Where do we go from here?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2013, 05:23 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 07:56 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
(23-03-2013 10:54 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  (FYI, im typing this on notepad so if it's posted bad then my apologies. It's the only way to save so that a crash doesn't
ruin my post) Here's the problem that I take with that. For the most part, to my knowledge, there are two things that one needs at the fundamental level, product production and innovation. In order to produce you need resources and in order to get resources
you need labor. Whether that labor comes from man or machine is the point. One of the propositions of the RBE is the Elimination of money since that undermines the ability to efficiently use and distribute resources accordingly. Yet if you eliminate money than the effect is that you undermine the human laborers ability to operate those labor jobs. In other words, You can't expect a human to do intensive labor for some good cause on a large scale. Especially if they have no desire to do
such jobs. So my question is. How, beyond replacing those labor jobs with machines, do you expect people to work for no money.
There is a great difference between human labor and machine labor. Human labor is obsolete, it's slow, weak, inefficient, full of errors. And it must be motivated somehow. A machine needs no motivation, no money, it just needs energy and it can work all round the clock.
What you describe seems to me, put into precise words, as without money we can't extort people economically to do a work that they never liked in the first place, a work that machine could do better anyway.

So to answer your question, people are like machines that they too run on some kind of "energy". So far we know of three kinds of "energy" - three kinds of motivation that get a person to do things, including work. For a long, long time of human history, the dominant motivation to make anyone do anything was fear. People were afraid of hunger, pain, casting out, death, and so on, so they worked. Often as slaves or feudal laborers. The problem with this kind of motivation, "powering the society" in such a way is twofold:
- Firstly, you have to have the whole society structured in such a way, that makes dealing pain and death easy and keeps people relatively poor and powerless, so they're easily controlled by violence and extortion. You have to have a central power with military forces to dish out punishment and of course all powers around do the same and so they routinely think of just killing you and taking your stuff. Plus revolutions, violent revolutions.
- Secondly, the motivation of fear can make people do only certain range of tasks, mostly unskilled labor. Even the strongest black slave can't equal a steam engine. Slaves can't learn at schools and universities how to work better and do complex tasks. And fear-based society doesn't allow for too much literacy or technology, intellectuals have a way of questioning and undermining authority. So hands off the books, or heads off.


This is why humanity invented another way to power the society, the motivation of profit. People are afraid of poverty, unemployment, kids taken away, losing an apartment, and so on, so they work. Often as blue collars or white collars. The problem with this kind of motivation, "powering the society" in such a way is twofold:
- Firstly, you have to have the whole society structured in such a way, that makes dealing debt and profit easy and keeps people relatively greedy and needy, so they're easily controlled by lack of living standard or the need to increase it. You have to have a central power with management forces to dish out wages, salary or bonuses and of course all powers around do the same and so they routinely think of just being cheaper than you and taking over your market. Plus economic crises, violent economic crises.
- Secondly, the motivation of profit can make people do only certain range of tasks, mostly uncreative labor. Even the most experienced salesman can't equal an online shop. Employees can't learn at schools and universities how to work in a creative way and have game-changing ideas, that don't generate profit. And profit-based society doesn't allow for too much creativity or innovation, geniuses have a way of questioning and undermining the market. So hands off the internet, or the job contract's off.

This is why humanity invented another way to power the society, the motivation of fun. People want to avoid boredom, depression, exhaustion, losing a meaning of life, and so on, so they get educated and search for a fun and meaningful things to do. Often as students or hobbyists. The problem with this kind of motivation, "powering the society" in such a way is twofold:
- Firstly, you have to have the whole society structured in such a way, that delegates all the boring and mechanical tasks to machines. You have to have a central computer with wires and sensors everywhere to register all the real carrying and production capacity of the environment, what levels of water and nutrients in the soil, the capacity of automatic factories and so on. And of course all central computers in cities around do the same and so they routinely share the information of capacity and people's electronic demand and together distribute products that everyone needs.
- Secondly, the motivation of fun can make people do only certain range of tasks, mostly a creative work or self-development. And what the hell is wrong with that? People can learn at schools and universities how to work in a creative way and have game-changing ideas, that get immediately implemented for the immediate, visible good of everyone. They don't need to go to work, to earn money, to buy things, they gain access to things directly. People don't need ownership, they need access. A thing we use is ours, a things we don't use would be a burden if nobody bought it. If we don't own it, we just give it back to the library/storage of things. Any kind of appliance or musical instrument should be available for free, that eliminates almost all crime. The rest of crime must be studied for aberrant behavior and to identify causes in the environment that caused it and remove the causes.

