Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:[Libertarians] are mostly a very uneducated bunch

@Luminon, you repeatedly claimed libertarians are stupid. If you have a strong position you shouldn't have to resort to name calling. And what do you have to support those claims except that libertarians disagree with you and therefore must be stupid? I don't like bringing up concepts like stupid and high IQ because it's snobbish, and frankly I don't think IQ is the best predictor. However, since you're throwing out personal attacks on which political group has higher IQ's, I should remind you that there are official ways to measure one's intelligence, the most respected being the Stanford-Binet IQ test. There are several 'high IQ' societies that accept those who have exceptionally high IQ. Mensa has the lowest bar, with a standard that accepts 1 in 50, and is the most well known, and it's well known it's majority libertarian. As you move up the chain to the triple-nine society which accepts only those in the top 99.9 percentile (1 in 1,000), their site says: http://www.triplenine.org/poll/press.htm. “A nationwide poll just taken among members of the Triple Nine Society (TNS), a worldwide super-high IQ group, shows the surprising result that their views on most issues are closer to libertarian than to either Democratic or Republican positions." And then when you move up the ladder to Promethius society, which only accepts 1 in 30,000, their official forum is the "Fire List" archive on Yahoo, and their surveys show an even higher percentage of libertarians. Then you have more high IQ societies, like Intertel, that are exclusively libertarian. And the most restrictive of all, the Mega Society, which is limited the 99.9999th percentile (ie 1 in a million IQ), is also so libertarian that non-libertarian members complain how hard it is to cope: http://megasociety.org/noesis/155/manifest.html

This doesn't prove anything, and throwing the fact that libertarians occupy a tiny percentage of the general population but the lion's share of those with exceptionally high IQ's is, I admit, a douche bag comment. But I only say it because you made an equally douche-bag claim that Libertarians are stupid and uneducated. That's equally inflammatory, and has no substantiation.

Quote:The left-right distinction is between institutions and opposition to those institutions. On the right, you have institutions...

I still maintain the problem is “that the labels are not used consistently, so the original meaning is lost.” You are correct that in the in France in the 1700's, the National Assembly was divided by those who supported the king on the right vs. the revolutionaries on the left. Your claims about left-right being about which side supports institutions is correct, if you use that early definition. But clearly the meanings have evolved over time. For example, unions are obviously institutions too, correct? Are they supported more by the left or the right? And, the early US Republicans were considered “left”, and they opposed institutions like slavery, that were supported by the Democrats. Do you still think Republican=left? I agree with the comments in Wikipedia that: “The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide.” Also, The Harris polling released a survey of 2,209 adults and discovered that most Americans only have the vaguest idea of the meaning of left and right.

So I still think that it's hard to debate with labels because everybody uses the labels to mean different things. Although the initial definition of 'left-right' did mean support of institutions, in today's political climate, I still feel it means more of 'where you want to use force to coerce people'. Those who consider themselves 'left', like Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, etc., want to focus the government's ability to enforce laws more on economic matters. They will often talk about wealth redistribution, welfare programs, etc. Those who consider themselves on the 'right', like Bush, Santorum, etc., want the government to enforce moral issues, like a ban on drugs, and gay marriage, and they also bring in religion a lot and tend to be more aggressive against Muslim countries. I disagree that one or the other supports more corporate interests. Look at the campaign donation disclosures from both parties—they are both funded by big corporations in pretty much equal measures. However, I admit, it's very hard to draw lines. Obama is considered 'left', but he's also begging the world to let him attack Syria, and it's now the Republican-controlled house that is arguing for a peaceful solution. Go figure.

That is why I think asking specific questions is a lot more useful. @Luminon answered those questions, and that made his positions a lot clearer than just saying “I'm left” or “I'm right” or “I'm socialist”. You said “there is no property? It's all stolen from Earth. So we better manage the resources in a sustainable, global way... I am against both, property and violence, but deeply in favor of education. A non-authoritative education... No, I don't believe anyone can own the means of producion. Earth belongs to itself. The matter of our bodies comes from soil nutrients and oil fertilizers. We do not have anything of our own, except knowledge and technology. ”

I agree the eminent domain question is irrelevant since it presumes you believe in the concept of enforcing private property rights. Like I said earlier, my natural political view is really the same as yours, @Luminon. I agree with everything you said about private property. My reservation is purely a practical one. To date many governments have tried systems that did not include private property and that banned private ownership of the means of production, just like you advocated. They attempted to allocate the resources in a shared way, just as you advocated. But how many of them actually succeeded in a society where people were happy and thrived? How many managed to “avoid scarcity”, as you point is necessary?

I'm not saying that it cannot work. I actually agree with the 'Chinese communist' @HU.Junyuan, who said that such a system will likely be viable only when machines do all our work, making us super productive, and there is an abundance of resources for everyone. And, so I strongly disagree with the way Western countries have attacked and tried to thwart the efforts of socialist countries, such as an embargo on Cuba, a cold war against the Soviets. I think we should have been friendly to them, and let them keep trying systems until they found one that worked.

Thus, we don't disagree in principle. But, the cold, hard fact remains that when you rank countries based on their enforcement of private property rights as well as their economic freedom, those countries that do both have higher life expediencies, higher incomes and less crime. The reason I became a libertarian is that I lived in Switzerland for 10 years, which, after Hong Kong, is the closest I've seen to a pure libertarian society. The fact is that when Mercer ranks the best cities to live in, Switzerland is the only country with all of it's major cities in the top 10. When ranking 'the best country to be born in', Switzerland ranks #1. In opinion polls about how satisfied people are with their government, Switzerland is #1. In terms of which country has best eliminated poverty, Switzerland is also the only country in the world where the poorest 20% make at least half the median income. There is no homelessness, no poverty, and it was all done without any form of government welfare program at either the national or state level. They also have the best and most organized government infrastructure I've ever seen, yet their federal income tax rate is only a couple percent, and residents can negotiate to pay a fixed tax each year without disclosing income. They were the only country that kept the gold standard after everyone else dropped it in 1971, something economists said was suicide and would lead to a wildly unstable economy, yet their currency and economy became the most stable in the world. Just look at tradingeconomics charts of changes in gdp, inflation, etc. The US has a monetary system that is supposed to buffer the highs and lows, yet the US charts are a wild roller coaster, whereas the Swiss charts are straight, steady lines. In terms of household wealth, Switzerland is also #1, with the average household having $700,000 in savings—nearly 7x that of the US. And this is despite having no natural resources. They also have a very low crime rate, and an exceptionally high life expectancy—despite being the only major country in Western Europe with a private health care system. If you live there and study how they've accomplished what they have, it's purely because of their policies.

