The eradication of money

Local farming would fix that plus remove the need to ship food over great distances.

Depends on what we as a people really want, if society changes gears and wants instead of consumerist junk rather be greedy for green space, good food, free time and culture then it is not hard to fulfill these demands. While it is next to impossible to give everyone a big screen TV, SUV,ect, it is easy to make it so people have free time to enjoy life if you simplify the material demands of society.

Having huge parties is easier then manufacturing crap since with huge parties it is just drugs, drinks, food, entertaiment and lack of productivity so you can keep the people happy this way easier then with the endless consumeristic treadmill.

 

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

How is that any different than what we have now, other than denying me the right to sell my property when I'm done with it? People will still "own" land under your system.

But what is the MARGINAL benefit to the farmer for busting his ass feeding the town? The rest of the town will provide him the same quality of services and goods even if he does nothing.

Not brainwashing, unless it's deceptive advertising. No one's forcing you to buy those products.

It's all about the marginal benefit to one's self. Suppose if I don't work, I'll benefit from the work of 3,000 people. If I do work, I'll benefit from the work of 3,001 people. The marginal benefit is hardly worth working for several hours a day.

That's nothing compared to what communism would bring, since no one wants to collect the neighborhood trash.

"De-industrialize" traffic? What in the world does that mean?

There are very few circumstances where it would be less stressful to work than to do something entertaining. And those don't have anything to do with communism.

How do you "deindustrialize" without taking away technology, other than pushing technology forward (which capitalism does quite well, and communism does not)?

 

The ideal situation for the world would be if there was no money. If everyone could work together and help each other. Unfortunately people like Kandahar are right, even if they are superior acting asses about it. (I'm sorry but I'm sick of you people calling others "idiotic" and "irrational" and whatever else you try to say to ruin credibility just because it bothers you that some people actually believe in something..yes of course ideas of everyone helping each other wouldn't work in this screwed up world! We know, does that mean just give up and watch the world spiral into hell without even a handbasket?) People would just make other money somehow. See, the thing about humans is they don't really want equality, they all want to be better than each other. Why do you think capitalism works so well? There's only a few of us who would actually be willing to go to work in a situation where it wasn't possible for us to become rich, ie better than everyone else (according to society) Plus, it's even less likely that the people we would put in a position of leadership would feel like we do, most likely they would do what all the leaders of comunist countries did, become greedy and use the people's ideals against them....well I mean how do we know we wouldn't do the same things if it was us who got power? What makes us think we're better than everyone else?

Basically the whole idealogy of equality is unrealistic in this society, this world, even if it would be the best thing

 

How can I believe that people in Utopia would work even if they do not have to?
Many people will work of boredom, or because they want to meet people, or because they want to help, or because they like that work.. there are many reasons why people will work, but I am sure most people will.
Actually, we do not need more than 10% of the people working to reach an acceptable material standard, and even today only a small part of the workforce is actually producing the things we need for our daily life, the rest are counting money and performing other useless functions
In short, I am not a bit worried about people being too lazy, the real danger lies in that too many people will try to do too much, they will be so ambitious and maybe try to force other people to work too.. "the moral majority" will maybe think that this is their big chance.
We no longer will be forced by the money to give better profits every year, we can relax and take it easy, nobody is pushing us any more
There is no need to force everybody to participate, and, more important, we should not force people at all.
People are different, they will choose different lifestyles
Difference is evolution, let people be different.

 

Well if there is a God then Earth belongs to God and God didn't given permission for anyone to have exclusive rights of land.

If not then since there has not been a global democracy, the people have not given permission for anyone to have exlusive right of land.

So either God has legal ownership of all land (thus we can only as humans can only borrow the land from God) or all of mankind has ownership (meaning all 6 billion on Earth owns Earth) either way it makes all land as commons.

You won't own the land your borrowing it anyway once you get outside land set aside for housing things really change since as I said your going to be housing everyone anyway so everyone will have a home thus in a way everyone has access to a home yet for example private golf courses can't exist since your can't give everyone their own golf course thus all golf courses so have to be open to the public allowing anyone to have access to them.

Well he can't do everything for example if the farmer doesn't supply the brewery he can't get drunk.

But they are tring their best to force you to.

But 3,000 is not all doing the same job. For example a street car conductor can't do squat without someone putting power through the overhead lines and how can you have pot without the pot grower?