Shortly said, if you're concerned that the moment people get what they need directly, they'll leave their job and sit at home, that is a completely unrealistic assumption. Even in a car factory, a fairly shitty and extremely boring job, I have met women who liked their job, liked the stability and reliability and company that it gave them. And I have done lots and lots of work just for free, because it was fun or meaningful or it was for my family, or I got some kind of academic degree for it, a recognized accomplishment, stuff like that. And I'd continue to do that maybe forever, if my material needs were secured in a basic way.
If you are concerned about the transition from here to there, don't think people will get immediately sent home and factories closed! No, think of it as people keeping working until they rebuild the factory with such technologies that it shortens the working day or week dramatically and then these workers will be sent to school to learn about what they once loved and wanted to know or do as children, so now their dreams come true. This transition might, if done without psychological steps like interest-free currency and stuff, it might take 10 years. 10 years of systematically replacing old cities and production facilities with new ones. 10 years is not unrealistic, considering that it is most similar to the war effort. Think of what we wasted during 6 years of WW2 and 4 years of WW1, think of it as applied according to RBE, for the benefit of humanity. 10 years is not unrealistic.

(23-03-2013 10:54 PM)Foxcanine1 Wrote:  I also only don't whole hardily agree that capitalism is completely inefficient or leads to inefficiency. I do think that to some degree you should expect more efficiency in a system that has some reason to push for more efficient products. Scientist are still active in many different areas of product production. Case in point is agriculture. While not perfect agricultural growth, Unlike the
organic crowd, has created a far greater degree of food than has ever been produced before. Is it perfect, no. Lots of food is wasted. This is however to me a example that you can make more efficient produce. This happened in a capitalistic system even if capitalism wasn't the sole cause.
There is a very, very loose correlation between the price tag and the actual material, environmental and energetic efficiency of the product. Capitalism doesn't push for greater efficiency, it pushes for a lower price tag. This may or may not decrease the actual costs on the environment. When faced with an economic problem, a capitalist has basically 3 solutions:
- try to use science in such a way that the production is better, more efficient and it is possible to use less resources, decreasing costs. However, a capitalist will not actually decrease the price, unless the competition threatens to do that first. He just increases the margin. In some areas people agree to keep the margin ridiculously high. In some areas it actually works and gives us better services and products, which makes the white middle class impression that capitalism works.
- try to use science in such a way that the production is actually worse, that the costs are dumped as negative externalities, the production pollutes more, uses more resources, damages more everything that does not have a price tag, so that the price tag on product can be lower. This is why traditional economists want everything privately owned, so that everything has a price tag so people are motivated to care for it. But to me it seems a perverse way of structuring the society around something that's not worth it and will not work.
- cut the worker wages, decreasing their living standard and setting them up for poverty in retirement. Or sack some workers, setting them up for poverty now and increasing the workload on those who must stay.

There is another way in which capitalism is irrational and inefficient. People want money. People can make money in any way they want. They make a business plan to create a variety of products, most of which are complete waste of resources (things as beauty parlors for pets, travel agency for plush animals (not kidding, Czech idea, Japanese customers!), or the Chinese plastic nonsenses) yet they bring in some money. Some of these products and services turn out to be good, useful and successful, so they stay. But meanwhile working millions dish out more idiotic and useless crap that wastes resources and helps nobody, for the sole reason that they need a job, to get money, to get access to the basic necessities of life.
People need to get access to these basic necessities directly, not to hold the Earth hostage of the price tags, money and ownership.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 05:45 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 05:54 AM by Zat.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
With a sane species any system would work just fine.

With an insane one (such as ours) -- no system will work.

It took me 65 years to figure this out.

The last seven, since then, have been a bliss!

