|
And when we have a sample size of hundreds of thousands of all kinds of countries (or even just thousands), THEN we can come up with conclusions that ignore context and are based on what's essentially a statistical observation.
Until then, that is not a very strong argument and is, indeed, funny. Even this way, the way you phrased it (relative advances) I'm quite sure that a couple of ancient world societies can compete with the modern-day ones, if not beat them handily.
How many times must communism result in the destruction of a society before we abandon the experiment all together? 50? 100? How many millions do you wish to slaughter in the service of your perverse ideals? Three radically successful experiments out of three is fairly conclusive but I do not justify freedom on utilitarian grounds. If I had the choice between prosperity in chains and being poor and free I would take poverty and liberty any day of the week. Luckily that is a false dichotomoy, the choice is between a poor slave to the state or a prosperous free man.
|
Not new. Marx and even Adam Smith has proposed this before. Its not impossible, but it will take international cooperation and a major reworking of social systems.
|
On May 05 2012 10:23 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:Show nested quote +And when we have a sample size of hundreds of thousands of all kinds of countries (or even just thousands), THEN we can come up with conclusions that ignore context and are based on what's essentially a statistical observation.
Until then, that is not a very strong argument and is, indeed, funny. Even this way, the way you phrased it (relative advances) I'm quite sure that a couple of ancient world societies can compete with the modern-day ones, if not beat them handily. How many times must communism result in the destruction of a society before we abandon the experiment all together? 50? 100? How many millions do you wish to slaughter in the service of your perverse ideals? Three radically successful experiments out of three is fairly conclusive but I do not justify freedom on utilitarian grounds. If I had the choice between prosperity in chains and being poor and free I would take poverty and liberty any day of the week. Luckily that is a false dichotomoy, the choice is between a poor slave to the state or a prosperous free man.
Freedom over chains? then you are a fellow communist too! welcome to the party.
|
I don't remember completely my junior year philosophy, but isn't the direct counter to this argument is that without money or some form of it, how do we incentivize labor, skills, knowledge? Money is the very foundation of why society progresses. Change the society first and them maybe it can happen.
|
On May 05 2012 11:05 Le French wrote:
Not new. Marx and even Adam Smith has proposed this before. Its not impossible, but it will take international cooperation and a major reworking of social systems.
Not to mention reworking the way a human behaves. Put me in a system that has everything out for free and no effort required and I'll break it in a month.
First of all imagine the world with limited resources ..... and then imagine that demands of resources are regulated by how much one have in exchange for the resources. Then imagine a system that would allow you to obtain resources without offering any in return. The level of resources demanded would skyrocket (based on my common sense) : From teenagers wanting TWO Ipads (because one is too mainstream) to people living below poverty line getting stuff for free and their standard of living goes up to match those teenagers.
Yes all this is yippie and hippie, everyone is well fed, having the time of their lives, just generally happy.
Here comes the crunch:
Who wants to work and create resources (manufacturers, entrepreneurs) for others for no return, whilst others are having the time of their lives hanging out with their friends and families?
Who wants spend time to obtain the necessary credentials (CPA, doctor, engineering) and provide the resources to others?
Whilst demand for resources increases, supply for resources decreases (Some people will stay working because they like working but my common sense dictates that a lot wouldnt).
Imagine Gen-Z kids who grow up thinking they are entitled to a computer, car,PS3, X-Box (luxuries). Imagine a whole world filled with whiny immature humans who want more and more and more whilst giving less and less.
The tendency to want more and more (greed) coupled with the tendency to take the path of least resistance (laziness) would cause the system to implode and descend into anarchy.
If the system does get put in place, I hope I am right in the middle of it when it happens and pray it lasts longer than my life so I don't have to suffer in the future.
|
There are some often-misunderstood core concepts here:
The fundamental idea that drives our social and economic systems is *scarcity*.
Scarcity is the condition, and problem, that makes profit-based wealth management successful.
Scarcity is also the reason that even ideologically-pure communism (which we've never seen attempted, don't be fooled), has always been doomed. Can't give equally to all unless there's enough for all.
