23 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNow, there's a subject for debate. My knowledge is too limited, but can anyone confirm/dispute his
Sounds like he's read Iain M. Banks.
I'm sure it's just around the corner.
claim that now all the resources and technology required to do this exists, and is only held back by
the interests of the monetary system (whatever system we live under: socialism, communism,
capitalism and so on)?
24 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieFrom your list, I would agree that a home, food, and clean water are necessary. You forgot clothes, though, in temperate climates.
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 ju bt on them for things that should be
a given in a society, such as a place to call home.
But the rest are not necessary: electricity, transportation to various important locations, good roads, education, hospital care when ill, police protection against criminal elements. The proof is the Amish sect in the US who have shown that they can manage without any of these things (nb. I guess they have police protection whether they want it or not. And they do go to public schools by law -- not because they want to.)
But aside from that, there are problems: say the government provides you a home. So you don't have to spend money on housing -- it is a smaller home than you want, but OK.
Now, you have a good job and make good money. What are you going to do with your money to make yourself happier? Well, very likely, you want to buy a bigger home! But now there is a problem -- what do you do with the old home? You can't sell it because the government owns it.
Same with government food -- suppose you don't want to eat what the government thinks you should eat? If you have "extra money" -- you can eat what you want. Otherwise, you have to eat government-approved beans and rice.
So we are right back to money -- people who have more of it will buy themselves a bigger "private" house, champagne and caviar (although with all the government futzing around, I have no idea what the market will look like -- probably very expensive as they will be extreme "luxury" products). And everybody else will sit in government houses eating government cheese getting more and more envious of the few "haves".
24 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358In a monetary, modern society I believe all the things I enumerated are strictly necessary to
From your list, I would agree that a home, food, and clean water are necessary. You forgot clothes, though, in temperate climates.
But the rest are not necessary: electricity, transportation to various important locations, good roads, education, hospital care when ill, police protection against criminal elements. The proof is the Amish sect in the US ent houses eating government cheese getting more and more envious of the few "haves".
survive (and yes, clothes). If some people don't want to be part of it, all the more resources for
the rest. When you have enough money to buy yourself a bigger house, the old one can be given
to whomever needs it, or tore down if no one needs it. It is state property lent to you while you
needed it, after all. If you live in a shelter, manage to scrape together enough to go rent your own
apartment, do you then have the right to sell your room at the shelter? As for food, the state can
provide in many different ways. It's not necessarily about throwing a can of beans and a bag of
rice in your lap. You could get food coupons that are valid in stores so that you can buy just about
any food your heart desire. The solutions to these specific problems are many.
Of course, with the resource based economy administrated by machines in turn controlled by all
humans, we don't have these problems at all, do we?
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA group of vigilantes could hang em high.
Suppose there is a Joe Smith in this hypothetical society who likes to rape children. Who punishes him when there is no government? Do you think vigilante justice would really work? How would the weak be protected against the strong?
Anarchy, in the end, does not make everyone equal - it causes the strong to exploit the weak.
24 Jul 09
1 edit
During the great depression my grandparents didn't use money much at all. There was none for them. They lived on a dry farm and grew a huge garden. They also had livestock. Trading food and labor in that community is what got everyone by in those days. If someone could make clothes and trade for food or labor such as carpentery then things worked out quite nicely. Still no room for laziness. Families stuck together better in those days as it was a matter of survival and not wellfare.