So, my admiration of the liberation system is a practical one because I lived in a libertarian society first-hand and saw how well it worked. In fact, it worked so well, that I found it to be really boring, and preferred living in Brazil instead because it was a lot more exciting. But, I can't deny that if you're looking for a system that leads to equality, prosperity and longevity, the results are there in black and white.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Well; I'd be careful not to overstate things. Switzerland's great and all, but, don't get ahead of yourself.

(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact is that when Mercer ranks the best cities to live in, Switzerland is the only country with all of it's major cities in the top 10.

Austria has one major city, Vienna, which is #1 on the Mercer 2012 list (and the previous four years running). Clearly Austria is superior Tongue.

(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  They were the only country that kept the gold standard after everyone else dropped it in 1971, something economists said was suicide and would lead to a wildly unstable economy, yet their currency and economy became the most stable in the world. Just look at tradingeconomics charts of changes in gdp, inflation, etc. The US has a monetary system that is supposed to buffer the highs and lows, yet the US charts are a wild roller coaster, whereas the Swiss charts are straight, steady lines.

Swiss francs have been free floating since 2000.

(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  They also have ... an exceptionally high life expectancy—despite being the only major country in Western Europe with a private health care system.

Insurers are private. Purchasing health insurance is mandatory, and insurance providers are required to accept all applicants. This is no different than many other European countries.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:Austria has one major city, Vienna, which is #1 on the Mercer 2012 list (and the previous four years running). Clearly Austria is superior.

Both Austria and Switzerland have comparable populations, and comparable large cities. The fact is that if you look at the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Qual...ing_Survey

Switzerland's largest cities are in the top 10. However, I'm not using the Mercer survey to prove Switzerland is the best. And I actually really like Vienna also and have been there a lot. I'm just listing many 3rd party resources that proves the Swiss system works well. The economist ranks countries overall, and also puts Switzerland in #1 place.

http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-w...ttery-life

And as I mentioned, Switzerland comes out at or near the top on all sorts of quality of life measures, like life expectancy, satisfaction with government, household wealth, measures of poverty, etc.

Besides, the point I was making is that when @Luminon answered my questions to determine political views, and he indicated that governments should not allow private property or private ownership of the means of production (ie classical communism), it's been tried many times and so far, and I hope somebody figures out how to make it work because it sounds really nice, but to date it's been a disaster. If you think Switzerland is the best country overall or not, nobody disputes it's widely accepted to certainly be one of the best. Regardless, ask people to pick their 'top 10 countries in the world', and I am pretty sure all the top countries on everybody's list will be places that so enforce property rights and have private ownership of the means of production. So, I agree with @Luminon in principle, but I would like to see him give an example of a country that put that policy into effect and didn't subsequently implode.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(06-09-2013 11:18 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Austria has one major city, Vienna, which is #1 on the Mercer 2012 list (and the previous four years running). Clearly Austria is superior.

Both Austria and Switzerland have comparable populations, and comparable large cities. The fact is that if you look at the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Qual...ing_Survey

Switzerland's largest cities are in the top 10. However, I'm not using the Mercer survey to prove Switzerland is the best. And I actually really like Vienna also and have been there a lot.

Switzerland's largest cities are not in the top ten. Basel and Lausanne (not in the top 10) are larger than Bern (which is). Not that it really matters, as you say Big Grin.

(06-09-2013 11:18 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And as I mentioned, Switzerland comes out at or near the top on all sorts of quality of life measures, like life expectancy, satisfaction with government, household wealth, measures of poverty, etc.

Yes. Absolutely. The generalities are not in question. The specifics are - you claimed Swiss uniqueness re: currency and healthcare. No such uniqueness exists.

(06-09-2013 11:18 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Besides, the point I was making is that when @Luminon answered my questions to determine political views, and he indicated that governments should not allow private property or private ownership of the means of production (ie classical communism), it's been tried many times and so far, and I hope somebody figures out how to make it work because it sounds really nice, but to date it's been a disaster. ... Regardless, ask people to pick their 'top 10 countries in the world', and I am pretty sure all the top countries on everybody's list will be places that so enforce property rights and have private ownership of the means of production. So, I agree with @Luminon in principle, but I would like to see him give an example of a country that put that policy into effect and didn't subsequently implode.

Well, yeah. If you try to prevent such ownership by force, you're gonna have a bad time. I think we are in total agreement there.
Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote: The specifics are - you claimed Swiss uniqueness re: currency and healthcare. No such uniqueness exists.

Regarding the currency, what other country kept the gold standard after 1971? You're saying Switzerland is not unique for keeping the gold standard? They only dropped it relatively recently because of all the problems with the Euro people were stocking up on Swiss Francs as a safe haven, and, since the gold standard prevented them from printing more currency (which is why it was a safe haven), they couldn't print more money and the exchange of the Swiss Franc got so high that other countries couldn't afford to import Swiss products.

Understand there's no irrational fascination with the gold standard--it is only a means to force the government to pay its bills through taxation, rather than printing money, since the money supply has to remain fixed. You could make your currency convertible to any other fixed item to accomplish the same thing. But because the Swiss money supply didn't keep increasing, they had near 0 inflation. And having lived there I realized this meant they behaved differently than we did.

In fact, my discovery of libertarianism came from trying to figure out why it was that in a country where the average family has $700k in savings, the Swiss rarely own their home—even the well-off generally rent. Statistically the Swiss have by far the lowest rates of home ownership of any developed country. It seemed bizarre to me that, as an American, buying a home was the first thing the financially responsible do, and yet in Switzerland, a much more fiscally conservative country, they see it as wasteful. So I often asked why, and the Swiss, even those with no concept of monetary policy, would say “Why would I want to tie my money up in a depreciating asset, like a house or a car? I want to invest it so it grows.” I'd say, “What are talking about?! A house isn't a depreciating asset—it IS an investment.” But after a while I realized the Swiss were right. If you have zero inflation, and, say, in 1970 a brand new 3 bedroom goes for $300,000, then that means 30 years later, when brand new homes are still going for $300,000, your 30-year old outdated house IS going to be worth less than a new one. It really IS a depreciating asset, like a car, it's just that in the US, it depreciates more slowly than the rate of inflation, so we're tricked into thinking that's an appreciating investment, when in fact it isn't. Americans are actually responding to fear. We're afraid that home prices will continue to rise and we'll get priced out of the market and unable to afford the same house they can today. So we're anxious to buy a home now to lock in the cost and have future stability, especially since the Federal Reserve keeps mortgage interest rates so low, but it's really malinvestment to park your money in a depreciating asset.

