A Resource Based Economy

[Rassah]

Legal tender is a cultural norm and value that we are trying to move away from. Making an arbitrary material a universal currency does not remove the underlying abusive tendencies associated with such a system.

By rejecting "legal tender," you are quite literally rejecting the idea that people should expect anything at all in return for their work. If I work, and I expect to be rewarded for that work by food, that food is now my "legal tender." If I expect to have a place to live, that dwelling is "legal tender." Rejecting legal tender means that everyone would have to work for entirely altruistic reasons, expecting absolutely nothing in return, yet still having things given to them (like food and shelter) in return for their work. Asking everyone to be completely selfless and altruistic is a rather far-fetched (ridiculous) proposition, especially since as soon as ONE person decides that they want to be directly compensated for their work, they will establish their own "legal tender," and the whole idea flies out the window...
I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong and I'm missing something, or I don't understand RBE/TZM. I'm eagerly waiting your explanation.

[1715020498]

1715020498

[1715020498]

1715020498

[1715020498]

1715020498

[1715020498]

1715020498

[1715020498]

1715020498

[1715020498]

1715020498

[jtimon]

there's only the public and the private sectors.

Incorrect. This is an artificial distinction. We share the same planet and the same resources. False authority does not alter this fact.

Then tell me what it is.
The RBE is not private property and is not public property at the same time.
I can't understand it. Can anyone explain this?
If we all share property is a commons or public property (we all own it through the state).
Is the RBE a commons? Have you heard about the tragedy of the commons?
Who makes decisions in the RBE?
A super-democratic government?
A team of experts elected by merit?
A super-computer?
Peter Joseph?
Honestly, I still prefer to manage the food I eat myself. Or at least be able to chose who produces it.
Property is about making decisions about the use of scarce resources.
You reject to talk about decision making and property in the RBE system. It doesn't help people to understand it.
Maybe not being described as a communist is more important than being understood for some RBE advocates.

[LightRider]

there's only the public and the private sectors.

Incorrect. This is an artificial distinction. We share the same planet and the same resources. False authority does not alter this fact.

Then tell me what it is.
The RBE is not private property and is not public property at the same time.
I can't understand it. Can anyone explain this?
If we all share property is a commons or public property (we all own it through the state).
Is the RBE a commons? Have you heard about the tragedy of the commons?
Who makes decisions in the RBE?
A super-democratic government?
A team of experts elected by merit?
A super-computer?
Peter Joseph?
Honestly, I still prefer to manage the food I eat myself. Or at least be able to chose who produces it.
Property is about making decisions about the use of scarce resources.
You reject to talk about decision making and property in the RBE system. It doesn't help people to understand it.
Maybe not being described as a communist is more important than being understood for some RBE advocates.

The point is to remove the escapist fantasy that we have any decision making power at all. We are subject to reality, not dictators of it. To ask who makes decisions misses the point of what the ultimate goal is. People who make decisions today are ill informed, manipulated, deceived, corrupted or otherwise mentally impaired by the delusions that we have created in our social order. Removing such delusions of money, property or the idea of "the state" will ultimately give way to a reality based society that arrives at decisions using rational and scientific information with the relevant values of caring for all current and future people.

[jtimon]

there's only the public and the private sectors.

Incorrect. This is an artificial distinction. We share the same planet and the same resources. False authority does not alter this fact.

Then tell me what it is.
The RBE is not private property and is not public property at the same time.
I can't understand it. Can anyone explain this?
If we all share property is a commons or public property (we all own it through the state).
Is the RBE a commons? Have you heard about the tragedy of the commons?
Who makes decisions in the RBE?
A super-democratic government?
A team of experts elected by merit?
A super-computer?
Peter Joseph?
Honestly, I still prefer to manage the food I eat myself. Or at least be able to chose who produces it.
Property is about making decisions about the use of scarce resources.
You reject to talk about decision making and property in the RBE system. It doesn't help people to understand it.
Maybe not being described as a communist is more important than being understood for some RBE advocates.

The point is to remove the escapist fantasy that we have any decision making power at all....to a reality based society that arrives at decisions using rational and scientific information with the relevant values of caring for all current and future people.

So we don't have decision making power at all but that reality based society will arrive to decisions.
Also the relevant values again. There's no free will but there's natural law, an universal justice, a scientific goodness or whatever you want to call it. Man, you're amazing.
Keep on waiting for the angels to come, but don't make any decision meanwhile.
I'll be here making decisions on my own (even if there's a logos pulling my puppet strings).
Although you can't make decisions, you seem to have decided to avoid certain questions.

[LightRider]

there's only the public and the private sectors.

