Evil Avatar  




Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Star Wars Rebels...
Last post by JazGalaxy
Today 08:01 PM
4 Replies, 654 Views
Firefall - Kanaloa Titan...
Last post by gawaintheblind
Today 07:43 PM
6 Replies, 679 Views
Might & Magic Duel of...
Last post by Sasori the Medic
Today 07:29 PM
4 Replies, 390 Views
Steam Controller Has an...
Last post by rubbishfoo
Today 07:11 PM
6 Replies, 579 Views
Swordsman - Announce and...
Last post by Korialstrazs
Today 06:38 PM
2 Replies, 265 Views
Guardians of the Galaxy...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 06:12 PM
2 Replies, 150 Views
Begin Transmission:...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 06:03 PM
1 Replies, 130 Views
Guardians of the Galaxy...
Last post by Primus
Today 06:01 PM
3 Replies, 601 Views
» Promotion


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-04-2013, 11:47 AM   #301
Major Dan
Conductor Dan
 
Major Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where BNSF pays me the most
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
p.s., I've spent nearly every TV minute since mid-November watching all the Star Trek series so it's on my brain and I'm intensely jealous over that Utopia I watched DS9, Voyager, and I'm nearly done with Enterprise. Next up is The Next Generation and the Original Series but since I've already seen most of those I'm in no hurry.
Gene Rodenberry was a true visionest, wasn't he. It is amazing how in 40 years a lot of what he had on the orginal series has come to past. Most notable is the communicator, but GPS was hinted at, as they always knew where the crew was. Also medicine with MRI and Cat Scans have come close to what Doc Bones had available to him. Now we just need some dilithium crystals.
__________________
Just call me, "Conductor Dan, formerly Major Dan, aka Major Dan (r)"
Major Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:00 PM   #302
Mazzicc
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: a mile in the sky (Denver)
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Dan View Post
Gene Rodenberry was a true visionest, wasn't he. It is amazing how in 40 years a lot of what he had on the orginal series has come to past. Most notable is the communicator, but GPS was hinted at, as they always knew where the crew was. Also medicine with MRI and Cat Scans have come close to what Doc Bones had available to him. Now we just need some dilithium crystals.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ls-warp-drive/

I actually prefer Andromeda over Star Trek in terms of what I see as a realistic future. The utopia-like government from the Vedrans that "morally impeccable" ultimately failed, but other than a particular war-mongering faction of Nietche lovers, the other governments seem to get by just fine after the Fall. I was always confused about why the Fall was so bad, but no one seems to be struggling particularly bad except for the group of enslaved planets (and there are a lot that weren't).

Human nature is not suited for utopia in my opinion. It's been tried in many forms such as convents, and always fails. Everyone says they have a solution that will make it work "this time", but remember they said that every other time as well.
Mazzicc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:20 PM   #303
Major Dan
Conductor Dan
 
Major Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where BNSF pays me the most
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazzicc View Post
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ls-warp-drive/

I actually prefer Andromeda over Star Trek in terms of what I see as a realistic future. The utopia-like government from the Vedrans that "morally impeccable" ultimately failed, but other than a particular war-mongering faction of Nietche lovers, the other governments seem to get by just fine after the Fall. I was always confused about why the Fall was so bad, but no one seems to be struggling particularly bad except for the group of enslaved planets (and there are a lot that weren't).

Human nature is not suited for utopia in my opinion. It's been tried in many forms such as convents, and always fails. Everyone says they have a solution that will make it work "this time", but remember they said that every other time as well.
It was not "all" good in his universe. But I think once everyone has the basics covered things should get better. But who knows that is a ways off, a long way off. I am not familiar with Andromeda.
__________________
Just call me, "Conductor Dan, formerly Major Dan, aka Major Dan (r)"
Major Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:07 PM   #304
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Who pays for the judge? Seems like if private entities pay for the judge it would be impossible to have an impartial trial.
Actually I'd say you're likely to have a far more impartial trial than what you get now.

Using free market courts, the court is a private company like any other and thus must trade on its reputation--meaning it can't draw business because of a law-granted monopoly as current courts can.

Payment would be fee for service. As for who pays, that would be up to negotiation between the parties themselves up-front. They could decide to split payment immediately, or choose loser-pays, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If it's a shared responsibility what if the other party(s) can't afford to pay the judge? Automatic forfeit?
He could opt for loser-pays, betting he'd win, or else take out a loan, or else seek the help of legal-aid organizations, ie: charity for those lesser able to pay. It's also possible the courts would simply charge less for people of lesser means, much as McDonald's offer senior-discounts (in the sense of just deciding to charge less because of w/e reason).

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Who handles enforcement?
Private security organizations, much like we have private security companies now. They'd take the place of public police.

Oh, you mean enforcement of the judicial judgements. Admittedly, this was my major question too, the final barrier before I shed minarchism, and answering it was key to me becoming an anarcho-capitalist libertarian.

Think of a judgment this way: it says who can use coercion legitimately, ie: without aggression. So, if I obtain a judgment against you for $100, then I can legally go to your residence and take (steal even) $100 worth of property, legitimately. If you try to stop me, you're in the wrong.

Now, we don't usually handle things that way. Most people would want to amicably work-out payment. I'd want to pay cash rather than having you take by force whatever adds up to $100, like the rims of my car or something. And you'd probably rather have cash too. Plus it would be hard for me to take $100 worth of value from you without also aggressing against you somehow.

So, you could either enforce the action yourself somehow, ie: taking the order to the other guy's bank and removing $100 from his account legitimately, or sell your court order to a company that specializes in obtaining value (ie: if someone was trying to evade your attempt to obtain payment, you sell it to a skip-tracer or the like who tracks them down, serves the order and takes what they like up to the limit, etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You'd either have to personally pay mercenaries to force the person to comply or you have to have an otherwise impartial body that executes on the orders.
Again, you can serve the court order on 3rd-party assets like a bank account or stocks, or yes you could pay 'mercs' or the like to invade his 'compound' and take stuff from him directly if he was really that stubborn about it, much like we have people who repossess cars for a living, and it would be wrong of him to oppose that in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You can't force people to be on that council so you'd have to incentivze them somehow.
Not sure what you mean by 'council' here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
As we know, Criminals aren't going to obey the law so telling them "please, don't bring guns here" isn't really going to work.
Yeah, you have security guards for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Either way, you are forced to pay. Since it's not fair for one person to share the burden the whole community takes part; that's effectively a tax. If you don't like it you can move.
Firstly there's a huge moral difference between paying because you want to, and being force to pay a tax.

In the society I propose, if you didn't want to pay for security you could simply decide to have no security and no one could force you to pay for it. Yes, everyone around you could have security effectively adding benefit to you. But the question is, do you ever want to leave your property? If so, they will likely ask you to help chip in for their security, since you've left the overall voluntary-donation agreement.

If you really want to pay nothing, move your property somewhere where no one pays and you're good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Just like if you don't like the taxes US you are free to move elsewhere.
It's actually -not- just like that, because in a free society you could simply decide to stop paying without moving and that would be alright. They won't let you do that in the US.

Subtle difference, but huge. It's the question of whether anyone can force you to do what the group wants, or whether your decisions trump the group decision. That's the line between running a society as a socialistic unit, or giving priority to individual units; ie: socialism vs individualism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Of course the practicality of uprooting your whole life and moving is never brought into question, right? Cause everyone can just move and get a new job and start over if their community makes a rule they don't like. Sounds easy but, having just moved cross-country myself it is far from that (and expensive too!). This "option" is effectively impossible for some people so now you have a group of people exercising their will over others.
Yes. This is the soft tyranny of socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You say "incredible" I say "as unrealistic as my Star Trek future". Anarchy by any other name (unless you're wealthy enough to control the system) is no way to run a community or a country.
Which 'anarchy' are you talking about. I doubt it's what I think of when I envision a free society. I mean only a society lacking archons (per the origin of the word: an-archon, without archons), I do not mean one where people live without rule of law or peacekeepers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
HoA's are a microcosm of what you're suggesting and they are rife with corruption and evil.
HoA's are the opposite of what I suggest. Imagine instead if you didn't like your HoA you could simply opt out of the HoA with a single declaration and start a new HoA composed of you, yourself, and whomever wants to join you.

