Resource driven economy (Jacque Fresco)

Originally posted by Wajoma
You can drop the faux condescension, coming from you its hollow.

Got nothing against sharing, but I will decide who, when, where and why. Some people immediately off the list:

1/ All those that think I owe them something just because we are the same species.

2/ All those that think I owe them something just because by some accident of birth they ...[text shortened]... en kids does not reduce what I have already worked for, created by my own hands and mind.

Oh, stuff it. From the post you quoted:

Yes, we agree that physical force is out of the question.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The gall knows no bounds.

There are those in society that value art, there are those that wish to pursue it as a career, these two people get together and exchange value for value.

Without you dictating that the artist must do x number of hours in the fields or factory.

There are those in society that value scientific research and all the great thing ...[text shortened]... for value.

Without you dictating that the scientist must do x hours in the fields or factory.

It looks like I've won this argument, doesn't it? Usually when people start talking about how
horrible the debater is, that means they don't have any real good counter arguments. I will not
force anyone to do anything. I'm currently living in a disgustingly capitalistic state, and you don't
see me going around forcing people to anything. I'm debating the benefits of sharing as opposed
to not sharing.

1) Less work hours per person,
2) More freedom to pursue whatever interests you have (if that means producing art and having
some kind of trade with anyone willing to do so, so be it),
3) More land to live on (yes, if everyone agreed that this is the way to go, you would lose your
exclusive access to that little piece of land you've worked so hard for, but then the entire world
would be yours to go anywhere you want without anyone pointing a gun in your face saying: "Get
off my land!" )

Instead of trying to make me look like a super-bad villain, thief and what not, try and focus on the
arguments and present counter arguments. When I'm proven wrong, you should know from
previous posts I've made that I openly admit it. I'm not here simply to win arguments, but to test
my own assertions against other people's ideas.

Now, this thread in particular is about resource based economy as proposed by Jacque Fresco. I
happen to find his ideas intriguing, you obviously don't. There is one thing that I seem to have
misunderstood about them though. I believe that Fresco is suggesting that all resources be
produced through technological means. That would mean that no manual labour is required at all.
I'm not sure about this though. Anyone?..

Originally posted by Jigtie
Would you say that your kids are in any way responsible for what actions you've taken in life? Will
your grand kids be responsible for your actions? It's one thing that a bunch of family folks made
some mistakes leading to them living in misery for the rest of their lives, but why should their kids
have to suffer and pay back what the parents owed each ...[text shortened]... people are from birth unequal in society, we can't ever move ahead to
anything better.

No, but I'm responsible to my kids in the sense that I have to raise them and decide what to leave them as an inheritance. They don't pay for my mistakes or debts -- but my mistakes or profligacy will certainly affect that inheritance.

You are arguing that I'm not allowed to provide what I choose for my kids because I have to provide for your kids -- since you are not as adept at I am at making money and it's "unfair". Well, I may be more adept. But there is nothing unfair about that.

If I have 1 kid instead of 3, the 1 will inherit more. You say that's unacceptable -- that they should all inherit the same amount. You think it is really going to change the world giving ever kid a dinky apartment, a Smart car, and 7,500 euros when they graduate from high school? We will be awash in dinky apartments and Smart cars -- there will be no market for them. And half the kids will blow the cash on an expensive holiday with their friends in Bora Bora. And then they are back to where they were. What have you improved? Nothing.

All you've done is created a culture if entitlement where people are looking to vote themselves their next benefit instead of working for it. A classic 'bread and circuses' mindset.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Not necessarily true. Just like you can own private capital in a capitalist state and have your "rights"
protected by society, so can everyone own all available capital and have their rights protected. This
is a non-issue for any society but an anarchist one of uncivilised people.

You socialists love to declare "do-overs", don't you?

So if I have one kid, and I scrimp and save my whole life so I can pass on $100,000 to her. And say you are a deadbeat with three kids.

You are saying that when I die, your three kids get $20,000 each -- and my daughter gets only $20,000??? (Of course, the state takes $20,000 just to supervise the transaction!) What did your stupid kids do to deserve my money? Just EXIST?

Worse is the fact that my kid is much more likely to follow my example of working hard, whereas yours are much more likely to follow your example of being a deadbeat.

So again -- I really don't get your argument. What are your kids doing to deserve to get paid off like this?

Originally posted by Jigtie
It looks like I've won this argument, doesn't it? Usually when people start talking about how
horrible the debater is, that means they don't have any real good counter arguments. I will not
force anyone to do anything. I'm currently living in a disgustingly capitalistic state, and you don't
see me going around forcing people to anything. I'm debating th ...[text shortened]... no manual labour is required at all.
I'm not sure about this though. Anyone?..

There are all sorts of consequences to this notion of "everyone owns everything."

I own my neighbor's pool, for example. Except I don't agree with the concept of "deep ends" -- how could anyone? They are dangerous and a threat because someone could drown. So I filled in the deep end with quick-setting cement. Now the whole pool is a nice safe 30cm deep everywhere -- perfect for my kids.