Our traffic is industrialized with cars & roads. De-industrialization of traffic is the removal of this through re-ubranization (building communites where people doesn't have to go great distances) and low energy solutions like bikes, mopeds and mass transit (yes mass transit is industrial but you don't need as many busses and trains as cars thus it lower the industrilalization of traffic)

You push for a low energy society so you can have technology and advances in technology while lowering the level of industrialization.

 

how many times if he gonna post that shit?

 

Psy Fox - I read an article by a proponent of de-industrialization in which it was argued the one of the most effective means to force de-industrialization of society would be to progressively tax oil, wood and coal to the tune of something like $200.00 per commercial unit.


Would you support such a proposal? Why or why not?

 

Try stop subsidizing the oil industry first, why tax oil only to give it money?

 

Interesting. But it still fails to answer my question.

 

I don't see taxing working, look at how right now people complain about high gas prices but these same people won't get on bike even for short trips during good weather even though the bike has virtually zero cost when compaired to the car but that is not all, these same people again will spend money and time at gyms to get the exercise they would have gotten using the bike as a mode of transit.

 

So would you support a limited right to own a vehicle, or perhaps a restricted usage of said vehicle?

 

Sound nice but sadly the only way is to get society to want drive less, lower speed limits might help that along with not expanding the road network possibly even shrinking the road network. Still like the late Ivan Illich pointed out during the last energy crisis you need a culture revolution to explain to society why more of the same is not a good idea.

 

Hello,

In a civilized, organized sane world there would be free common transportation, buses trains, planes and boats available to everyone all of the time. The drivers would be the young between 20 to 40 who love to drive. Taxis would be there, the elderly and pregnant women would have priority, there would be no more vehicle ownership. Less pollution, no more parking worries and traffic gridlock. Imagine, a world with no stress, oh what a beautiful world this Utopia.

 

Utopia - meaning: no place (Greek)

 

I don't even have the energy to argue how totally naive and foolish you are.

 

Money or no money, government on a mass scale requires centralized leadership in which power is allocated to a select few. This type of arrangement is highly vunerable to greed and corruption since self-interist is an unescapable part of human nature, and the ones who are in power would be almost certain to use their position for their own benefit. In a communist society (defined as "a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership"), which is what Utopia and Psy Fox are proposing, this risk is even greater since the government is in control of everything that, in a capitalist system, would be considered private property.

However, capitalism requires neverending growth, which is a mathmatical impossibility. The mathmatical end result of capitalism is one entity owning everything (i.e. communism).

Therefore, I propose that the only economic/political system that will be able to bring us anywhere close to a "utopia" (defined as "an ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects") is communism on a small scale.

However, even where where small scale communism does exist (see http://www.twinoaks.org, for one example), it certainly isn't "utopia" by any streatch of the imagaination (though, in my opinion, it's the closest anything has come since the age of the hunter-gatherer).

I am of the opinion that, due to the selfishness that human nature brings all of us (with rare exeptions), true utopia is an impossability.

One last thing. I think that the Utopian plan doesn't take into account the fact that 1 in every 25 people is a sociopath, but as I don't really know that much about the Utopian plan, I can't really say for sure.

Peace,
OddOrigami

 

Says who? What is wrong with democracy and I mean real democracy.

That problem is fixed by putting the power in the hands of the people not the goverment. Think of GNU software, there is no head as it is a decentralized anarchist setup which make it extreamly democratic.

Or on a large scale but use democracy on local levels that get together when needed to debate large issues.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just when I thought Id heard the most retarded thing I would ever hear on these forums somebody comes along and surprises me. Fan-fucking-tastic!

 

"Says who? What is wrong with democracy and I mean real democracy."

I think that democracy works very well on a small scale (or even just on a state level). However, if the people had to vote on every issue that a large-scale-government faces, there wouldn't be time to do enough research to make informed decesions as well as get neccecery work done. Even congress doesn't have time to read most of the bills it passes (as a congressman whose name I can't remember admits in Fahrenheit 911).

"That problem is fixed by putting the power in the hands of the people not the goverment. Think of GNU software, there is no head as it is a decentralized anarchist setup which make it extreamly democratic."

I like what you're saying about putting power in the hands of the people, but I'm not fammiliar with GNU software. What is it?

"Or on a large scale but use democracy on local levels that get together when needed to debate large issues."

Please elaborate. How would the democracy on local levels get together to debate large issues?

Thanks!
--OddOrigami

 

Who said democracy has to be that way?

examples would be the Firefox web browser and Linux operating systems.

You can easily get communities to network together to grow the debate with the size of the issue. So you can have tons of town halls linked up via the internet creating one large town hall.