What sorts of organizations would form if they were voluntary-based rather than forced, as all HoA's today are.

Fuck homeowner's associations. They are little more than mini-governments, using force just like politicians do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 12:49 AM   #305
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You create a great work of art and allow it to be replicated. I replicate the piece exactly. The value you get is the satisfaction that people liked it enough to replicate and the other party liked it enough to replicate and display. Is that "value"?
In that case you're valuing intangible goods higher than material ones, ie: valuing the sense of satisfaction you get over monetary remuneration. So yes, it's still valuing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
There's the option to not allow the pattern in the replicator and it being a 1 off painting but you can still negotiate intangible value without introducing money and wealth into the equation.
I suppose, but you'd be unable to stop good copies and the like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You won't need to rely on the capriciousness of hoping and praying some good Samaritan will do so. The government will do this for the greater good.
Since for that situation to arise the society must become orders of magnitude more wealth than it is now, it's unlikely that a society that relies on governments for its social order will ever get there.

So, I'd expect such a situation to arise as a product of a genuinely free society rather than a human-governed society. I say this because though governments talk the talk of doing things for people's "greater good" too often they conflate their own good with the good of the people.

Thus, for instance, government's inflate, rationalizing it as for the greater good. Most people have no idea the technicalities of how inflation harms them. Thus there's no popular opposition. At the same time, inflation drastically increases the power and prestige of politicians who engage in it, while making the rest of society actively poorer as a result.

That's just one of the reasons. The other is taxation itself, which makes accumulating wealth in the first place difficult at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
No, in this future the concept of wealth disappears.
I really think that's impossible. Wealth is not money, wealth is what money buys, and what you buy with money is determined by individual value scales. Thus wealth for one person might be providing for a loving family, for another it might mean sailing on weekends, for another riding horses. These are wealths.

When you talk about a society where no one has to work for a living anymore, what you're talking about is a fantastically wealthy society! The people who live that way now are all trust-fund babies. I see a future where wealth has increased so much that everyone is a trust-fund baby. That's how, quite practically, such a society could be created. Not by abandoning the idea property and of accumulating property, but by embracing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Everyone is, mostly, equally wealthy because anything they need can be replicated.
You still need to own the hardware that replicates, and in such a society that would be the major form of wealth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Spoken as if you never owned or had to care for a horse
I think my point on that was not that horse-care could get easier, but that just in the way that the skills of horse-care passed away in the general population as cars supplanted horsemanship, the need to do basic maintenance on things like a car may too pass away (even if the form of the car remains).

And, actually, I have been trained in horse-care, and have done that task, with pleasure and of my own choosing too, but no I've never owned a horse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I agree that culture would see massive growth. Though the donation wouldn't be in funds it would be in contributing your time and/or creativity. And if, like me, you have very few creative bones in your body you'd just have to be a leech and be a passive appreciator of these items.
Haha, fair enough. But I say that it could be done in actuality with concepts of donated money, and I have no idea what it would mean to contribute time/creativity necessarily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Car salesman get their rep for a reason. And, in my experience, this is particularly true with salesman who deal in used goods.
Here's the thing about used car salesman. Because people expect the government to look out for them they don't take the defensive measures they otherwise could. They believe a law keeps them from being taken advantage of, rather than educating themselves in the car-market so as to not be suckers for slick salesman.

In a free society, people would generally become street-smart city-slickers who are difficult to scam, as opposed to a world full of easily deluded suckers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If they guy is leaving anyway and has a spare seat, why not? I think with questions of money and wealth removed from the occasion people will be more likely to act benevolently. Also, in the future there wouldn't be mobs. Earth of the 22nd century is war free, with peace everywhere!
Maybe, if we can shed governments by then :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
IMO this is the absolute type of *evil* I want to see stomped out and why our world needs something like replicator technology badly.
And this misconception is why those bad laws exist. This isn't evil at all, it's great.

Wherever you need something, raise the price of it and watch supply flow in like gangbusters. Who needs water more than a disaster area? Let the price rise and everyone and their brother will realize there's a profit to be made in bringing in water, and the need will be met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
People need water and it shouldn't be only the fabulously wealthy that have access. By the time the market adjusts it will be too late for a lot of people.
Water prices don't usually go from $1 to $100, more like $1 to $10.

But here's the thing, prevent the price from rising and you create both a black market and a run on water due to below-market-pricing. So now the shelves have no water because people who don't really need water are hoarding, and the only people who can obtain water are the super-rich whom can afford blackmarket prices where they can charge whatever they want.

If you had simply let the price rise initially, those who have water at home wouldn't be rushing to hoard, and the truly needy would be willing to pay more.

You just achieved the exact opposite of what you told me you wanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I can't believe you can maintain this position that money will fix everything after seeing the chaos of hurricane Katrina and Sandy and reconciling that with your own belief of no government.
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Many people cannot, or at least will not, manage themselves without being held to some basic framework.
Again, I suggest people still live by laws, I only want to change who gets to make the laws. I think each person should choose their law-set and that it should be impossible for anyone to force a law on them. In other words, all law must be voluntary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You are advocating wholesale murder by denying everyone an opportunity for basic survival items. "No money, no potable water! Get a better job, loser!"
I don't know what you mean exactly. Allowing the price to rise is the only way to get the most needed items into the hands of the truly needy in an emergency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
IMO these basics shouldn't be reliant on something variable. The first thing replicator technology will deal with is these survival items.
Well, we are still talking at cross purposes here, because when you say replicator tech, I'm thinking of something actually achievable in the short term, whereas you mean 'magically creating anything.' So you have me at a disadvantage.

I don't think we'll ever be able to materialize water out of thin air. We will be able to make clean water from any gray-water source easily enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The free market as it exists today is no more in my future.
Impossible. The result of removing a free market can be seen in Mao's Great Leap, 20 million dead, or India's price-fixing schemes, nation-wide famine.

If you think the free-market can be done away with, you don't understand economics or the modern economy. The world has drastically increased in population because the free market is a very efficient producer of food. Remove the free market and more than half the world must soon die of starvation, and there is no technology that can produce as much food as capitalism.

Even with a replicator you still need to provide the inputs, the basic atomic elements, of everything you replicate, as well as the machines themselves, maintenance, programming, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The potential of the replicator is what makes Utopia possible.
Perhaps, but the replicator will be provided by the free market! It is ironic that you want to do away with what will provide it and think that will work. The 3d printer is not a product of socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If it were reliant on a specific finite resource, the rarer the worse of course, it will fail and my future collapses. Air is great because if we can repair the damage to the Earth (which we would in the future) it is effectively infinite.
You're suggesting nuclear fusion to turn air into needed elements for replication? I think that would be a very bad idea. Air is not nearly as plentiful as you're making it out here >_>

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If you want to succeed in this civilization and society you must compete to survive and that means there is a loser, which is an example of aggression IMO.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You're expressing here a very grave error in economic thinking, an error known as thinking in terms of a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game where if one person wins or gains another person must lose. Thus it is not aggression to gain in an economic transaction. Please read up on that. That assumption--which is natural to make--is endemic on the socialist left in economic terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Since the dawn of man aggressing against others has been a foundation of human civilization
Not in fact true. Civilization didn't come about until aggression stopped, until people realized they could produce rather than take by aggression: ie, people became farmers and created rather than raiding whoever had whatever. The lifestyle of the aggressor was a barbarian lifestyle, not civilization. Where are the plains barbarians today, the Scythian people who ruled the vast Russian plains from China to Europe and were once the greatest force and people on the planet? Horsemen never again equaled, who lived to kill. Some of them were so murderous that their women not only fought but in some tribes a woman was not allowed to take a husband until she had killed in combat.