Excerpt from my favourite science fiction book: Kazohinia by Sandor Szathmary:

"I told him about Plato's state, Saint Thomas Aquinas's principles of the divine universality of the outcome of labour, the common work of the Cathari and the Hussites, Fourier's phalansteries, Thomas More's Utopia, Proudhon's people's bank, Louis Blanc's national workshops, Robert Owen's social manufacturing plants, the communal states of the Dominicans and Jesuits in South America, and finally I came to scientific socialism and the latest theories, to the plans of Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, Bernstein, Kropotkin, Kautsky and Plekhanov, and to technocracy and the democratic socialism of the Fabian Society, Wells and the Webbs. I spoke of the work theory of mercantilism and physiocracy, of the liberalism of Adam Smith, and of the trade unions; nor did I fail to mention the ideas that had not materialized, such as Georgism, syndicalism and anarchism.
For his life he could not understand how it was possible to imagine so many things concerning such a simple thing as life.

"You lay siege to the walls drawn on a map just as if it were not you yourselves who had drawn them. You heal wounds inflicted by yourselves in order to be able to wound again, and you struggle against an economic crisis as if it was not you yourselves who stopped the machines."

"...Only the words and the names of the theories can be varied,...not life itself, which is predetermined by our organism. And anyone who attributes independent life to the words, is sick and a somnambulist."

"But from these words economic systems are born," I retorted.

"Is it not all the same in which system you are ill?"
"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 06:48 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(23-03-2013 03:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-03-2013 10:43 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I just didn't get the trickle-down part or socialism part. It's just that wealth is created. Nothing trickles down, and the goal isn't socialism, just wealth creation through specialization, division of labor, free-trade, money, private ownership, etc. If that worked, trickling down wouldn't be needed, as those who were involved, contributing and trading would have what they needed; it would cycle through and around, with maybe some getting more, because of profits, but that would be balanced out. Again, if that worked, it would pretty much be like socialism and/or make socialism unnecessary, but socialism deals, also, with getting rid of private ownership, while capitalism is based on private ownership.
Yeah. I don't get why liberal right economists don't get it. They think they can have freedom AND accumulation of wealth and yet no state. That's like saying you can have a whole zebra to yourself and not a single fly or jackal will touch it.

Memorable line your last one. However on the flipside I could restate it in ths manner:

"I don't get why the 0.01% don't get it. They think they can have a state and accumulation of wealth AND freedom. That's like saying you can have a whole zebra to yourself and not a single fly or jackal will touch it.

On another note I think that even if a system could be designed (not addressing how we get there) so that it eliminated waste and provided everyone with basic needs we still have to deal with what motivates people to live. I think you addressed this very nicely for the great majority of individuals when you said "People don't need ownership, they need access."

The one thing that this doesn't satisfy is the individual's needs for non-material things like power, control, ago-satisfaction etc. I may be perfectly content with food on my table, a roof over my head and persuing my interests. But Napoleon over there is motivated by telling people what to do and likes having minions. These alphas will always be the fly in the soup, the monkey wrench in the works, IMO, in ANY social system. How can this ever be controlled?

***

As for the JW's knocking on the door I was not allowed to answer it, my wife quickly got up and was very polite about it. She's so muh nicer than I am Dodgy

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 05:45 AM)Zat Wrote:  With a sane species any system would work just fine.

With an insane one (such as ours) -- no system will work.
That's right, this is why RBE is a system based on survey of the environment, not on human opinion. Computers don't listen to opinions, they listen to software and blueprints or models. Nobody makes decisions there, nobody governs. We make a survey of what is available and build a city within limits of this capacity. We give such environment to the people, that they don't overpopulate beyond these limits. And all that is available, is available in abundance, which means, just above the surveyed needs.


All human behavior is lawful. I have even come to understand most of the laws that governed the fictional Behins from the book of Kazohinia, these laws are quite fascinating. Seemingly insane, but actually such is the nature of uncontrolled human emotional capacity. It employs a wildly different logic, a subjective kind of logic, but it's still a consistent logic.

Jacque Fresco had doubts himself about humanity. If he can't change the people, there is no way this could work. So he went out and tried to change the people. He says he joined and dissolved the local Ku Klux Klan. But you get first at 8:00 details in his video about how he changed the flat Earth believers. KKK comes later.




