A Resource Based Economy

[Rassah]

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.

You kinda sorta TOTALLY missed what I was saying. I wasn't claiming that work itself has value, I was saying that I would expect to be PAID for the "value" that I "return," by whoever values my return. Without a "legal tender" of any kind, which the RBE guys are claiming to be anything that is a method of value exchange (money, barter goods, etc), there's no way for my work to be compensated. And without compensation, what else is left?

[1713886340]

1713886340

[1713886340]

1713886340

[1713886340]

1713886340

[1713886340]

1713886340

[1713886340]

1713886340

[1713886340]

1713886340

[LightRider]

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.

You kinda sorta TOTALLY missed what I was saying. I wasn't claiming that work itself has value, I was saying that I would expect to be PAID for the "value" that I "return," by whoever values my return. Without a "legal tender" of any kind, which the RBE guys are claiming to be anything that is a method of value exchange (money, barter goods, etc), there's no way for my work to be compensated. And without compensation, what else is left?

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

[jtimon]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

[LightRider]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

Technological power frequently corrupts those who wield it. Why is currency seen as such a threat while technological power controlled by those at the top of your technocracy (Fresco used to use the term himself) is presented only as a utopia free of violence and coercion? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

[LightRider]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

Technological power frequently corrupts those who wield it. Why is currency seen as such a threat while technological power controlled by those at the top of your technocracy (Fresco used to use the term himself) is presented only as a utopia free of violence and coercion? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Technology used to care for people and provide access abundance is quit dissimilar to monetary systems, which function primarily as a way to prohibit people from obtaining what they need in favor of those who have access to the majority of the money.

[Rassah]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

Technological power frequently corrupts those who wield it. Why is currency seen as such a threat while technological power controlled by those at the top of your technocracy (Fresco used to use the term himself) is presented only as a utopia free of violence and coercion? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Technology used to care for people and provide access abundance is quit dissimilar to monetary systems, which function primarily as a way to prohibit people from obtaining what they need in favor of those who have access to the majority of the money.

Have you heard of Second Life, or been there any time in the last few years? That place is a perfect example of how freely-available technology and creativity is easily succumbed to trolling douchebags. And those guys aren't even doing it for money.

Btw, was cooking dinner this evening for tomorrow's dinner party, and had a thought pop into my head:
"I wonder if in RBE I would still be able to eat red onions and red potatoes? I like those cause they have a more potent flavor... Or would RBE limit me to only what I need, which would be plain yellow onions and cheapest potatoes possible, since those are easiest to make, needing least resources, and my "need" for good food doesn't apply in a system where the "need" is just to keep me fed?"

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

Technological power frequently corrupts those who wield it. Why is currency seen as such a threat while technological power controlled by those at the top of your technocracy (Fresco used to use the term himself) is presented only as a utopia free of violence and coercion? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Technology used to care for people and provide access abundance is quit dissimilar to monetary systems, which function primarily as a way to prohibit people from obtaining what they need in favor of those who have access to the majority of the money.

And currency used for free trade in a community or as a means of funding charitable acts (thus giving individuals access to all the resources required to contribute to selfless acts) is quite dissimilar from your depiction of all forms of currency-based barter being enslavement. Technology can be used for good or evil, so could a free system of currency. We do not live in a system with a free exchange of currency, which is the problem rather than currency itself.

[jtimon]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

No, that's false. mutual respect does exist in lets communities. I don't know how can you believe that rights are an illusion and call for equality. I'm not equal to you and we will never be.

[LightRider]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

No, that's false. mutual respect does exist in lets communities. I don't know how can you believe that rights are an illusion and call for equality. I'm not equal to you and we will never be.

Perhaps it is certainly perceived that way. I am not familiar with such communities, but corruption and abuse is far more likely to occur when such systems are implemented, regardless of the ideal qualities they possess. You are confusing equality of capability and character with social status, which is what I refer to when I speak of it. Money highly influences social status, causing inequality of access and limiting potential.

[LightRider]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

Technological power frequently corrupts those who wield it. Why is currency seen as such a threat while technological power controlled by those at the top of your technocracy (Fresco used to use the term himself) is presented only as a utopia free of violence and coercion? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Technology used to care for people and provide access abundance is quit dissimilar to monetary systems, which function primarily as a way to prohibit people from obtaining what they need in favor of those who have access to the majority of the money.