These cultures passed away as the pre-modern era dawned, they had only limited civilization, raising herds, not crops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
By not having to compete to dominate, thanks to unlimited resources and having your needs taken care of, we can begin to change this reality.
This was Godwin's conclusion, that it was fighting over property that causes all the human evils we see around us. It was this idea that led Marx to communism, with the desire to abolish property ownership and thus lead to a paradise.

But the problem is not actually scarcity nor private ownership of anything. Scarcity cannot be gotten away from. If there were not material scarcity there would be the other forms. This man wants that man's woman. You can't make her less scarce, nor the affection she bestows on her chosen partner. And as I said before, there's other scarcities, like time, that can't be changed.

The actual problem is the acceptance of aggression (ie: the initiation of coercion) in society. The communists erred by focusing on property, and ended up instituting aggression itself in order to solve their chosen problem. And it got them less than nowhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
It is oppression when a weakness part and parcel of survival can be used as a bludgeon to force compliance.
Driving a hard bargain still isn't force. What you need is a society so wealthy that physical needs are taken care of. Historically it has been the socialist ones, the ones that tried to do away with money, where physical privation and hunger got so bad that the dictators could make people do literally anything for survival.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If people don't have to worry about survival, thanks to the all-mighty replicator, it is going to be much more difficult to coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.
Then call capitalism the all-mighty replicator for all intents and purposes today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You hold the word "oppression" in too high a regard to the point where it seems that only something like gross manipulation could be defined by oppression. Oppression is using influence to bully someone to doing what you want them to do. Even you agree that this is bad.
No I think oppression requires an oppressor, a personality. You could say 'the heat is oppressing me' but it's only metaphorical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Yes, but in the current reality that isn't possible. You could walk away and face unemployment where the average length of getting a new job today is something like 20 weeks. That *isn't a real choice* and it's ridiculous to argue that being destitute, starving, and homeless is a valid option. Particularly when there is a family involved.
A choice which has negative consequences is still a real choice. Don't act as if staying is the only option. If you put yourself in a position where you're living hand-to-mouth you've given power to your employer, given them the fear of being jobless over you. Stop living hand to fucking mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
And? When there is no control it doesn't matter if it's ethical or not, you have two choices. Comply or not.
Control in what form?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
If the consequences of non-compliance were defrayed knowing that you wouldn't be facing *death* it makes it easier for the person to maintain their own principles.
No one faces death from losing their job in a modern economy, come on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Your society leaves too much to chance and I can't see any way it can exist without a "government". No matter what you call it there has to be an impartial body doing things that benefit the community
Yes, they're called businesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
even if is only coordinating projects unanimously agreed to by the community.
Also called businesses.

Say a community wants to build a bridge. They create a corporation, hire a manager, fund it themselves, and become stockholders in the bridge and receive a share of profit when it's done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
And, once the community reaches a certain size it isn't likely that you'll ever get everyone to agree to the same things.
You can have overlapping areas of agreement. And you don't need areas to get very large, you can have lots of little ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I guess not me. I seem to be leaning more socialist But yes, I don't see a world without a government of some type coordinating efforts and acting as an impartial body to resolve legal matters, fairly plan community projects, and ultimately distribute resources from the shared pool of collected of "stuff".
I will show you one. I know this is hard in theory, and you're already halfway down the socialist path philosophically already, as is apparent. We libertarians will make a seastead and show you guys how it works :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
It would be Anarchy because people can't control themselves.
Laughable :P Everyone is always controlling themselves. No one else can control you. But it is certainly this assumption that makes people accept rulers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You see it in every prediction of post-apocalyptic literature and even sociological science. People go apeshit, they will band around powerful leaders, who will then use their might to oppress everyone else.
That's in a situation of lawlessness, which is not at all what I'm proposing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Considering how important those are to the health of the planet I'm not sure I'd want to see a New New York spring up 20 miles into the Atlantic.
The Atlantic is awfully big...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 02:00 AM   #306
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 07:02 AM   #307
see colon
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pinocchio's Pleasure Island
Posts: 1,688
While everyone else seams to have questioned your socioeconomic structure, or the ability of Atlantis to not get swallowed by the ocean, I'm more curious about the basics. What kind of economy can be sustained on a man built platform in the middle of the Atlantic? There would be no natural materials for construction and manufacturing, at least not on the surface. And if you are assuming deep sea mining to be the answer, while that might have the resources, it's awfully difficult to procure them. Furthermore, with your for profit court system, and pick your laws legal system, the middle men who own the submarines required for transporting workers and materials to/from those mines would have ridiculous influence over the economy of the entire nation.

Also, what would people eat? Beyond fish and sea vegetables, I mean. And where does the poop go? Are you going to use some Star Trek style recyclers to convert poop into tables?

And at the start, where are you going to get the materials necessary to build the platform. Would any nation allow you to remove natural resources from them to build a new nation? That's a rough sell, I would think. Especially when you have to get your workers and scientists from those nations as well.
__________________
A cannon? Get out of here with that!
see colon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:02 AM   #308
vallor
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Lots of stuff that gets into the weeds and the posts are already long enough as it is to go even further point-by-point
Note: when I say wealth, I'm generally speaking about monetary wealth. No, I'm not an economist (obviously), just somebody with a vision of the future that coincides with Roddenberry's ideal where living mostly without fear isn't a luxury reserved exclusively for the rich and famous. That requires making resources available at a whim for everyone not just the fabulously wealthy. Which means we need something like the replicator.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
If I had to boil things down then I'd say money makes things *not fair* (I know, boohoo). I want a future where things can be as fair and inclusive as possible. Replicators go a long way to eliminating money as the driving force in our world because people won't need money any more. I think we'll need a government to take care of society and keep people from devolving into animals, but once the system is proofed against corruption by money things become more fair. For the record, realistically there will still be corruption, but I think the damage it can do will be much lower.

That might make me a communist or socialist... apply whatever label you want. I can't stomp out autism or cure cancer (though maybe unfettered medical science could) so there will always be something that isn't fair but I can hope for a world where things are economically equitable. You want a system where people thrive? Make it a system free of the stresses of normal life. Sure, some will sit around and play WoW all day and be fat and lazy. But I like to think that would be the minority.

Imagine how much progress is locked in the minds of the 99% of folks who don't have the luxury to pursue their dream because they're slogging through another 60 hour work week for a paycheck that barely makes rent and food much less extravagances like medical insurance? They say only 1 of 10000 ideas "sticks" and even fewer of those have a measurable impact on society. What happens if we open the floodgates and there are millions of active ideas instead of a few thousand? Well, maybe we end up with the app store, so not a good example

IMO a world with no government where the free market brings equality and prosperity to everyone is just as fictional as the Earth depicted in Star Trek. It's all theory-crafting, the difference is that I'm willing to admit it's all just a big fantasy

MORE DETAILS:
As I read it the nutshell is that your world requires everyone be wealthy to reap the benefits, just like today.

Personally, while you seem very concerned for rich folks, I could give two pigs for how they come out of the revolution; chances are they'll do just fine though they'll have to figure out how to live now that they can't bully everyone with the bludgeon of money. At worst they'll be on an even playing field with everyone else which wouldn't be a terrible place to be (the "trust fund" life you mentioned). Going back to Star Trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few so if they have to normalize down, so be it. This isn't a redistribution of money, it's the abolition of money.