Please notice how Fresco did it. The rules are there. He had to fit in culturally. He had to meet the leader, alone. If they weren't alone, the leader would think the change a threat to his authority. Then he showed him what the leader considered an evidence. Note the leader's thought was really logical. Things fall down, so Earth must be flat. Maybe it's incorrect, but it's logical and when you've got logic, humanity is not lost. There is logic in everything, all human behavior is lawful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: Where do we go from here?
I think I should just now reiterate what I said originally: The goal is changing people's minds.

As well, I should bring up the other problem: ticking clock.

I should also say that I have absolutely no problem with working within our current system. A RBE, besides the name being nonsensical, isn't the way to go, simply because it's attempting to throw a new system on top of the current one, pushing current one to the side, as opposed to actually trying to fix the current system, by attacking the real problems, and allowing the transition to take place naturally, as a part of societal progress. Like I said, it's people's way of thinking that is off, and can be corrected, in my estimation, and should be corrected, in order to transition into a new system. We should not just use a new system, in an attempt to mask or cover up, that way of thinking.

I still hold the view that democracy works, and socialism, working to transition the current system, though the democratic process, is still the way to go. Philosophers and great thinkers, in general, have provided the ideas. Pretty much from start to finish. Communism has been an idea, as a goal for a moneyless, classless, stateless society, but (an important but) as the end result of societal change and progress, innovation in technology, efficiency, etc., over a long period of time and transition, well after a lot of fundamental problems have been fixed. The ideas for improving education are simple, for fixing healthcare problems, for solving problems with inequality, for improving infrastructure and how living environments are designed, for solving problems with global warming, for solving problems with providing environmentally and economically safe and efficient energy in general, for better developing and providing agriculture/food and so on and so on.

As much as I'd simply wipe my ass with the U.S. Constitution, it had the absolute perfect idea in mind. Create a society that was controlled by the majority, represented by the qualified minority but based on the well-being of the majority, while still protecting the minority from unjust or immoral abuse. They even laid out a pretty brilliant structure for governance, checks and balances, etc.

So far, the Constitution, has probably been better used for the exact opposite: suppressing the right of the majority to rule, granting power to select minorities, while completely ignoring unjust and immoral abuse of power against certain minorities, and electing unqualified representatives who only have their own interests in mind.

I think, easily, there is now a majority of people, in the US, with the ability and stored up enthusiasm, backed by money and resources politically, that can start to take positive steps toward a decent amount of change. And I think that majority is growing every day.

Politically, playing the games with money in politics, grassroots organization, fanaticism, political power, forceful legislation, etc., in my view is the only way to go, and a possible way to go.

The questions remaining: Can it be done within a reasonable amount of time (before the ticking clock expires); and can it be done avoiding any kind of unnecessary unrest?

The answer could be a no, but the key word would definitely be 'could'.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 09:07 AM by Zat.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I think I should just now reiterate what I said originally: The goal is changing people's minds.
Lenin made one unforgettable comment about that.

He said: "It is easier to build 3 factory towns than to change three people's minds".

That was one reason why Communism never worked in Russia.

The other reason was that those running the show paid only lip-service to it while enjoying their party privileges and stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

Come to think of it: George Orwell had something to say about it in "Animal Farm". Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 09:28 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 06:48 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  On another note I think that even if a system could be designed (not addressing how we get there) so that it eliminated waste and provided everyone with basic needs we still have to deal with what motivates people to live. I think you addressed this very nicely for the great majority of individuals when you said "People don't need ownership, they need access."
Thanks for the positive rep! I don't get many of them, I'd have to fit in and participate more among the ex-religious atheists, but I don't have enough problems with religion, never had. So it's nice to see people like it and react. I was worried I was getting a bit too vague back there.
The things I'm sharing, they come as my inspiration or from other people's inspiration. All this knowledge comes from the nature, from the way the reality is arranged. I can feel if other people's talk has been inspired by the reality or it wasn't, I can feel the hallmark of genuineness. I can't claim ownership of these ideas, I instead feel owned by the arrangement of reality and compelled by its inspiration.
I have to say, I feel an inflow of energy and inspiration that feels intoxicating and if I don't want this to stop, which I don't, I know what I need to do. Whether humanity is or isn't saved eventually, that's not my business to tell. I have seen many things that the official media and statistics can not take into account and so we can not have a clear picture of the situation. So I just try to do what I am inspired to do, plus some menial but necessary works along the way. Most of all I am afraid of laziness, of a lack of discipline, of direct gratification and neglecting the necessary menial work in reality that allows me to keep the place I'm in.