"Not enough to go around" is what makes us work out different wealth distribution systems in the first place.
The thing is, we have a new fancy thing these days, called "technology." Properly applied, one of the principal purposes for technology is to *reduce* scarcity. The better technology gets, the less scarcity there is, and the more feasible it is for everyone to get the things that are no longer rare and precious.
And there is the *serious* problem with profit-based (I say 'profit' because 'money-free' isn't the same thing) economics: Reducing scarcity reduces profits. If supply always exceeds demand, there's no profit to make. So now, profit encourages us to create *artificial* scarcity. There are hundreds, thousands, of examples of this (alternative energy, anyone?). Every time you see ISPs/telcos trying to push yet *another* bandwidth cap on us, it's not because the technology doesn't exist to give us unlimited bandwidth. It's because unlimited bandwidth makes it unprofitable to be a telco. So they apply scarcity to it.
So look there, to start finding the answer: when your economic model naturally prevents progress, to maintain a supply-demand ratio that is more profitable, it has ceased to benefit society.
|
On May 05 2012 12:05 strOke wrote:
There are some often-misunderstood core concepts here:
The fundamental idea that drives our social and economic systems is *scarcity*.
Scarcity is the condition, and problem, that makes profit-based wealth management successful.
Scarcity is also the reason that even ideologically-pure communism (which we've never seen attempted, don't be fooled), has always been doomed. Can't give equally to all unless there's enough for all.
"Not enough to go around" is what makes us work out different wealth distribution systems in the first place.
The thing is, we have a new fancy thing these days, called "technology." Properly applied, one of the principal purposes for technology is to *reduce* scarcity. The better technology gets, the less scarcity there is, and the more feasible it is for everyone to get the things that are no longer rare and precious.
And there is the *serious* problem with profit-based (I say 'profit' because 'money-free' isn't the same thing) economics: Reducing scarcity reduces profits. If supply always exceeds demand, there's no profit to make. So now, profit encourages us to create *artificial* scarcity. There are hundreds, thousands, of examples of this (alternative energy, anyone?). Every time you see ISPs/telcos trying to push yet *another* bandwidth cap on us, it's not because the technology doesn't exist to give us unlimited bandwidth. It's because unlimited bandwidth makes it unprofitable to be a telco. So they apply scarcity to it.
So look there, to start finding the answer: when your economic model naturally prevents progress, to maintain a supply-demand ratio that is more profitable, it has ceased to benefit society.
In a free market scarcity and excess profits lead to increased supply which drives down profits and reduces scarcity. Take the energy market for example. High oil prices, due to scarcity and the resultant excess profits, have lead to a huge boom in alternatives and new drilling techniques. Solar panel manufactures have boomed and the price of panels has plummeted. Natural gas drillers have boomed and the price has plummeted.
To say the the economic system prevents progress is to ignore economic history.
|
On May 05 2012 12:05 strOke wrote:
There are some often-misunderstood core concepts here:
The fundamental idea that drives our social and economic systems is *scarcity*.
Scarcity is the condition, and problem, that makes profit-based wealth management successful.
Scarcity is also the reason that even ideologically-pure communism (which we've never seen attempted, don't be fooled), has always been doomed. Can't give equally to all unless there's enough for all.
"Not enough to go around" is what makes us work out different wealth distribution systems in the first place.
The thing is, we have a new fancy thing these days, called "technology." Properly applied, one of the principal purposes for technology is to *reduce* scarcity. The better technology gets, the less scarcity there is, and the more feasible it is for everyone to get the things that are no longer rare and precious.
And there is the *serious* problem with profit-based (I say 'profit' because 'money-free' isn't the same thing) economics: Reducing scarcity reduces profits. If supply always exceeds demand, there's no profit to make. So now, profit encourages us to create *artificial* scarcity. There are hundreds, thousands, of examples of this (alternative energy, anyone?). Every time you see ISPs/telcos trying to push yet *another* bandwidth cap on us, it's not because the technology doesn't exist to give us unlimited bandwidth. It's because unlimited bandwidth makes it unprofitable to be a telco. So they apply scarcity to it.
