Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:52:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 73 ... 124 »
  Print  
Author Topic: A Resource Based Economy  (Read 260998 times)
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:13:44 AM
 #441

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

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.



I would actually prefer not to read 22 pages of links to tzm.com, actually.

I wasn't just referring to private property there but also a price mechanism (you people seem to prefer the term "barter") and the good of people fulfilling self-interest over purely collective goods and labor. If we agree that a free means of barter, currency or otherwise, is essential to a free society then I'll be pleasantly surprised.
1480758727
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758727

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758727
Reply with quote  #2

1480758727
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480758727
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758727

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758727
Reply with quote  #2

1480758727
Report to moderator
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:20:42 AM
 #442

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)


Eradicating a free mechanism for barter has been directly attempted repeatedly (and failed), and has everything to do with Communism. That doesn't mean you are consciously advocating communism, it simply means you are trying to defy history. Again, if this isn't the intent of the movement then please relieve me of my concern.

Regarding noone addressing "sustainability," are you kidding? The "CLIMATE CRISIS" and countless other environmental disaster scenarios have been rampant at the United Nations for decades; long before mainstream media got on the bandwagon. The one notable exception, though, is the that the UN (like Fresco) focuses entirely on overpopulation and our carbon sins rather than arguably more substantive ecological issues such as GMO crops or human/animal infertility rates skyrocketing with the rise of chemical contamination. These issues tend to be brushed under the rug as healthy human fertility tends to conflict with depopulation goals.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:26:36 AM
 #443

I would actually prefer not to read 22 pages of links to tzm.com, actually.

I answered many times directly and didn't just post links. If you care to read them, you'll understand.

Quote
I wasn't just referring to private property there but also a price mechanism (you people seem to prefer the term "barter") and the good of people fulfilling self-interest over purely collective goods and labor. If we agree that a free means of barter, currency or otherwise, is essential to a free society then I'll simply be pleasantly surprised.

No, I don't agree. I don't advocate making it illegal, or forcing people not to do it. I'm suggesting that we use what works best to live sustainably. AFAICS, the free trade based on monetary exchange leads to monopolies, environmental degradation and worldwide poverty, so it looks highly detrimental and inefficient.

Also a system like Cuba nas many of the same problems, so it has nothing to do with that.

As I explained, strategic conservation, access abundance, systems theory. If you don't understand what that means and you think it's communism than it's your fault for not researching and studying the material, it's not a fault of the model.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:30:03 AM
 #444

Regarding noone addressing "sustainability," are you kidding? The "CLIMATE CRISIS" and countless other environmental disaster scenarios have been rampant at the United Nations for decades; long before mainstream media got on the bandwagon.

Yes, luckily environmental groups are changing the general culture, but so far very few social systems have done anything substantial about it.

Notable exceptions: Iceland, Sweden and Norway, but far from being really sustainable, and the core problem is not addressed (namely: why do companies pollute so much and how do you prevent that in the first place?)

Nobody is addressing that.
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 259



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:32:15 AM
 #445

I would actually prefer not to read 22 pages of links to tzm.com, actually.

I answered many times directly and didn't just post links. If you care to read them, you'll understand.

Quote
I wasn't just referring to private property there but also a price mechanism (you people seem to prefer the term "barter") and the good of people fulfilling self-interest over purely collective goods and labor. If we agree that a free means of barter, currency or otherwise, is essential to a free society then I'll simply be pleasantly surprised.

No, I don't agree. I don't advocate making it illegal, or forcing people not to do it. I'm suggesting that we use what works best to live sustainably. AFAICS, the free trade based on monetary exchange leads to monopolies, environmental degradation and worldwide poverty, so it looks highly detrimental and inefficient.

So essentially you want to start a form of commune to prove this can be done while holding zero desire to force people to refrain from their voluntary transactions in a free market based on whatever form of currency or barter they choose? If so, I would have little issue with your creating an experiment and allowing people to voluntarily join or disregard such. I would be surprised, however, if TZMs theories around environmental degradation didn't lead to calls to use force against those involved in voluntary transactions that your movement deemed as socially reckless or harmful to the environment.

If force and the involuntary redistribution of private land is entirely out of the equation then I would simply say good luck to you and let me know how it goes.
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 09:34:08 AM
 #446

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.

I'm sorry if you don't like that term. Yes I made it up inspired by your videos. You can chose another one you feel more confortable with.
But not dynamic equilibrium, because there's many ways to achieve it and you claim science can make you decide one.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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.

You say good is subjective but bad is objective.
I don't like starvation, but I don't think it is objectively bad. Bad (as good) is always subjective .

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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

Finally understood. Sustainability is a priority over people getting free access to their necessities.
When a conflict appears, sutainability gets first and the free access may be stopped when necessary.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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.