As for the question, is there any problem with motivation? To me it looks like the same thing a Christian would say, "you can't have meaning in life without God! If I lost my faith in God, I could just shoot myself, why live?" Putting your identity into something else, into something that can be lost or fail, that is not a good idea. Losing this thing, be it an idealized image of yourself (my problem), faith in Jesus (Christian problem) or being a great player of the business game, is not a good idea. It leads to depression. See what is depression and how do you get rid of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-0ETX4z_DU

(24-03-2013 06:48 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The one thing that this doesn't satisfy is the individual's needs for non-material things like power, control, ago-satisfaction etc. I may be perfectly content with food on my table, a roof over my head and persuing my interests. But Napoleon over there is motivated by telling people what to do and likes having minions. These alphas will always be the fly in the soup, the monkey wrench in the works, IMO, in ANY social system. How can this ever be controlled?
Let's just say these qualities are a result of environmental conditioning. Someone might experience something in childhood, a basic insecurity that gets forgotten and hidden deeply in the subconscious, but it determines the outer behavior.

But I know what do you mean. My older brother is a dick. He's extremely rude to his family. I think he's terribly insecure about something in the family, so he acts to us the way he never would to his pals. But he wasn't always that way.
He was a hyperactive kid, but responded well to getting loaded with a lot of responsibility. And he also responded well to good old physical beating. In my opinion, violence is a kind of language. And for some it is a language they understand best, depends on their consciousness. So it would be in my older brother's nature to admire strength, even if that means he gets a beating sometimes. If he admires strength, he admires independence too. And there had to happen something in his early teens, that changed his relationship to the family. What does he hate about us? My best guess is, that he hates this dependence and control - and that he can't play the game like this. He can't communicate, can't give back, can't share, can't submit, can't think of others sometimes, he lacks these skills. And so it's no wonder he acts terribly rude, the family is like a straight jacket to him, an offering of services he's not disciplined enough to do without, but not social enough to pay back. I think that's his problem, he can't maintain self-respect in such an environment, so he lashes out at every opportunity. But otherwise he's a good guy, very strong, capable and competent when it comes to work.

I wonder what happened in Napoleon's childhood. Even if nothing happened, all capabilities he had, a right kind of education would allow him to channel his talents in a constructive way, without killing people. But he was within a society that gave him this possibility. There was a lot of obedient people with guns around, eager to have an emperor, eager to go and conquer half of Europe and even take a shot at Russia, eager to have some Silesian coal come streaming in to good ol' France without paying. They were unquestioning, killing machines. And you know what? Napoleon was kind to them, he took care to talk to them before battle, to remember their names and troubles. The rest of what he did was no different from the Hapsburgs, the Czar, the Prussians, the British Empire, that was simply the environment at the time. Nations went after each other's neck and nobody gave a moral shit and Napoleon played the game well. In a different society Napoleon would probably still gain a great recognition for leadership, but in a different way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 08:55 AM)Zat Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I think I should just now reiterate what I said originally: The goal is changing people's minds.
Lenin made one unforgettable comment about that.

He said: "It is easier to build 3 factory towns than to change three people's minds".

That was one reason why Communism never worked in Russia.

The other reason was that those running the show paid only lip-service to it while enjoying their party privileges and stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

Come to think of it: George Orwell had something to say about it in "Animal Farm". Big Grin
Riiight. I'd say the only thing in Russia that can change your mind is vodka. Smile


Lenin was kind of a biologic weapon, taken by Hitler from Switzerland. He needed the czar's army off his back, so he unleashed the terrible Ulyanov on the poor, unsuspecting Russians. Or I should rather say "memetic weapon". Gives me creeps!
Anyway, did Lenin try to study the people's environment and change it, instead of trying to change their minds? Marx was at least a sociologist and not a bad one. Who was Lenin, a demagogue?