Inflation is clouding our judgment and we don't realize it. By taking inflation out of the equation, however, it's easier to see what is a good return on investment. Inflation is generally recognized to punish savings (since your savings loses value), and reward debt-based consumption (since the debt also goes down in value). Few people think about this or monetary policy, but having lived in Switzerland I realized it did alter behavior. The Swiss focused more on savings and investing, whereas Americans focused more on spending and debt. They put their money into stocks and business. Americans put most of their money into their homes and buying stuff on credit. The Swiss generally save to buy a car and pay cash. Americans lease or finance.

And then look at the results. During the 50's and 60's US home prices changed little, and at the time the US changed its monetary policy in 1971, US households were wealthier than Swiss. But, after 30 years, the situation flipped and the Swiss were much wealthier than Americans.

Also, libertarian economists have long pointed out that when the government prints money, it is effectively the same thing as taking money from the people in taxation—it's taking wealth from the people and giving it to the government (an inflation tax). However, unlike normal taxation which is transparent and everybody knows who is paying what, with inflation, people don't realize they're being taxed. The tax is just sort of automatically taken from their wallet a few pennies every day without their knowledge. And the same economists have also presented peer reviewed models showing that this 'inflation tax' is disproportionately shouldered by the poor.

See: http://economics.uwo.ca/econref/workingp...2000_1.pdf

“Inflation has important distributional effects since it is effectively a regressive consumption tax”

Also: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~md...on2_10.pdf

The models show that US monetary policy hurts the poor the most, and that the Swiss model by contrast benefits the poor more. So is it coincidence that the one country that kept that monetary policy is also the only country where the poorest in their society make at least half the median income?

But it's easy to see why the US government LOVES the printing press. It means politicians can spend, and they don't need to tax! It's hugely popular with voters who don't realize that they're still paying for all the spending regardless. And then when you look at how the US is the only country where most of its currency is kept outside the country because all the world's oil is sold only in US dollars, so every country has to give the US stuff to get US dollars to buy their oil, so it allows the US to print a lot more money than other countries. Then you look at the convenient timing that every single time an oil producing country has started to sell oil in anything but US dollars, the US shortly thereafter invaded (like Iraq), assassinated (Libya), or placed sanctions to blockade the sale of oil (Venezuela, Iran) to block the sale of oil in anything but dollars. If you follow this stuff, every war becomes entirely predictable. It was known and published a long time ago that there was going to be some crisis in Syria and the US would attack, since Iran's mutual defense treaty requires them to protect Syria, and Iran and India have been secretly defying the sanctions and selling oil in rupees. As soon as Saddam started selling oil in Euros, they knew he would be taken out.

What I like about libertarianism is that you can see how all these seemingly disparate phenomenons are actually related and predictable. I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul, but look at the predictions he made in early 2002: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM He makes over 20 concrete, specific predictions. Some of them were expected, but many were totally contrary to conventional wisdom, yet they came true. For example, he predicted an invasion of Iraq that would turn into the longest and costliest war since WWII. And he said that BEFORE Bush/Cheney made their WMD claims, before the UN inspections, and before people knew the Iraq war was coming. But, if you follow monetary policy, it was predictable. He gets criticized for predicting high inflation, but in economics, inflation is defined as an increase in the money supply, and it has happened exactly like he predicted. We haven't seen a global currency crisis yet, but, even guys like Warren Buffet have commented they don't see any way out of the current situation. The US is close to $20 trillion debt, and it's only sustainable because interest rates are so low because the Fed is buying up all the debt with printed money. What happens when the Fed tapers, and the government returns to having to pay 6 or 7% interest, like in the Clinton era? The US cannot possibly pay it. So the QE cannot be stopped. Bernanke calls money printing the “punch bowl”, but if there's no exit strategy, it's more like a “heroin pipe”. But when you say that another crisis has to come sometime within the next 5-10 years, you're accused of being a nutty conspiracy theorist. However in 2006, when libertarians were predicting a housing collapse and banking crisis would come within a few years, they too were labeled nut jobs. Bernanke and Ron Paul got into, and Bernanke was adamant housing and banking fundamentals were strong and there simply would not be any sort of national event in the coming years. Ron Paul also made a series of predictions in 1998, including a stock market crash, which were also considered crazy at the time, but did come through.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2013 06:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @Luminon, you repeatedly claimed libertarians are stupid. If you have a strong position you shouldn't have to resort to name calling. And what do you have to support those claims except that libertarians disagree with you and therefore must be stupid? I don't like bringing up concepts like stupid and high IQ because it's snobbish, and frankly I don't think IQ is the best predictor. However, since you're throwing out personal attacks on which political group has higher IQ's, I should remind you that there are official ways to measure one's intelligence, the most respected being the Stanford-Binet IQ test. There are several 'high IQ' societies that accept those who have exceptionally high IQ. Mensa has the lowest bar, with a standard that accepts 1 in 50, and is the most well known, and it's well known it's majority libertarian. As you move up the chain to the triple-nine society which accepts only those in the top 99.9 percentile (1 in 1,000), their site says: http://www.triplenine.org/poll/press.htm. “A nationwide poll just taken among members of the Triple Nine Society (TNS), a worldwide super-high IQ group, shows the surprising result that their views on most issues are closer to libertarian than to either Democratic or Republican positions." And then when you move up the ladder to Promethius society, which only accepts 1 in 30,000, their official forum is the "Fire List" archive on Yahoo, and their surveys show an even higher percentage of libertarians. Then you have more high IQ societies, like Intertel, that are exclusively libertarian. And the most restrictive of all, the Mega Society, which is limited the 99.9999th percentile (ie 1 in a million IQ), is also so libertarian that non-libertarian members complain how hard it is to cope: http://megasociety.org/noesis/155/manifest.html