Incorrect. This is an artificial distinction. We share the same planet and the same resources. False authority does not alter this fact.

Then tell me what it is.
The RBE is not private property and is not public property at the same time.
I can't understand it. Can anyone explain this?
If we all share property is a commons or public property (we all own it through the state).
Is the RBE a commons? Have you heard about the tragedy of the commons?
Who makes decisions in the RBE?
A super-democratic government?
A team of experts elected by merit?
A super-computer?
Peter Joseph?
Honestly, I still prefer to manage the food I eat myself. Or at least be able to chose who produces it.
Property is about making decisions about the use of scarce resources.
You reject to talk about decision making and property in the RBE system. It doesn't help people to understand it.
Maybe not being described as a communist is more important than being understood for some RBE advocates.

The point is to remove the escapist fantasy that we have any decision making power at all....to a reality based society that arrives at decisions using rational and scientific information with the relevant values of caring for all current and future people.

So we don't have decision making power at all but that reality based society will arrive to decisions.
Also the relevant values again. There's no free will but there's natural law, an universal justice, a scientific goodness or whatever you want to call it. Man, you're amazing.
Keep on waiting for the angels to come, but don't make any decision meanwhile.
I'll be here making decisions on my own (even if there's a logos pulling my puppet strings).
Although you can't make decisions, you seem to have decided to avoid certain questions.

More accurately, we use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions, upon which decisions are based. Making decisions based on irrational markets or government whims does not allow for optimal outcomes. Relevant values are emergent and discoverable, and does not require divine intervention. I'm sorry you don't yet understand my answers. Maybe you should reexamine the premises of your questions.

[Melbustus]

...Relevant values are emergent and discoverable, and does not require divine intervention.....

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but it sounds like you're trying to ignore some fundamentals about humanity. I'd argue that many values emerge from our biology and natural-selection type processes. People are self-interested. There is of course *some* natural tendency toward acting for the good of the species vs the good of one's self, but to dismiss self-interest as a cultural phenomenon only is naive. ... Again, forgive me if this has already been addressed - I pretty much just read the first and last pages.

[LightRider]

...Relevant values are emergent and discoverable, and does not require divine intervention.....

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but it sounds like you're trying to ignore some fundamentals about humanity. I'd argue that many values emerge from our biology and natural-selection type processes. People are self-interested. There is of course *some* natural tendency toward acting for the good of the species vs the good of one's self, but to dismiss self-interest as a cultural phenomenon only is naive. ... Again, forgive me if this has already been addressed - I pretty much just read the first and last pages.

A resource based economy embraces self-interest to the utmost degree. Your life won't be better unless everyone's life is better. Greed is promoted and rewarded in our current culture to the detriment of a great deal of people and the environment that sustains us. Self interest has nothing to do with unlimited growth and over consumption.

[jtimon]

More accurately, we use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions, upon which decisions are based. Making decisions based on irrational markets or government whims does not allow for optimal outcomes. Relevant values are emergent and discoverable, and does not require divine intervention. I'm sorry you don't yet understand my answers. Maybe you should reexamine the premises of your questions.

I guess I have to open my mind to a form of economy that does not rely on markets nor governments.
I just don't get it.
When the experts (all good scientist) disagree, what happens in a RBE?
And if you think I'm based on a false premise, just say it: "Scientist do not disagree".
Aren't experts (I don't care if they use CAD) the ones making the rational decisions?
Who then?
You still avoid the main underlying question:

How the decisions are made in a RBE?

I know, rationally, based on scientific facts, by balanced and well educated people, without greed (thanks to the ADK cornucopia), with cool open governance and so on.
But more specifically, because all that basically tells me nothing to solve my doubt; what happens when conflicting opinions about how the scarce resources should be used appear? How those conflicts are solved?
Maybe 4v4l0n42 can be more concrete than you.

[LightRider]

More accurately, we use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions, upon which decisions are based. Making decisions based on irrational markets or government whims does not allow for optimal outcomes. Relevant values are emergent and discoverable, and does not require divine intervention. I'm sorry you don't yet understand my answers. Maybe you should reexamine the premises of your questions.

I guess I have to open my mind to a form of economy that does not rely on markets nor governments.
I just don't get it.
When the experts (all good scientist) disagree, what happens in a RBE?
And if you think I'm based on a false premise, just say it: "Scientist do not disagree".
Aren't experts (I don't care if they use CAD) the ones making the rational decisions?
Who then?
You still avoid the main underlying question:

How the decisions are made in a RBE?