However in your society if you aren't born to it then too bad, so sad get a better job. But wait, we've created machines that do all that work so no job for you, Mr. Unskilled person. Go to college. Oh, no money for college? Maybe someone will take pity on you and fund a loan or grant. Not a good risk? OK, no loan, no college, no job. We estimate you might get enough charity to survive for a few months, after that should we schedule you for cremation or the Soylent Green treatment?

Hyperbole aside: Your utopia completely ignores the many untenable situations people lower on the socio-economic ladder often find themselves in. They are effectively prevented from participating in the benefits of this great society, one that IMO relies too much on altruism to help balance the other imbalances. This hope that people will fill in the gaps is a variable I don't think has a place in a utopian society. Because they *might not* and then everything crumbles again.

Generally, people without an enforced framework are bastards. "Nine meals from anarchy" has been shown to be true in most recent natural disasters. This is why I think that some government is necessary. "Rational" people and communities will get steamrolled by the Colonel Macklins of the world unless there is a "bigger kid" on the block with the independent authority and mandate to put themselves in the way.

By definition the free market will not help people on the bottom, or even middle rungs of society if left to it's own devices. The free market is something that can easily become manipulated and corrupted as it is today by those with socio-economic means. The free market has no principles so you could argue that it can't be corrupted, but it's purpose can be put to *evil* practice by people with the wealth and money to do so.

You contend it won't happen but that would fly in the face of evidence that the system doesn't work for the "little guy" every day! Bank executives proven to collude with drug cartels to launder BILLIONS of dollars go free AND gets a multi-million dollar bonus! Guy smokes a joint after his shift at Burger King goes to jail for 6 months and loses his job. Multimillionaire stockbroker gets caught with cocaine, lawyer gets him off with probation. I get caught with cocaine and my public defender does his best but I still go away for 3 - 5. If I was caught in my home then I may also have my worldly possessions confiscated. It goes without saying that I lose my job and with a felony many future job prospects evaporate.

How does a system possibly morph from this one to yours? Especially since it is supposed to driven by the rich to begin with? They have no incentive to progress past where they are not, they have it made. Further "progress" will only result in larger fractions of the population being disenfranchised while the rich continue to gain influence and even MORE wealth. At the same time barely a sliver of that wealth trickles down into better conditions for the "little" guy.

I feel that your society crumbles in the face of human nature. Cracks appear when even the smallest of real, live human behavior is introduced; like jealous neighbors.

Let's use your security example. The community decides they don't want guns in their community so they get together and vote to fund a security service to not only stop the firearms but also for general crime prevention. At the same time they vote on a bunch of other improvements, like filling pot holes on a regular basis, making sure street gutters are clean and sanitary, and beautification of the community in general.

One person of low to modest means, who lives in the middle of town, chooses not only that they are going to keep their guns but to contribute to these things would cause his family to go without 4 meals a month. So he doesn't contribute.

He gets the benefit of living in a fairly crime free community, he gets to own his guns, he gets a pretty community, and everyone else paid for it. And those people footing the bill can't do anything about it. What an awesome deal! This will inevitably breeds resentment and the situation and it will come to a head.

Realistically he'll eventually be asked to "donate" (e.g. forced taxation), or he and his family will asked (required?) to leave town (seems like a pretty aggressive activity). What happens when he can't afford to move or simply doesn't want to move? He has no incentive to move and he has just been exercising his option not to participate. An option that no one is supposed to gainsay. So... what?

Their is no peaceful way of making this person pay or move without coercion and forcing compliance with a financial responsibility this guy didn't sign up for... which is supposed to be totally optional in your future. The community isn't going to put up with a deadbeat. They'll be tempted to force compliance on this person either by direct means, or indirectly and voila! You now have either a tax or an aggression.

Eventually, it wouldn't surprise me to hear of that town setting up charter that says in the future community wide improvements must be paid for by everyone thus causing the rebirth of the HoA.

I don't think a society which can't stand up to the most petty of human reactions before it fails is something to aspire to. IMO your future is worse than what we have now.

The free market is a necessary evil until we develop something like a replicator. Then we can ditch it for the stop-gap measure it is, a measure allowing the rich and famous to maintain an iron fist over other people, and become an more equitable society.

However to make sure society functions smoothly we need an organization that does provide global services. The organization would be staffed by volunteers and, because they have everything they need, would actually be in it for the "right" reasons. These reasons may differ person to person but they would all be intended to be beneficial to society. And the cost of this? Next to nothing once the technology become widespread and "free".

I admit I don't know much about India though I know more about Mao (I had a friend that was in a camp for 10 years before escaping to Canada) but neither of those seem applicable when something like replicators are available. There is no product or resources to price-fix on. There is no need for people to riot or raise an issue when their needs (and, dare I say, wants) are met as if they were first world citizens.

Somewhat related, since I'm all anti-rich people or something:


Here's one where a billionaire points out that the rich aren't the big driving force of the economy they like to think but does touch on some of the free market principles you discuss.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 12:20 PM   #309
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by see colon View Post
What kind of economy can be sustained on a man built platform in the middle of the Atlantic? There would be no natural materials for construction and manufacturing, at least not on the surface.
Some speculate that information services would be a natural starter. Programming and online jobs, etc. But you need very fast internet for that too, and a mature power-system already, and those won't be present early on most likely.

It may be possible to grow algae-based biofuel with the plentiful space the ocean provides, floating growing fields, using the native access to water and nutrients to make finally cheap biodiesel. This is pretty close to being a reality.

Apparently you can replace all the world's oil consumption with biodiesel with a growing field that's 100km by 100km, which would be prohibitively expensive on land but it nothing on the sea. You could raise either micro algae or seaweed, macro-algae.

Another proposal is floating fish-farms. Most of the world's fish-stocks are deathly depleted, down by some 90%. And seafood consumption is still growing. The next 20 years will force us to transition to farmed-seafood rather than wild-caught if we don't want to chase things to extinction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by see colon View Post
And if you are assuming deep sea mining to be the answer, while that might have the resources, it's awfully difficult to procure them.
Sure, mining is more of a long-term possibility. Takes a lot of capital and need for one thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by see colon View Post
Also, what would people eat? Beyond fish and sea vegetables, I mean.
They'd grow crops in floating farms if need be. It would actually be better than on land because you can do it under glass, thus preventing insect travel largely. You could even harvest with robots if need be, creating hermetic environments. It would be true organic food with no pesticides that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by see colon View Post
And where does the poop go?
You burn it and release it into the ocean where it's actually a boon to the environ, or sterilize it and release it, or sell the ashes leftover for w/e uses like fertilizer.

Btw, Venice has been releasing untreated sewage into their waters for centuries >_>

Quote:
Originally Posted by see colon View Post
Are you going to use some Star Trek style recyclers to convert poop into tables?
Nah :P Just incinerate it or store it and pay a company to pump it out and treat it themselves for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by see colon View Post
And at the start, where are you going to get the materials necessary to build the platform. Would any nation allow you to remove natural resources from them to build a new nation? That's a rough sell, I would think. Especially when you have to get your workers and scientists from those nations as well.
People will sell concrete to you just like any other buyer, on the market.

The first platforms will be built in existing nations and moved to sea.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 04:34 PM   #310
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
a vision of the future that coincides with Roddenberry's ideal where living mostly without fear isn't a luxury reserved exclusively for the rich and famous.
But don't you see that it's strongly capitalistic society's that have made this possible, and the socialistic ones that have resulted in the exact opposite. Who lives more in fear and in deprivation, an American or a North Korean? The NK rich elites are where luxury genuinely is reserved exclusively for the rich elites, and in America anyone can afford caviar. I just don't understand how this isn't immediately apparent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
That requires making resources available at a whim for everyone not just the fabulously wealthy.
Like supermarkets? Also a product of capitalism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Which means we need something like the replicator.
Which will be inevitably designed, funded, and built by the free market, ala 3d printer tech now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
If I had to boil things down then I'd say money makes things *not fair* (I know, boohoo).
It actually is the only way to quantify fairness. The idea of money is that you will get served in the exact proportion that you have served someone else, and we measure that through income earnings.