This doesn't prove anything, and throwing the fact that libertarians occupy a tiny percentage of the general population but the lion's share of those with exceptionally high IQ's is, I admit, a douche bag comment. But I only say it because you made an equally douche-bag claim that Libertarians are stupid and uneducated. That's equally inflammatory, and has no substantiation.
Looks like I have just met a Libertarian.
Sorry, I didn't mean to attack or prove anything, I was just describing my personal experience and about 2 months of obsessively frustrating internet discussion with Libertarians on a whole different continent, who probably have very little to do with American Libertarians.
That guy had attention span of a goldfish and mind of a Biblical literalist. Incapable of higher abstract thought. Could not understand most of what I wrote, unless i really spelled it out for him, despite of having an equivalent of MIT college. But what really worried me, were the other Libertarians who agreed with him and disagreed with me. They seemed to really get him and not get me. I am convinced this man is stupid, in the sense of having an extremely limited mind, with extremely narrow categories that can only see significance in very few things, such as economy and only economy, only monetarism. And everyone else around cheers for him. Nowhere else but in Biblical literalist fundamentalist circles I have seen such a mindset. Really, I persisted so long because it was just perversely fascinating how limited this guy is.

With astonishment I realized he could not comprehend the principle of empiricism and science or evidence. He was only capable of understanding rationalism and counted only mathematical proof as a proof. He did not understand the nature of physical, empirical reality and science, which allows more than one solution to a given problem. He could not comprehend sociology and social dynamics, which are rather statistical and always have exceptions. In his mind, one social policy failure meant the failure of all society, unless money is involved, in which case all is fine and it's all people's choice. His mind was bizarre. He was not evil at all, but you know that feeling when looking at a poster boy for Christianity who believes it all exactly and does not think one step beyond the Bible, all is Satanic beyond, and you can feel there is a human being somewhere in there? He was... institutionalized, that's the word and I am disturbed by institutionalized people, no matter by what. If I chose to be ever institutionalized, Libertarianism would be my first choice, trust me, but I'd rather not be.

I came to see Libertarianism as economism. Generally, economism says humans are always selfish, human needs are infinite, human wants are sacred, not having anything to eat is not violence, but not being able to buy a golden toilet is violence. And any government coercion equals violence equals ULTIMATE EVIL.
The golden toilet argument, I've seen it too many times in too many discussions to be surprised. 

I suppose Libertarianism attracts not only normal people, but people who seek certainties, like explaining the whole world through economy. Those mostly lurk on the internet and manage the websites, while the more flexible and broad-minded members make cool parties and go into politics.

They make cool parties and good lectures about law, economy and government and I'd really like to see them in my ministry of finance. People on the parties really understood my ideas and often could follow them. They keep my opinion of Libertarians very high. I'm still critical, but it's a constructive criticism, that's a compliment in my book. My dean is a big Libertarian and he is like a good, moral, charismatic Ferengi, all with a vest and bow tie. His lectures were the best and he taught me a lot.
But I have this unpleasant ability, I can transcend everything and see its limitations. I can see what would happen if the whole world was all and only Libertarianism. Or economism. I can see what's missing. And there are people who say it all, people who briefly mention how much they can not mention, and people who present their worldview as all the reality that matters.

You could call it a love/hate relationship and I could call Libertarians frienemies. They are delightful to disagree with and I love a good disagreement. They are the best of the old world system and they are at the doorstep of being so much more, if they weren't stuck in the old ways of thinking, that's what so provocative about them. You know that feeling when you see a butterfly struggling to get out a chrysalis, or thinking he's all fine and cozy in there? That's an intelligent human being all satisfied in the worldview of economism.

When I want to agree with Libertarians, I just tell the truth: you say laissez faire, let us work. I say, let the machines work, get out of their way, they can work better than you and take care of you all. You don't need money to tell machines what to produce, you tell them by a computer. You don't need to write contracts or give paychecks to machines. We already go in that direction, so there is no other way, but we are limited by this very outdated and primitive IT, called money. Money slow us down. It's like having one extra gear in the gearbox that all gears have to turn against, or not turn at all, yet the gear is not actually needed, it can be replaced by digital global processing of information. Give a Libertarian computers and he will invent digital money. That's like giving nickel-titanium alloy to a Roman soldier, who will consider it a wonderful material for swords and shields.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 07:00 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Luminon, you make a lot of good points, in fact nothing you said I particularly disagree with. But, reading what you're writing, I certainly can see how the disagreement arises. You are right that libertarians obsess over monetary policy. But try looking at it from our point of view.

Nobody pays attention to monetary policy. If you asked the man on the street how his behavior is shaped by monetary policy he would say “Huh, what's that? It has no effect at all.” But read my prior post about Switzerland and Syria. Monetary policy has an enormous impact on everything and it does shape our behavior without us knowing it. And it results in a significant redistribution of wealth, particularly harming the poor.

The left is always complaining about inequality, as evidenced by the soaring gini coefficient in the US. But look at the chart! http://davald.files.wordpress.com/2012/0...m-1947.png It's a 'V'. Throughout the 50's and 60's, while the US was on a gold standard and had no inflation, inequality got better and better. It didn't matter if Democrats ran the country or Republicans. Where's the bottom of the 'V', when everything reversed course and started going the other direction? It is PRECISELY at the exact moment that Nixon started printing money to pay for Vietnam, which forced him to drop the gold standard. Here's the rate of inflation: http://allfinancialmatters.com/wp-conten...-Chart.GIF. Again, a perfect correlation—while the US was on the gold standard inflation was 0, inequality steadily improved, but inflation started rising precisely when the US changed it's monetary policy, and this correlates precisely with inequality reversing course. Every since the change in monetary policy, the poor have been wiped out no matter if we have sky high taxes, like under Carter, or rock-bottom taxes like under Reagan. It doesn't matter if we're at war or peacetime. It doesn't matter if there's heavy regulation or light regulation. No matter what, inequality keeps rising ever since the change in monetary policy.

