The Ethical Planetarian Platform; Revision 001

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   


No, I did not say they do nothing. I said they are not doing the final job - the ditch digger is. All they're doing is administrative stuff and investing (share holders). My point is that of all the meaningful energy expended on this project, only the ditch diggers are doing the actual work that needs to be done. And THEY are the lowest paid of the lot.


And also the least skilled, right?



I say they are not the ones actually creating what is needed.


So the owner of the company created nothing in your eyes. If this is so, *why does the ditch digger apply and accept a job at all? CLEARLY, by your reasoning, the boss is pure overhead who creates nothing and produces nothing. So by your reasoning the ditch digger should never need a boss, as the boss provides the digger with no value.

You know what a ditch digger who doesnt need a boss is? A boss. If you applied for the position ditch digger, and I was the boss,and you started telling me that I contribute nothing, I would first chuckle, and then ask you 'so why have you applied for the position of ditch digger, when clearly my role is unneeded?' right before I told you to get the hell out of my office.



Sorry, this is a misleading (and strawmanish) question. Do I actually believe... I actually believe that the "intelligence and brains" are worth nothing without the ones who actually accomplish the goal. The ditch digger's meaningful energy expended is what actually makes it happen, and without the ditch digger, the "intelligence and brains" could do all the risking and advertising and contracting and optimizing and planning and accounting and hiring and investing and competing they could possibly do, but without the ditch digger, nothing would actually be done.


So you agree, by your line of reason, that the management could not accomplish its goal of getting a ditch dug without the ditch digger. In this admission you implicitly agree that the ditch digger could not have the oppertunity to dig the ditch without said management. Yet you completely negate that side of the argument.

Call strawmen when they actually apply, otherwise it is *you* who is guilty of deflection.

Does managment not expend meaningful energy, in your opinion? What sort of field are you employed in, i wonder? The only gig I know that can get paid for non productivity is government. (or one governments spawn)



I actually believe that you have that backwards. The ditch digger doesn't rely on those above him if a ditch needs digging.


Now its my turn to LOL. Let us experiment with your principle, shall we. Go dig a ditch in the woods and see how much youre paid.



So the vast energy the ditch digger uses is not compensated to HIM - virtually all of it goes to someone else who is more concerned with paperwork in some form or another, all necessary because we need to account for money.


Most of that paperwork is due to taxation and regulation, not due to money. Keeping track of money *is* work. That the digger sweats his ass off is irrelevant, since weve agreed that value of effort = what others will pay for it.

By your logic the digger should be the richest man in the world.



And without money, when ditches need to be dug, those concerned can step up to the plate and offer their services (solving problems is many people's bliss) even without robots, leaders will emerge, and the work will be thereby coordinated and done.


This is a stunning admission, and I am literally floored in knowing that you would openly admit this. Youve basically said that leaders will determine who will work and for what.

OK, youre a Communist. To me, thats one step above a Fascist on the gage of moral depravity. I hate to throw around words as strong as 'evil' casually, but what you have just said is squarely in that realm.

What you have just said, imo, puts your ideas in league with such gems as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot ect. It also disqualifies you from any kind of respect or consideration, imo, as these ideas youve espoused have literally led to the horrific deaths of millions upon millions of your fellow man.

I dont say this lightly, but you should be ashamed. That you could feel shame implies that youre better than this.



What do you think would happen if money was not needed, and we could create to the best standards and not the cheapest? (As to what would happen in a money situation...so many are so used to sapping the energy of the slave (paying him about what it would cost to own him outright) that and living better than him on that energy he expended, what would happen is that the ones propping the money mechanism would complain that they had to get less, and stop propping the money structure.)


A slave is one who is *forced*. Our hypothetical digger agreed to dig of his own free will. And he agreed to be compensated in *money*.



As far as actually digging the ditch, indeed, he was.


Im sorry but who the f*** cares. He agreed of his own free will to dig the damn thing for a specified reward. If he didnt like the deal he could have walked and dug his own ditches.



The position exists because we don't have robots yet to do it, and people require non-random ditches.


Ahhh so youve come back to reality temporarily.



True. But what's your point?


The point is that the direction of the shovel and all the implied specifications were determined by someone other than the digger. If the digger determined this, he would be the boss.



I understand how it works in scarcity of money/power/energy without robots I grasp the logic of this. Without money, with robots, and with the Interweb, the person who needs the ditch dug does a search for ditch digging, finds people who are willing to program robots for person (or might find a number whose bliss it is to dig ditches...) and arranges with them to dig the ditch. If it's a major project, the one who thinks of it first poses it as a problem (no problem? No need for project) on the central site. Others who would like to contribute may. Through the thread suggesting the problem might arrange for meetings, or someone might come up with a better solution. Those interested in solving a problem will do so.


I wonder, if these hypothetic savior robots are created, (which your entire position and party os predicated upon) what makes you think youll ever be granted access to them? Surely, since we share the similar critisims of the existing system, you realize that evil runs the show. Since we accept this, why do you believe this ultimate power that is free enegy and unlimited production will just be handed over to the masses, and not used by said evil elites as the ultimate weapon against us?