If you want to live like a king, you've got to make other people's lives much better first. Bill Gates is rich because he created a system that made a whole lot of other people richer and more productive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I want a future where things can be as fair and inclusive as possible. Replicators go a long way to eliminating money as the driving force in our world because people won't need money any more.
I just disagree with this premise. We'll always need money. You mean people won't need money just for basic living needs. Fine, but there's always going to be gradations there as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I think we'll need a government to take care of society
Nah, we don't. Adults can take care of themselves. I advocate adult society full of rugged individualists in mutual cooperation, not mutual slavery to some government tasked with arbitrary authority.

We may need law, but we don't need government. The two are in fact separable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
once the system is proofed against corruption by money things become more fair.
Arbitrary authority is what makes such corruption possible. I've spent 20 years trying to figure out how to solve the problem of corruption in the halls of power, and every scheme I came up with failed in some respect. I finally realized that only making each person responsible for their own law-set would remove the incentive to buy off politicians. Just do away with politicians, you don't representatives at all anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I can hope for a world where things are economically equitable.
Is it not fair to be paid in accordance with the value of your work? I should think that's the very definition of fair.

What's not fair is our current system, where the wealthy are taxed more for simply being more successful. It's discriminatory. But it's politically popular, and that's partly why democracy has failed, because the poor will always have more political power, enough to oppress the wealthy.

The wealthy meantime fight back by buying off the politicians, which is equally sick and has its own abuses.

I favor a system where no one buys off anyone, and no one is victimized by the law by anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Imagine how much progress is locked in the minds of the 99% of folks who don't have the luxury to pursue their dream because they're slogging through another 60 hour work week for a paycheck that barely makes rent and food much less extravagances like medical insurance? They say only 1 of 10000 ideas "sticks" and even fewer of those have a measurable impact on society. What happens if we open the floodgates and there are millions of active ideas instead of a few thousand? Well, maybe we end up with the app store, so not a good example
I don't disagree. I think ancient Greek thought falls into this example, where culture and knowledge advanced rapidly in a period of freedom from want, but they did it by enslaving people to obtain this level of freedom. We refuse to do that, which is moral progress, but it's because we're a far more wealthy society that we can choose to do that.

I think such a future is likely for all the world, but only if we advance into capitalism, not devolve into socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
IMO a world with no government where the free market brings equality and prosperity to everyone is just as fictional as the Earth depicted in Star Trek. It's all theory-crafting, the difference is that I'm willing to admit it's all just a big fantasy
It's not, actually. It's the same system that built the United States in its pioneer days. We had literally no government in the US for a good 7 years before the constitution was passed. No anarchy resulted. And compared to today, there were no market controls whatsoever. The result was the industrial revolution, the American economic miracle, and the modern age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
MORE DETAILS:
As I read it the nutshell is that your world requires everyone be wealthy to reap the benefits, just like today.
Not quite, I assume that everyone's boat will rise such that the poorest person in a future society would live like a far wealthier person does today. I don't assume that wealth stratification would disappear entirely, that's a utopian goal because as long as people work for income their income will be dependent on their productivity, and people will always be differently productive for all sorts of reasons.

But in the same way that a poor person today in America is wealthy in comparison to many 3rd world nations and peoples, a poor person in my desired society say 50 years from now would live like a middle-class person in America today, and probably have luxuries we can't dream of right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Personally, while you seem very concerned for rich folks, I could give two pigs for how they come out of the revolution
Rich people who have not aggressed against anyone deserve the same respect before the law as anyone else. I seem concerned for them because people who hold the error of the zero sum game so often cast the rich as villains, when it is not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Going back to Star Trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
Realize that this is the core statement of socialism. It is a statement of socialist ethic, that the many have more or higher rights than the individual.

It is an evil ethic in fact, because it seeks to legitimize aggression against the few in the name of the common good. It is this very ethic that my entire life is dedicated to opposing.

I support instead the individualist ethic, that the rights of the individual cannot be trumped by the desires of the many. Individualism says respect the individual because the many, the group, is composed of individuals. Respect individuals and the group will be taken care of automatically.

This too frames the ancient debate between the socialistic Platonists and the individualistic Stoics, beginning with Zeno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
so if they have to normalize down, so be it. This isn't a redistribution of money, it's the abolition of money.
Okay, so it's great in theory and all, but really, Vallor, it's not possible to implement unless you want to go back to pre-money levels of production which are far less productive, meaning at least half the planet starves.

Here, I can prove it. This piece by Mises is what destroyed the socialist economic argument,it's known as the Economic Calulation Problem of Socialism.

Without money you don't have prices. Without prices you don't have price coordination within the economy, and without price coordination you have an economy in chaos.

You solve this with the idea of post-scarcity via the magical replicator. I counter with a realistic version of a replicator that still requires inputs and thus will still require prices and thus money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
However in your society if you aren't born to it then too bad, so sad get a better job. But wait, we've created machines that do all that work so no job for you, Mr. Unskilled person. Go to college. Oh, no money for college? Maybe someone will take pity on you and fund a loan or grant. Not a good risk? OK, no loan, no college, no job. We estimate you might get enough charity to survive for a few months, after that should we schedule you for cremation or the Soylent Green treatment?
Yet somehow, given a choice, people risked death to cross the Berlin Wall. Btw, my brother in law grew up east of the Berlin Wall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
This hope that people will fill in the gaps is a variable I don't think has a place in a utopian society. Because they *might not* and then everything crumbles again.
Or we can just print money until the entire society collapses. Except that puts everyone at crisis and poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Generally, people without an enforced framework are bastards.
For the hundredth time, there would still be law, police and DRO's. This assumption I think constitutes a strawman of what I'm advocating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
By definition the free market will not help people on the bottom, or even middle rungs of society if left to it's own devices.
By definition? What definition?

Historically, the poor of Britain were raised into the middle class with the onset of capitalism, not further reduced into poverty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The free market is something that can easily become manipulated and corrupted as it is today by those with socio-economic means.
Only when there's a government to influence laws. In my system there is no such government and thus so means of corruption or manipulation. I really think you don't understand my position on that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The free market has no principles so you could argue that it can't be corrupted, but it's purpose can be put to *evil* practice by people with the wealth and money to do so.
Which is what dispute resolution organizations (DRO) exist for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You contend it won't happen but that would fly in the face of evidence that the system doesn't work for the "little guy" every day! Bank executives proven to collude with drug cartels to launder BILLIONS of dollars go free AND gets a multi-million dollar bonus!
Drug's should not be illegal and money laudering should not be illegal either. So it's not a great example :\

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I feel that your society crumbles in the face of human nature.
It's exactly the opposite. Mine would be the first one perfectly aligned with human nature. It is in each person's nature to control themselves and only themselves, not to be controlled by others.

Our current system tries to implement control by others by allowing laws to be made by elites elected by the group.

My system would allow each person to make laws over themselves and self-organize into regions of legal similarity. It would be the most perfect legal order ever created because it empowers to the maximum each person and makes corruption impossible, for each person would make laws for themselves they think best to live under.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Let's use your security example. The community decides they don't want guns in their community so they get together and vote to fund a security service to not only stop the firearms but also for general crime prevention. At the same time they vote on a bunch of other improvements, like filling pot holes on a regular basis, making sure street gutters are clean and sanitary, and beautification of the community in general.

One person of low to modest means, who lives in the middle of town, chooses not only that they are going to keep their guns but to contribute to these things would cause his family to go without 4 meals a month. So he doesn't contribute.

He gets the benefit of living in a fairly crime free community, he gets to own his guns, he gets a pretty community, and everyone else paid for it. And those people footing the bill can't do anything about it. What an awesome deal! This will inevitably breeds resentment and the situation and it will come to a head.
Not at all. Since roads will be private there's a number of ways to tackle cost. Most people would probably pay a monthly nominal fee into a pool of local road owners and get free use everywhere. Out of towners might buy day or week passes, etc. Anyone not paying simply can't drive.

You're talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's solved by simply having no commons, no public areas. You already pay for roads right now, but you pay at a monopoly price and get poor service, because it's a government monopoly. In a free society you'd pay much less for roads, police, courts, everything, and get better service due to competition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Realistically he'll eventually be asked to "donate" (e.g. forced taxation), or he and his family will asked (required?) to leave town (seems like a pretty aggressive activity).
Nah, he could form a new town right there. It's his property, no one can make him leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Their is no peaceful way of making this person pay or move without coercion and forcing compliance
Again, private roads, pay for use. If he's not paying monthly for unlimited usage they simply charge him as he tries to use the road like an out-of-towner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
You now have either a tax or an aggression.
Taxation would be illegal in my schema, as with all aggressive coercion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
IMO your future is worse than what we have now.
In your theoretical construction of it. But my society does eliminate all aggression by the government against people, and that means it would be better and less frustrating.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 02:51 AM   #311
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Here's what your socialist leader running the country 'for the good of the people' actually does:

Analyst estimates Chávez’s family fortune at around $2 billion

He's a true crook.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 05:35 AM   #312
see colon
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pinocchio's Pleasure Island
Posts: 1,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Some speculate that information services would be a natural starter. Programming and online jobs, etc. But you need very fast internet for that too, and a mature power-system already, and those won't be present early on most likely.

It may be possible to grow algae-based biofuel with the plentiful space the ocean provides, floating growing fields, using the native access to water and nutrients to make finally cheap biodiesel. This is pretty close to being a reality.

Apparently you can replace all the world's oil consumption with biodiesel with a growing field that's 100km by 100km, which would be prohibitively expensive on land but it nothing on the sea. You could raise either micro algae or seaweed, macro-algae.

Another proposal is floating fish-farms. Most of the world's fish-stocks are deathly depleted, down by some 90%. And seafood consumption is still growing. The next 20 years will force us to transition to farmed-seafood rather than wild-caught if we don't want to chase things to extinction.


Sure, mining is more of a long-term possibility. Takes a lot of capital and need for one thing.


They'd grow crops in floating farms if need be. It would actually be better than on land because you can do it under glass, thus preventing insect travel largely. You could even harvest with robots if need be, creating hermetic environments. It would be true organic food with no pesticides that way.


You burn it and release it into the ocean where it's actually a boon to the environ, or sterilize it and release it, or sell the ashes leftover for w/e uses like fertilizer.

Btw, Venice has been releasing untreated sewage into their waters for centuries >_>


Nah :P Just incinerate it or store it and pay a company to pump it out and treat it themselves for you.


People will sell concrete to you just like any other buyer, on the market.

The first platforms will be built in existing nations and moved to sea.
OK, fine, but for jobs like IT you need people, and they need to eat, poop, and sleep. So that requires the living quarters, poop burners, and floating gardens to be built and working, plus the power grid and high speed telecom system up and running. And some sort of transportation, and some sort of economy to entice those workers to go to your floating nation. The cost to build this thing would be massive, and once you get it built you have to pay the people who built it, I'm assuming with the rent, taxes, or administrative costs of this IT business. So there is some inherent cost of living there, and it's going to be either pretty high for the people there, or you have to charge a bunch for the IT business and use a bunch of that to pay for the construction. Either way, that's basically a tax, which you have traditionally opposed. And there's no way you can compete with a place like India on the price of IT, because they have the infrastructure, housing, food and a bunch of people who will do it for cheap.

What I'm saying is that even if the oceans don't swallow you, you'll end up underwater.
__________________
A cannon? Get out of here with that!
see colon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 09:52 AM   #313
vallor
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,912
I actually hit the character limit NOTE: You can only have posts of 20,000 characters.

Money doesn't do anything except give one person a way to measure how much/little control they have over their lives and the lives of other people. It frees people up to exercise that control as they see fit. As long as money exists we will never have an equitable society because people with the most money will always (ALWAYS) use that as leverage over others. People are dicks. They just are. Sometimes they don't even realize what dicks they are until later; there is a ton of "accidental" aggression throughout history and that's just the aggression of ignorance.

Sometimes they are big dicks. Sometimes they are little dicks. Then you have the dicks in between. But it is a fact that humans left to their own devices are barely one step away from doing whatever they can to impose their will on others.

Your society doesn't account for human nature at the micro or gross level.

Deliberate aggression will not go away just 'cause a few people decide to make it so. Without a big, empowered entity (a government) that can say "That is not going to happen", something bigger than a single community, even bigger than Empires could provide for, there will always be a bully bigger than you can handle.

Justice and laws, no matter how they are many people buy into them mean NOTHING when people aren't forced to comply with them. Rich people won't have to comply with them, and those poor slobs that do are FORCED to comply with them. You said it yourself, lose the case and the result is that someone now has sanctioned ability to agress against you. The rich benefit from this immensely! They'll often get to choose the venue and venues will not be impartial. The venues you think would remain fair and balanced to protect their reputation will build their ideal client base (in this case, rich people) and cater to that client base. Why do you think most patent trolls choose to sue in East Texas? Because they've proven to give huge judgments and typically lean in the direction of the patent troll.

Why do a huge number of companies choose to incorporate in Delaware or South Dakota? Because they are biased toward business friendly policies. The same will happen with your proposed legal system so your future has no *justice* available for the little folks.

Gorden Ramsey doesn't open a restaurant for people like me, he opens restaurants for people that can pay $75 - $150 a plate. He doesn't CARE about my custom. And the legal "business" in your future will do the same. It's all part of your amazing free market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
But don't you see that it's strongly capitalistic society's that have made this possible, and the socialistic ones that have resulted in the exact opposite. Who lives more in fear and in deprivation, an American or a North Korean? The NK rich elites are where luxury genuinely is reserved exclusively for the rich elites, and in America anyone can afford caviar. I just don't understand how this isn't immediately apparent.
You're comparing a Stalinist dictatorship to my socialist idea. You're way off.

Quote:
Like supermarkets? Also a product of capitalism?
Not many supermarkets were up and running after Katrina and Sandy.

Quote:
Which will be inevitably designed, funded, and built by the free market, ala 3d printer tech now.
Then nationalized because such a discovery couldn't be trusted in the hands of a company or two. So far so good.

Quote:
It actually is the only way to quantify fairness. The idea of money is that you will get served in the exact proportion that you have served someone else, and we measure that through income earnings.
In my future no one has the "serve" unless they want to. And people never run into a situation where they can be oppressed by someone just because of their socio-economic status.

Quote:
If you want to live like a king, you've got to make other people's lives much better first.
No one should have this ability at the expense of others. Equality by virtue of technology that provides the incentives that money used to.

Quote:
I just disagree with this premise. We'll always need money. You mean people won't need money just for basic living needs. Fine, but there's always going to be gradations there as well.
No, we don't always need money. We need things of value and there is a difference, which is why I talked about defining value earlier. Money is a fixed concept. Value can be flexible. "One man's treasure is another man's junk".

Only after we excise money and the inequality it brings with it, can we make meaningful steps to a unified and fair world.