And I cut down all his (now my!) damn birch trees that give me allergies every spring -- and don't even suggest antihistamines because they give me a headache.

His goats grazing all over my lawn were a bit of a pain in the neck, though. So I invited my friends over and had a barbecue.

He is somewhat less understanding when I borrow his Porsche. But I swear I don't know when they put in those speed bumps. It doesn't go over 40kph anymore -- but hey, why should anybody be in a hurry?

Originally posted by spruce112358
You are arguing that I'm not allowed to provide what I choose for my kids because I have to provide for your kids -- since you are not as adept at I am at making money and it's "unfair". Well, I may be more adept. But there is nothing unfair about that.

Despite this little subdebate not having anything to do with the resource based economy, I will
humour you.

No that's not what I'm arguing. I'm posing a complicated question. I take it we agree that if you
make mistakes in life and end up with huge debts that you cannot repay in a lifetime, your kids
should not have to inherit those debts. If we agree on that, then maybe you're willing to take it
one step further. If, say, a country has a national debt to another, is it fair that the next generation
in that country should pay for their ancestors mistakes?

Further, if we agree that you can't really put a debt on anyone but the person having made the
debt, why should we put the wealth on a person whom has done nothing to earn that wealth?
Because wealth gives someone an edge in life? And we so want to give our kids an edge in life,
don't we?

It's not about you supporting my kids. It's about what you consider right and wrong. Consider how
you got the wealth. You were more "adept" (as you put it) in making money. If we're talking about
a society that deals with money (which the resource based economy wouldn't), then there's
nothing "unfair" about you having more money than me, since you were simply better at making
money (assuming you didn't get them through illegal means). But your kids has done nothing to
earn that money, and my kids has done nothing to earn my debts. Therefore, the "fair" thing
would be for society to provide each new generation with equal education, opportunities and start
off capital. Not only would that be the fair thing, but the best thing for society as the brightest and
best would be the ones actually making money.

That is, if we're talking about a society that works on the concept of money, but in this thread we
don't.

Originally posted by spruce112358
There are all sorts of consequences to this notion of "everyone owns everything."

I own my neighbor's pool, for example. Except I don't agree with the concept of "deep ends" -- how could anyone? They are dangerous and a threat because someone could drown. So I filled in the deep end with quick-setting cement. Now the whole pool is a nice safe 30cm deep everywhere -- perfect for my kids.

Your neighbour and everyone else on this planet also owns that pool. What's your point? That people
can't get along and simply build two pools?

Originally posted by Jigtie

3) More land to live on (yes, if everyone agreed that this is the way to go, you would lose your
exclusive access to that little piece of land you've worked so hard for, but then the entire world
would be yours to go anywhere you want without anyone pointing a gun in your face saying: "Get
off my land!" )

Who is this 'everyone', do you mean everyone, or do you mean everyone that agrees with you, and tough luck for the everyone's that don't agree. Because I can guarantee 100% that I do not agree with my property being re-distributed.

So are we to take you at your word that there would be no property redistribution unless everyone agreed, because the idea that everyone in the world is going to agree to give their property away is (being as polite as possible) bloody idiotic.

What I advocate is capitalism, the only system that recognises as a basis that you have a property unto yourself (this is where the non-initiation of force principle comes from) what follows from this is that what you create with your own mind and body belongs to you (you see how one follows from the other) what follows from this is that you recognise the same rights in others, you can then commence to trade value for value free from coercion.

With capitalism you can get together with all those that do agree to give their property away and have a big caring sharing party with you all having plenty of 'free time'. Good luck, like I said before, don't come knocking on my door.

Originally posted by spruce112358
There are all sorts of consequences to this notion of "everyone owns everything."

I own my neighbor's pool, for example. Except I don't agree with the concept of "deep ends" -- how could anyone? They are dangerous and a threat because someone could drown. So I filled in the deep end with quick-setting cement. Now the whole pool is a nice safe 30cm de ...[text shortened]... d bumps. It doesn't go over 40kph anymore -- but hey, why should anybody be in a hurry?

actually, we have things like this -- it's called public property. Any time when more than one person shares in ownership, there needs to be a way to come to a common understanding of how much "deep water" there will be in the pool - or what kind of trees will be planted on the property - or when and where goats will be allowed to graze. In order to do this, the owners must form some kind of government which will develop rules (laws) and some way of ensuring that everyone abides by those rules.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Despite this little subdebate not having anything to do with the resource based economy, I will
humour you.

No that's not what I'm arguing. I'm posing a complicated question. I take it we agree that if you
make mistakes in life and end up with huge debts that you cannot repay in a lifetime, your kids
should not have to inherit those debts. If we agre ...[text shortened]... a society that works on the concept of money, but in this thread we
don't.

No, I don't get where you are going.