You seem to think that robots instantly = abundance for all mankind, but the opposite, under current conditions, is almost certainly true. For reference material, watch Terminator 2, I Am Robot, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Remember how they thought nuke power would set us free from energy? Hmmmm....



No, I culled all that to point out that when it comes to whether a ditch is dug or not, it is the energy of the ditch digger that is needed.


Were you going to say 'all that is needed.'?

State yes or no - does the managerial side of a business provide any value whatsoever. If no, then goodbye, if so, what standard, in your eyes, determines the value of the digger vs the value of the boss?



I don't "ignore" issues of "free will." The ditch digger, having the spoils of his energy taken by those who support the money/power/energy accounting structure,


I offer a digger $12/h to dig ditches. He accepts. I pay him om time as per our agreement. Tell me where I have stolen, in this scenario.



He barely puts food on the table. So he will accept the next ditch digging job.


So now he *can* put food on the table?



And in most cases, ditch diggers didn't get to go to Harvard because they had no money for it


Not defending insitutional education, but, could it not also be possible that he didnt have the intelligence for harvard? Who says Harvard is the only good school? Who says he has to finish university to be valuble?



keeping them in the ditch digger position as opposed to some position in the support structure.


You disallow our poor ditch digger his justly earned human dignity. You refer to him as a slave. You assume hes 'kept' anywhere; as if hes bound and shakled and wears a gimp suit.

Our ditch digger is a hard working human possesing the ultimate gift that is free will. If he chooses to remain the digger of ditches, he will do so, and if this is the case it may be because he himself knows he is suited for no other task. You see, he wasnt *lucky* enough in the dice game of life to be granted the good looks, keen wit or striking intelligence that others were, and thus, he is not suited to take on a role that requires the aformentioned traits that he is unfortunate enough not to be endowed with.

So, playing his hand, he digs for 20 years and proves himself invaluble to his digging concern, and wise enough to save something for the future. His kids prove more able than him ability wise, but he imparts his hard working ethic onto them, and they end up owning the ditch digging company as he looks on with pride.

Then the government overprints the currency they all trade in and they ever built is wiped out by a state induced depression that was totally outside of their control. The end.




He doesn't do it because he "knows" his high energy expenditure is not worth more than $10 an hour to others. He does it because that is all of his energy expenditure others are willing to pay so that the true worth of his energy can be siphoned to others.


And by his consent he agrees to this arrangment. Why do you not allow him his judgement? Is he too *unlucky* to know what is best for him?



No. I'm saying he is between a rock and a hard place - either expend his energy to benefit others, or starve.


So? Such is the nature of mortal existence. Produce or starve. If you do not produce enough to at least break even in terms of the cost of your own upkeep, and yet you consume, you are a negative feeder upon others production and thus are classified as a *parasite*. (one that consumes at the detriment of the productive entity.)

You are *given* a body. You are not *given* the sustenance to upkeep it. An entity *must* produce *at least* what it comsumes to be a viable being.






I see that you both want to be taken seriously and cannot answer a basic question. I find that to be contradictary.



Or, we can work as individuals, since companies are pointless without money, and have the problem solvers bring forth leaders of the moment to get things done.


OK, as fun as this extended back and forth has been, I must admit that when you constantly contradict yourself and just breeze by them without any reflection, things get tiring.

Really simply: companies are just groups of people who voluntarily agree to be led by a hierarchy of some kind. Thus leaders. Thus when say you companies will be pointless, but in the same breath say leaders will come forth, what you are saying is that leaders will form 'companies' (groups, organizations, parties, team ect) of some kind, but they will be pointless because there will be no money.



People with experience will have social advantage, and those who are key in solving a problem will gain prestige and reputation.


You should really read 'Atlas Shugged' to at least challenge your premises and examine a theoritical economy that is based on 'pull'.



Because you seem to think the ditch digger is getting the true value of his meaningful energy expended, when he is not. Many others leach off him, using his energy to create their money.


He voluntarily agreed to work for said terms. If he is in such high demand he should apply with a ditch digging company that doesnt treat him so poorly.



No. I said all that money represents is energy expended,


Gadzooks dude. If you take an objective review of this thread youll see that weve thoughly established that your original position was the above, but then through numerous examples and exchanges, we agreed with my original position that money does not = energy expended, but instead money = value to others. And now youre back to money = energy expended again.

Weve proven this = false so I wont address it anymore.

you said something on the order of, "So if I jump on a pogo stick for an hour I have expended energy and should expect to be paid." (Not those words, but same in concept.) I realized where you were having difficulties and clarified that it is meaningful energy. And now you are claiming I have some sort of contradiction going on. WTF? (And actually, saying all money represents energy expended does NOT equal all energy expended represents money - which is where you were having difficulty.)

I am having difficulty with your spiraling logic.




No. In the system of accounting for money, with the LOVE of money rampant, the person who winds up with the money is the one who is best at using others' energy


*cough* COMMIE *cough*.

Marxist fallacy # 2001010399: Production of wealth comes at the expense of those who didnt produce it.

If i grow some wheat, and you dont, are you at a loss? YES/NO.



It turns out that, with the exception of paychecks, most money is gained by coercion, theft or fraud.