Quote:
Nah, we don't. Adults can take care of themselves. I advocate adult society full of rugged individualists in mutual cooperation, not mutual slavery to some government tasked with arbitrary authority.
Not likely. Mutual cooperation falls in the face of overwhelming force. Plus people are dicks when they have no overarching framework they are forced to comply with. It takes a government to provide that framework.

Quote:
We may need law, but we don't need government. The two are in fact separable.
Yes and no. The government acts as an enforcement body that is not answerable to anyone and, ideally, is unable to be influenced to benefit the super rich minority. This is not possible in your society.

Quote:
Arbitrary authority is what makes such corruption possible. I've spent 20 years trying to figure out how to solve the problem of corruption in the halls of power, and every scheme I came up with failed in some respect. I finally realized that only making each person responsible for their own law-set would remove the incentive to buy off politicians. Just do away with politicians, you don't representatives at all anymore.
Corruption is possible unless the citizen can directly exercise their franchise. Get rid of representatives and take responsibility for your own governance. Of course then you end up with the HoA situation where people are too apathetic to do so and people are stuck with what they get. Then they complain about it, and the cycle goes on.

Quote:
Is it not fair to be paid in accordance with the value of your work? I should think that's the very definition of fair.
Value != money.

Quote:
What's not fair is our current system, where the wealthy are taxed more for simply being more successful. It's discriminatory. But it's politically popular, and that's partly why democracy has failed, because the poor will always have more political power, enough to oppress the wealthy.
Since as far back as memory goes the wealthy have had the opportunity to game the system in their favor and even with all the limits imposed - imposed in modern times only, they had 5 eons where they had no effective governer -they still have massive advantages thanks to setting up a system which keeps them perpetually in power.

Quote:
I favor a system where no one buys off anyone, and no one is victimized by the law by anyone.
Then Star Trek should appeal to you.

Quote:
We had literally no government in the US for a good 7 years before the constitution was passed. No anarchy resulted. And compared to today, there were no market controls whatsoever. The result was the industrial revolution, the American economic miracle, and the modern age.
And things were going so well in those years that people just all of a sudden decided that they needed to change? I think people saw that society couldn't function without a government and the experiment failed so they got together and created the framework of government to clean up the mess that had been caused over those 7 years.

And, lets not forget that the industrial revolution started in Europe, Britain specifically under the Monarchy of George III. To say that it is because America had no government and that sparked some sort of industrial revolution isn't accurate. And, before you say it was only adopted in America because of the unique circumstances of having no government, note that it was adopted in other European countries with varying types of governments well before it came to the shores of the US.

Quote:
Not quite, I assume that everyone's boat will rise such that the poorest person in a future society would live like a far wealthier person does today. I don't assume that wealth stratification would disappear entirely, that's a utopian goal because as long as people work for income their income will be dependent on their productivity, and people will always be differently productive for all sorts of reasons.
As long as people have to rely on an income they will be under the thumb of those who control the money which means the rich have a license to aggress/coerice/oppress at a whim. Since this goes against a major tenet of your future I think it would be obvious that money is just as big a disaster in your future as mine.

Quote:
But in the same way that a poor person today in America is wealthy in comparison to many 3rd world nations and peoples, a poor person in my desired society say 50 years from now would live like a middle-class person in America today, and probably have luxuries we can't dream of right now.
Yes, we've come so far. In the middle ages the poor folk could barely scrape together enough to survive. With a little help from charity they managed. If you were homeless and hungry, too bad you get to rot in the mud. Fast forward 1000 years and poor people can barely scrape together enough to survive. With a little help from charity, they manage. If they are homeless and hungry, too bad lets hope you freeze in your sleep.

Now lets add in: 1) No government assistance and 2) Complete oppression by the people controlling their income and I can see how people would be so much better in your future.

Quote:
Rich people who have not aggressed against anyone deserve the same respect before the law as anyone else. I seem concerned for them because people who hold the error of the zero sum game so often cast the rich as villains, when it is not the case.
I never said the rich were the villains, at least not all of them. If they are villains it's because they 1) Use money to abuse people thanks to the vast difference in socio-economic standing and 2) Do everything they can to keep from fairly participating when they are arguably the least hurt by full participation thanks to their manipulation of things like effective tax rates.

The accumulation of wealth isn't evil. It's *money* that's evil because it facilities the most evil oppressions ever committed. It's all about the money.

Quote:
Realize that this is the core statement of socialism. It is a statement of socialist ethic, that the many have more or higher rights than the individual.
That's fine. I guess I lean socialist. There needs to be protections for the minority (which is something the government would be tasked with) but mostly the goal would be to remove minority status and create equalization through technology.

Quote:
It is an evil ethic in fact, because it seeks to legitimize aggression against the few in the name of the common good. It is this very ethic that my entire life is dedicated to opposing.
And I oppose the anarchy you propose where the monster of a free market continues to allow individuals of significant socio-economic status to abuse and violate those below them at their whim. Justice, laws, all those other awesome precepts you tout are NOTHING if they are controlled by the free market, which is controlled by those with the money.

You say that we've advanced without slavery but I content that we exist in, and the future you propose, is nothing more than economic slavery.

Last edited by vallor; 03-06-2013 at 10:11 AM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 10:05 AM   #314
vallor
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,912
(PART 2)

Quote:
I support instead the individualist ethic, that the rights of the individual cannot be trumped by the desires of the many. Individualism says respect the individual because the many, the group, is composed of individuals. Respect individuals and the group will be taken care of automatically.
And we know this is false and can't work. At the most fundamental level you assume that people respect each other and we know that human nature doesn't work that way.

You have your fiction of universal and unwavering respect and I have my fiction of resource free replicators. Both of us require a flights of fancy for our futures to work.

Quote:
Okay, so it's great in theory and all, but really, Vallor, it's not possible to implement unless you want to go back to pre-money levels of production which are far less productive, meaning at least half the planet starves.
Technology makes it possible.

Quote:
Here, I can prove it. This piece by Mises is what destroyed the socialist economic argument,it's known as the Economic Calulation Problem of Socialism.
This is virtually unreadable especially without context. And from the little I was able to glean this passage does nothing to back up your argument.

Quote:
Without money you don't have prices. Without prices you don't have price coordination within the economy, and without price coordination you have an economy in chaos.
Why? If the things needed for a decent level of living cost no resources to create then there is no reason to attach a price. You only need price if you need money, and my society doesn't need money.

Quote:
You solve this with the idea of post-scarcity via the magical replicator. I counter with a realistic version of a replicator that still requires inputs and thus will still require prices and thus money.
You also say people will respect each other forever and ever. If you are allowed to base your society on magic that flies in the face of historical documentation (as far back as we can go) then I should be allowed my magic: no resources required replicator.

Quote:
Yet somehow, given a choice, people risked death to cross the Berlin Wall. Btw, my brother in law grew up east of the Berlin Wall.
Not relevant.

Quote:
Or we can just print money until the entire society collapses. Except that puts everyone at crisis and poverty.
Also not relevant.

Quote:
For the hundredth time, there would still be law, police and DRO's. This assumption I think constitutes a strawman of what I'm advocating.
You can't have law without aggression. You can't have free market law without allowing the free market to influence the justice system. People with money are more able to influence the justice system therefore so justice is limited for those with lesser socio-economic means.

DROs? Medaition and arbitration? There is a reason that most corporations and government agencies want to move everything toward arbitration. Even today, before further incentivising them thanks to the free market, they are horribly biased.

In addition your justice system can *and must* be able to agress against people who didn't agree to laws so that breaks another of your most fundamental tenet. There can be no justice without aggression, by definition justice is aggressive because it is retribution and punishment.

You never did address the situation I provided of how a community deals with a member who refuses to pay their "fair" share while reaping the rewards.