I know, rationally, based on scientific facts, by balanced and well educated people, without greed (thanks to the ADK cornucopia), with cool open governance and so on.
But more specifically, because all that basically tells me nothing to solve my doubt; what happens when conflicting opinions about how the scarce resources should be used appear? How those conflicts are solved?
Maybe 4v4l0n42 can be more concrete than you.

Opinions are not germane to solving technical problems. Experimentation provides a much better platform for discovering the most efficient way to solve such problems. Finding suitable substitutions to scarce or unsustainable resources is also a priority.

[Rassah]

Opinions are not germane to solving technical problems. Experimentation provides a much better platform for discovering the most efficient way to solve such problems. Finding suitable substitutions to scarce or unsustainable resources is also a priority.

So... would the "scientists" attempt to "experiment" with allowing a free-market capitalist economy if they find out that it actually fits the wiring of our brains best, or if economics scientists decide that it's the best solution to dealing with assigning resources to people?

[jtimon]

So... would the "scientists" attempt to "experiment" with allowing a free-market capitalist economy if they find out that it actually fits the wiring of our brains best, or if economics scientists decide that it's the best solution to dealing with assigning resources to people?

I bet they prefer psychologists to establish the needs of the balanced people and centrally managed logistics.
"Economics is not a science" or something similar is coming.

[Rassah]

"Economics is not a science" or something similar is coming.

God I hope not, otherwise the S in my B.S. degree is a fraud

[jtimon]

"Economics is not a science" or something similar is coming.

God I hope not, otherwise the S in my B.S. degree is a fraud

I mean someone may answer something similar to that.

[Rassah]

"Economics is not a science" or something similar is coming.

God I hope not, otherwise the S in my B.S. degree is a fraud

I mean someone may answer something similar to that.

I knew what you meant. Just saying if someone claims that, then they'll be claiming the world's university systems are somewhat fraudulent.

[herzmeister]

Well there is exact science (mathematics, physics, chemistry) and an array of somewhat softer fields like philosophy, sociology, politics etc.

I'd say economics is a mixture in that it deals with exact mathematic formulae, but also builds on theories which were won by extrapolating observations on society and which naturally are slightly more speculative in nature and aren't necessarily exclusive models of how humans can live and work together. Furthermore, economic theories may have to be re-evaluated when changes in society happen, especially technological changes. Topics like technological unemployment were sadly never discussed in my university classes back then, which made and still makes me feel like it's a big taboo.

[cbeast]

In my liberal education at the University of Wisconsin, we did talk about technological unemployment. It has been topical since the 1950's, but back then it was a good thing. We would have more leisure time and flying cars. 

[Anonymous]

Current economics is built on the theory that if we deny man the right to manage a part or whole of his labor in the name of other whims and desires, we can achieve better results for him and all of us. I have yet to see this effective on a large scale. Never on an individual one.

[cbeast]

Current economics is built on the theory that if we deny man the right to manage a part or whole of his labor in the name of other whims and desires, we can achieve better results for him and all of us. I have yet to see this effective on a large scale. Never on an individual one.

You are correct. In the history of human civilization, there has never been a successful culture built upon such values, and never will be.

[Rassah]

Current economics is built on the theory that if we deny man the right to manage a part or whole of his labor in the name of other whims and desires, we can achieve better results for him and all of us. I have yet to see this effective on a large scale. Never on an individual one.

Not quite what my liberal state university taught us in our economics classes. Mostly it was formulas for effect of taxes on interest and economy (they're bad), import tariffs (bad), and regulation of price and output (bad). Though the teachers did mention that in some cases, monopolies born out of economies of scale (like power companies) should be allowed to remain monopolies, since it would be cheaper for them to service each person, but in exchange for receiving help for that their price should be regulated and kept just above their costs. That's arguably a bad idea, though there are arguments on both sides. So, it wasn't ALL "bad economic theory." Just some.
The biggest irony was that those in the economics field understood and could defend free-market economic principles way better than the college republicans could. Which is pretty much what I've seen on political forums, too: far-right republicans railing against the government are really uninformed when it comes to what it is they have a problem with :p

[benjamindees]

By rejecting "legal tender," you are quite literally rejecting the idea that people should expect anything at all in return for their work.  ...  Rejecting legal tender means that everyone would have to work for entirely altruistic reasons, expecting absolutely nothing in return, yet still having things given to them (like food and shelter) in return for their work.

Okay yes, rejecting legal tender does tend to hinder the imposition of silly notions like the labor theory of value.  I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you, but work does not actually have inherent value.  No one owes you anything for the unproductive work that you perform.

But, no, without legal tender, no one would be forced to work for "altruistic reasons".  People can always perform work that is productive and that returns value.  It should be obvious that, absent some type of forced servitude, no one is forced to work for nothing and I'm not really sure where you got that idea.