HAHA thats a pretty BIG EXCEPTION dontcha think??!

You just EXEMPTED the most RELEVANT factor in the equation - the ditch diggers paycheck!

Im sorry but LOL.



(And even some of those were gained by those means.) Many contracts are awarded because some greased someone else's palm.


If you grease my palm I will surely give you a contract.



Why? To get a lot of money in the end. And all of this is built, for the LOVE of money at the top, and for Love, Itself, at the bottom.


So I guess the builders favor money over some abstract idea of love and bliss. Funny that.



If you remove money, those that presently are at the top because They forsook Ethics for gaining more money/power/energy, twisted out of Human form by it, statistically would choose Ethical behavior. Dare I say it, Star Trek Now is?


This is just nonsense. Seriously, WTF are you smoking. I want some.

Your leaps in reasoning and assumtions would span the grand canyon.



Well - and please don't get confused here - abundance means effectively infinite resources overall, because though specialty items may be scarce, materials to richly provide for everyone's material needs (food, clothing, shelter) exceed by an order of magnitude what we actually need.


What. The. Sh*t. Seriously. "effectively infinite" would *have* to mean inifinite abundance in every perceiveable form, if 'effectively' is to mean 'almost totally infinite'. And yet I could provide 10 scarcity paradigms not solved by your super robots off the top of my head. Lobster. Salmon. Bison. Parrots. Genius. ect ect.

That we could house and feed everyone (something that is doeable now under a free monetary system) does not = 'effectively infinite.'



True, but if it becomes unnecessary, why bother? (Again, I never said justly exchange of energy was a problem. Only that because of a scarcity of energy, Humans devised a method of exchange, money, and because of how We interact relative to it, We are frequently drawn into LOVE of it such that We forsake Ethics.


So justly earned exchange of energy is perfectly compatible with eithics. Gotcha.



But the whole premise of a business is based in slavery. You HAVE to have wage slaves to give the energy needed to do whatever it is you're dog, the return of which feeds the money structure around the energy extraction itself.


What a load of rubbish. You constantly attempt to change the meanings of words for some sort of dramatic effect. SLAVE = INVOLUNTARY. FREE = VOLUNTARY.

The whole premise of business (VOLUNTARY) is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SLAVERY. (INVOLUNTARY)

I CHOOSE to accept the terms of my current employer, and my laborer CHOOSES to accept the terms I offer him. Anything besides our voluntary consent is beyond your right to judge.



Yes, some energy is expended by those in the support system (for which they are compensated, mostly as higher paid slaves), while those at the top reap the bulk of the slaves' energy/money.


Slavery is being FORCED to give the government half + of your produced earnings.



As for going into business, is this something you want to do to make money? Or is it something that happens to make money that you love to do?


I can assure you my dayjob is not my passion. (maybe arguing with you is
) I do what I do in order to sustain my existence. Bonus points to those who do so doing what they are passionate about.

Perhaps I will cut this short as its getting late and Im not communicating in a civil way atm.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf



No, I did not say they do nothing. I said they are not doing the final job - the ditch digger is. All they're doing is administrative stuff and investing (share holders). My point is that of all the meaningful energy expended on this project, only the ditch diggers are doing the actual work that needs to be done. And THEY are the lowest paid of the lot.


And also the least skilled, right?


Depends on how "skill" is defined. They are surely more skilled at labor than am I, for example. I surely could not do it. So I suspect that "skill" is a relative term. Being relative, we cannot say in any absolute terms whether they are any more or less "skilled" than any other.



I say they are not the ones actually creating what is needed.


So the owner of the company created nothing in your eyes. If this is so, *why does the ditch digger apply and accept a job at all? CLEARLY, by your reasoning, the boss is pure overhead who creates nothing and produces nothing. So by your reasoning the ditch digger should never need a boss, as the boss provides the digger with no value.


Now I did not say that. I merely pointed out that as far as actually moving the earth, the ditch digger is the one who gets it done. Yes, in the system we have set up, the company does the coordination aspects. But coordination can occur in other ways. Regardless of how it is coordinated, however, the digger is the one who actually moves the earth, whether Human or robot.


You know what a ditch digger who doesnt need a boss is? A boss. If you applied for the position ditch digger, and I was the boss,and you started telling me that I contribute nothing, I would first chuckle, and then ask you 'so why have you applied for the position of ditch digger, when clearly my role is unneeded?' right before I told you to get the hell out of my office.


I never said there was no contribution in any terms at all by the company. That contribution can be obtained in other fashion, however; the ditch digging itself needs the digger.



Sorry, this is a misleading (and strawmanish) question. Do I actually believe... I actually believe that the "intelligence and brains" are worth nothing without the ones who actually accomplish the goal. The ditch digger's meaningful energy expended is what actually makes it happen, and without the ditch digger, the "intelligence and brains" could do all the risking and advertising and contracting and optimizing and planning and accounting and hiring and investing and competing they could possibly do, but without the ditch digger, nothing would actually be done.


So you agree, by your line of reason, that the management could not accomplish its goal of getting a ditch dug without the ditch digger. In this admission you implicitly agree that the ditch digger could not have the oppertunity to dig the ditch without said management. Yet you completely negate that side of the argument.


