18 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaYou really don't understand the concept, do you? Your friend divegeester seems to miss the point
Work will be rationed and you think that = individual freedom?
Some like to work more than others, some less, that is entirely their business.
Freedom is not measured by the amount of capital one has, it is defined by the absence of force. It is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
You're really struggling with definitions. Demo ...[text shortened]... ob, rights of minorities go down the tubes, and the smallest minority of all is the individual.
as well. Let me try and clarify.
Individual freedom is the same as having free time to spend on whatever pursuit tickles you. You
can work on your free time, or you can pursuit a hobby, have sex with a thermos filled with
minced meat or whatever you fancy doing. The more free time you have, the more individual
freedom you have.
Now that that's been settled, let's look at which system gives people more individual freedom. On
the one hand, you have the system of privately owned capital, where indeed if you have the
capital means, you can afford a little more free time, individual freedom. As a worker (the
majority of people) you have only as much free time as your boss allow. True, some owners are
more "enlightened" than others, but all want to make as big a profit as possible, which means less
jobs and low wages. On the other hand we're debating a system here that does away with money
and capital all together (private and state owned), and instead tries to utilise technology as far as
possible and the manual work that remains is divided equally on all work enabled citizens,
resulting in less work hours but everyone still having all they need to survive and pursuit their
interests.
Tell me again, which one gives more individual freedom? Which one would you rather live in? The
one that if you're not a successful capitalist means little choices, or the one that gives you a
plethora of choices whomever you are, with little manual labour?
It's a toughie, isn't it?
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou're still thinking in monetary terms. I have to admit, I have a problem breaking that pattern
Well, even if social security is generous, you get more by working. If you don't get more by working, there is little incentive to work.
myself. The incentive to work lies in the idea that you don't get your share of the production (unless
of course you're not work enabled). How's that for incentive? The work we're talking about here is
the work required to produce what the society considers the basics. Anything outside of that is up to
the individual, and usually motivated by other factors than economy.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by divegeesterI am not a miracle worker. I cannot singlehandedly feed the multitudes. But I can strive to build a world where the multitudes will be fed. It is only an "impossible utopian fantasy" if you believe it be one. In that case it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like Pharaoh, your heart has been hardened.
Inspiring you to believe in an imposible utopian fantasy!
'Better' doesn't come into it - it's about common sense and deeds. I refer you back to my original post challenging wether you live it in your town. Do you?
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieStop generalising. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we're friends!
You really don't understand the concept, do you? Your friend divegeester seems to miss the point
as well. Let me try and clarify.
Individual freedom is the same as having free time to spend on whatever pursuit tickles you. You
can work on your free time, or you can pursuit a hobby, have sex with a thermos filled with
minced meat or whatever you fancy ...[text shortened]... ra of choices whomever you are, with little manual labour?
It's a toughie, isn't it?
I've managed to read this fiary tale three times and still have absolutely no idea how anyone would impliment this in a way that promotes innovation and social develpment without profit and personal gain.
Could anyone here please give any example of where this has worked anywhere in the world at any time?
Thank you.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettWhat about singlehandedly feeding ONE homeless person until they find a job? Giving free education lessons to ONE unemployed person in your home, or paying for your neighbor to have hospital treatment because they can't afford it. Or, just pick someone (anyone) with less money than you, and give them the difference - once - one person?
I am not a miracle worker. I cannot singlehandedly feed the multitudes. But I can strive to build a world where the multitudes will be fed. It is only an "impossible utopian fantasy" if you believe it be one. In that case it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like Pharaoh, your heart has been hardened.
What you suggest will never happen.
It's the competitive DNA that we have that's makes us what we are - you would emasculate our drive to innovate, develop and overcome and turn us into sack-clothed sheepherders.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieLong-range economic interactions are impossible without money. Get rid of money, and you get rid of modern society.
You're still thinking in monetary terms. I have to admit, I have a problem breaking that pattern
myself. The incentive to work lies in the idea that you don't get your share of the production (unless
of course you're not work enabled). How's that for incentive? The work we're talking about here is
the work required to produce what the society considers ...[text shortened]... ide of that is up to
the individual, and usually motivated by other factors than economy.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by divegeesterI have given to plenty of charities in my time and have done volunteer work. But that's only treating the symptoms. I want to cure the disease.
What about singlehandedly feeding ONE homeless person until they find a job? Giving free education lessons to ONE unemployed person in your home, or paying for your neighbor to have hospital treatment because they can't afford it. Or, just pick someone (anyone) with less money than you, and give them the difference - once - one person?
What you sug ...[text shortened]... ulate our drive to innovate, develop and overcome and turn us into sack-clothed sheepherders.
Your assessment of 'human nature' and of progress is simply wrong. A more cooperative society does not require a change to human nature and progress does not require unbridled competition. Both are falsehoods. I reject them both.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettThat's admirable. Please understand I'm not attacking you, just highlighting the fundamentals of human nature. I believe in social cooperation and helping the needy as much as the next person.
I have given to plenty of charities in my time and have done volunteer work. But that's only treating the symptoms. I want to cure the disease.
Your assessment of 'human nature' and of progress is simply wrong. A more cooperative society does not require a change to human nature and progress does not require unbridled competition. Both are falsehoods. I reject them both.
But you are now using the more moderate language of "a cooperative society". The topic I'm attacking is a "Resource driven economy" based on hard core socialist principles. I'm also not suggesting "unbridled competition".
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by divegeesterI have not followed Jigtie's posts very closely, so I cannot tell you exactly what he is advocating. As I'm posting in his thread it might seem as though I am advocating the same thing. I'm not entirely sure that I am. I would like to see a socialist society (and I think Jesus was a socialist), but I realize it is not likely to happen. At least not in my lifetime.
That's admirable. Please understand I'm not attacking you, just highlighting the fundamentals of human nature. I believe in social cooperation and helping the needy as much as the next person.
But you are now using the more moderate language of "a cooperative society". The topic I'm attacking is a "Resource driven economy" based on hard core socialist principles. I'm also not suggesting "unbridled competition".
What I DO advocate is a democratization of the economy. Political democracy is an empty shell without economic democracy. I would like to see us move toward a much greater emphasis on worker owned and operated firms. Either through a greater emphasis on supporting cooperative start up companies or on accelerating employee stock buyouts. This would be a 'market socialism' which could either remain as a mixed economy, or eventually transition toward a more fully socialist one (one can only hope). I addition to this I would like to see the rich taxed more heavily, the power of multi-national corporations to be greatly curtailed, and the worst excesses of capitalism to be heavily regulated.
That, divegeester, is what I want.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by divegeesterA resource based economy has obviously never been implemented. The reason, aside from the
Stop generalising. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we're friends!
I've managed to read this fiary tale three times and still have absolutely no idea how anyone would impliment this in a way that promotes innovation and social develpment without profit and personal gain.
Could anyone here please give any example of where this has worked anywhere in the world at any time?
Thank you.
obvious that no one has thought about it before Fresco (to my knowledge), is that technology
never allowed us to do this before. But now, according to Fresco, we have the technology required
to make this possible.
I wouldn't say it's hard core socialist, as you put it, though I admit I got dragged into the old
capitalism vs socialism debate for a few posts there. In a socialist state you still deal with money, it's
just that it's state owned. The more I read about this resource based economy, I realise that it's
more along the lines of technocracy, and there's no money. Resources are there for the taking
apparently, since they exist in abundance.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou really must stop thinking in terms of economic interaction if you want to understand the concept.
Long-range economic interactions are impossible without money. Get rid of money, and you get rid of modern society.
The idea is that a certain amount of various resources are produced by society, and they're there for
the grabbing among the citizens of that same society. Need food? No problem, go get some. Need
clothes? Sure, why not. They've been produced, and you can have some since you took part in
making them. Economy as a trading concept is gone. Trading is gone.
18 Jul 09
When you try to think about the future, remember this: the process with which you think
about things is based upon indoctrination; what you're given by your society. So your range of
thought is limited by the dominant values of your society.
We talk about civilisation as though it's a static state. And there are no civilised people yet.
It's a process that's constantly going on. As long as you have war, police, prisons, crime, you're in
the early stages of civilisation; what they call civilisation.
From the trailer linked in the first post.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieWell, how are goods produced? Where is the incentive for producers to produce as efficiently as possible? Where is the incentive for people to take their fair share and not more?
You really must stop thinking in terms of economic interaction if you want to understand the concept.
The idea is that a certain amount of various resources are produced by society, and they're there for
the grabbing among the citizens of that same society. Need food? No problem, go get some. Need
clothes? Sure, why not. They've been produced, and you c ...[text shortened]... e since you took part in
making them. Economy as a trading concept is gone. Trading is gone.
18 Jul 09
Originally posted by kmax87In an ideal society that wouldn't be necessary. The real trouble as I see it, is that (since the dawn of the industrial revolution) "owners" and "workers" have been at odds with each other. The owners fail to recognize that mutual self-interst is what makes a market economy strong. On the other side, workers need to respect market forces during a downward trend. Mutual self interests are the key
Socialism and unionism protects that ownership from the rapacious exploits that some owners of capital would exact on the unrepresented worker, something that the starry eyed idealists in Wajomaland, are yet to concede.