If there were evidences, it may evident to me. But I (and many people) happen to think different from you. You can say that's because our ignorance, but that wouldn't be an argument.
As far as I can tell, nobody defends social darwinism nor eugenics here.
I don't think free trade results in "poor getting poorer and rich getting richer", but if it did, then can't imply "almost complete social immobility" at the same time.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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.

If TZM believes Interest is a problem, I can provide you material and links to other organizations that think the same way.
Here's an example:

http://www.complementarycurrency.org/

Not all the currencies listed there have a way to prevent interest (demurrage or mutual credit).

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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)

Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation

No. This your an opinion. It must be proved to become science.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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.

We have the same goals, we just differ in the means needed to achieve it.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Tell me how the free market is going to provide that.

The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:38:51 AM
 #447

So essentially you want to start a form of commune to prove this can be done while holding zero desire to force people to refrain from their voluntary transactions in a free market based on whatever form of currency or barter they choose? If so, I would have little issue with your creating an experiment and allowing people to voluntarily join or disregard such.

That's not far from what we advocate, but if we really want to succeed that people would have to wake up and start other communes all around the world, improve from the initial design, and make it holographic.

The general culture has to change, otherwise we'll have a working sustainable city, while the rest of the world is going to shit. Eventually it will catch up and reach us as well, so isolation is not really an option.

Quote
I would be surprised, however, if TZMs theories around environmental degradation didn't lead to calls to use force against those involved in voluntary transactions that your movement deemed as socially reckless or harmful to the environment.

The only thing that is prohibited in the movement is violence. I guess you can fill in the gaps yourself.

Quote
If force and the involuntary redistribution of private land is entirely out of the equation then I would simply say good luck to you and let me know how it goes.

Thanks. Smiley

Hey, we're all in this together, after all, we only have one planet Cheesy
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 09:58:25 AM
 #448

But not dynamic equilibrium, because there's many ways to achieve it and you claim science can make you decide one.

It can.

What is the alternative? Invisible hands guided by God, or maybe Santa?

Quote
You say good is subjective but bad is objective.
I don't like starvation, but I don't think it is objectively bad. Bad (as good) is always subjective .

Good or bad are loaded terms. Let's say: "diminishes or maximises well being". That is objective. Starvation diminishes well being, that's a fact.

Come on jtimon, let's be practical.

Quote
Finally understood. Sustainability is a priority over people getting free access to their necessities.
When a conflict appears, sutainability gets first and the free access may be stopped when necessary.

Free access is according to the availability. They go hand in hand.

Geez.

Look, it's real simple. The planet has a carrying capacity of X, you have to manage it accordingly. You can't pretend you have 10 planets.

Sadly, free market capitalists believe we have 10 planets to spare.

Sorry to break the news for you: we don't.

Quote
As far as I can tell, nobody defends social darwinism nor eugenics here.
I don't think free trade results in "poor getting poorer and rich getting richer", but if it did, then can't imply "almost complete social immobility" at the same time.

It's not my opinion, the data shows that. The more capitalist a country is, the more inequality and social darwinism. Th more inequality, the more problems.

Quote
Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

You still think os the producer as an individual or a central authority. In an RBE there is no such a thing, ergo what you state is a non sequitur.

Quote
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation

No. This your an opinion. It must be proved to become science.

If you can't see how the market continuously creates oligopolies, cartels and monopolies without any regard for the environment or the people at large, you have missed the last 50 years of our history.

Shall I go and list all human activities, and how 90% of the market is controlled by no more than 5 companies, that continuously destroy the environment?

Please wake up and open your eyes.

We are not talking about abstract philosophy or theoretical models. We are talking about real life.

Quote
The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.

OK, so finally I get it.

You have no plan to avoid self-destruction, you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that.

Any explanation on how that may happen?
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 10:12:13 AM
 #449

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.

I think you're wrong on this. Maybe you're right in the number of developers but most free software is paid to be produced.
I bet Google alone (and is not the only big company that produces free software) produces more free software than all the volunteers together.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
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 from: 4v4l0n42

I don't think so. They're well defined concepts. You shouldn't forget them when you propose to end free market.

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)

I don't think you can convince me that the scientific can tell you what to do, either with a video or with logic argumentation.
The seed of Nietsche is inside of me. I can't confuse science with morals anymore.

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

Activity: 1778



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 10:15:33 AM
 #450

Quote
The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.

OK, so finally I get it.

You have no plan to avoid self-destruction, you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that.

Any explanation on how that may happen?

How did you get from "The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it. If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide." to "you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that." ?

Is there some grammatical or syntactical quirk of the language you think in that takes that English in some completely different way than (I am relatively sure) most English would probably take it?