(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I should also say that I have absolutely no problem with working within our current system. A RBE, besides the name being nonsensical, isn't the way to go, simply because it's attempting to throw a new system on top of the current one, pushing current one to the side, as opposed to actually trying to fix the current system, by attacking the real problems, and allowing the transition to take place naturally, as a part of societal progress. Like I said, it's people's way of thinking that is off, and can be corrected, in my estimation, and should be corrected, in order to transition into a new system. We should not just use a new system, in an attempt to mask or cover up, that way of thinking.
RBE is not pushing anything on top of anything. I've heard both Fresco and Roxanne Meadows saying that the transition is only possible after the current financial system crashes. It will lose people's confidence and they will seek a new system.

(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I still hold the view that democracy works, and socialism, working to transition the current system, though the democratic process, is still the way to go. Philosophers and great thinkers, in general, have provided the ideas. Pretty much from start to finish. Communism has been an idea, as a goal for a moneyless, classless, stateless society, but (an important but) as the end result of societal change and progress, innovation in technology, efficiency, etc., over a long period of time and transition, well after a lot of fundamental problems have been fixed. The ideas for improving education are simple, for fixing healthcare problems, for solving problems with inequality, for improving infrastructure and how living environments are designed, for solving problems with global warming, for solving problems with providing environmentally and economically safe and efficient energy in general, for better developing and providing agriculture/food and so on and so on.
As long as there is both government and money, the first will corrupt the second and the second will then corrupt the first. Fresco says, "Politicians are not elected to change things, they're elected to keep things the same." I'd say, democracy is based on representation and how do you get people to elect you? By lying to them, by giving wildly exaggerated and unfounded promises which he has no idea if he can actually keep or how would he go at it. The only thing a politician knows is to re-direct people's own money in a general direction of what he claimed to do. And when that doesn't work, he can claim it was because there was not enough money.
Fresco says, "Ask a politician how to solve problems. How would he make roads safer? How would he increase the capacity of arable land?" Reminds me how Socrates asked politicians in Athens what is justice. They were supposed to know! They were heads of the law!
Yes, I have met a honest, good politician myself and I admire him greatly. He wrote a law that would prevent a daylight crime that is happening today in my country -a restitution of the Church property, in such a way that it gets plundered first by the owners... Only two churches had the decency to say most of it does not actually belong to them. But we had so many such great thefts committed by democratic politicians in recent years, that hardly anybody in my country believes in democracy anymore. I believe only in a direct democracy together with transparency. People should have the power to impeach any politician or public sector officer at any time through a conveniently-sized referendum, like in Switzerland or Iceland. Otherwise the government will become just another market for businessmen.
Look at this video by John Stossel, that actually comes from my conservative right-winger dean and I agree with him whole-heartedly. What you have today is not democracy. It perhaps once was, but what's made out of people, gets easily corrupted.
http://dotsub.com/view/fc4cfa30-7332-423...2f62ba7001


(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  As much as I'd simply wipe my ass with the U.S. Constitution, it had the absolute perfect idea in mind. Create a society that was controlled by the majority, represented by the qualified minority but based on the well-being of the majority, while still protecting the minority from unjust or immoral abuse. They even laid out a pretty brilliant structure for governance, checks and balances, etc.

So far, the Constitution, has probably been better used for the exact opposite: suppressing the right of the majority to rule, granting power to select minorities, while completely ignoring unjust and immoral abuse of power against certain minorities, and electing unqualified representatives who only have their own interests in mind.
That's all nice, but first and foremost the founding fathers designed the government to be small, truly tiny compared to what it is today.
A government can not increase profit or benefit, it can only redirect money. And for every money redirected, there is an hole left of what we could have if we got to keep these money. Private sector is well-known to be more efficient at delivering value for the money.
Government can enact laws, but laws do not increase freedom, every law takes away a bit of freedom. The more laws, the more corrupt the state, historian Tacitus said. I say, law is the last desperate attempt to change people's behavior. I'd actually love to say that, but I can't, governments don't even try prevention or to study the environment. It's worse than Lenin, Lenin actually thought of changing people's mind, the laws just tell the people "no-no." Rolleyes

(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I think, easily, there is now a majority of people, in the US, with the ability and stored up enthusiasm, backed by money and resources politically, that can start to take positive steps toward a decent amount of change. And I think that majority is growing every day.

Politically, playing the games with money in politics, grassroots organization, fanaticism, political power, forceful legislation, etc., in my view is the only way to go, and a possible way to go.

The questions remaining: Can it be done within a reasonable amount of time (before the ticking clock expires); and can it be done avoiding any kind of unnecessary unrest?