No. That's not what I implicitly agree to. If someone placed an ad for a ditch digger and they came and dug a ditch, there is no company/management needed. Just because a company is reliant upon having ditch diggers to get ditches done does not follow that the ditch digger necessarily needs a company to dig ditches.


Call strawmen when they actually apply, otherwise it is *you* who is guilty of deflection.


I still feel it applies.


Does managment not expend meaningful energy, in your opinion? What sort of field are you employed in, i wonder? The only gig I know that can get paid for non productivity is government. (or one governments spawn)


Management does expend energy presently given meaning in the system We have set up. In another system, their contributions may be meaningless.



I actually believe that you have that backwards. The ditch digger doesn't rely on those above him if a ditch needs digging.


Now its my turn to LOL. Let us experiment with your principle, shall we. Go dig a ditch in the woods and see how much youre paid.


I didn't say that ditch diggers didn't need people who need ditches dug. If someone needs that ditch dug in the woods (and presuming I could physically do such a thing as dig a ditch) which were that One's woods to dispose with, I bet if I dug it, I would be paid. The ditch digger can dig ditches for people whether the management is there or not.



So the vast energy the ditch digger uses is not compensated to HIM - virtually all of it goes to someone else who is more concerned with paperwork in some form or another, all necessary because we need to account for money.


Most of that paperwork is due to taxation and regulation, not due to money.


Well, if there was a shift from the paradigm of needing money for something to having what One needs to follow One's bliss, aside from petro-fuels (We are told), We have abundance - and Now We have plenum energy as well. Once the cost of energy is removed deeper and deeper into the structure, a point will be reached where what is there is free.

Once that happens, then free sort of will flow backwards. As the structure becomes easier to support robotically, remotely, and publicly, We become more active in actually solving problems rather than controlling others. With the public and free domain of the Interweb, supported more and more by those who love doing it and less and less by those who have the most money to manipulate it, an Ethically grown primary structure will emerge - if a widely proclaimed site were to be offered much as I describe in the OP by someone, that One will have acclaim, and Humanity would achieve great things.


Keeping track of money *is* work.


Yeah, I worked in banking a decade and a half. I listened to the people around Me and each One had something to say about the things They would do instead of coming to work if They didn't have to because One had to input energy into the accounting for energy. If that structure was unneeded, and these Ones could have Their needs richly met, I bet They would spend more time one Their boats, time with Their kids and grandkids. Time learning about something that interests them (the Interweb is awesome for that even in its assaulted state for power (m/p/e) over perception), or time socializing. Time pursuing honest science not driven by paradigm but results.

Time building things, creating things, giving Love. All these people are lovely at heart, these Ones I have seen in this massive structure built around the scarcity of energy. Oh, sure, I have met individuals who I would help if I had the means and knowledge, but overall, Humanity doesn't want any trouble. Humanity is Loving, even above the bonds of a system of money, which keep the bulk of that Love at bay.


That the digger sweats his ass off is irrelevant, since weve agreed that value of effort = what others will pay for it.


Well, We actually don't agree precisely. The value of effort = a subjective evaluation, the measure of which We might use money as an indicator. This does not mean that money is the ONLY measure We might apply, nor that money is even necessary in the transaction at all.


By your logic the digger should be the richest man in the world.


No... By Your deciding I agree with something, You have built an illogical construct against me. By a "joule assignment," where everyone was paid per joule expended, the ditch digger would be well to do, I imagine. But every transaction is subjectively evaluated as to how much the total expenditure is worth, and often based on who is doing the labor. In reality - that IS what We're addressing, right? - because money is required to effectively survive some of Us can take advantage of this and use the profit from Others' energy for Ourselves.



And without money, when ditches need to be dug, those concerned can step up to the plate and offer their services (solving problems is many people's bliss) even without robots, leaders will emerge, and the work will be thereby coordinated and done.


This is a stunning admission, and I am literally floored in knowing that you would openly admit this. Youve basically said that leaders will determine who will work and for what.


Yeah. So? I never said there would be no leaders. In fact, "leaders of the moment" is a common phrase I use. My point is that these leaders are NOT "determining" who will do what, per se, but that Those who CARE will have input, and leaders will emerge from those who CARE. And if money is not involved and cannot be, the CARING solution will be found, not the cheapest (profitable), and the leaders will be leading the people whose bliss it is to take on good ideas and make them happen - NOT people who are getting bucks (big or little) to do things (that even might harm) for even MORE big bucks for someone else.


OK, youre a Communist. To me, thats one step above a Fascist on the gage of moral depravity. I hate to throw around words as strong as 'evil' casually, but what you have just said is squarely in that realm.


Again. You conclude things based on your initial error that are not true. I have said, over and over, Communism is a scarcity paradigm construct. I am at a right angle to the "communism/capitalism" dichotomy. In both cases, the need for the system arises to account for meaningful energy expended. Communism seems to invariably come with individuals, Ones, who control Others who wind up with nice places to live while others don't. In communism, the idea is to take away the "excess" things of some and give them to others.

In the abundance paradigm, the Ones with things keep them, and everyOne else gets things too. The only loss is in having power over others.


What you have just said, imo, puts your ideas in league with such gems as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot ect. It also disqualifies you from any kind of respect or consideration, imo, as these ideas youve espoused have literally led to the horrific deaths of millions upon millions of your fellow man.


What You just arrived at is based on faulty analysis from the get-go. So I really have nothing else to say to this.


I dont say this lightly, but you should be ashamed. That you could feel shame implies that youre better than this.


I'm unsure whether there is shame to be felt here or not. I am sure it is not on my end that any shame should be felt. Should You feel shame at beginning with a faulty assumption that We agreed on something We did not?



What do you think would happen if money was not needed, and we could create to the best standards and not the cheapest? (As to what would happen in a money situation...so many are so used to sapping the energy of the slave (paying him about what it would cost to own him outright) that and living better than him on that energy he expended, what would happen is that the ones propping the money mechanism would complain that they had to get less, and stop propping the money structure.)


A slave is one who is *forced*. Our hypothetical digger agreed to dig of his own free will. And he agreed to be compensated in *money*.


Therein lies the fable. The ditch digger needs to eat. (S)he is not allowed into the ranks of the educated because happenstance precluded that, so (s)he is compelled to take positions where her/his energy is used to enrich others. Else starve or seek help. Help is not as forthcoming for able-bodied individuals, and so Our ditch digger takes what (s)he can get. That her/his energy is used by others is a function of the concept that We need to account for energy meaningfully expended.

And with effectively infinite energy, We do not need to account for it.



As far as actually digging the ditch, indeed, he was.


Im sorry but who the f*** cares. He agreed of his own free will to dig the damn thing for a specified reward. If he didnt like the deal he could have walked and dug his own ditches.


(S)he agreed within a system that pushes that "free will" choice as an "only option." If there are few options, how free is the Will?



The position exists because we don't have robots yet to do it, and people require non-random ditches.


Ahhh so youve come back to reality temporarily.


No... I'm still in reality. Just not stating that You agree with Me where You don't.



True. But what's your point?


The point is that the direction of the shovel and all the implied specifications were determined by someone other than the digger. If the digger determined this, he would be the boss.


Only if (s)he isn't determining AND digging... If not digging, not a ditch digger.



I understand how it works in scarcity of money/power/energy without robots I grasp the logic of this. Without money, with robots, and with the Interweb, the person who needs the ditch dug does a search for ditch digging, finds people who are willing to program robots for person (or might find a number whose bliss it is to dig ditches...) and arranges with them to dig the ditch. If it's a major project, the one who thinks of it first poses it as a problem (no problem? No need for project) on the central site. Others who would like to contribute may. Through the thread suggesting the problem might arrange for meetings, or someone might come up with a better solution. Those interested in solving a problem will do so.


I wonder, if these hypothetic savior robots are created, (which your entire position and party os predicated upon) what makes you think youll ever be granted access to them? Surely, since we share the similar critisims of the existing system, you realize that evil runs the show. Since we accept this, why do you believe this ultimate power that is free enegy and unlimited production will just be handed over to the masses, and not used by said evil elites as the ultimate weapon against us?


Well, first the Ideas must spread. Then a central, well publicized site for solving problems needs to be created. Then personal use power boxes are developed and sold. Then, as the cost of energy drains, building robots is focused on, with people communicating need and offering solutions on the central site. Initially robots might be sold, but eventually they will be created by people who love to create them and see Others happy with what They produced.

"Savior" robots. An emoti-epitaph. No "savior," dude. Just useful. And open source is crucial. Didn't you read the OP?


You seem to think that robots instantly = abundance for all mankind, but the opposite, under current conditions, is almost certainly true. For reference material, watch Terminator 2, I Am Robot, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.


I'm sorry. I am sure I said it would be a process. Oh, see Star Trek! Yes. While We're using fiction as "proof!" (Actually, as speculative fiction goes, Star Trek is likely the closest as far as expectations go.)


Remember how they thought nuke power would set us free from energy? Hmmmm....


Remember how the Ones who would make money from it hyped it? Remember how the radioactive elements and earthquake dangers were downplayed? Remember how We were manipulated into believing it was Oh Kay?

Thus far, plenum energy has shown life ENHANCING qualities. I don't think comparing the apple to the orange is a fair comparison here.



No, I culled all that to point out that when it comes to whether a ditch is dug or not, it is the energy of the ditch digger that is needed.


Were you going to say 'all that is needed.'?


Yes. All that is needed for the ditch to actually be dug. Regardless of the way in which the digging of the ditch came about - whether some guy was offered money or he's doing for his favorite Aunt who pays him back in smiles and appreciation - all that is necessary for the ditch to actually be dug is the ditch digger's energy.


State yes or no - does the managerial side of a business provide any value whatsoever. If no, then goodbye, if so, what standard, in your eyes, determines the value of the digger vs the value of the boss?


In a scarcity paradigm, yes. Well, actually, in an abundance paradigm, too, it's just that they operate differently. People need projects done and the problem of getting a ditch dug is offered on the web. People who love to solve problems might hunt the web for someone who loves to dig ditches - or just arrange with the people who love to program and build robots to come up with one that will dig the ditch. Management emerges rather than is imposed.