There seems to be a massive gap or divide here between what you got and what you got it from... upon re-reading it, does it still say what you thought it said, or does it maybe seem amenable to some other interpretation now?

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 10:16:59 AM
 #451

I think you're wrong on this. Maybe you're right in the number of developers but most free software is paid to be produced.
I bet Google alone (and is not the only big company that produces free software) produces more free software than all the volunteers together.

We could debate about numbers and quality, but it's beside the point.

The point is that it was questioned whether people would do anything without monetary compensation.

The answer is clearly: yes, they have and they will.

Quote
I don't think you can convince me that the scientific can tell you what to do, either with a video or with logic argumentation.
The seed of Nietsche is inside of me. I can't confuse science with morals anymore.

Finally, you admit that you have a personal belief, which cannot be changed, regardless of whatever evidence is proposed.

I guess that kind of ends it.

Faith over reason and reality.
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 10:20:00 AM
 #452

How did you get from "The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it. If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide." to "you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that." ?

OK, let me rephrase then.

1. How does the free market avoid the destruction of the inhabitable planet from which we depend on to survive?
2. How does the free market ensure that no people will starve unnecessarily?

Quite eager to hear.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 10:33:40 AM
 #453

How did you get from "The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it. If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide." to "you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that." ?

OK, let me rephrase then.

1. How does the free market avoid the destruction of the inhabitable planet from which we depend on to survive?
2. How does the free market ensure that no people will starve unnecessarily?

Quite eager to hear.

As far as I can tell from the wording, it seems to me that free market does not [...], people do (or, possibly, do not).

("Free markets don't kill people, people do"?)

What consititutes necessity in a free market? Possibly such markets might include propaganda profitably explaining how necessary it is that people starve. Who was it who had that .sig about wolves maximising the value of sheep by re-arranging them into marketable food, in effect? Is a market which attempts to prevent evolutionary assets such as aggressiveness, teeth, claws, willingness to prey and kill, from being permissable / marketable / useable products or services truly free?

The material in this part of the thread doesn't really seem to address 2 directly but certainly does not seem to indicate free markets solve the problem.

Could it be that you might have grasped the text clearer had it said the people instead of the people in the free market? As maybe mentioning where the people happened to be (in a free market) distracted you from the idea it is the people who must do it if it is to be done, toward some idea that only if the people were in a free market they could or would do so? (I would take it more as implying that if there not people in the market there probably would not be much that could or would happen to prevent the undesired results...)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 10:51:03 AM
 #454

Could it be that you might have grasped the text clearer had it said the people instead of the people in the free market?

People act according to their environment and stimula.

I'll ask again.

1. How do the people in a free market system avoid the destruction of the inhabitable planet from which we depend on to survive?
2. How do the people in free market system ensure that no people will starve unnecessarily?
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 11:23:28 AM
 #455

What evidence indicates that they do?

Even if not in a free market system maybe they do not?

Are systems any solution at all or part of the problem? Systems have not had a great track record have they?

Are they to be forced to remain in a free market system, or are they simply going to stubbornly insist on remaining in one even if they starve?

Free market proponents hereabouts seem to tend to think the market is not in fact free if people are forced to participate.

However merely giving starving people as many acres of as-arable land (or, generically, "resources") per capita as non-starving people supposedly also has a poor track record as a means of preventing them from starving.

Maybe the only way to prevent them starving would be to invoke some medical doctrine or something that claims to take priority over the freedom of the market, permitting them to be fed intravenously due to suffering from a medical condition (starving person syndrome? hunger? chronic failure to receive enough intravenous nourishment? I guess then it'd come down to doctors versus free marketeers, with maybe the marketeers jeering at the doctors saying if they perform this medical service they are basically slaves, that if they were truly free their hippocratic oath would mean less to them than the jeers of the marketeers, or something?)

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:47:12 AM
 #456

merely giving starving people as many acres of as-arable land (or, generically, "resources") per capita as non-starving people supposedly also has a poor track record as a means of preventing them from starving.

I agree. Nobody is suggesting to do that.

Quote
Maybe the only way to prevent them starving would be to invoke some medical doctrine or something that claims to take priority over the freedom of the market, permitting them to be fed intravenously due to suffering from a medical condition (starving person syndrome? hunger? chronic failure to receive enough intravenous nourishment? I guess then it'd come down to doctors versus free marketeers, with maybe the marketeers jeering at the doctors saying if they perform this medical service they are basically slaves, that if they were truly free their hippocratic oath would mean less to them than the jeers of the marketeers, or something?)

Are you high? Or just joking? I don't know if I should take this seriously or not.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 11:55:07 AM
 #457

Well how serious are you about preventing them from starving?

Laissez-faire, heck if they want to starve let them?