So look there, to start finding the answer: when your economic model naturally prevents progress, to maintain a supply-demand ratio that is more profitable, it has ceased to benefit society.
Scarcity is not "reduced." The defining characteristic of scarcity isn't the amount of goods or resources in society, but the desire people have for goods and services, and that desire is practically unlimited. No matter how much people have, they desire more of something, and so scarcity does not really change by much even with increasing technology and standard of living.
The comment "reducing scarcity reduces profits" really displays an ignorance of the basics of economics, as does your comment about "supply exceeding demand." Supply and demand are not absolutes, they are functions of price and nothing more. The only incentive to create artificial scarcity comes from suppliers already present in the market by creating barriers to entry into the market, but there is no economic NEED for it. Alternative energy has nothing to do with scarcity or economics, it's simply a political gimmick. Bandwidth restrictions are created because it's more cost effective than investing in additional infrastructure.
On May 05 2012 12:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
High oil prices, due to scarcity and the resultant excess profits, have lead to a huge boom in alternatives and new drilling techniques.
Another economic fallacy. If there was increased scarcity of oil, then the prices would rise due to an increase in the cost of procuring oil, and therefore there would be no resultant excess profits.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:18 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 07:12 Ottoxlol wrote:
please look up what communism did to the world.
remove this garbage from TL pls. Show me a country that was ever communist. Lol, that is the paradox (if you don't get it, read about communism and you will find out why if you ever name a communist state you just named a state that wasn't communist).
If attempts to implement a certain political system resulted in ~80m deaths over the last century, that's probably a good indication that there's a connection between the implementation and a lot of people dying.
you don't even have to argue this on principle, its a basic exercise in pattern recognition.
|
On May 05 2012 12:21 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 12:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
High oil prices, due to scarcity and the resultant excess profits, have lead to a huge boom in alternatives and new drilling techniques. Another economic fallacy. If there was increased scarcity of oil, then the prices would rise due to an increase in the cost of procuring oil, and therefore there would be no resultant excess profits.
That might be true for certain forms of marginal supply but not the industry as a whole. I think it's pretty clear that the oil industry is reaping excess profits.
Also, there are physical limitations to how much supply can be produced. So as demand increases so does price - to either entice consumers to use alternatives or destroy demand or develop new methods to increase supply.
|
Apparently someone has just read Marx for the first time >.< Personally, the destruction of the right to private property, which is necessary for this situation to occur, seems to be extremely unlikely and and even immoral.
|
i support it, and understanding and supporting stuff like this is one of the most important descion you can make in your life.
Drop the communism socialism crap this isent the 1960
|
On May 05 2012 13:04 DeliCiousVP wrote:
i support it, and understanding and supporting stuff like this is one of the most important descion you can make in your life.
Drop the communism socialism crap this isent the 1960
If you want people to drop the communism=crap then you need to explain why. So far, throughout history, attempts at "communism" have ended disastrously; so if anything you it should be you that gets with the picture.
|
i can't think of anything more free than two individuals freely entering into an agreement that results in debt. never-mind the whole "i want a beach-side house and there's not enough beach" issue, or the "hey, this (insert benevolent entity here) is gonna take care of you so you have no responsibility which actually means you have no true freedom or dignity" thing.
is money freedom? no. is the lack of money freedom? see that's a hard question to answer. in theory, the lack of money or anything resembling it could be seen as a type of freedom, but the destruction of one's material property still leaves one with some possessions. destruction of these special possessions is in itself a way of expressing ownership, and as such to truly enter into a state of "freedom" as defined as having no physical "ties", one would have to keep the body but ignore it to a certain degree. surely a fine line to walk, and not one for the faint of heart but perhaps a noble one, depending on how you see it or, more importantly, how it's accomplished.
i see this desire to destroy money or the use of money as the ultimate materialist philosophy. nothing could be more materialist than a desire to destroy everything material that one has in the pursuit of regaining another material wealth, in fact, according to the common philosophy, an even greater material wealth than any we have previously known. it's always a desire for more food, more water, more everything, and always for free. not to say that these desires are necessarily bad, and cheaper food, cheaper, more accessible water, medicine, etc.; all of that is good. but its all material goods. is that a bad thing? i don't know. it masquerades as a pseudo-spiritual philosophy though, so i tend to be wary of it. to be honest, i think the idea of changing the system before you change the people is just an exercise in futility. and changing people can only occur if those people want to change and decide to of their own free-will.