Naturally you'll argue that correlation doesn't mean causation. But, actually, if, when a policy change is announced, a group of people is able to precisely predict how this will effect things decades in the future, then that's a strong indication that they do actually understand causation. Libertarians have been warning for all this time that “Inflation is always a result of monetary policy” (Milton Friedman) and that “Inflation is a regressive consumption tax”, meaning it wipes out the poorest and most vulnerable. But what REALLY gets us libertarians is that the current monetary policy has been tried over 3,000 times for 1,000 years. Every single time it is done for the reason, it is always done the same way, and it always ends up exactly the same—it almost always collapses less than 50 years, with 29 years being the average. We're currently 42 years in on this cycle. Imagine how frustrated you'd be if you saw some repeat the same action 3,000 times in a row, each time with the same result, and each time saying “oh, but this time it will be different”. What makes us libertarians bang our heads against the wall is that people don't dispute any of these facts, yet still bury their head and think monetary policy doesn't matter.

In the 11th century the Song Dynasty of China had massive expenses from their war mongering. On a gold standard, the only way to trade and pay for the army's expenses was through taxation—getting the people to give up their gold to fund the war, since it's hard to find gold in any significant quantity (which is precisely why it's historically used as money). But high taxes risked a revolt—nobody likes to pay a lot of taxes for something as wasteful as war. What was the solution? End the gold standard and start printing fiat money.

Fast forward nearly 1,000 years to 1971 when the US was in the same situation. The US was also waging a costly war in Vietnam that was costing more than the government received in taxes. In June 1971 the Pentagon Papers were leaked, revealing to the public Nixon's lies and exposing the Vietnam War as a dismal failure. However, because the US was on a gold standard, the only way Nixon could pay for the war was transparently by raising taxes or adding it to the debt, and secretly printing money wasn't an option because the French figured out what was going on and demanded their dollars be converted to gold. Imagine his chances of getting re-elected the next year if the public saw on page 1 of the newspaper: “Vietnam War is an unwinnable disaster/Pentagon Papers reveal Nixon lied about the war” and on the next it says: “Nixon: Shared sacrifice needed to fund Vietnam War/Americans must pay more taxes, work harder.”

So what did Nixon do? Just weeks after the Pentagon Papers were published he did exactly the same thing the Song Dynasty did 1,000 years earlier for the exact same reason. He canceled the gold standard so he could pay for the warmongering by printing money instead of raising taxes, and the whole world, except for Switzerland, abandoned it and switched to fiat currency. The Fed was unleashed and could start printing money and Nixon did not have to raise taxes. He could also use the Fed's printing press to finance populist social programs and buy votes. It worked like a charm, just like it did 1,000 years ago. Nixon was re-elected the following year by a landslide despite all the controversy.

In the decade that followed there was a lot of inflation, inequality started rising, everybody's savings and wages bought less and less. But nobody perceived this as being a result of the change in monetary policy. Carter, not Nixon, took the blame.

And, back in 2006, just before his death, and before the financial crisis and the Fed's money-printing binge (QE), Milton Friedman, rated by fellow economists as the most influential economist of the last half of the 20th century was interviewed and warned “Sooner or later, government will want to raise funds without imposing taxes. It will want to spend money it does not have.... The temptation for government to lay its hands on that money is going to be very hard to resist. The fundamental problem is that you shouldn't have an institution such as the Federal Reserve, which depends for its success on the abilities of its chairman. My first preference would be to abolish the Federal Reserve.”

Just 2 years later it happened EXACTLY like he said. And not because he had some great insight. It's because out of the 3,000 times that this monetary policy has been tried, it ALWAYS ends when the central bank starts printing boatloads of money saying “Don't worry, we can pull back when we want to”. Bernanke kept saying the same thing. He said the QE money-printing was “punch” and he could take out the punch-bowl whenever he wanted. But now even guys like Warren Buffet have commented that there is no exit strategy—it was heroin, not punch, because it's impossible to stop, and the Fed will have to keep printing money until the currency collapses—exactly like the other 3,000 times it's been tried.

Your posts are great. They're very esoteric, almost poetic. But Libertarians generally don't think like this, and are more focused on the practical application in the real world. The current monetary policy wipes out the poor, it has caused the recent military actions which have killed millions of innocent people, it alters people's behavior in a bad way. Yet despite all the far-reaching effects, non-Libertarians don't even want to talk about it. It wouldn't be nearly as frustrating if you guys said “I dispute your assertions because this claim [x] is inaccurate, and here's the proof”. But what's really frustrating is when you don't dispute any of these facts, but still say “So what, who cares about monetary policy”. And it's really frustrating when you see a cycle repeat 3,000 times, and you're in the middle of yet another cycle that is coming along exactly like all the ones before it, yet when you suggest that the end result will be the same as it always has, they say “You're crazy. It can't possibly fail!”

You don't like libertarians always talking about money, but, at least today, money makes the world go round. It what lets people get food for their families, a roof over their head, the medical care they need to live long and healthy lives. I know you guys don't like all this talk about money because in a perfect world we wouldn't need money and there would be an abundance we'd all share in, but until that happens, money matters.

With that being said, the one central principle of libertarianism is simply to avoid the use of force. So, the core desire of libertarians is not to impose any particular monetary policy, but rather to eliminate being forced at gunpoint to use the official currency for voluntary, private transactions. The solution is simply to rescind the legal tender laws that result in imprisoning anybody who tries to use currency other the official one that the central bank can print as much of it as it wants (see what happened to the folks behind the liberty dollar, or e-gold.com). The current monetary policy is like me telling you: "Here's some money that I'm printing. You must use it, and only it, for all your private exchanges or else I'll haul you off at gunpoint and shoot you if you resist." If it weren't for these legal tender laws, libertarians would trade amongst ourselves with alternative currencies (personally I like bitcoins), and we think that over time we could win people over by showing them how well it's working out for us. It's leading by example, a peaceful, voluntary alternative to the use of force, that we think would work much better, but non-libertarians refuse to even consider it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
06-09-2013, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2013 07:32 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I agree the eminent domain question is irrelevant since it presumes you believe in the concept of enforcing private property rights. Like I said earlier, my natural political view is really the same as yours, @Luminon. I agree with everything you said about private property. My reservation is purely a practical one. To date many governments have tried systems that did not include private property and that banned private ownership of the means of production, just like you advocated. They attempted to allocate the resources in a shared way, just as you advocated. But how many of them actually succeeded in a society where people were happy and thrived? How many managed to “avoid scarcity”, as you point is necessary?
I do not advocate to ban private ownership, that would be putting cart before the horse.
I advocate to make its enforcement unnecessary. People will likely have a pool of things they use regularly and in any world they would be called private ownership. I do not care about that. I care about making sure there is enough of these things around, mass-produced on demand, so that people will be given a choice to either:
- Take someone's "property" (nowhere legally defined and never enforced but nevertheless a deep social norm) and be seen as mentally ill and in need of help, or
- Take the thing from a public "library of things", all new and clean and perhaps some day return it there, if it's not needed.
Environment is all. In environment of scarcity, all rights and laws will be inevitably violated, no matter where written and how enforced. Nonetheless, people will be mighty proud of their rights and amendments they worked so hard to pass through the legislative.

In environment of abundance, there will be no written, spoken or thought laws. Thus violating them will be unthinkable, unimaginable. People will not know they have rights, they will take them for granted and wonder what the fuss is about. For example, I never knew what it means to be liberal, what is a liberal or that I am liberal. I never realized that, until I learned in history lessons about conservatives, people who valued one true religion, one true race and genetic descent from nobility as standards of being better than other human beings.
I am in favor of eradicating rights and property by making them as "obvious" as air that we breathe, thus practically imperceptible. And we can do that through mass-produced goods and services, through a global organism-like digital/automated infrastructure, that responds to our needs even better than a free market.

(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm not saying that it cannot work. I actually agree with the 'Chinese communist' @HU.Junyuan, who said that such a system will likely be viable only when machines do all our work, making us super productive, and there is an abundance of resources for everyone. And, so I strongly disagree with the way Western countries have attacked and tried to thwart the efforts of socialist countries, such as an embargo on Cuba, a cold war against the Soviets. I think we should have been friendly to them, and let them keep trying systems until they found one that worked.

Frankly, we all grew up in little communisms called a family, and they work. Or did your family have a free market capitalism at the dinner table? Wink

(06-09-2013 10:08 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Thus, we don't disagree in principle. But, the cold, hard fact remains that when you rank countries based on their enforcement of private property rights as well as their economic freedom, those countries that do both have higher life expediencies, higher incomes and less crime.
So, my admiration of the liberation system is a practical one because I lived in a libertarian society first-hand and saw how well it worked. In fact, it worked so well, that I found it to be really boring, and preferred living in Brazil instead because it was a lot more exciting. But, I can't deny that if you're looking for a system that leads to equality, prosperity and longevity, the results are there in black and white.
I share your admiration and I'd go for liberal reforms the moment I get into the office. If we have the monetary system, we might as well use it properly and stop distorting the market signals with big taxes.

We agree on the principle, I just don't think the principle is what you think it is. I don't think capitalism is a principle, it is one special case of a principle. The principle is the theory of systems. If you know theory of systems, you can understand how everything works, because in nature everything is a system. A system has very definite properties - high entropy yet high order, high energy, but also complex circulation resulting in homeostasis and other forms of subtler, information-like circulation, also, it has a special form of inertia called memory, it has self-restoring properties, emergent, orderly self-propagation...
If you understand the theory of systems, you can create systems, any systems you want, while holding onto the rules of systems. And if I could create a system, I would create one in which machines do not sit idly 16 hours a day and people do not waste their lives from 9 to 5.

The Venus Project is not capitalism nor socialism nor communism. I have thought hard about what kind of ism it is. And I think I have found it. The Venus Project is an organism. There is no other way to put it. In theory of systems, organism is describable. Human organism, especially. The metaphor is very apt. In TVP, people have the same privileged positions as brain cells have in human organism. All other cells and organs are mere machines, but brain cells are special, they get to enjoy delights and concepts that a machine can never comprehend.

Of course, I did not study the theory of systems at school, I learned it by experience, so I just derive the principles. However, my Pirate Party leader, a very cool guy, has PhD from theory of systems and from philosophy. I think he'd agree with me, he has people in his party who think like me, he's just too busy attending psytrance parties, posting his food on Facebook and petting his Yorkshire dog. I think he needs to do that not to burn out. He's not an office guy.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Luminon, do you have any thoughts on my prior post that was all about monetary policy? Do you disagree with the assertions I made about monetary policy on a factual basis? Or you disagree with the conclusions? Or you just don't like all that talk of money?

Quote:The Venus Project is not capitalism nor socialism nor communism. I have thought hard about what kind of ism it is. And I think I have found it. The Venus Project is an organism. There is no other way to put it. In theory of systems, organism is describable.

I enjoy reading your posts top to bottom. But do you see what I mean when I say your focus is more on the abstract, esoteric concepts, whereas a libertarian is more concerned with how to make it happen in the real world? Case in point: I don't know a lot about the Venus Project, so I can't comment on whether I think as a system it can work or not. But to me, that's not important. Breakthroughs in humanity occur because individual non-conformists think out of the box and decide to try something different, something that most people (myself included) may think is a crazy idea. They shouldn't need my approval or anyone else's. Sure, most of the time these odd ball ideas end up being crazy and they don't work out. But rather than stopping them, they should be protected since every once in a while, these guys are really onto something great. So, my question is how can the Venus Project be protected against all the naysayers who think it can't possibly work and don't like the idea of such a radically different experiment going on here in the US? Maybe the Venus Project will be a dismal failure, but maybe it will be a great breakthrough, I have no idea, so I want them to have the opportunity to try it out so we can see.

In my opinion, the only way that we'll ever know if the Venus Project is workable is we limit the scope of laws to the local level, and allow people to voluntarily decide what system they want to try. See, if there's a central law at the federal level that mandates how a system must work, and the Venus Project is not compatible with that system, it will be impossible for the Venus Project to try their experiment. They will have broken Federal laws and be hauled off at gunpoint. I know you think libertarians focus only on the elimination of physical force, and not more subtle forms of coercion. But that's because physical force is absolute. If more subtle coercion is used to stop the Venus Project, they can get around it if they believe in their project strongly. But if police go to them with overwhelming force and tell them they will be locked in a cell unless they cease and desist, and they will be shot dead if they resist arrest, well there's nothing they can do. The project is dead.

I think that if the role of the government is purely defensive, to defend the small odd-ball groups like Venus Project that want to do something different so that even if 99% of the population thinks they're nutjobs and should be stopped, so long as they're not forcing their experiment on anyone else, I want to let them conduct it, because just maybe they're on to something.

See the difference between the abstract thought of 'what is the proper way to define the Venus Project' vs the practical of 'what system will allow the Venus Project experiment to go on'?

Further evidence is if you to consider the history of innovation. Throughout history we've had brilliant people who proposed new ideas. But, generally they've been supressed because most people don't like being told they're wrong or listening to crazy ideas that make no sense, so if they're allowed to use force, they'll tend to supress it. Galileo was thrown in jail for his suggestions about the solar system. Da Vinci avoided jail time only by keeping his discoveries a secret and hiding his journals--which is why his inventions did not contribute to any actual advancements. In the early US, under a democratic system, oddballs who thought or acted in non-traditional ways were burned at the stake for being different. But, what happened in North America and Western Europe almost immediately after the Age of Enlightenment resulted in a new system of government, where the role was defined in constitutions as purely defensive, protecting individuals and minorities against the use of force by the majority? For the first time, someone could propose a theory for how many got here (Evolution) that did not involve the official church teaching, and not worry that he'd be burned alive for it. For the first time, someone could propose that disease was caused by tiny creatures living inside our body, and not the result of god punishing us for disobeying our leaders (germ theory)? Darwin and Bassi simply couldn't have done their work before the Age of Enlightenment. If Galileo was locked up for his ideas, which were only a minor challenge to the status quo, imagine what would have happened to Darwin? If if they lived during the previous century, during the time of the witch hunts, when the majority was free to kill anybody who thought or acted differently?

Lookup the "Timeline of historic inventions" on wikipedia. Is it merely coincidence that for thousands of years there was very little progress. Immediately before the Age of Enlightment man still had an average life expectancy of 39 years, and life was a miserable existence of just trying to find food and breed enough offspring that one would survive carry our genes and medicine consisted of blood letting. But precisely at the moment in time when the Age of Enlightenment started, and precisely in those places where it was applied, is when and where innovation flourished. Within just 100 years, the blink of an eye historically, our views on medicine, science, god, etc. had radically changed. Suddenly we were creating machines to do our work. We were living twice as long. Infant mortality became a rarity. And now we're worried about how to avoid getting fat--not how to avoid starving.

That's why Libertarians hate it when we see all those defensive laws in our constitution from the Age of Enlightenment, those which protect individuals from the use of force, get eroded and eliminated, as we gradually return to the original brute force method where whoever controls the legislature (whether it be the 51% majority, or more likely the special interest lobbyists), gets to make laws that forces every one to act uniformly and all do the same thing. If we stuck to the original concept in the constitution where the Federal government solely played a defensive role, defending basic human rights and ensuring freedom of mobility, and all local states were sovereign and were free to experiment with various forms of government without interference, only then you can have experiments like the Venus Project.

And at the risk of sounding alarmist, history keeps repeating itself, so I think it's fair to say that at some point in the future another tyrant will come to power, or we'll have another mass hysteria, like during the 1950's with McCarthyism and the communist witch hunts. The next time something like that happens, the powers that be will have access to all our emails and our phone calls since the 4th amendment is now gone (NSA/etc.), anybody who tries to talk about what's going on may face a gag order and we may never know what's going on since the 1st is gone (see the Lavabit issue vs. free speech, and the free press), we no longer have habeus corpus and a right to judicial process since the defense appropriation act allows the President to lock anybody up indefinitely without a trial and without even acknowledging the government has them, and the President can arbitrarily kill anybody with a drone strike that he sees as a threat without any checks or balances (like the 16-year old Colorado born son of Al-Alwaki). Sure, at the moment things still seem pretty calm and it it's only a minor annoyance, so I see that this sounds alarmist now since it's hard to imagine how these changes may come around to bite us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2013, 05:12 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Looks like we're a little out of sync with the posts. I think you might take this one as rhetorical, because you understand everything.

(06-09-2013 07:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Luminon, you make a lot of good points, in fact nothing you said I particularly disagree with. But, reading what you're writing, I certainly can see how the disagreement arises. You are right that libertarians obsess over monetary policy. But try looking at it from our point of view.

Naturally you'll argue that correlation doesn't mean causation. But, actually, if, when a policy change is announced, a group of people is able to precisely predict how this will effect things decades in the future, then that's a strong indication that they do actually understand causation. Libertarians have been warning for all this time that “Inflation is always a result of monetary policy” (Milton Friedman) and that “Inflation is a regressive consumption tax”, meaning it wipes out the poorest and most vulnerable.
I won't argue, I see you're right. I see Libertarianism and monetarism like Winston Churchill saw democracy - the best one of bad systems Wink
I admire how your facts are always straight and proven. This is very commendable. My only way to pay compliment to that is to build onto that, to try to give a deeper understanding of the underlying principle. To me, it is not enough to remember “Inflation is always a result of monetary policy”. I must imagine the system, the mechanism, the general principle. Inflation is much the same as global warming (thawing icebergs, too much water in the system) or high blood pressure - too much fluid medium in the system, increased strain and wear on that which pumps it around - be it a heart or be it workers in the economy. Unlike blood or water, money can be compressed, so in the long term the Phillips curve is vertical, the prices are just numbers and they adjust the scale to the new "water level". But the fact that there is the central, federal bank constantly pumping more money into the economy and increasing the level, that's just wrong!

(06-09-2013 07:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What makes us libertarians bang our heads against the wall is that people don't dispute any of these facts, yet still bury their head and think monetary policy doesn't matter.

So what did Nixon do? Just weeks after the Pentagon Papers were published he did exactly the same thing the Song Dynasty did 1,000 years earlier for the exact same reason. He canceled the gold standard so he could pay for the warmongering by printing money instead of raising taxes, and the whole world, except for Switzerland, abandoned it and switched to fiat currency. The Fed was unleashed and could start printing money and Nixon did not have to raise taxes. He could also use the Fed's printing press to finance populist social programs and buy votes. It worked like a charm, just like it did 1,000 years ago. Nixon was re-elected the following year by a landslide despite all the controversy.
Now, that's just evil. That's dark magic, in my book.

(06-09-2013 07:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Your posts are great. They're very esoteric, almost poetic. But Libertarians generally don't think like this, and are more focused on the practical application in the real world. The current monetary policy wipes out the poor, it has caused the recent military actions which have killed millions of innocent people, it alters people's behavior in a bad way. Yet despite all the far-reaching effects, non-Libertarians don't even want to talk about it. It wouldn't be nearly as frustrating if you guys said “I dispute your assertions because this claim [x] is inaccurate, and here's the proof”. But what's really frustrating is when you don't dispute any of these facts, but still say “So what, who cares about monetary policy”. And it's really frustrating when you see a cycle repeat 3,000 times, and you're in the middle of yet another cycle that is coming along exactly like all the ones before it, yet when you suggest that the end result will be the same as it always has, they say “You're crazy. It can't possibly fail!”

You don't like libertarians always talking about money, but, at least today, money makes the world go round. It what lets people get food for their families, a roof over their head, the medical care they need to live long and healthy lives. I know you guys don't like all this talk about money because in a perfect world we wouldn't need money and there would be an abundance we'd all share in, but until that happens, money matters.

It's leading by example, a peaceful, voluntary alternative to the use of force, that we think would work much better, but non-libertarians refuse to even consider it.
Thanks, this is the greatest compliment I received in a long time. I am, by the way, literally a student of esotericism, of Theosophy. It's one of my hobbies and not the easiest one.

Looks like I made an impression that I don't care about money and economy. Well, most of my life I did not. I considered it boring. Then I got to people who combined the economy and politics with spirituality, and who explained the economy in simple - and frightening terms. The second Zeitgeist amateur movie explained the Fed bank and other things very well and made a huge impression on me, it awakened my interest in economy.
I began to see economy not as boring, but as terrifying - but not as mysterious as before. Then I learned about libertarianism and understood it. As far as I can tell, I am the most engaged student of economic subjects at my college

That being said, I see what you mean. I am an exception. Spiritual people are complacent with spirituality, they do not embrace economy. I did not bat an eyelash when you mentioned Gini's coeficient, but I know nobody else who knows what it is. I am not satisfied with merely spiritual people either, I learn a lot of practical subjects just out of necessity. The law for example bores the shit out of me, but I have to learn it and use it.

The reason why I trust Libertarians is, that I understand them and I trust myself to understand them if they explain me the economy in such a cool way like you do, or my dean does.
They see themselves as the peak of achievement. And in a sense they are, the peak of the monetary system. The classical of music. I however think in terms of a new system, my job is not to question Libertarians, they're quite right. My job is to take them as a raw material to educate and drag them kicking and screaming into the future.
I think we can make a deal. I will (continue to) learn monetary policy, I'll admit if I don't know something about it. I will let things be explained to me, like economists explained the Lorenz curve taxation rate to Ronald Reagan. If I find myself in an office, I will pursue libertarian reforms, I'll follow New Zealand. And I'll rather hire or consult real Libertarians, there's a plenty of them around.

Can you uphold the other part of the deal? If I make a proper libation to the demon of Mammon, can you recognize my "esoteric wisdom"? Angel Can you see that philosophers are needed too? Can you realize, that social and cultural factors beyond capitalism, which the cause of corruption of politics and the monetary system? Can you realize, that the self-interest of market merely expanded into the politics and central banking? Do you understand, that it can happen again at any time? All it takes is any kind of greater crisis to throw the system out of balance, because it is not a holistic system. Capitalism is a thin veneer of protestant ethics on top of ancient barbarism. We get more civilized and educated today, but way too slowly and irregularly. In the world of nuclear weapons, there must be security for everyone, or no-one is secure. We can not have a festering boil of injustice that is the Middle East, infected with organized religion and seeded with a hundred of Israeli nukes.
The question is, does the use of money make people better? Does a workday make them wiser and more competent at problem-solving? Does capitalism make them question their beliefs and search for facts? No, it doesn't. It leaves people stupid in the evening as they were stupid in the morning. And it clutters their culture with unreal, meaningless things.

If there was a catastrophe on Earth, for example from the cosmos, who could rebuild the civilization? Accountants, managers, workmen who stand all day at conveyor belts, secretaries, officers, marketing promoters, brokers, stock market traders, shareholders and bankers? No, these would be pretty much fucked.
What would happen is obvious, people would gather into competing bands. There would be band leaders and cult leaders, later evolving into royal nobility and Church authority. These would usurp the right to violence and power and would delegate it to offices as civilization grows. There would be centuries of absolutism and nations backstabbing each other, then perhaps revolutions, democratization, peace, stability, consumerism, populism, corruption, spending, money printing, war, nukes, catastrophe all over again. Empires rise and fall, rotten from within by their success.

If you think the cycle of printing money and downfall of economy is extremely frustrating to you, read Plato's Republic. Plato outlined a very similar cycle of civilization, exchanging oligarchy, anarchy, democracy and tyranny. This is extremely frustrating to philosophers.
Only this time, the empires have thousands of nukes, thousands of times stronger than in Hiroshima. If this empire falls, there will be no more empires.

Any system can and will fail or change, there will be crises. In the end, it is not the system that matters, but the people. Human consciousness and knowledge is the backup of civilization. If we do not invest into this backup, then civilization is just a thin veneer. Modern people are uneducated. The only education they received is labor training. They will check in, put in the hours, do routine, repeated actions, then go home and watch TV, none the wiser. And they will do it under democracy, communism, dictatorship, nazism, fascism, or post-apocalyptic absolutism. This capitalism or any other non-holistic ism means we always are one catastrophe away from dark ages, from mob rule, witch hunts, racial cleansing and crusades. There is an ocean of stupidity and as long as it exist, there may come a tsunami of stupidity and topple the civilization. And yes, it may be an economic crisis caused by printing of money. After all, the Third Reich was created on the social upheaval from the great crisis in 1929.

Do you get me? Fixing the monetary system is important, but it's just a small part of fixing the civilization. We need a foolproof system, which capitalism is not. All we wait for is one fool at the head of a powerful nation to turn the knobs on a money printer or bomb us back into stone age.
The only foolproof system is TVP. No money means no money printers, ever. TVP eliminates foolishness through lifetime generalistic education, redesign of language, production of abundance and global management of resources. If a meteor fell on TVP, the people would know how to make bows and arrows and how to organize, but they'd remember how transistors and computers work, they'd be prepared and rehearsed for any imaginable contingency and they'd rebuild TVP again from technology stashes, instead of primitive kingdoms.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: