It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NthOther
Sounds like the Zeitgeist Movement, which has a lot of good ideas but comes off as a little too socialistic for my tastes. I'm not sure you'd be able to keep it from degenerating into totalitarianism.
Originally posted by NthOther
reply to post by Amaterasu
I'm in total agreement with the three Laws. The capitalization of the word implies, at least to me, that these are greater laws than simply man's. They are basic truths necessary for the happiness of humanity--natural law.
But, if they are formalized and instituted as "laws" as we typically conceptualize them, you would have to have a social apparatus to enforce said laws--hence coercion and control--which is exactly what we don't want.
What we truly need is to evolve past the need for such "law" to the point where it is simply human nature to voluntarily adhere to the Greater Law. Of course without the element of coercion in society (and namely, as you pointed out, money), it would look radically different. I don't think social organization on a planetary scale would be practical, nor would it be necessary to live in peace & prosperity.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your idea of planetary organization, but I think small, autonomous--and peaceful--communities are a more likely outcome when humanity is actually ready for it. Many of the current systems that are dependent on large-scale organization would likely disappear, as there would be no coercive support structure that props them up.
Originally posted by moleskin
Thanks for the U2U my friend! Nice thread - had a quick glance so far, and like a lot of what you have written, in fact only today was discussing some of these elements with a friend of mine!
Problem with losing the economy is that removing it, would in theory remove the perceived power those who hoard the finances wield over the planet. They won't want to give that up.
Sometimes the only way to take down a system is actually to take it down from the inside. For example, we know what companies are not conducive to a truly sustainable future - as they are run by money, we need to stop buying their products, and support smaller local businesses - or set-up businesses instead.
For big corporations, what better way to take them down, than to buy shares in their business? Get a big enough shareholding, and vote on a board of directors designed to change the ethos of the company. Yep it would take a lot of cash for some companies, so take over the competition, and support and promote them big time!
An ideal is great, but there needs to be a roadmap toward it, strategic planning, and enough people invested in its outcome, whilst not restricting the freedoms of anyone in the process.
Anyway bud, once I hit those 20 posts, I will U2U you more
Originally posted by Amaterasu
New Socio-Political Party
What is the Ethical Planetarian Party? What are its goals and platform?
First, we stand for upholding the three Laws:
1. Do not willfully harm or kill another Being
2. Do not willfully take or damage another Being’s property
3. Do not willfully defraud another Being
/quote
I think this is a brilliant starting place (indeed only starting place) for any ethical theory. I humbly submit that you could simplify these three rules into one - the Non Aggression Principal. Its wonderful that youve embraced and are attempting to codify this simple yet profound moral rule, and for that I applaud you. But the rest of your post, to me, is in exact opposition to your stated ethical ground rules. Perhaps Im mistaken, so I'm wondering if you could clarify.
First, I would ask you if it is even possible to have a government (that your party would govern) without it neccessarily initiating force and thus breaking the non aggression principal. Since a government is properly defined as a monopoly of the initiation of force in a geographical region, and you advocate governance, how do you square the apparent contradiction of terms? How would this government extract the funds or resources necessary for its survival? Do members of your party work with eachother based on pure altruism and goodwill? If not, how are resources aquired in order to 'pay' them? What if I dont agree with the policies of your party and simply not cooperate? Is force initiated in order to bring me into line?
/quoteSecond, we are predicated on the idea that Humans should be free to take advantage of the abundance of the planet by eliminating money. /quote
I thought you were predicated on the idea of non aggression? Of course people should be free to experiment in any economy that they consent to, but what about people like me who prefer money? Will force be initiated against me if myself and likeminded individuals decide that we like using money, against you partys wishes?
/quote
Fourth, we expect the use of technology under these Laws, with peaceful intent, including free energy – the key to eliminating money. We know much is presently hidden in fear that we might exact retribution or follow folly, but we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that when Humans have no money, generosity and loving behavior are expended to help those in need. With technology we both have personal awareness of and much science and anecdote grasped, we know we can eliminate money as a necessity and provide abundance for everyone. /quote
Im wondering what evidence you site to support your assertion that a cashless society promotes altruism? Actually that is besides the point as I believe you should be perfectly free to experiment with your moneyless utopia. I would warm you though, command and control economies have been experiemented with extensively (see the 20th century) and always result in the untold horror of millions of deaths. The assumtion that a small group of individuals, even with the super-est computer in the world, can determine the allocation of scarce recources (scarcity always exists even within relative abundance as desires are infinite) better than the price mechanism, i find to be hiiiiighly suspect. (unless your computer can read everyones minds...but what if i want my back rubbed for 9 hours a day by some nubile young human and not a roboid...*does not compute*)
/quote We are out to eliminate poverty. /quote
How is this achieved?
/quote Fifth, we will bring forth a website where problems can be brought up locally and people can “vote” to bump a problem up, down, show apathy by not voting, and chime in with solutions (which can be cheered and booed). Issues will drop off after the original poster indicates that the problem has been resolved or withdrawn, or there has been no activity after, say, six months (that is not set in stone). /quote
So is non aggression your founding ethical premise, or is rule by majority? What if I reside in a region subject to this 'vote' and I dont agree with the outcome? If the end of voting is a law being passed, and enforced, what happens to anyone who voted against, or simply didnt vote at all? Will your party break its commitment to non aggression if I take this 'vote' into consideration but then decide not to obey its outcome? What relevence does the majority opinion of others have on my 'right' to my life and property?
/quote Without money as a motive, problems will be solved more creatively, directly, harmoniously, and within the three Laws. /quote
Again, the problem here is that the forceful abolition of money breaks your laws. Unless youre requesting that people voluntarily give up money, of course. But you wouldnt need a political party if this is the case.
/quote Sixth, we are staunch in our support of an organic planet. Though hybridization is an awesome tool, genetically modifying organisms is NOT. Without money, there is no motivation to create GMO. We know that organics can produce on par yield and better nutrition than their petrochemically “fertilized” brethren. Any non-organic approaches to problems will be highly discouraged, unless it is seen that such a solution is the best. /quote
I fully agree that current GMOs could be catastrophic for the world as a whole, and companies like monsanto are indeed evil. But again, I ask, you, if I were to start my own backyard GMO farm, would your party violate my property and person in order to uphold your vision of the world?
/quote Beyond this, sustainability is our goal. /quote
Good!
/quote Seventh, we see that, without money, we can build machines – robots – to do all necessary work. Without work as an “ethic,” we substitute a “betterment ethic,” and encourage all to look for ways – within the three Laws and with organic solutions prized – to improve conditions on this planet for everyone, and offer these ideas for consideration and possible action. /quote
These machines that your futurist society will be dependant on were almost entirely created by the incentivised monetary system, which is why it was the west that created almost every significant invention in the last couple hundred years, and which is why the Soviets could build state directed hardware and basically nothing else that could have improved the standard of living for its people. How many of todays wonderful inventions (like this internet thing) would have been created if not for the profit motive? What incentive will the brilliant inventor of your future have to create these machines besides his own altruism? And if he wants to withhold the fruit of his labor and genius to only paying customers, how would your party react?
/quote Eighth, we understand that virtually all crime is, on one level or another, related to money, and without money as motive, virtually all crime will vanish – leaving the very few, passion-related crimes for us to deal with. We will deal with all crime publicly, and those who care can and will decide each case. Most such choice of behavior will lead to social pariah-hood for the perpetrators. /quote
I find this assertion to be totally wrong. The number one corralation to crime is not poverty, but child abuse. Am I contributing to the criminal element if I trade the apples I grow to someone else for a bag of rice, or instead some pieces of paper that myself and my trading partner both agree to voluntarily?
/quote Ninth, we support open source in all things we program. This allows for many to make suggestions for betterment, and ensures that no one will create outside the three Laws. It also eliminates “back doors,” and other surreptitious software segments that bog down the clean functioning of the program. Without money as a motive, programmers will be proud to offer their work for scrutinization and use, openly and freely. Status will be gained for creating the best programs. /quote
And if I want to withhold my creation to paying traders? What if I dont care about the approval or 'status' granted to me by others?
/quoteTenth, we understand that food waste is rampant with food distributed by profit, abundant as it is but poorly and/or untimely delivered. Without money, food distribution will be based on need and not profit, ensuring that waste is minimal, food is fresh for all (no one waiting for the wilted cast-offs), and readily available. /quote
How do you determine who needs what and who gets what absent of a price mechanism? Some sort of inventory checklist? If so I check the kavier and lobster boxes every night.
/quote Without money, bureaucracy will become unnecessary, vastly reducing paper use, and streamlining solutions. Jobs in banking, insurance, and other such money-related industries will disappear, and in their place, the opportunity to spend time as One wishes. /quote
I think youre misunderstanding the nature of bureaucracy. If money were the cause of bureaucracy you would expect every business and corperation, who use money, to be just as enmeshed and paralyzed by bureaucrats as the government is. Since this is not the case, we must then ask what differentiates the government from a business, and the answer is violence. Since businesses are voluntary, the competition between them neccessarily eliminated overhead as a matter of survival. Any unproductive entities in a voluntary situation are just plain overhead which reduces competitveness. Not so in a monopolistic situation - the lack of competition, or choice, incentivises a bloated and parasitic bureaucracy that has no check on its growth and thus will become dominant and destructive. This has nothing to do with money per say, and everything to do with monopolized violence illiminating competition that would naturally checks and eliminates parasites.
/quote Transportation will be free – for ourselves, our food and product systems, and any other transportation needs. This offers the ability to go where One wishes, moving food to where it is needed, and other freedom we presently do not have, with transportation energy costing so much. /quote
I cringe everytime I hear the 'F' word - not the one that sounds like 'duck' but the one that ends in 'ree'. Nothing is free. Ever. Even breathing the near infinite air comes at a cost to my cellular sytem. Nothing is free. Who builds this transportation, and why? Who owns the land its built on? How do we know what system is best? Who designs it? Are all the millions of combined hours of work rewarded simply by 'status'?
While I agree with many of your goals and values, I fundamentally disagree with a whole host of issues as outlined above. Suppose I'm totally wrong and youre totally right...but I still wont cooperate. How will your party deal with people such as myself?edit on 4-3-2011 by Neo_Serf because: appoligies for not getting the quote function!
Originally posted by Amaterasu
I have a good awareness of the Zeitgeist movement, and based a fair amount of my ideas on their concepts. Still, the ZM wants to retain an economy. I think it is unnecessary if we have plenum energy.
Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think it's a good thing to think up alternatives when it comes to how society could be run without money or other forms of currency. I think it's foolish to stem creative input with unecessary condemnation, when that creative input comes from conscious observation of our current grim climate. Not to say it's right, or correct, but at least it's a thinking effort towards a solution which addresses some of our main problems, most of which revolves over material gain. Any idea that can be revised, worked on, or build upon is worth it's space IMO.
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I think this is a brilliant starting place (indeed only starting place) for any ethical theory. I humbly submit that you could simplify these three rules into one - the Non Aggression Principal. Its wonderful that youve embraced and are attempting to codify this simple yet profound moral rule, and for that I applaud you. But the rest of your post, to me, is in exact opposition to your stated ethical ground rules. Perhaps Im mistaken, so I'm wondering if you could clarify.
First, I would ask you if it is even possible to have a government (that your party would govern) without it neccessarily initiating force and thus breaking the non aggression principal. Since a government is properly defined as a monopoly of the initiation of force in a geographical region, and you advocate governance, how do you square the apparent contradiction of terms? How would this government extract the funds or resources necessary for its survival? Do members of your party work with eachother based on pure altruism and goodwill? If not, how are resources aquired in order to 'pay' them? What if I dont agree with the policies of your party and simply not cooperate? Is force initiated in order to bring me into line?
I thought you were predicated on the idea of non aggression? Of course people should be free to experiment in any economy that they consent to, but what about people like me who prefer money? Will force be initiated against me if myself and likeminded individuals decide that we like using money, against you partys wishes?
Fourth, we expect the use of technology under these Laws, with peaceful intent, including free energy – the key to eliminating money. We know much is presently hidden in fear that we might exact retribution or follow folly, but we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that when Humans have no money, generosity and loving behavior are expended to help those in need. With technology we both have personal awareness of and much science and anecdote grasped, we know we can eliminate money as a necessity and provide abundance for everyone.
Im wondering what evidence you site to support your assertion that a cashless society promotes altruism? Actually that is besides the point as I believe you should be perfectly free to experiment with your moneyless utopia. I would warm you though, command and control economies have been experiemented with extensively (see the 20th century) and always result in the untold horror of millions of deaths. The assumtion that a small group of individuals, even with the super-est computer in the world, can determine the allocation of scarce recources (scarcity always exists even within relative abundance as desires are infinite) better than the price mechanism, i find to be hiiiiighly suspect. (unless your computer can read everyones minds...but what if i want my back rubbed for 9 hours a day by some nubile young human and not a roboid...*does not compute*)
Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think it's a good thing to think up alternatives when it comes to how society could be run without money or other forms of currency. I think it's foolish to stem creative input with unecessary condemnation, when that creative input comes from conscious observation of our current grim climate. Not to say it's right, or correct, but at least it's a thinking effort towards a solution which addresses some of our main problems, most of which revolves over material gain. Any idea that can be revised, worked on, or build upon is worth it's space IMO.
I cringe everytime I hear the 'F' word - not the one that sounds like 'duck' but the one that ends in 'ree'. Nothing is free. Ever. Even breathing the near infinite air comes at a cost to my cellular sytem. Nothing is free. Who builds this transportation, and why? Who owns the land its built on? How do we know what system is best? Who designs it? Are all the millions of combined hours of work rewarded simply by 'status'?