Is it my fault, heck its not as if I took a job they could have done instead of me, why don't they just get a job, if they had any skills I'd hire them but sheesh I am having a hard enough time just feeding my own SUV?

I'm a doctor, not an economist. If they cannot eat what the nurse carries over from the replicator tell Scotty to replicate something we can give them intravenously?

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 01:04:52 PM
 #458

Well how serious are you about preventing them from starving?

Laissez-faire, heck if they want to starve let them?

What in the world are you talking about? Huh

The people in Africa, Asia and South America are not starving because they don't want to eat. It's because they have no food to eat.

Hey guys, you think he's really serious or what?
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 02:17:26 PM
 #459

But not dynamic equilibrium, because there's many ways to achieve it and you claim science can make you decide one.

It can.


If the dynamic equilibrium (which you stated was to goal to achieve by using the scientific method) can be obtained in various ways, you need another value do chose the best alternative.
And again SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVIDES VALUES, nor a direction to go, nor a meaning of life.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
You say good is subjective but bad is objective.
I don't like starvation, but I don't think it is objectively bad. Bad (as good) is always subjective .

Good or bad are loaded terms. Let's say: "diminishes or maximises well being". That is objective. Starvation diminishes well being, that's a fact.


Well, then you have to define formally "well being".

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
Finally understood. Sustainability is a priority over people getting free access to their necessities.
When a conflict appears, sutainability gets first and the free access may be stopped when necessary.

Free access is according to the availability. They go hand in hand.

That's why I think sustainability is not compatible with people having free access to what they want.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Look, it's real simple. The planet has a carrying capacity of X, you have to manage it accordingly. You can't pretend you have 10 planets.

Sadly, free market capitalists believe we have 10 planets to spare.

Sorry to break the news for you: we don't.

I know.
I don't think free market capitalists believe we have 10 planets.
Also I don't like capitalism, just free market. Gesell can explain you in depth how to end with capitalism without eliminating free market.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
As far as I can tell, nobody defends social darwinism nor eugenics here.
I don't think free trade results in "poor getting poorer and rich getting richer", but if it did, then can't imply "almost complete social immobility" at the same time.

It's not my opinion, the data shows that. The more capitalist a country is, the more inequality and social darwinism. Th more inequality, the more problems.

There's many factors that lead to inequality, you can't blame the free market and pretend that is obvious.
Big companies are often "powered" by states, they also use coercion (coercion is not free trade).
What do you mean by "more capitalist country"?
Is the US more capitalist than China?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

You still think of the producer as an individual or a central authority. In an RBE there is no such a thing, ergo what you state is a non sequitur.

The producer could be just you or me. I'm talking about people when I say producer.
There's no authorities or there's no producers in a RBE?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
Quote from: 4v4l0n42
4.2 profit-based competition breeds natural monopolies, corruption and environmental degradation

No. This your an opinion. It must be proved to become science.

If you can't see how the market continuously creates oligopolies, cartels and monopolies without any regard for the environment or the people at large, you have missed the last 50 years of our history.

Shall I go and list all human activities, and how 90% of the market is controlled by no more than 5 companies, that continuously destroy the environment?

Please wake up and open your eyes.

We are not talking about abstract philosophy or theoretical models. We are talking about real life.

Monopolies, cartels and such need some form of coercion to keep being monopolies.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42
Quote
The free market won't provide that. The people within the free market have to do it.
If they chose suicide and self destruction, there's nothing free market can do. Free market can't impede suicide.

OK, so finally I get it.

You have no plan to avoid self-destruction, you have a blind faith, or a blind wish, that the free market will, somehow, avoid that.

Any explanation on how that may happen?

My plan for sustainability is probably close to yours: increase localization of food and energy production, permaculture, renewable energies...
I just think we don't have to sacrifice freedom for that. As you said, people must educate themselves and the scarcity of resources will help on that.
Have you heard about peak oil?
We just won't have a monetary system that is based on exponential growth like the one we have today. Just because is unsustainable.
To replace it you don't want money at all.
Most people on this forum prefer gold-like money (bitcoin).
I prefer ripple and/or freicoin because gold leads to interest and I think that's a flaw.


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

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 02:23:36 PM
 #460

The people in Africa, Asia and South America are not starving because they don't want to eat. It's because they have no food to eat.

They are not starving because the free market has failed them, they are starving because they live in oppressive regimes with a lot of warlords, crime, and tribal skirmishes, which are preventing the free market from existing.

Devil's advocate question here: If I moved into a TZM commune, what would prevent me from taking the "freely available" resources to the point where there is a bit of a shortage of them, and then selling them to people in exchange for, say, making them work to build me something that is otherwise unavailable? (example, I keep "needing" more and more water, which I store away, until there is a water shortage, and I force people to build me a yacht in exchange for letting them have a bit of water)

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 73 ... 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!