I don't "ignore" issues of "free will." The ditch digger, having the spoils of his energy taken by those who support the money/power/energy accounting structure,


I offer a digger $12/h to dig ditches. He accepts. I pay him om time as per our agreement. Tell me where I have stolen, in this scenario.


The value of his accomplishment is worth more than he gets. You get some of it. The corporation gets some of it. No "stealing," per se, as that is how the system is presently set up. Except no One is telling the ditch digger that his energy is worth that much that others above him can live far better than he off of that energy he expended. And, he has few choices, being forced to take, not the whole value of his energy, but the small fraction it is actually worth. Or else starve.



He barely puts food on the table. So he will accept the next ditch digging job.


So now he *can* put food on the table?


Sometimes, sometimes not enough, but surely not as much as the major shareholder who is reaping the bulk of the value placed on his work. And I never said he can't. That would be depended on individual cases. Implying that I said that is either poor comprehension on your part, or poor form.



And in most cases, ditch diggers didn't get to go to Harvard because they had no money for it


Not defending insitutional education, but, could it not also be possible that he didnt have the intelligence for harvard? Who says Harvard is the only good school? Who says he has to finish university to be valuble?


If all he can get is ditch digging jobs, he is unlucky in meeting the right opportunity in intelligence, education or employer (unless his bliss is digging ditches). "Harvard" clearly was an example. Let's not be purposely dense here. And if he's lucky, he doesn't have to finish university to be considered valuable. In most cases, the ditch digger was not that lucky.



keeping them in the ditch digger position as opposed to some position in the support structure.


You disallow our poor ditch digger his justly earned human dignity. You refer to him as a slave. You assume hes 'kept' anywhere; as if hes bound and shakled and wears a gimp suit.


He IS a slave when people live richly off the energy he meaningfully expended. He still has dignity, He is a Human. What strips any dignity from him is having to pour his sweat out so that others and not him can live richly. He is a slave when there's no money beyond the basics. He is a slave when he cannot dictate his hours. He is a slave when his choice is to work to enrich others or starve.


Our ditch digger is a hard working human possesing the ultimate gift that is free will.


Within very tight constraints.


If he chooses to remain the digger of ditches, he will do so, and if this is the case it may be because he himself knows he is suited for no other task. You see, he wasnt *lucky* enough in the dice game of life to be granted the good looks, keen wit or striking intelligence that others were, and thus, he is not suited to take on a role that requires the aformentioned traits that he is unfortunate enough not to be endowed with.


It may not be much his choice whether he stays a ditch digger, eh? More that is where he was planted in life.


So, playing his hand, he digs for 20 years and proves himself invaluble to his digging concern, and wise enough to save something for the future. His kids prove more able than him ability wise, but he imparts his hard working ethic onto them, and they end up owning the ditch digging company as he looks on with pride.


That may be a happy future, but what if there are no jobs for his kids? What if he is laid off? The "work ethic" is the slave ethic. The Betterment Ethic is the Human Ethic.


Then the government overprints the currency they all trade in and they ever built is wiped out by a state induced depression that was totally outside of their control. The end.


Unless... We eliminate the need for money and therefore government as we presently know it. Bring in an emergent form through the Interweb not driven by money interests but Betterment interests.



He doesn't do it because he "knows" his high energy expenditure is not worth more than $10 an hour to others. He does it because that is all of his energy expenditure others are willing to pay so that the true worth of his energy can be siphoned to others.


And by his consent he agrees to this arrangment. Why do you not allow him his judgement? Is he too *unlucky* to know what is best for him?


Under duress. Either agree or starve. His judgment has little to do with it beyond survival.



No. I'm saying he is between a rock and a hard place - either expend his energy to benefit others, or starve.


So? Such is the nature of mortal existence. Produce or starve.


No. Such is the nature of energy scarcity. Produce for the haves or starve. Mortal existence will change radically with the introduction of plenum energy.


If you do not produce enough to at least break even in terms of the cost of your own upkeep, and yet you consume, you are a negative feeder upon others production and thus are classified as a *parasite*. (one that consumes at the detriment of the productive entity.)


A true scarcity paradigm situation, I agree. With an abundance of energy, this is no longer valid. With an abundance of energy robots can be put to the tasks no one wants to do, freeing Humans to do what They choose from amongst a wide array of options now abundantly available. FAR more dignified that doing something you don't like just to maintain a ratty apartment and food on the table for yourself, and trips to Rodeo Drive for those who use the spoils of your energy.


You are *given* a body. You are not *given* the sustenance to upkeep it. An entity *must* produce *at least* what it comsumes to be a viable being.


Hmmm... What do tigers produce? The point is that there is enough to give everyone sustenance. Overflowingly. In abundance it is NOT necessary for an entity to produce, but for Betterment, effort is prized. It works as you describe in scarcity, not abundance.



Or, we can work as individuals, since companies are pointless without money, and have the problem solvers bring forth leaders of the moment to get things done.


OK, as fun as this extended back and forth has been, I must admit that when you constantly contradict yourself and just breeze by them without any reflection, things get tiring.


Show me this contradiction and "breezing." If it matters, if it is a problem, in abundance leaders will emerge from those who care. If no one cares, there is no problem. But no One will be caring because They can make money. Only because They want to solve a problem.


Really simply: companies are just groups of people who voluntarily agree to be led by a hierarchy of some kind. Thus leaders.


And the "leaders" are determined by who has money - NOT by who is necessarily the best to solve a given problem. In chaotic emergence, the best will surface for each problem.


Thus when say you companies will be pointless, but in the same breath say leaders will come forth, what you are saying is that leaders will form 'companies' (groups, organizations, parties, team ect) of some kind, but they will be pointless because there will be no money.


Do I really have to state that pointless "companies" means corporations and any for-profit groups? Yes, groups will form to solve problems, but NOT because there is a profit involved somewhere. Because there is a problem to be solved.



People with experience will have social advantage, and those who are key in solving a problem will gain prestige and reputation.


You should really read 'Atlas Shugged' to at least challenge your premises and examine a theoritical economy that is based on 'pull'.


I have read it. Several times, in fact. And while I applaud Ayn for her vision of the Human, I have already shown you, in the reply to your posting of her work where she errs, presuming money would never lead to love of it such that things like Genmod, water rights buyouts, Neotame, war, and other evils would take over. She was very naive.



Because you seem to think the ditch digger is getting the true value of his meaningful energy expended, when he is not. Many others leach off him, using his energy to create their money.


He voluntarily agreed to work for said terms. If he is in such high demand he should apply with a ditch digging company that doesnt treat him so poorly.


He took what was available because he had no other choice but to starve. You make it sound as if he thought, "Meh. Might as well work today. Got nothing better to do. And hey, I'll choose that company because it treats me better than this one." No. He is standing in line with many others being grateful he gets work when he does. Because he has to. Voluntarily, my ass.



No. I said all that money represents is energy expended,


Gadzooks dude. If you take an objective review of this thread youll see that weve thoughly established that your original position was the above, but then through numerous examples and exchanges, we agreed with my original position that money does not = energy expended, but instead money = value to others. And now youre back to money = energy expended again.


Gadzooks, dude, Did I forget the word "meaningful" again. Sorry. Money represents meaningful energy expended. The value we place on that energy expended varies. I never agreed (though you keep telling me I did) that money = value to others. No. Money can be used as a gauge to determine what value any given One places on anything. Now We're back to you claiming I agreed with something I did not.


Weve proven this = false so I wont address it anymore.


In your mind, I suppose.



you said something on the order of, "So if I jump on a pogo stick for an hour I have expended energy and should expect to be paid." (Not those words, but same in concept.) I realized where you were having difficulties and clarified that it is meaningful energy. And now you are claiming I have some sort of contradiction going on. WTF? (And actually, saying all money represents energy expended does NOT equal all energy expended represents money - which is where you were having difficulty.)


I am having difficulty with your spiraling logic.


Not spiraling at all. Just coming from another paradigm. I can see you struggle with shifting.



No. In the system of accounting for money, with the LOVE of money rampant, the person who winds up with the money is the one who is best at using others' energy


*cough* COMMIE *cough*.

Marxist fallacy # 2001010399: Production of wealth comes at the expense of those who didnt produce it.


I think I covered the "commie" comment above.


If i grow some wheat, and you dont, are you at a loss? YES/NO.


If the robots grow the wheat, and We eat it (neither of Us having grown it), who is at a loss?



It turns out that, with the exception of paychecks, most money is gained by coercion, theft or fraud.


HAHA thats a pretty BIG EXCEPTION dontcha think??!


No, considering most wealth is not in paychecks. It's in corporate earnings and aggregated to 1% of the population.


You just EXEMPTED the most RELEVANT factor in the equation - the ditch diggers paycheck!


Not at all. The pittance that goes into honest paychecks is vastly overshadowed by wealth earned through coercion, theft or fraud.


Im sorry but LOL.


Heh. Laugh all you want. Changes nothing.



(And even some of those were gained by those means.) Many contracts are awarded because some greased someone else's palm.


If you grease my palm I will surely give you a contract.


Your point?



Why? To get a lot of money in the end. And all of this is built, for the LOVE of money at the top, and for Love, Itself, at the bottom.


So I guess the builders favor money over some abstract idea of love and bliss. Funny that.


The BUILDERS? They favor some benefit. In the scarcity we presently live in, money is favored. But Love and bliss are not as "abstract" as you suggest. Not any more so than the value we assign to money collectively. And they will suffice if basic needs are met richly as payment.



If you remove money, those that presently are at the top because They forsook Ethics for gaining more money/power/energy, twisted out of Human form by it, statistically would choose Ethical behavior. Dare I say it, Star Trek Now is?


This is just nonsense. Seriously, WTF are you smoking. I want some.


Good naysaying. Please show the proof of this statement.


Your leaps in reasoning and assumtions would span the grand canyon.


No... Your inability to shift paradigms make you think this. If you ever accomplish the shift, you will see the progression.



Well - and please don't get confused here - abundance means effectively infinite resources overall, because though specialty items may be scarce, materials to richly provide for everyone's material needs (food, clothing, shelter) exceed by an order of magnitude what we actually need.