The answer could be a no, but the key word would definitely be 'could'.
Well, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. People must raise their voice, the public opinion must be heard. But once the money and government fail, we don't want to reinstate a vanilla version of the same. We need something radically different from capitalism and communism, something that has nothing to do with human beliefs and opinions, but which is a science and engineering applied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 03:28 PM
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 08:55 AM)Zat Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I think I should just now reiterate what I said originally: The goal is changing people's minds.
Lenin made one unforgettable comment about that.

He said: "It is easier to build 3 factory towns than to change three people's minds".

That was one reason why Communism never worked in Russia.

The other reason was that those running the show paid only lip-service to it while enjoying their party privileges and stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

Come to think of it: George Orwell had something to say about it in "Animal Farm". Big Grin

"He spoke as though the dictatorship over the peasant would have to continue a long time, because of the peasant's desire for free trade. He said he knew from statistics (what I can well believe) that the peasants have had more to eat these last two years than they ever had before, "and yet they are against us," he added a little wistfully. I asked him what to reply to critics who say that in the country he has merely created peasant proprietorship, not Communism; he replied that that is not quite the truth, but he did not say what the truth is."

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 04:02 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Where do we go from here?
(24-03-2013 02:18 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 08:55 AM)Zat Wrote:  Lenin made one unforgettable comment about that.

He said: "It is easier to build 3 factory towns than to change three people's minds".

That was one reason why Communism never worked in Russia.

The other reason was that those running the show paid only lip-service to it while enjoying their party privileges and stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

Come to think of it: George Orwell had something to say about it in "Animal Farm". Big Grin
Riiight. I'd say the only thing in Russia that can change your mind is vodka. Smile


Lenin was kind of a biologic weapon, taken by Hitler from Switzerland. He needed the czar's army off his back, so he unleashed the terrible Ulyanov on the poor, unsuspecting Russians. Or I should rather say "memetic weapon". Gives me creeps!
Anyway, did Lenin try to study the people's environment and change it, instead of trying to change their minds? Marx was at least a sociologist and not a bad one. Who was Lenin, a demagogue?


(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I should also say that I have absolutely no problem with working within our current system. A RBE, besides the name being nonsensical, isn't the way to go, simply because it's attempting to throw a new system on top of the current one, pushing current one to the side, as opposed to actually trying to fix the current system, by attacking the real problems, and allowing the transition to take place naturally, as a part of societal progress. Like I said, it's people's way of thinking that is off, and can be corrected, in my estimation, and should be corrected, in order to transition into a new system. We should not just use a new system, in an attempt to mask or cover up, that way of thinking.
RBE is not pushing anything on top of anything. I've heard both Fresco and Roxanne Meadows saying that the transition is only possible after the current financial system crashes. It will lose people's confidence and they will seek a new system.

(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I still hold the view that democracy works, and socialism, working to transition the current system, though the democratic process, is still the way to go. Philosophers and great thinkers, in general, have provided the ideas. Pretty much from start to finish. Communism has been an idea, as a goal for a moneyless, classless, stateless society, but (an important but) as the end result of societal change and progress, innovation in technology, efficiency, etc., over a long period of time and transition, well after a lot of fundamental problems have been fixed. The ideas for improving education are simple, for fixing healthcare problems, for solving problems with inequality, for improving infrastructure and how living environments are designed, for solving problems with global warming, for solving problems with providing environmentally and economically safe and efficient energy in general, for better developing and providing agriculture/food and so on and so on.
As long as there is both government and money, the first will corrupt the second and the second will then corrupt the first. Fresco says, "Politicians are not elected to change things, they're elected to keep things the same." I'd say, democracy is based on representation and how do you get people to elect you? By lying to them, by giving wildly exaggerated and unfounded promises which he has no idea if he can actually keep or how would he go at it. The only thing a politician knows is to re-direct people's own money in a general direction of what he claimed to do. And when that doesn't work, he can claim it was because there was not enough money.
Fresco says, "Ask a politician how to solve problems. How would he make roads safer? How would he increase the capacity of arable land?" Reminds me how Socrates asked politicians in Athens what is justice. They were supposed to know! They were heads of the law!
Yes, I have met a honest, good politician myself and I admire him greatly. He wrote a law that would prevent a daylight crime that is happening today in my country -a restitution of the Church property, in such a way that it gets plundered first by the owners... Only two churches had the decency to say most of it does not actually belong to them. But we had so many such great thefts committed by democratic politicians in recent years, that hardly anybody in my country believes in democracy anymore. I believe only in a direct democracy together with transparency. People should have the power to impeach any politician or public sector officer at any time through a conveniently-sized referendum, like in Switzerland or Iceland. Otherwise the government will become just another market for businessmen.
Look at this video by John Stossel, that actually comes from my conservative right-winger dean and I agree with him whole-heartedly. What you have today is not democracy. It perhaps once was, but what's made out of people, gets easily corrupted.
http://dotsub.com/view/fc4cfa30-7332-423...2f62ba7001


