce anything useful for society. And by having the necessities provided automatically (technically possible, really, if you look into it) the only jobs that remain are the ones that you would like to do, not the ones that you are forced to, otherwise you die.

We can't know for sure if public jobs give value to society. Someone values the work of privates jobs.

Quote
I "believe" in moral relativism, that's why I won't ever agree with the concept of "arriving at decisions".

For morality, that's fine. But what you need to survive is not an opinion, it's a scientific fact, and the market system is not designed to provide what's needed for the survival, you have to fight for it at the expenses of others. A cruel game of musical chairs, where the poor and the weak always loose.

To apply the scientific method you need a more specific problem. How many individuals do you want to survive? As much as possible?
The interest is the stolen chair in the market game.

Quote
Profits tend to zero in a free market.

W-w-whaaat? o_O

Why?

Because other entrepreneur can make your same business for less profit. I must clarify that I mean profits different from capital yields.
I'm ok if you prefer to use another word for them.
As said, doesn't happen the same with capital yields. If a capital good (for example, an industrial machine or a house) provides less return on investment that money itself, its construction is not financed. (4)

Quote
But with our current monetary system (and older ones) capital yields do not.
Interest on money prevents capital yields to tend to zero too.
You could blame interest instead of free market for many of the things you say it is responsible for.
Free market it's just about people deciding their own wants and cooperating with each other to achieve their goals in a non coercive way (trade).

Again, that doesn't address the problem of sustainability, which is the number one priority.

We can discuss all day about exchange rates, capital investments, State intervention, free market and the like, until we end up in a time where there is no more a planet to host our philosophical discussions.

I think we clearly have different views on state intervention and free market. Maybe that deserves discussion.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Michele1940
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW
June 30, 2011, 07:47:33 PM
 #427

1. There is nothing wrong with seeking profit.

Errr, there is.

http://goo.gl/DP977

Quote
It's part of human nature and people fighting with it are plain dumb.

Human nature?

I studied human behavioural biology, evolutional biology and neuroscience, and I could not find any scientific peer-review publication to support such a claim.

Can you enlighten me and redirect me to the relevant research that suggests such a thing?

Answer by michele.siciliano :

"Human nature" is a phrase that is probably been misunderstood, in this contest at least. Studying Human nature by scientific means only , definitely shuts down the door to real knowledge. Science should be used to determine the anomalies of human behavior in order to bring them to the surface and therefore allowing us to :

1) be aware of them
2) overcome them

In addition, it is not correct to state that something that is part of human nature cannot be fought. In order to understand this, you should start noticing how your emotions differs from what you actually think to be correct. Emotions are actually driving our existence and we are totally unconscious of this process. This is way we are not satisfied with our own life.

You might be unlighted by the reading ( and understanding ) of this book, to begin with.

http://www.forgottenbooks.org/info/9781605064901

Signed: Twitter @Michele1940 Blog: pointapp.blogspot.com ; http://twitpic.com/photos/Michele1940
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 30, 2011, 08:38:44 PM
 #428

1) Scientifically directed evolution assumes good is an absolute concept

1.1 Who ever said "scientifically directed evolution"? It;s something you brought up, I don't even know what that would mean/imply.
1.2 Good as an absolute concept. No, on the contrary, it's highly subjective. But there are things are are objectively negative, and we should avoid (e.g.: starvation, slavery). The free market doesn't solve any of those by design.

Quote
2) The end of scarceness and strategic conservation conflict between them.

Eh, what? Huh

2.1 Priority number one, strategic conversation and sustainability
2.2 Automate the process as much as possible
2.3 People get access to the necessities of life without having to enslave themselves for profit, and can finally do something useful for themselves and for the rest of society

Quote
3) Private property and free trade are best recipes for non coercive society

Say, whaaaat? Huh

The evidence shows exactly the opposite. You have to illusion of being free, sure, but you are only as free as your purchasing power allows you to, which is a complete joke because social darwinism implies almost complete social immobility, poor getting poorer and rich getting richer, centralisation of power.

Quote
4) Interest is a flaw of a technology called money with evil effects for both the society and the environment

Interest is only part of the problem. The real problem is that the bottom line of a moetary based economy is to make money, not to live well, not to live sustainably, not to be happy. It's to make money.

And it's been proven over and ver that:
4.1 money doesn't make you happy (as the complete lack of it, what matters is to get access to what you need)
4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation

I thin we are missing the point here. I'll make it crystal clear, and I'll call it number zero, 'cause it's the one that matters most Wink

0. We need to find a way to live sustainably on the planet, where people are not forced into slavery/poverty and everybody gets access to the necessities of life.

Tell me how the free market is going to provide that.
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 01:23:16 AM
 #429

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

Social darwinism is highly detrimental, and produces inequality, wars, social segregation, neuroses, stress and overall a worse quality of life for most people.

I have never advocated this. All I advocate is voluntary charity.
LightRider
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1488


I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 01:56:14 AM
 #430

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

Social darwinism is highly detrimental, and produces inequality, wars, social segregation, neuroses, stress and overall a worse quality of life for most people.

I have never advocated this. All I advocate is voluntary charity.

The monetary system and associated profit motive actively inhibit this.

Bitcoin combines money, the wrongest thing in the world, with software, the easiest thing in the world to get wrong.
Visit www.thevenusproject.com and www.theZeitgeistMovement.com.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 02:00:17 AM
 #431

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

Social darwinism is highly detrimental, and produces inequality, wars, social segregation, neuroses, stress and overall a worse quality of life for most people.

I have never advocated this. All I advocate is voluntary charity.

The monetary system and associated profit motive actively inhibit this.

If I believe that the person in need of charity will put my money to good use, and will use it to become a productive member of society that I am a part of, such as becoming a better employee or starting their own small business, that is charity that I may do for a personal profit motive, yet is still charity.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 02:05:15 AM
 #432


2.2 Automate the process as much as possible
2.3 People get access to the necessities of life without having to enslave themselves for profit, and can finally do something useful for themselves and for the rest of society


Maybe this has been answered already, but who will be forced to build and maintain the automation machines, and who will do the forcing?
Also, who will decide how much each person needs, and what will prevent them from deciding they need more than others?

Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 02:51:06 AM
 #433

In addition, it is absolutely deplorable that when it is even mentioned that a man must care for himself, it is reduced to pathology. It's asinine to believe men should not have any reverence for himself but only for others. The only way a man can begin to care for others is if he sustains himself. If he fails to care for himself, the others he supposedly loves so dearly will just have to care for him, only resulting in a loss.

Social darwinism is highly detrimental, and produces inequality, wars, social segregation, neuroses, stress and overall a worse quality of life for most people.

I have never advocated this. All I advocate is voluntary charity.

The monetary system and associated profit motive actively inhibit this.

I think it's unnatural to have anything without profit. Whether it be monetary or deriving value from helping unfortunate. To say people can and should do things selflessly with actual sacrifice, is absurd. To say man should sacrifice is actually very insulting to me.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:03:40 AM
 #434



I think it's unnatural to have anything without profit. Whether it be monetary or deriving value from helping unfortunate. To say people can and should do things selflessly with actual sacrifice, is absurd. To say man should sacrifice is actually very insulting to me.
Wait until you are a parent.  Wink

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 07:24:21 AM
 #435

Maybe this has been answered already

It has, but I'll answer anyway Smiley

Quote
who will be forced to build and maintain the automation machines

Nobody. Just as nobody is forced to write on wikipedia, create material in creative commons, start the Open Source Architecture nexwork, Open Source Ecology, build The RepRap, write Linux or take part in any other thousands of FOSS successful projects.

Quote
and who will do the forcing?

Consequently, nobody.

Quote
Also, who will decide how much each person needs, and what will prevent them from deciding they need more than others?

In order: the planet (resources available), scientific method, education, education, education. No forcing, no coercion, no baseless opinions, no bullshit.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 07:26:01 AM
 #436

I think it's unnatural to have anything without profit.

You think so, but where is the evidence?

Quote
Whether it be monetary or deriving value from helping unfortunate. To say people can and should do things selflessly with actual sacrifice, is absurd. To say man should sacrifice is actually very insulting to me.

