| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:32 SnipedSoul wrote: Who is going to oversee the distribution of resources and ensure it remains fair throughout the world? Does it matter? They couldn't possibly do a worse job that the people responsible for that now. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:26 GoTuNk! wrote: When people stop trading trough money, they find other currencies, such as guns. Something I've always wondered; even if this COULD work, would you really like it? Like if everyone was being provided for everything at a decent level (think house, car internet, some cash) but stuck? Would you really live without having to do anything, not being able to aspire to greater things ? Like you could never ever get a fucking ferrari. Or travel more than once every three years, etc (I can't do those yet, but I aspire to them). Cause I wouldn't like it tbh, that would suck so badly. I'm on the top of the ladder though I guess, maybe if I was starving my opinion would be different. Clarification: A society without money would suck even more and that is obvious to anyone who understands the basics of economics/social sciences/political sciene, just wondering if it didn't. I suppose this would be why there would have to be some reward for good work. Personally, I don't mind the "some have more than others" aspect of capitalism. What I am opposed to is that I and my coworkers could break our backs bringing in double profits for the company, but the double profits would go to the people who "own" the company. Also, the more abstract notion that you should get more returns than you invest. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:19 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's an impossible dream. We have something that has worked better at reaching this goal of not letting anyone suffer, it's worked better than any other system ever used, it's called "capitalism." The more taxing you do, the less wealth overall you create, it's been 'proven' in theory and actually proven by results over and over again. That is incorrect. It is quite easily doable for first world countries to achieve your impossible dream. Evidence is that many of them are actually doing it now. Of course all of them still use capitalism mixed with socialism to achieve that. There is no need for some strange utopias as in OP. Even some European communist states were able to do that quite well, but even they kept the money system. More "pure" capitalist systems (and also communist systems) actually achieved worse results in this than mixed systems. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:34 Nqsty wrote: What the .. I mean how can .. I mean is this guy serious ? I don't think its possible to come up with a worse thought out theory, there a so many flaws I can't even start to explain. Where do these people get these ideas ? How could you possibly think that this is a good, conceivable, and desirable way to run the world ? It would collapse after day two, its beyond ridiculous. You're welcome to start your explanation. Just pick your favorite flaw, I'm listening. Humanity doesn't need money, at this point it is obvious that the corporativist system we live in is doomed and dumb. Everything is full of second intentions and this second intention is what? + Show Spoiler + MORE MONEY All the people in this world need to make a commitment with the well-being of the human race as a whole, if people fail to understand this we will collapse. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
"We can make the rules, no money, everything free, problems solved!" Are you fucking kidding me? Did I just walk into a kindergarten class? | ||
|
Kingkosi
United States1215 Posts
The thing that stood out to me most in this video is the part about education. If higher education was availabe to all the children around the world I think that you would see a huge decline in things like crime, discrimination, ignorance, over population and other things that come with not being well educated. Also, could you imagine having access to all the tools and resources needed to be what ever you wanted to be? My tongue waters thinking about the possibilities that this could bring. Being competitive drives human nature and like I've heard countless times, "competition drives innovation". You would be given the best from people because you are getting the best out of people. Nothing can be perfect and living in a society that doesn't revolve around money is ways away but I think getting people educated would be a great start. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
Coming up with good systems is easy. Actually engineering a society that accepts it and is willing to implement it properly is incredibly difficult, and the more the individual is detached from society, the more difficult it will become. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:38 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Does it matter? They couldn't possibly do a worse job that the people responsible for that now. Really? How's that working out in North Korea? Kampucha Cambodia? USSR? East Germany? Maoist China? Early America? Everywhere money has been abolished mass death ensued. Either starvation, or political repression. It may be crude, but I'd rather be alive than dead, and liberal societies you tend not to have mass death involved. To say some politburo is going to care about the common man is beyond conceit, it clearly illustrates no understanding of history or human nature. By its very nature it cannot be 'egalitarian' because the person or persons (bureaucracy) in charge of doling out the resources will always have more power than anyone else and thus can deny you resources if you happen to be a different persuasion than them. Do people really think that economic and political factors contribute nothing to standard of living and production? Some people have a naive 'evolutionist' view that humanity always improves, but we can clearly see that is not the case. If you destroy the factors which give rise to what you see around you, then you also destroy that which you see around you. Why on Earth would anyone work when everything is given to you, and who is going to be doing the giving? Whose going to work so you can sit around and contribute nothing? This is how it always works out in communism. This is why they had gulags and other prison work camps in the first place. This was their incentive to make people work -- you don't work, you don't like the politburo, you get sent there. I'd rather not replace economics with politics. | ||
|
how
United States538 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:47 Hertzy wrote: I'd like to elaborate on this; There should be an obligation to do your share of the work. Yes, there should be some accounting for disabilities and such, but if you declare a policy of giving everyone a basic living stipend, to borrow a term, you risk ending up with a community of deadbeats with a few bitter dutiful members carrying the load. My thoughts exactly. Unfortunantly, we do not live in a society that would allow something like to work even for a day. All philosophical arguments of human nature and what not aside, do you honestly see this working? It is a nice theory, but not, in my eyes, a realistic one. | ||
|
storm8ring3r
Germany227 Posts
| ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:58 Wegandi wrote: Really? How's that working out in North Korea? Kampucha Cambodia? USSR? East Germany? Maoist China? Early America? Everywhere money has been abolished mass death ensued. Either starvation, or political repression. It may be crude, but I'd rather be alive than dead, and liberal societies you tend not to have mass death involved. To say some politburo is going to care about the common man is beyond conceit, it clearly illustrates no understanding of history or human nature. By its very nature it cannot be 'egalitarian' because the person or persons (bureaucracy) in charge of doling out the resources will always have more power than anyone else and thus can deny you resources if you happen to be a different persuasion than them. Do people really think that economic and political factors contribute nothing to standard of living and production? Some people have a naive 'evolutionist' view that humanity always improves, but we can clearly see that is not the case. If you destroy the factors which give rise to what you see around you, then you also destroy that which you see around you. Why on Earth would anyone work when everything is given to you, and who is going to be doing the giving? Whose going to work so you can sit around and contribute nothing? This is how it always works out in communism. This is why they had gulags and other prison work camps in the first place. This was their incentive to make people work -- you don't work, you don't like the politburo, you get sent there. I'd rather not replace economics with politics. "Then you will see the rise of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of DISARMED victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter. "Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot." | ||
|
below66
United States1761 Posts
Especially in the hands of the few who have controlled and manipulated it. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
| ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:21 xeo1 wrote: I think it is a plausible idea and will happen sometime in the future. Think about it I am sorry, but anyone that 'thinks about it' will realize that it won't happen. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On May 05 2012 04:58 how wrote: My thoughts exactly. Unfortunantly, we do not live in a society that would allow something like to work even for a day. All philosophical arguments of human nature and what not aside, do you honestly see this working? It is a nice theory, but not, in my eyes, a realistic one. The real problem would be that you'd need the seed society to consist of people who earnestly agree with the system. Essentially, if you got a bunch of people together and loaded them into cryopods and loaded those pods to a colony ship headed into another star system, you could start this model of society up. Point of fact, it would probably work better than capitalism in a fresh coldship colony. I think the main problem with past experiments is building a cult around the leadership or being forced into totalitarianism because you had the old bourgeoise pining for the good old days. | ||
|
Celadan
Norway471 Posts
But he addresses the problem quite nicely and simple in his trailer, but its still seems kind of sketchy and the solution is simply put: "hey lets all juts decide not to and ignore all that revolution crap and them sophisticated solutions". I mean its so vague and sketchy, the solutions seems just way too lazily put together. Lets ignore all that 2000 years of philosophy and ideology and intellectualism and since money make people poor, lets remove money herp herp. Does NOT seem like those guys know what they are talking about. That's just my opinion though. | ||
|
Young Terran
United Kingdom265 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:35 Derez wrote: In order to establish this goal I advocate the violent overthrow of the government by a proletariat avant-garde, who will use their newly obtained power to transition into the true equal state. (The actual words of the Charter were written by Colin Turner, a songwriter and music producer from Dublin, Ireland) i approve | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:12 Hertzy wrote: The real problem would be that you'd need the seed society to consist of people who earnestly agree with the system. Essentially, if you got a bunch of people together and loaded them into cryopods and loaded those pods to a colony ship headed into another star system, you could start this model of society up. Point of fact, it would probably work better than capitalism in a fresh coldship colony. I think the main problem with past experiments is building a cult around the leadership or being forced into totalitarianism because you had the old bourgeoise pining for the good old days. Here again, history says otherwise. http://mises.org/daily/5947/The-Fall-of-Communism-in-Massachusetts http://mises.org/daily/5908/ There are also a lot more examples from early America and 19th Century America if you want to read about them. I'll let the Governor of Plymouth tell you why: All this while no supply was heard of.… So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length … the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves.… And so assigned to every family a parcel of land … for that end, only for present use.… This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's … that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing.… For this community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong … had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice.… Upon … all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought … one as good as another, and so … did … work diminish … the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst men.… Let none object this is men's corruption … all men have this corruption in them.… No one wants to work for others without any improvement of their own lot above others for their work. I tend to call that slavery as the value of your work is enjoyed by those who had no contribution, in other words, they receive benefit while you receive toil. People don't mind giving a part of their earnings to charity because of the way marginal utility works. The more you have of something the less you value it. The less you value something the more apt you are to give it away, or waste it. You want to bet that you would see charity dry up if people were less wealthy. I don't see African countries leading the way in giving away their property to others. Thus, if you really want to help others you want to make society as prosperous and free as possible. This the market accomplishes, and communism destroys. Also, let's be clear here because folks whose opinion differs from my liberalism always strawman that what we have today constitutes a market society, but it doesn't. It's Corporatist or Fascist, not liberal or market-society. As bad as Fascism or Corporatism is, at least there is some quasi-private property and even if prices are heinously distorted, at least there are prices. You think it bad now....I don't think people realize how intolerable it is to live in a Communistic society. If you were to plot happiness and prosperity it would go something like: Liberalism >>>>>>>> Fascism >>>>>>>>>>.Communism. The third answer no one talks about: Liberalism (Liberty) far superior to the so-called only two choices we have around today. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote: sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities. Do you really want to play video games all day? Or is wanting to play video games all day actually an urge for escapism from what is the current reality? Perhaps if you did not live in a shithole of a society - which pretty much all of the societies today are - that by design makes any rational human miserable and stressed, you would in fact not want to play video games all day because that's a boring and life-draining activity. Do you think people who lock themselves in and play games or watch television all day actually enjoy their life and would rather not do something else with it? Think again. People have an inherent motivation to learn, work and create things - and this motivation is not just mere survival. The antagonistic view of labor and the desire to stop working comes entirely from the - in vast majority of cases very justified - feeling of your labor being exploited and treated unfairly and the hostile working environments this leads to. Do you think people dread going to work in the morning because the actual work is too physically or mentally difficult for them, or because of this hostile environment bred entirely by following economic dogmas? People can't not work. It's in our nature to want to work. But it is also in our nature to resist being exploited or forced to do things that exploit others. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
