Just trying to save the world

[oktalist]

Because you drive a fast car, you are less valuable to society...

Because you drive a low-mileage/inefficient/polluting car.

 

[Antidamacus]

It is human nature to work. Even if everything is spoon-fed to us, we still feel a natural urge to be productive.

You're right. I never see lazy people sitting around all day doing nothing while sucking up resources.... ever.

Living in capitalism and knowing no other system for centuries, it is incredibly difficult to separate what is really human nature from what is just behaviour brought on by capitalism, to extract yourself from those ingrained ideas, to step back and see the whole picture of how society could function without money or ownership of the means of production, without being clouded by residual ideas of how people behave under capitalism.

You mean emotions like greed, jealousy, anger? Why don't we just get rid of those now? Why not just get rid of the behavior and keep capitalism?

Everyone who is saying that you wouldn't want to work for no obvious reward so that lazy people can sit around all day doing nothing... you are the lazy people who would be sitting around all day doing nothing while the rest of us would be working for no obvious reward so that you can be lazy and sit around all day doing nothing!

You got me, I totally would be. So, free stuff for me, endless hours of work for you to make my life cool? I can do that.

The people themselves.

That's vague. The people who make the items or the people who ask for items?

They would still be able to have a lot of stuff, they just won't have as much power over everyone else. They can have just as much stuff as they have now, and everyone else will be able to have the same amount (note I said able to have not will have; it's not about equal wealth, but equal access to wealth).

2 things. 1, people like power for it's own sake, not for the items you get because of it. 2, why is there a difference between able to have and will have? Who is going to stop them?

No, they're labouring to provide for themselves and others.

Way to side step the point. Why are they providing for others?

No-one should be driving a Porsche (at least not every day). It is frivolous and vain, and vanity of that kind could not exist with this system.

Really? Why? Is vanity a crime now? Why can't people drive Porsches?

Having clean toilets is not a reward?
Do you get paid for cleaning your own toilet? And yet I take it that your toilet is clean. Explain.
I suppose you could've paid someone to clean it for you but that just begs the question.

Wait your own damn table! Seriously, something like half of the jobs on which resources are currently wasted would be rendered pointless, if they weren't already.

So basically no public or commercial buildings?

You're missing the point. Why am I going to clean a public service or place when I'll likely have one of my own?

Who is going to go in there and clean the sewers for no reward? There is going to be a complete staff of servicemen for sewer repair.. just because?

Also, if I have to wait my own tables, why have places to eat? Why not just eat at home?

Who is going to be growing all these crops for food? Why work hours all day on grain or cow farms just so you can give it all away to people? Who would take the job of hauling food to processing plants to make more complex foods? Who determines where the grain goes to? Who determines where these foods get shipped to? Do they ship them to every store in the world? Who has stores?

Why would we have stock boys but no waiters?

Everyone would die? Seriously, everyone deciding not to work is not going to happen, so why ask what would happen if that were to occur? You might as well ask what would happen if everyone were to suddenly turn into fish.

Here is what is going to happen. If you remove money or incentive, people will look out only for themselves. People are going to have to grow their own gardens and raise their own livestock because farmers aren't going to do the work for free. A few bad winters would cripple crops of people who aren't farmers, causing them the scrounge for food and resources, leading to crime and death.

People are greedy and selfish. If you want to get rid of money, that's great. You'll turn your society into one that has people making just enough for themselves. You can kiss advance tech goodbye.

 

[Daye.04]

If I ever become president, your going to be my VP. lol

Good points, but I think the 2 people fighting for this up and left.

BTW, remember a vote for Zeke is a vote for awsome.

As long as you don't go for Palin, I'm happy as can be.

They did? Aw man .. And here I was looking forward to winning the discussion with a little resistance -.-

Is this about the Escapist Election thing?

Communism sounds good on paper but human interference f#ks it up.

That, my friend ... THat's quoted for truth. No doubt about it. Communism is a great idea. The problem is that we're not able to go through with it ..

 

[oktalist]

I'm under no illusions that I can convince anyone of my political beliefs here; I'm just responding to your criticisms now. Actually it's been a pretty constructive debate, so thankyou.

You mean emotions like greed, jealousy, anger? Why don't we just get rid of those now? Why not just get rid of the behavior and keep capitalism?

I mean that when those emotions come into contact with capitalism, they result in the behaviours of theft, fraud and robbery. Under socialism they have nothing to latch onto, nothing to be greedy about, no-one to be jealous of, nothing to be angry about.

The people themselves.

That's vague. The people who make the items or the people who ask for items?

The people who ask for them.

people like power for it's own sake, not for the items you get because of it

Yeah I know. And that's bad. And it couldn't happen with socialism.

why is there a difference between able to have and will have? Who is going to stop them?

No-one's going to stop them except themselves. No-one is going to get 10 different sports cars, or 10 Rolex watches. There'd be no point. In capitalism they can signify a person's wealth, but in socialism they wouldn't do that. And no-one is going to get a hottub AND jacuzzi AND steam room AND ice rink, where would they put it all? And some people just won't be interested in 50 inch plasma screens.

No, they're labouring to provide for themselves and others.

Way to side step the point. Why are they providing for others?

As a side-effect of working for themselves. Like in your job now, whatever it is, no doubt it helps people in some way, but for you that's only a side-effect of working for money.

No-one should be driving a Porsche (at least not every day). It is frivolous and vain, and vanity of that kind could not exist with this system.

Really? Why? Is vanity a crime now? Why can't people drive Porsches?

It's not a crime, it just wouldn't exist. At least not when it comes to material possessions, like sports cars as signifiers of personal wealth. In capitalism, vanity serves a purpose in a person's interaction with society, a purpose which would not exist in socialism.

Who is going to go in there and clean the sewers for no reward? There is going to be a complete staff of servicemen for sewer repair.. just because?

Because if they don't it's gonna get pretty smelly, pretty quickly. Necessity will drive things like this.

Also, if I have to wait my own tables, why have places to eat? Why not just eat at home?

That was kind of my point.

Who determines where the grain goes to? Who determines where these foods get shipped to? Do they ship them to every store in the world? Who has stores?

Think more locally, like district, town, county, maybe even up to state level. Think people communicating among themselves, deciding for themselves.

Here is what is going to happen. If you remove money or incentive, people will look out only for themselves.

That's what happens when you have monetary incentive.

People are going to have to grow their own gardens and raise their own livestock because farmers aren't going to do the work for free.

And then a group of neighbours will realise it makes more sense for them to pool their resources, maybe share the workload... you see where that's going.

People are greedy and selfish.

Again, I contend that this is incorrect. Those emotions are fed by capitalism, they serve a purpose for people in capitalism which they wouldn't do in socialism. But having seen the world for so long through capitalist-tinted glasses, it seems like they are inescapable when in fact they're not.

This system of unrestricted sharing already exists within the family unit. I'm just extending it to the community, to the region, to the world.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

What? Your joking right? You ant us to become lazy and get stuff for free? Thats Socialism my friend. At worst, Anarchy. You should just work hard and get what you deserve instead of sitting on your butt hoping stuff comes to you.

 

[Antidamacus]

I mean that when those emotions come into contact with capitalism, they result in the behaviours of theft, fraud and robbery. Under socialism they have nothing to latch onto, nothing to be greedy about, no-one to be jealous of, nothing to be angry about.

Then you clearly don't understand things like anger and jealousy.

Yeah I know. And that's bad. And it couldn't happen with socialism.

Why? Because you say so? I'll show you how this can happen in a little bit.

No-one's going to stop them except themselves. No-one is going to get 10 different sports cars, or 10 Rolex watches. There'd be no point. In capitalism they can signify a person's wealth, but in socialism they wouldn't do that. And no-one is going to get a hottub AND jacuzzi AND steam room AND ice rink, where would they put it all? And some people just won't be interested in 50 inch plasma screens.

Some people like sports cars. Why wouldn't someone want a hot tub, jacuzzi and steam room? Do they not like these things? They sound pretty relaxing to me. And why not a 50 inch tv? That would get some pretty good definition for the shows that don't exist.

As a side-effect of working for themselves. Like in your job now, whatever it is, no doubt it helps people in some way, but for you that's only a side-effect of working for money.

And when they stop paying me money, I'm only going to do work that benefits me. I'm not gonna go paint some public building when I could be getting more food or supplies.

It's not a crime, it just wouldn't exist. At least not when it comes to material possessions, like sports cars as signifiers of personal wealth. In capitalism, vanity serves a purpose in a person's interaction with society, a purpose which would not exist in socialism.

What about things like beauty? Fixing up your house? Having a bigger house? Are all houses required to be the same size now?

What if I don't want to drive the same car everyone else does? Too bad for me? This doesn't sound very exciting.

Because if they don't it's gonna get pretty smelly, pretty quickly. Necessity will drive things like this.

And then everyone will come together and argue about who has to do it. No one is going to WANT to do it, they'll need some kind of incentive to convince people to do it... like money (which won't exist)

Think more locally, like district, town, county, maybe even up to state level. Think people communicating among themselves, deciding for themselves.

Most places can't grow the amounts of food required to sustain large populations. Are you implying we just ditch these places?

And then a group of neighbours will realise it makes more sense for them to pool their resources, maybe share the workload... you see where that's going.

And then people show up to have some of the large amounts of food they've grown. And the town doesn't want to just GIVE them the food. They'll make them work for it... sorta like a salary.

I'm not sure why stepping back down to the barter system is a preferred method?

Until every person produces the same products, there will always be tension and vying for power. The town that produces food will be more powerful than the town that makes stuffed animals. The guy who produces the clean water will be more important than the local ballet dancers, yet you tell me both will get the same rewards from everyone.

Again, I contend that this is incorrect. Those emotions are fed by capitalism, they serve a purpose for people in capitalism which they wouldn't do in socialism. But having seen the world for so long through capitalist-tinted glasses, it seems like they are inescapable when in fact they're not.

Those emotions existed well before capitalism existed. Well before money too. I think you're just dreaming.

This system of unrestricted sharing already exists within the family unit. I'm just extending it to the community, to the region, to the world.

You mean the family system where most of the people have no rights and 2 people have all the power? That system? the system that is based on how much income from capitalism comes in?

 

[punkrocker27]

stop trying to save this thread

 

[Therumancer]

The idea doesn't work. I could go into a huge rant about Communism Vs. Capitolism, how Communism fails hard and turns into socialism and what that turns into, and numerous other things but it's not really nessicary.

Simply put your (the OP's) logic falls apart since it seems to rely on the idea that we have the technology to support noone working, and presumably an unlimited amount of space for our population to expand into.

Communism is a seductive idealogy, and a very dangerous one. In an ideal situation it would be sort of nice, but reality is something else entirely. This is why communism has been so heavily persecuted in the US in the past.

Arguably Communism won't save the world, it will doom it. Through complete stagnation if nothing else.

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Aramax]

Don't tell me you don't see the flaw in letting people choose what they should recieve. You have to see that. One guy would say. "Oh. I do totally deserve a yatch" "Why here you go, good sir""Wait. I meant two yatch""Of course, sir. Here you go.""No .. On a second thought. Five'll do""As you wish, sir. Here's your five yatch". We would run out of resources within the first month. This would never work. You have to realize that.

A resource-based economy is a system and, just like every system ever created, there are rules. Some of those rules would be something like:

Production and distribution of any object must be ceased if...​

[ul]
[li]The production of said object conflict with the production of more important objects.[/li]
[li]The production of said object cause death or suffering and/or pose an imminent risks to the peoples health.[/li]
[li]A single individual or more are unable to take property of said object.[/li]
[/ul]

So if someone wants to have a free yacht he wont get ownership of his yacht unless one yacht has been made available for each and everyone. If he wants a second yacht a second yacht must be made available for everyone. Etc, etc...

 

[Aramax]

Some people are more intelligent than others. It can be altered to some extent through different teaching methods, but you will never have a society of Einsteins, therefore some people will be more valuable to society than others.

People do whatever they want to do. Some people will take more responsibilities then others but that does not imply that they're going to have less fun doing what they like.

I'm pretty sure a lot of you guys must have missed this video I posted...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbvKrH-GC4

Clearly you never have ridden in a porsche or driven one. Here's one reason people like to drive porshes: IT'S REALLY FUN!
It may be frivolous, but then so would any form of entertainment above the most basic wooden toys. You can count me out of any society which wants to take hummanity back to the stoneage.

I'm pretty sure more people will be able to drive porsche in a resource-based economy since there wont be any limitations on how many can be created. Almost the same amount of resources are being used in every cars... except the Hummer. If everyone wants a hummer we're in trouble.

 

[Daye.04]

A resource-based economy is a system and, just like every system ever created, there are rules. Some of those rules would be something like:

Production and distribution of any object must be ceased if...​

[ul]
[li]The production of said object conflict with the production of more important objects.[/li]
[li]The production of said object cause death or suffering and/or pose an imminent risks to the peoples health.[/li]
[li]A single individual or more are unable to take property of said object.[/li]
[/ul]

So if someone wants to have a free yath he wont get ownership of his yath unless one yath has been made available for each and everyone. If he wants a second yath a second yath must be made available for everyone. Etc, etc...

Ooooh. You're going all flashy advert on me, eh?
Well:

[HEADING=3][color=50FF50]The reason why that would not work either[/color][/HEADING]​

[small][color=FF505F]this all comes back to the original argument that I were proposing. People will get greedy and say. Hey. I want a yatch. And they creators will be like "Sure. We'll just make 6 billinos of them first" "No, you can't do that. We'll have to make houses first. That's a lot more important." "Oh. Okay. Well I guess they can wait for about 20 years before they get their yatch" After rebellion and seeing everything trashed and looted, they realise .. No. They can't wait 20 years.[/color][/small]

 

[Aramax]

Ooooh. You're going all flashy advert on me, eh?
Well:

[HEADING=3][color=50FF50]The reason why that would not work either[/color][/HEADING]​

[small][color=FF505F]this all comes back to the original argument that I were proposing. People will get greedy and say. Hey. I want a yatch. And they creators will be like "Sure. We'll just make 6 billinos of them first" "No, you can't do that. We'll have to make houses first. That's a lot more important." "Oh. Okay. Well I guess they can wait for about 20 years before they get their yatch" After rebellion and seeing everything trashed and looted, they realise .. No. They can't wait 20 years.[/color][/small]

I see what you did there.

You see, everything can be done elaborately. You dont usually build a house by making the roof first.

First you calculate the resources needed for every project. If there are enough resources then the production start on a "first to ask, first to be served" basis. Everything is produced in lot, one lot at a time. Once the first lot of yacht is finished it is delivered and the production of the second lot begins. Everything is made durable so you wont need to get a new one in some time but eventually you need to get your yacht repaired or replaced. If it needs repair there will be able people ready to do so for you, if you break it and it can't be repaired you need to wait for a new one and if you take care of it, after a few years with that yacht, you can request a new one.

 

[Daye.04]

I see what you did there.

Well that's .. That's good. That's ... That's kinda why I posted it =P

 

[Aramax]

Just adding yet another chapter to this topic...

Sex-bot, you know those robots that have this unique purpose to pleasure someone sexually... I know they're no problem right now mostly because they're ugly looking and/or unavailable but someday it will be more fun, less of a hassle and cheaper then the real thing. It's not like you can prevent people from purchasing them... right?

I know that under a resource-based economy there will come a time when people will request them but there will be less risks of alienating the members of the opposite sex.

Bow-chika-wow-wow!

 

[Aramax]

WOAH! I think somebody around here completely missed our message of togetherness.

I think we better tell him what we're all about.

http://www.tubearoo.com/articles/90776/SNL_Jingleheimer_Junction.html

=D

 

[Trace2010]

Here's an odd idea:



---SMACK UPSIDE THE HEAD---




STOP TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD!!

YOU WILL ONLY FURTHER SCREW IT UP!!