Quote:
By definition? What definition?
The free market is governed by supply and demand. The rich, free the oversight of an authority body, will manipulate this market to their ends, usually to increase their own wealth.

This will come at the expense of people on the lower and middle rungs of the socio-economic ladder. As I understand it the General Equilibrium Theory only applies when the free market is in it's most pristine condition allowing it to get into the state of perfect competition which is a requirement for your society to function. However we know that this would never be the case because there are always parties attempting to taint the marketplace to their own benefit.

Quote:
I really think you don't understand my position on that at all.
No I get it, and I can appreciated the fiction it is and I can even understand how your fictional society and mine have the same goal of improving the lives of people (though I like the idea of not having to work anymore).

Quote:
Drug's should not be illegal and money laudering should not be illegal either. So it's not a great example :\
It doesn't matter what should or shouldn't they ARE illegal and there are consequences... unless you are rich. That's what makes it such a great example, it very clearly defines how much more preference the rich get in this society than those lower on the ladder. And this preference will follow into your society because the judges and legal businesses will realize it's more lucrative to be on retainer to rich people than provide fair trials for any number of normal folk.

Who cares about the little stuff. The free market will create the equivilent of the ambulance chaser but when it comes to important proceedings a rich person brings against a little guy you have all but given carte blanche to the rich to aggress against anyone they want to because the Free Market allows them to own the legal system.

Fights between rich people would be epic, but that won't matter to the little guy who just lost everything thanks to how "justice" works in the free market.

Quote:
It's exactly the opposite. Mine would be the first one perfectly aligned with human nature. It is in each person's nature to control themselves and only themselves, not to be controlled by others.
It is not human nature to universally peacefully co-exist, at least not with some overseeing authority involved. Come on, I shouldn't have to explain basic historical fact to you.

Quote:
Our current system tries to implement control by others by allowing laws to be made by elites elected by the group.
Quote:
My system would allow each person to make laws over themselves and self-organize into regions of legal similarity. It would be the most perfect legal order ever created because it empowers to the maximum each person and makes corruption impossible, for each person would make laws for themselves they think best to live under.
No it would be anarchy. No organization, laws made by whim and temper of the day. No ability to hold people accountable because the law is bought and paid for.

Quote:
Not at all. Since roads will be private there's a number of ways to tackle cost. Most people would probably pay a monthly nominal fee into a pool of local road owners and get free use everywhere. Out of towners might buy day or week passes, etc. Anyone not paying simply can't drive.
Oh, this guy is up-to-date on his road use taxes... I mean fees! Fees! He just doesn't want to pay for the security and overall sanitation efforts that were voted for. He's going to gain the benefits without paying which means everyone else has to shoulder his share. Fine, it's just a little. Then others see that he's getting all the benefits and they figure they can get away without paying too.

Eventually you have a minority of the people paying a majority of the cost for something that benefits the community as a whole. This will cause resentment. Which will lead to pressure to pay, which will lead to aggression to force payment or force movement so they can fill the spot with someone who will pay. A tax by any other name.

And fuck that guy if he can't afford to move or can't find another job. He should have thought about that when he didn't agree to help fund something he didn't want to.

Well, hey, lets just make it clear that this guy isn't covered by the security forces. So now you've aggressed against him by putting his life and the life of his family in direct danger by making him a target.

Here we have a "perfect society" that can't even stand up to something as simple as neighborhood jealousy.

Quote:
You're talking about the tragedy of the commons. It's solved by simply having no commons, no public areas. You already pay for roads right now, but you pay at a monopoly price and get poor service, because it's a government monopoly. In a free society you'd pay much less for roads, police, courts, everything, and get better service due to competition.
Paying is paying. And forcing someone to pay is agressing AND taxation. This would be 1000000% unavoidable in a realistic exercise of your society. You say I'm not being realistic, Pot meet kettle.

Quote:
Nah, he could form a new town right there. It's his property, no one can make him leave.
They *can* make him leave by various pressure points. And if he forms his own town (of one house) it isn't going to change how the neighbors feel.

He's still in the middle of their town and receiving the benefits of their security and sanitation without contributing. Not only is he aggressing against THEM by taking advantage, but they are damn sure going to aggress against him until he complies or moves.

Quote:
Again, private roads, pay for use. If he's not paying monthly for unlimited usage they simply charge him as he tries to use the road like an out-of-towner.
Oh, he's paid up. Are you suggesting they target him specifically for additional fees that ultimately make up for the lack of his contribution to the security and sanitation funds? Sounds like aggression and taxation to me.

Quote:
Taxation would be illegal in my schema, as with all aggressive coercion.
Unpossible. Even in the very minor example above the solutions are aggress or "tax" (via additional fees targeted just at this guy).

Quote:
In your theoretical construction of it. But my society does eliminate all aggression by the government against people, and that means it would be better and less frustrating.
A government by any other name is still a government. Even a town hall where everyone has a 1-up vote is still a government. No society can survive without a foundation/framework and enforcement of that framework.

Your ideas don't stand up to basic, demonstrated human behavior. It caters to those on the highest rungs of the socio-economic ladder, and doesn't do anything to actively progress the human condition or set us up for long term success.

The reality of your society is, at best it's just a slight evolution of what we have today. At worst it hands the keys to the kingdom to the richest and everyone else gets to devolve back into serfdom. The thing is, without any governing body, expect the worst (as demonstrated over the entirety of human history) rather than the best.

Last edited by vallor; 03-06-2013 at 10:20 AM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 10:26 AM   #315
AkumaATR
Jaded Developer
 
AkumaATR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,910
So, you're not A OR B? Thank goodness... so tired of those guys. May we then call you C? :-P
AkumaATR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 12:16 PM   #316
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
They'll often get to choose the venue and venues will not be impartial.
Venue is decided by both participants. The rich would never get to choose the venue. This is a vast improvement over today's scenario where the rich really do get to choose the venue and can know which court a case will hit ahead of time and simply toss money around. It would be almost impossible to do in my scenario.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 12:18 PM   #317
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
Then nationalized because such a discovery couldn't be trusted in the hands of a company or two. So far so good.
You mean stolen by legal fiat. Here is the socialist endorsing aggression in the name of the common good. I thought you said you weren't like Stalin, this is exactly what Stalin did and why all socialist actualities have devolved into horrors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 12:20 PM   #318
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
In my future no one has the "serve" unless they want to. And people never run into a situation where they can be oppressed by someone just because of their socio-economic status.
The best way not to be oppressed because of economic privation is to have a society where people are relatively wealthy, not living on the poverty line. Capitalism achieves that. Socialism does not.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 12:20 PM   #319
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
No one should have this ability at the expense of others.
Zero-sum game thinking. It is -not- at the expense of others. It was achieved expressly by helping others (becoming rich through the market, that is).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2013, 12:23 PM   #320
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 40,362
Blog Entries: 57
Quote:
No, we don't always need money. We need things of value and there is a difference, which is why I talked about defining value earlier. Money is a fixed concept. Value can be flexible. "One man's treasure is another man's junk".

Only after we excise money and the inequality it brings with it, can we make meaningful steps to a unified and fair world.
You don't really understand the nature of money then. It is the unit of account for value. It doesn't set values, it doesn't force two people to have the same values, of course everyone's values can be flexible and different all they want. In fact, every trade requires a difference in value.

The seller of a thing values it lower than the price he receives, and the buyer values it higher than the money he gives up. Thus, both have their values served by a sale.

Remove money and you'd simply have economic chaos in any attempt at trade, vastly slowing down people's trading, resulting in people's values not being served anymore, resulting in a vast increase in human misery along with economic degradation into poverty.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Meta View Post
Now this point definitely can't be argued.
Anenome is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
atlantis, don't miss bioshock, hot floating librarians, nonexistent, poseidon charges rent, seasteading, utopia

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:24 PM.