for now, green is king.
edit:
i should elaborate on the idea of debt. i think a lot of people kind of got pressured unfairly into getting themselves into debt. and that sucks, but at the end of the day, that's always going to happen. we can try to stop it and try to prevent it and all come together to work on it, but the complete elimination of the monetary system, followed by a collapse of the modern social order, followed by bloody revolution and a reestablishment of the old except with a new suit doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
|
Its very simple to me: Im going to use money and engage in commerce. Are you going to use violence to stop me?
Put some skin in the game. Just how are you venus project/neo-commies going to achieve your goals when people like me dont want to go along?
|
Yeah sorry, i dont want to live in a world where the lazy are treated equally. Communism will never work its just that simple. People will still be oppressed by others.
|
On May 05 2012 08:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 07:36 liberal wrote:On May 05 2012 07:18 rackdude wrote:On May 05 2012 07:12 Ottoxlol wrote:
please look up what communism did to the world.
remove this garbage from TL pls. Show me a country that was ever communist. Lol, that is the paradox (if you don't get it, read about communism and you will find out why if you ever name a communist state you just named a state that wasn't communist). The true paradox is that the natural consequences of communism never actually look like the dreams people envisioned, and so people always claim that communism never exists when actually the problems they see are the true face of communism. In other words, it's an idea which does not and never will have any basis in reality, and so you can never have physical evidence against it. Much like religion, in a way. A lot of communists are basically the same in what they want as Mises followers and other anarcho-capitalists. They all want destruction of the state, that is why finding communist state was given as an example of contradiction. The only thing they differ is what they think will happen after state is removed.
I was wondering if anyone ever read economics on this forum. There was only one other person who commented who I think realized it and all he said was that no one here has studied economics. This right here proves the point. All of these rants and the answer not a complex idea at all, it's one statement. Oh well.
|
Whether human society will ever reach true equality (regardless of job/effort) is hard to tell, but it won't be any time soon regardless. However, with technology improving the standards of living across the board, it is very possible and likely that within a 100-200 years there will come a time when an individual could live a modest comfortable life without needing to worry about work should he/she choose to. That is to say, with most basic services being automated, an individual who chooses he doesn't wish to pursue technical (or other) fields of work and research could simply go about his life without needing to work or worry about food/shelter.
Those who do spend their lives on research, production, development and so on will be rewarded with a more extravagant lifestyle.
Once we get to the point where computers are capable of a higher level of thinking and performance and can replace humans in just about every field (including innovation and research) then yes we will be able to phase out employment altogether.
|
Clarification: All those nations claimed to be communist were state-capitalist. For them to be communist, they would have to be classess, stateless, and moneyless. Anyway, this is beyond communism. The world is a totally different place, and our technical knowledge has grown enormously. We are starting to shape up to be global community thanks to information technology, so our social problems have to be solved globally, under a unified system.
Also, people won't need an incentive to work, as only work which requires human intelligence and creativity will exist, and they will be performed naturally. Just as the Wright brothers wished to fly, or Stephen Hawking wishes to understand the universe, simply out of curiosity and the thirst for knowledge. Do you think the scientists of today would stop researching nanotechnology for example, if they didn't get money out of it? Or musicians would stop playing music?
No servicing, no occupations that deal with the manipulation of money, or any other meaningless job of today would exist. In fact, it is these jobs that create laziness, after all who really wants to exhaust energy on an occupation that really has no relevance to anything except bring in profit for someone higher up in the ladder? I guarantee you people will be eager to discover what Earth has to offer if they weren't limited by the amount of money they have. For example, I wish to visit Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Iceland, and so many other places, but I'm restricted because of money.
And before you state outright that such a system wouldn't work, think deeply about the one currently in place with an open mind and without bias. Do you think it's never going to change? 
EDIT: missing word
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