You seem to think I should give all my resources to The State who are going to take care of my family and raise my kids in some kind of collective fashion. I'm not allowed to give my kids birthday gifts or teach them things unless I ALSO give birthday gifts and teach umpteen "other" kids at the same time because that would be UNFAIR (i.e. since advantaging any child in any way disadvantages all others). Naturally, my family has no inheritance -- the state takes everything when I die and redistributes it.

I also get to roam around and use stuff that doesn't belong to me because nobody has exclusive rights to anything. I don't maintain anything since I don't own anything -- everything I want to use is somehow magically maintained. I didn't get the details about how that works.

And in return I get what? A sense of ultimate irresponsibility? The right to contemplate my navel 24 hrs/day?

I think if that unlikely scenario were to ever establish, it would be highly unstable state. People cooperate only when it is advantageous -- not out of abstract love for one another. Restricting those advantages down to nothing means general cooperation would break down in short order, and the desired new state would disappear.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Despite this little subdebate not having anything to do with the resource based economy, I will
humour you.

No that's not what I'm arguing. I'm posing a complicated question. I take it we agree that if you
make mistakes in life and end up with huge debts that you cannot repay in a lifetime, your kids
should not have to inherit those debts. If we agre a society that works on the concept of money, but in this thread we
don't.

As for a resource-based economy -- we know that 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth -- but when it comes to resources, the distribution is totally different.

The Rich (top 20% ) don't eat 80% of the food or drive 80% of the cars or live in 80% of the houses or wear 80% of the clothes or attend 80% of the schools, etc.

So regardless of money, resources distribute more evenly.

Originally posted by spruce112358
No, I don't get where you are going.

You seem to think I should give all my resources to The State who are going to take care of my family and raise my kids in some kind of collective fashion. I'm not allowed to give my kids birthday gifts or teach them things unless I ALSO give birthday gifts and teach umpteen "other" kids at the same time because t cooperation would break down in short order, and the desired new state would disappear.

This post made me laugh, and not at you. Good post, brilliant attack on my argument and all in all
a nice read. Of course, you do realise that I'm not saying you can't give birthday gifts or teach
your kids from your own experiences. Extremist ideas tend to fail miserably.

I guess since we've dropped the whole resource based economy concept, I might just as well
clarify exactly where I stand on these issues within a monetary setup. In my opinion there are
resources that every citizen require merely to survive (in nature and in the modern society): a
home, food, clean water, electricity, transportation to various important locations, good roads,
education (basic as well as higher if wanted), hospital care when ill, police protection against
criminal elements (and then there are some things that can be debated). The way I see it, all
these things should be provided by a state from the money we pay in taxes, and no one should
have to go without a job. Since it takes some effort providing these things, there's always a given
amount of work involved that can be evenly distributed on the work-enabled population currently
out of a job. The rest can be privatised for all I care, as the rest is not required by every citizen.

This way, you can make as much money as you want doing whatever you want to do, but your
money is useless when it comes to building a political leverage or affecting public opinion by
donating to this or that school or what have you. Your money's only good for buying things, not
people, as people don't really need your money to lead good, prosperous lives. And the way I see
it, the workers of society deserve to know that no single person or small group of people can force
them through economical means to subservience by putting debt on them for things that should be
a given in a society, such as a place to call home.

Originally posted by spruce112358
So regardless of money, resources distribute more evenly.

This argument is empty. The resources are not distributed evenly on all people, hence it's not good
enough (money-resource correlation or not).

Originally posted by Palynka
The amount of centralization required for a resource-based economy makes that all unfeasible, in my opinion. It's hard enough to do such giant scale projects using monetary incentives, but without them (or force, obviously) I just don't see how it can be done.It's not just about voting over doing a certain project, but the whole implementation of it is not a y to engineering projects which require the physical presence of large amounts of labour.

I just listened to an interview with Fresco, and forget everything I've said about distribution of
resources. What Jacque is actually proposing is that the distribution is managed entirely by a
programmed system with no humans involved at all (because humans have failed every attempt
at this kind of task so far).

I haven't heard him say it yet, but I'm guessing the production of resources and even
manufacturing of more complex products are done entirely through the use of modern
technology. I can imagine a system where robotic technology can produce just about everything
we need really, and provide any services we require, and the programming would be managed
like open-source projects, where every human has access to and can modify the programming to
improve the efficiency and eliminate bugs in the robots. You would get your hands on a given
product you need through some computerised ordering system and have it made and delivered at
the time you place the order.

No government needed, no manual labour needed and the control of programming is in the hands
of every person on the planet that knows how to program (a skill that like every other form of
human knowledge is available to everyone on the planet).

Finally, a few good links:

YouTube&feature=related
YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by Jigtie
I just listened to an interview with Fresco, and forget everything I've said about distribution of
resources. What Jacque is actually proposing is that the distribution is managed entirely by a
programmed system with no humans involved at all (because humans have failed every attempt
at this kind of task so far).

I haven't heard him say it yet, but I ...[text shortened]... kill that like every other form of
human knowledge is available to everyone on the planet).

Sounds like he's read Iain M. Banks.

I'm sure it's just around the corner.