(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  As much as I'd simply wipe my ass with the U.S. Constitution, it had the absolute perfect idea in mind. Create a society that was controlled by the majority, represented by the qualified minority but based on the well-being of the majority, while still protecting the minority from unjust or immoral abuse. They even laid out a pretty brilliant structure for governance, checks and balances, etc.

So far, the Constitution, has probably been better used for the exact opposite: suppressing the right of the majority to rule, granting power to select minorities, while completely ignoring unjust and immoral abuse of power against certain minorities, and electing unqualified representatives who only have their own interests in mind.
That's all nice, but first and foremost the founding fathers designed the government to be small, truly tiny compared to what it is today.
A government can not increase profit or benefit, it can only redirect money. And for every money redirected, there is an hole left of what we could have if we got to keep these money. Private sector is well-known to be more efficient at delivering value for the money.
Government can enact laws, but laws do not increase freedom, every law takes away a bit of freedom. The more laws, the more corrupt the state, historian Tacitus said. I say, law is the last desperate attempt to change people's behavior. I'd actually love to say that, but I can't, governments don't even try prevention or to study the environment. It's worse than Lenin, Lenin actually thought of changing people's mind, the laws just tell the people "no-no." Rolleyes

(24-03-2013 08:30 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I think, easily, there is now a majority of people, in the US, with the ability and stored up enthusiasm, backed by money and resources politically, that can start to take positive steps toward a decent amount of change. And I think that majority is growing every day.

Politically, playing the games with money in politics, grassroots organization, fanaticism, political power, forceful legislation, etc., in my view is the only way to go, and a possible way to go.

The questions remaining: Can it be done within a reasonable amount of time (before the ticking clock expires); and can it be done avoiding any kind of unnecessary unrest?

The answer could be a no, but the key word would definitely be 'could'.
Well, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. People must raise their voice, the public opinion must be heard. But once the money and government fail, we don't want to reinstate a vanilla version of the same. We need something radically different from capitalism and communism, something that has nothing to do with human beliefs and opinions, but which is a science and engineering applied.

Well, way not to be able to understand things.

"transition is only possible after the current financial system crashes"

Way to understand the financial system. By that estimation, there either hasn't been a crash and/or the last crash (or crashes) gave us a new systems.

It also assumes there will be a crash (1), the the crash will be big (2), that the crash will happen within a reasonable amount of time (3), that the crash will change people's perspectives (4), ....., etc.

"As long as there is both government and money, the first will corrupt the second and the second will then corrupt the first."

As long as there are things that don't exists, the things that do exist will be corrupt. That must be because the things that do exist, don't control and didn't make up those nonexistent things.

hmm...

It suck to be those existent things, that were able to be controlled, beyond their will, by random concepts.

"first and foremost the founding fathers designed the government to be small, truly tiny compared to what it is today"

You must have been there, looking into the crystal ball with them Mr. Scalia, tell me more.

"Government can enact laws, but laws do not increase freedom"

Government can't enact laws, thus laws cannot increase freedom, because government isn't a real thing.

My business creates jobs, because it pulls resources and people out of thin air.

We need something radically different from capitalism and communism,
something that has nothing to do with human beliefs and opinions, but
which is a science and engineering applied.


Good way to round out the argument that we are truly fucked.

In a world that only exists because of subjectivity, subjectivity must be eliminated.

We need something radically different: reality to be nonexistent.

*waits on another round of nonsensical ranting*

I think I change the level: Now, I'd have to say, we are almost undoubtedly fucked.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: