What political party do you prefer?

Yeah, the question "what political party do you prefer" provides answers like this, I prefer Christmas.

 

Institutions, you know, local, state and federal governments, which in the U.S. are representatives of us, the citizens. Institutions also include things like the polls (voting), churches, unions, schools, universities, organizations, corporations and on and on. All of these institutions have vested interests in our present representative system.

Not really. Leaders are leaders whether they be politicians, dictators, preachers or "scientists."

Money is money, whether it is based on gold, silver, government promises or "energy units."

And exactly who is going to decide which facts and technology are going to be used? I don't see anything that you have stated here that suggests who decides who the leaders are and how this distribution of "energy credits" is affected. It's beginning to look more like "anarchy." What happens to the 3 acres of land I now own?

Nothing you've stated here tells me that this would change in your system. If you are talking about taking away all economic and political "controls," you are talking about anarchy.


.

 

check this out

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

i'm sick of the government putting corporations & stuff over humans & the environment and it's as simple as that.

it ain't a pissing contest

 

It ain't a pissing contest but it ain't that simple either. You put more restrictions on corporations, their costs rise, their competitiveness to work in America vs outsourcing jobs falls, people lose jobs = instant political death.

 

You sound like a Democrat. Support their social policies.

 

Yes I am talking about anarchy...
i said before: "It is anarchy without money and with technology and logic."
When I see banks, politics, market, etc failing I get excited because I want it all gone. like Madcap said "...=instant political death". Yup

My first post was talking about unnecesary gov agencies and such, but that's what i would vote for. I can't vote for the system I want. so note the difference.

What things are there to decide about when any kind of building is self sustainable and resources are used locally? It's more like things are executed based on common sense through science and facts. If a concern is brought up that is non-existant at the time, If a plan can meet those concerns too, it would be executed because there's no reason why it shouldn't. One of those concerns may be that some people want hammock beds or something. If a plan is put together that doesn't sacrifice other people's concerns and is efficient, it'll be accepted by the computers maintaining the economy. Hammock beds is a weird example but I can't think of any concern that would come up that wouldn't be destructive or something that isn't already covered by common sense and efficiency. If you can, do tell.

About the 3 acres you own, it kind of merges into another thing I wanted to say. I mentioned the travelling thing and how it'd be efficient enough to make the problem with importing obsolete. It would enough that it is one reason why the economy works locally, people can travel to another continent to try a certain a food made by the local-made plants and then travel back in the same day. In addition, technology and knowledge has brought hydroponics so things can be grown anywhere basically. People wouldn't necessarily "own" a house, they can be tourists their whole life or return back to the same place over and over again if they like.

What is the reason why you have locks to your house? To keep burglars out? Why do people steal things? mainly for monetary gain, so that they can have more power over another person, a trait of human behavior only taught in the monetary system.
Sorry if you along with many other people aren't fond of collectivist thinking but why do people blindly reject any kind of collectivist thinking? I say blindly because you said you "refreshed" your memory on the Zeitgeist movement but are still talking about representation with politics and such. And also you're not the first to assimilate me with a socialist or communist. I used to be a libertarian since 7th grade, but after finding that there are always things wrong with monetary systems, I noticed how an inflated capitalistic market can be just as destructive as a socialistic and communistic economy.

I said "what?" to the institution thing because i find it irrelevant and just the way you worded it.

and just to make it more clear, I am not for that energy currency concept.

 

that's a great video. but i agree with madcap, its not that simple.
humans will be on the bottom of the list as long as money is ruling. the problem is in the roots

 

Finger pointing and calling "Democrat!" "Socialist!".... Oh,pleeez

Democrats suck corporate dick just like the 'publicans...they're just more discrete about it.

Fucking capitalists shit their drawers at the idea of people sharing and not buying stuff.
That would not be good for the economy

 

You're trying to create an anarchist society with structure. Your terms "logic" and "common sense" are antithetical to this whole idea.

Actually, I am quite fond of collectivist thinking, It just doesn't work in the real world without incentives like regulated capitalism. Why the hell should I work harder if I don't get paid more. In your society, why should I work at all? If you take away incentive, you kill production. This is the very reason the Soviet Union dissolved itself. They had more people, more oil and other resources, but the workers had no incentive to produce. A doctor lived in the same housing as the drunk on the street.

Only when you can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.

And from the members, you will pry their institutions from their cold dead hands. It's not irrelevant because people are not going to give them up.


.

 

You would be correct if I had said "you are a Democrat." But, that isn't what I said. My exact words were "you sound like a Democrat" That's why it's important to learn the language.


.

 

There are all kinds of serious flaws here.

These machines, who's going to build them? It'd take resources from all around the world, and who's going to build them for not a profit. In fact why would anyone invest in them for no profit. What's going to power them? Batteries, electricity? Who's going to make batteries or run power plants for no profit? If these machines are doing everything, what the hell are people supposed to do all day. Who's going to make books, CDs, keep the internet running, electricity for your house, running water, ect for non profit. Can't pay for it in taxes either if no one is making money.

Also monetary systems in no way lead to human greed. Why do you think one of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not steal"? Humans always want more to make their lives easier, back to when the first quasi human stabbed another quasi human with a speak to steal his food and tools. What you're asking is for people to give up near all comforts in their lives to live more simply, neither me nor the world wants to do that.

As for traveling, how are people going to travel? On rafts?

Collectivist thinking is bad because it's unrealistic, people care about themselves first and foremost, and you can't get even 10 people to agree on one thing, let alone a whole settlement. People have different wants, needs and desires.

 

i agree that common sense doesnt go with anarchy, but logic does. And i'm not necessarily "trying to create an anarchist society with structure". I'm refusing monetary and governmental structure. I or anyone wouldn't be the ones making the structure, it's technology that would be paving the road.

So you're fond of collectivist thinking but as long as there are seperate wealth classes.

There wouldn't be jobs. And that doesn't mean things wouldn't happen. People shouldn't contribute to society in exchange for something, because that something is for personal/selfish gain. Automation can provide constant production, and it partly is right now.
I do think that monetary systems (at least a bartering system) were necessary for things to happen since the beginning of civilization, but when automation is slowly coming into the picture, fundamentals clash.

lol ok

Selfish people are selfish.
Automation helps everyone.

 

Bullshit, the intention is clear. Categorize and diminish. Us and them.

Fucking troglodytes...

ZW

 

no

once again there isn't money, materials are used intelligently. If there isn't jobs, it doesn't mean that everyone will be laying around all day. Human standards on hobbies, doing things with your life, and everything wouldn't change, just the responsibility of stress from money is taken out. "keep the internet running"? Are you serious? stuff like that can easily be sustained with machines. same with water filtration, or wells. Batteries? Batteries are products of inefficiency. Things would be drastically different once the resource-based economy starts so to try to relate things like batteries is kinda weird. batteries have crazy chemicals that are extremely wasteful anyways. The value of a resource should be based on how much we humans need it, now what we buy with our money.
And what makes you think people are going to stop writing books or making music? Artistic stuff would be the main things people would take up as hobby.

Are you serious?

Just because someone said something in a monetary system doesn't mean its about the monetary system...
and it's a fundamental concept about not disrespecting others and taking things that aren't yours. But once again ownership only exists with money value. People don't technically own anything except their own body and freedom of activity.

Yeah humans want their lives easier, but it isn't right to lower or destroy another human being's standard of living for their own gain.
This the HipForums, right? I forgot where I was

Wow that isn't what I'm saying at all. How would people be giving up their comforts? And what kind of comforts are you speaking of? giant gasoline eating SUVs?

Whatever that is the most efficient while being the least wasteful while keeping the standard of living. There'll always be evolving vehicles of travel but the most efficient we know of now is magnetic trains and electric cars. Look up MagLev trains. They can travel exceptionally fast while using electricity with magnets without friction (since friction slowly destroys anything. simple physic)

People wouldn't be sacrificing anything from themselves in a resource-based economy. The only thing that they wouldn't have is what "could have been" with a monetary system based on wasteful indulgence and that doesn't help anyone, plus that "could have been" would be a lower standard of living because profit breeds inefficiency. You can get a lot of people to agree on things, thats ridiculous. maybe not the exact same thought processes but a resource-based economy doesn't demand same thought processes at all. Yes, people do have different wants and desires, but everyone holds a common minimum of needs. Monetary systems now are fulfilling what people want but are sometimes sacrificing needs of other in the way things are executed and in the way we hold opinions seperately and hostilely.

 

Just in case I'm not explaining it good enough (which it can be explained better), how I started thinking about these ideas is from the second Zeitgeist movie called Zeitgeist Addendum.

Here is the link, it is free. Please watch it, cuz even though you may blindly think this is New World order shit, you'll learn many things from it. At the very least, it'll make your brain work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#


I've listened to the people in the Venus Project answer questions people ask and some things i don't necessarily agree on. Such as drugs. They just think by making a perfect society, people will be content enough to not need them. As basically everyone here would agree, that's absurd. I also don't think cities will be like they are perceived by the Venus Project people. They do need to be efficient, but they don't necessarily need to lack in artistic quality. Those circle cities are whack. Also the first Zeitgeist movie is whack.
Just don't blindly conclude this stuff as absurd.

 

Only two types of people dream of anarchy, the wicked and the naive. The second will be eaten alive by the first. Technology can't even keep hackers out of a secure data base, or even from ending spam email. Once you even come close to designing a system like you propose, dictators will take it over and everyone will become subjects of the wicked. Your system is not only impractical, it's downright dangerous.


.

 

I basically agree with this. That's why I voted 'Green' in this poll - because you asked which we prefer.

 

It's much much more possible for someone to reign over everyone in the monetary system. There's more traction of being on top of someone so easily. There's nothing to take advantage of. Deceit being a trait prevalent in a monetary system.
Tell me how and why someone would want to "rule" over everyone in a system without money, competition, and with abundance of goods. Especially how. People diagnose people now as being psychotic and there would be precautions taken just as there are precautions taken now.

Spam exists solely because of business. Pop-ups are to advertise, scams are to basically steal money, and on a smaller scale, they're used to find what people are interested in so that businesses know what to sell and do. There's only so far hacking can go with factories and production too. And look at how well Apple's firewall is, it's brilliant. To deny what technology is capable of is ridiculous cuz we all don't know what it's capable of, especially what's to come in the future, and especially viewing technology in an inefficient based monetary world.
I've said before how government should be making solutions instead of laws. Same thing with the fact-based production line. They won't be making the tools for hacking. In a monetary system, especially in a capitalistic environment, why wouldn't the external tools like few software and hardware requirements be made? The companies making money off of the hackers would always stay afloat.

"once you even come close to designing a system like you propose". I'm not designing anything! I'm merely creating an image of what could be when we downright refuse government, business, and money, and embrace technology, facts and self-sustainability.

 

In regards to this quote, even with the inclusion of guns, this would still be true in Canada, France, Finland, Norway, Switzerland and Czech republic among others.

 

Batteries don't have chemicals that are wasteful, everything made is made with things that are needed in it. This is again a fucking terrible understanding of economics, companies try to make profit margins has high as possible, they don't put unnecessary things in them. Everything goes back to these machines. WHAT MACHINES! Everything is basically run my machines, power is generated by machines, machines make the clothes on your back, machines make cars. But we are hundreds of years away from machines actually having human abilities to operate these things with a conscious that is necessary to do so.

And the value of resources are already based on how humans need it, it's called supply and demand.

Who's going to print the books, make the canvas, produce the clarinets? Are you? Is anyone? Anyone going to operate a printing press(won't even get into how they were able to build it) all day long for no compensation? Even if you do who's going to supply the paper? Machines? Again, what machines, and then who's doing the same exact situation above except for making machines and not books.

Are you? Do you really think human greed started with money? Are you insane? Money is just a means of trade, trade existed long before money.

No, people own the things they own too aside from their body. This was codified into law even in ancient Mesopotamia who's trade was in fact generally actually trade with items, not currency. Hammurabi's famous laws included stealing from houses and farm animals. Money didn't give value to things, people's desire to to own things gave value to things. Money is just an easy medium of trade, something still has value outside of money. Like instead of working for someone for 5 hours and $50 they may give you concert tickets instead. Aside from knowledge of history if you really think only money gives something value you obviously haven't been on craigslist recently and seen all the items that are up for trade for other potential items.

Which means for everyone to be equal...........you're lowering someone elses life style for someone else's gain.

Everything is wasteful, why do you own CDs and books vs giving that money to people in Africa who need food. Growing flowers is a waste of water but I happen to think they look pretty.

Profit breeds inefficiency?


You need an economics 101 class. Monetary systems don't do anything except provide an easier means of trade, hence why our ancestors 7,000 years ago began to notice some people doing it and picked it up themselves. Just because money doesn't exist doesn't take away somethings value, instead of a TV costing $100, it would cost 10lbs of beef and plumping work done on the sellers house instead. But then who's going to pay the people making the TV? You have 20 workers, and 500lbs of beef to pay them in, well what if only 4 people want beef. Money is used because it's universally accepted, it makes trade between people that much easier, that's why money will never die.

Our entire economic system since about......ever, is based on efficiency. If you wanted 100% efficiency well then you'd have to scrap regulation and have 100% pure unrestricted capitalism. Doesn't sound so appealing now does it? Technology doesn't progress without profits. We're beyond inventing sails and canned goods. Scientific progress now depends on huge investments of both resources and man hours, and it's always a gamble. People, governments, organizations, ect, invest in the prospect of coming up with something they can make money on, which then gets reinvested.

The only way your system could possibly work is if we get to a point in time where machines can do literally every single possible job and chore humans do, and where large investments are not needed in things because if you need say a gas centrifuge to do your project everything is so available you can just go down to the local warehouse, put in an order on the computer, and pick it up for free later.

This isn't a valid economic theory, this is just a dream for a Utopian future we are god knows how far from even being able to technology implement that again like communism fails to take into account human psychology.