Have you heard of Second Life, or been there any time in the last few years? That place is a perfect example of how freely-available technology and creativity is easily succumbed to trolling douchebags. And those guys aren't even doing it for money.

Btw, was cooking dinner this evening for tomorrow's dinner party, and had a thought pop into my head:
"I wonder if in RBE I would still be able to eat red onions and red potatoes? I like those cause they have a more potent flavor... Or would RBE limit me to only what I need, which would be plain yellow onions and cheapest potatoes possible, since those are easiest to make, needing least resources, and my "need" for good food doesn't apply in a system where the "need" is just to keep me fed?"

I don't confuse virtual reality with actual reality. "Trolling douchebags" are created by real world problems, not a result of online communities.

An RBE would provide greater variety of such ingredients because food production can be incredibly scaled up to allow for it. Since we wouldn't waste so much area, materials time and effort on meaningless activities and goals, then a healthier community would emerge with a better agricultural base.

[LightRider]

Mutual trust, respect, care and appreciation.

What do you think about this money called LETS?

I prefer Ripple.

Interesting, but all currency relies of differential advantage, and equality and mutual respect cannot exist in such a system that promotes its own dominance and corrupts those who use it.

Technological power frequently corrupts those who wield it. Why is currency seen as such a threat while technological power controlled by those at the top of your technocracy (Fresco used to use the term himself) is presented only as a utopia free of violence and coercion? Do you not see the potential for abuse there?

Technology used to care for people and provide access abundance is quit dissimilar to monetary systems, which function primarily as a way to prohibit people from obtaining what they need in favor of those who have access to the majority of the money.

And currency used for free trade in a community or as a means of funding charitable acts (thus giving individuals access to all the resources required to contribute to selfless acts) is quite dissimilar from your depiction of all forms of currency-based barter being enslavement. Technology can be used for good or evil, so could a free system of currency. We do not live in a system with a free exchange of currency, which is the problem rather than currency itself.

I think that currency is a technology we will be better off without. Charity doesn't exist in an RBE because caring for people is not confined to it's own little corner of economic activity, but in fact the basis for common survival.

[Rassah]

I don't confuse virtual reality with actual reality. "Trolling douchebags" are created by real world problems, not a result of online communities.

An RBE would provide greater variety of such ingredients because food production can be incredibly scaled up to allow for it. Since we wouldn't waste so much area, materials time and effort on meaningless activities and goals, then a healthier community would emerge with a better agricultural base.

My point is that trolls and douchebags will always exist, in any community, as will corruption and abuse. Even if it starts just for the sake of being an abusive troll. I don't see how RBE will deal with such a situation, other than empower the trolls in the "science-based decision" sector, who may want to screw with the "ignorant masses."

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

I don't confuse virtual reality with actual reality. "Trolling douchebags" are created by real world problems, not a result of online communities.

An RBE would provide greater variety of such ingredients because food production can be incredibly scaled up to allow for it. Since we wouldn't waste so much area, materials time and effort on meaningless activities and goals, then a healthier community would emerge with a better agricultural base.

My point is that trolls and douchebags will always exist, in any community, as will corruption and abuse. Even if it starts just for the sake of being an abusive troll. I don't see how RBE will deal with such a situation, other than empower the trolls in the "science-based decision" sector, who may want to screw with the "ignorant masses."

The unspoken side is that the "trolls and douchebags," and anyone else the technocrats saw as unfit, would not be making it through in this society. This is what Fresco alluded to when saying that those who can't be properly "educated" into the new society would be "another issue."

A planned society without rights is a rigidly controlled society. Life and procreation would ultimately be controlled just as much as the banning of currency.

[LightRider]

I don't confuse virtual reality with actual reality. "Trolling douchebags" are created by real world problems, not a result of online communities.

An RBE would provide greater variety of such ingredients because food production can be incredibly scaled up to allow for it. Since we wouldn't waste so much area, materials time and effort on meaningless activities and goals, then a healthier community would emerge with a better agricultural base.

My point is that trolls and douchebags will always exist, in any community, as will corruption and abuse. Even if it starts just for the sake of being an abusive troll. I don't see how RBE will deal with such a situation, other than empower the trolls in the "science-based decision" sector, who may want to screw with the "ignorant masses."

While such occurrences can't be ruled out completely, a community that is not based on competition, aggressiveness, dominance or false authority is severely less likely to create the conditions for such behavior. An RBE could not exist with "ignorant masses", as opposed to a monetary system which thrives on and indeed requires it.

[LightRider]

I don't confuse virtual reality with actual reality. "Trolling douchebags" are created by real world problems, not a result of online communities.

An RBE would provide greater variety of such ingredients because food production can be incredibly scaled up to allow for it. Since we wouldn't waste so much area, materials time and effort on meaningless activities and goals, then a healthier community would emerge with a better agricultural base.

My point is that trolls and douchebags will always exist, in any community, as will corruption and abuse. Even if it starts just for the sake of being an abusive troll. I don't see how RBE will deal with such a situation, other than empower the trolls in the "science-based decision" sector, who may want to screw with the "ignorant masses."

The unspoken side is that the "trolls and douchebags," and anyone else the technocrats saw as unfit, would not be making it through in this society. This is what Fresco alluded to when saying that those who can't be properly "educated" into the new society would be "another issue."

A planned society without rights is a rigidly controlled society. Life and procreation would ultimately be controlled just as much as the banning of currency.

Such behavior would not likely continue in an RBE because it is not rewarded. Most likely, such persons would change their behavior when they recognize that it is unnecessary, unproductive and not given attention. Technocracy is irrelevant to the ideas being discussed in this thread. There is no rigid control in an RBE of society, only the promotion of relevant values. Nothing is banned or illegal.

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

I think that currency is a technology we will be better off without. Charity doesn't exist in an RBE because caring for people is not confined to it's own little corner of economic activity, but in fact the basis for common survival.

I don't want to come off as overly condescending here but have you ever looked into the basic history and function of currency? Currency is not a technology. Technology can be used to enhance or manipulate currency, but currency itself is simply a convenient means of free exchange. Long before fiat bills people exchanged shells, feathers, precious metals and other light/valuable items as a means of convenient transaction that didn't require lugging two dead animals to a city square and back to trade. As long as you allow for a free market, people will use some means of currency.

There is no rigid control in an RBE of society, only the promotion of relevant values. Nothing is banned or illegal.

So now you would allow for people to exchange money? You have previously stated noone would have rights in this society, and others have stated that noone would be allowed to use currency - something I strangely equate with a ban. These positions are getting rather contradictory.

[LightRider]

I think that currency is a technology we will be better off without. Charity doesn't exist in an RBE because caring for people is not confined to it's own little corner of economic activity, but in fact the basis for common survival.

I don't want to come off as overly condescending here but have you ever looked into the basic history and function of currency? Currency is not a technology. Technology can be used to enhance or manipulate currency, but currency itself is simply a convenient means of free exchange. Long before fiat bills people exchanged shells, feathers, precious metals and other light/valuable items as a means of convenient transaction that didn't require lugging two dead animals to a city square and back to trade. As long as you allow for a free market, people will use some means of currency.

There is no rigid control in an RBE of society, only the promotion of relevant values. Nothing is banned or illegal.

So now you would allow for people to exchange money? You have previously stated noone would have rights in this society, and others have stated that noone would be allowed to use currency - something I strangely equate with a ban. These positions are getting rather contradictory.

Currency, as well as all other man made systems, tools and shared customs etc., are technologies.

You have invented the contradiction. Rights don't exist, so not having them is meaningless. Money is unnecessary, not disallowed.

[Rassah]

So now you would allow for people to exchange money? You have previously stated noone would have rights in this society, and others have stated that noone would be allowed to use currency - something I strangely equate with a ban. These positions are getting rather contradictory.

I think he has been saying that people will voluntarily abandon currency, property rights, and willingness to work for any personal reward, instead choosing to work in a communist-style system where everyone's basic needs are equally rewarded regardless of what they do, thanks to a few people and computers deciding on what's best for everyone, using robots to create those basic needs for everyone, and making sure to limit everyone to only what the earth can support. Those imposed limits being perfectly voluntary, of course. Oh, and this all being on a global scale...

[jtimon]

An RBE could not exist with "ignorant masses", as opposed to a monetary system which thrives on and indeed requires it.

A free market doesn't need ignorant masses, it could work perfectly fine with a "well educated society".
Stupid people just happen to exist. Even If everybody were more intelligent and educated (what is needed for an RBE), the less wise would be considered stupid.
A free market doesn't need stupid people, but there's it's not necessary to remove them from the system for it to work.