I think it's very insulting, too. That's why there won't any sacrifices at all (see my answer above).
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 09:00:39 AM
 #437

Maybe this has been answered already

It has, but I'll answer anyway Smiley

Quote
who will be forced to build and maintain the automation machines

Nobody. Just as nobody is forced to write on wikipedia, create material in creative commons, start the Open Source Architecture nexwork, Open Source Ecology, build The RepRap, write Linux or take part in any other thousands of FOSS successful projects.


Many free software developers get paid for what they do. Even if they wage comes from charity.
In any case, I'm glad that you don't want the state to do it. Like you, I think is better if the private sector takes care of it.
But I'm afraid most TZM followers don't think like you.

Quote
Also, who will decide how much each person needs, and what will prevent them from deciding they need more than others?

In order: the planet (resources available), scientific method, education, education, education. No forcing, no coercion, no baseless opinions, no bullshit.


The planet and the scientific method will decide what each person needs?
Inanimate concepts such as the scientific method can't decide anything.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:03:02 AM
 #438

I think it's unnatural to have anything without profit.

You think so, but where is the evidence?

The evidence lies in history, something that seems dangerously overlooked in TZM's worldview. Take every totalitarian regime of the 20th century as a lesson of what happens when people are told to labor without personal benefit. Or, more specifically, consider the Soviet collectivization policies of the 20s-40s which caused insurmountable suffering for the whole of Eastern Europe (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union). I am of course not saying you consciously advocate a New Soviet, but TZM's economic project is quite in line with Soviet collectivization programs - barter and private property being replaced by collective ownership and the vain attempt at scientific resource allocation.

Without the right to private property and a means of bartering (some type of currency being the historically convenient form), power is always concentrated in the hands of an elite few who consider themselves to be the only ones capable of properly directing the self-interests of the masses. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; initially benevolent power with "purely scientific intent" would not end any differently.

The non-utopian reality is that most people are socially motivated by self-interest first and altruistic or public endeavors second. The positive side to this is that the fulfillment of self-interest very often contributes to the needs of others. Aristotle explained this thousands of years ago by writing that a man's personal interest in providing for and protecting his family benefits not only those directly around him but also the entire community he lives in. In a free society public labor necessitates the need for private benefit (which can take various forms) but this drive does not usher in social darwinism as families and communities share very common interests. These common self-interests can be skewed by divide and conquer tactics and scientific conditioning by elites, but that much I am sure we agree on.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:04:48 AM
 #439

Many free software developers get paid for what they do. Even if they wage comes from charity.

Most of them don't, and those who do it is just because they need to survive, the point is that they don't do it for the money.

The question was: "what people have what you need, will they do something rather than nothing?". The answer is demonstrably YES.

Quote
In any case, I'm glad that you don't want the state to do it. Like you, I think is better if the private sector takes care of it.
But I'm afraid most TZM followers don't think like you.

Your distinction of public and private sector is illusionary, for they don't exist in an RBE. It's just people.

Quote
The planet and the scientific method will decide what each person needs?
Inanimate concepts such as the scientific method can't decide anything.

It does, and it's actually the only way you can do it properly. I explain this on the video (it's taking some time, and I'll be travelling the coming days)
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:09:46 AM
 #440

The evidence lies in history, something that seems dangerously overlooked in TZM's worldview.

On the contrary, it's our starting point. We recognise that all attempts have failed, communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism. They all failed on different levels, but they all did.

Capitalism give you the illusion of success because it gives temporary power to a selected fre (you and me), while it moves the problems geographically (two billion people starving to death because of our system).

I'm sure you know why the others failed Smiley

That's why we propose a new system, one that:
- has nothing to do with communism, socialism, Cuba, Russia, China, Capitalism or any other ideological system
- addresses the issues the nobody is addressing now (sustainability and dynamic equilibrium instead of infinite growth)

Quote
Without the right to private property and a means of bartering (some type of currency being the historically convenient form), power is always concentrated in the hands of an elite few who consider themselves to be the only ones capable of properly directing the self-interests of the masses. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; initially benevolent power with "purely scientific intent" would not end any differently.

I agree. That is why in an RBE private property is not "illegal", as I said a million times over, and the incentive for corruption is greatly reduced, whereas in capitalism corruption is the very basis of the system.

I already addressed this many times, please go back and read the thread.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 ... 124 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!