What. The. Sh*t. Seriously. "effectively infinite" would *have* to mean inifinite abundance in every perceiveable form, if 'effectively' is to mean 'almost totally infinite'. And yet I could provide 10 scarcity paradigms not solved by your super robots off the top of my head. Lobster. Salmon. Bison. Parrots. Genius. ect ect.


Where do You get that from? Really. If there is more than One can use, it is EFFECTIVELY infinite. Not LITERALLY infinite. Can We produce far more food than We consume? Yes we can. Can We produce more clothing than We need or use? Yes. Yes We can. Can We produce more shelters than We need? Yes. Indeed. Can We therefore richly supply all needs? Yes. Effectively infinite, they are, because there is more that We can use.

You did not think of 10 scarcity PARADIGMS, sweetheart. You thought of 10 specifics which might be scarce in a rich abundance of necessities. You may not get to eat lobster, but you will eat, and you will eat fresh, organic, nutritious food. Or is it better to have people starving because you can't have a specialty item?


That we could house and feed everyone (something that is doeable now under a free monetary system) does not = 'effectively infinite.'


If there's more than we can use, it's EFFECTIVELY infinite. Or do you not understand the definition of "effectively?" And though it is doable, any efforts will be thwarted by special interests looking out for their market share, or trying to get more money, or scamming to get money, or lack of motivation because there's no money... In other words, with money, it would look like it does.



True, but if it becomes unnecessary, why bother? (Again, I never said justly exchange of energy was a problem. Only that because of a scarcity of energy, Humans devised a method of exchange, money, and because of how We interact relative to it, We are frequently drawn into LOVE of it such that We forsake Ethics.


So justly earned exchange of energy is perfectly compatible with eithics. Gotcha.


Never said it wasn't. Just that if You want to get rid of evil, you need to remove the soil it grows in.



But the whole premise of a business is based in slavery. You HAVE to have wage slaves to give the energy needed to do whatever it is you're dog, the return of which feeds the money structure around the energy extraction itself.


What a load of rubbish. You constantly attempt to change the meanings of words for some sort of dramatic effect. SLAVE = INVOLUNTARY. FREE = VOLUNTARY.


That is the illusion They promote - but it is NOT voluntary if one HAS to do it to survive. It is a coercion.


The whole premise of business (VOLUNTARY) is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SLAVERY. (INVOLUNTARY)


I seem to recall many a business that used outright slaves. Nothing inherently voluntary in operating a business. Now They give Us the money, create an illusion of "free will" and force Us into positions We would not choose if We had the freedom to choose. Now We have to administer Our slavery instead of them.


I CHOOSE to accept the terms of my current employer, and my laborer CHOOSES to accept the terms I offer him. Anything besides our voluntary consent is beyond your right to judge.


And I don't get to choose my preferred field of interest because I ran out of money and could not complete the schooling I needed for that pursuit. I am forced into other areas to eke out a living, letting others live richly off my efforts and poverty.



Yes, some energy is expended by those in the support system (for which they are compensated, mostly as higher paid slaves), while those at the top reap the bulk of the slaves' energy/money.


Slavery is being FORCED to give the government half + of your produced earnings.


I agree there. Both governments and corporations steal in some fashion.



As for going into business, is this something you want to do to make money? Or is it something that happens to make money that you love to do?


I can assure you my dayjob is not my passion. (maybe arguing with you is
) I do what I do in order to sustain my existence. Bonus points to those who do so doing what they are passionate about.


And that is what I am talking about. Where you don't need to work to sustain your existence but can follow your bliss, and making things better if you see a chance to do so. Bonus to everyOne.


Perhaps I will cut this short as its getting late and Im not communicating in a civil way atm.


Well, I have no issues with your communications. Except where you claim agreement where there is none... [grin]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I enjoy it as it allows me to hone my ability to put forth the paradigm shift - away from working as necessity and towards bliss for all.
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags again
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: and again
edit on 4/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: Once more



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Ok so I totally just wrote a paper about this and how teaching the way of Humanism we can all be connected and share a common goal...One man really gave me the riot act when I said we must eliminate money though...He asked what culture was happy and didn't have money...I gave him some example like tribes in Papua and Africa...but he still thought I was nuts....
Nevertheless, I think what you wrote is beautiful, but I agree with others, we need dedicated people and we need a common area or meeting grounds....a commune of sorts to start this new system and branch out after we've become familiar in the new ways...Simply identifying as a party member will not suffice! Love and Light



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by secretagentwomyn
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Ok so I totally just wrote a paper about this and how teaching the way of Humanism we can all be connected and share a common goal...One man really gave me the riot act when I said we must eliminate money though...He asked what culture was happy and didn't have money...I gave him some example like tribes in Papua and Africa...but he still thought I was nuts....
Nevertheless, I think what you wrote is beautiful, but I agree with others, we need dedicated people and we need a common area or meeting grounds....a commune of sorts to start this new system and branch out after we've become familiar in the new ways...Simply identifying as a party member will not suffice! Love and Light



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   


Gadzooks, dude, Did I forget the word "meaningful" again. Sorry. Money represents meaningful energy expended. The value we place on that energy expended varies. I never agreed (though you keep telling me I did) that money = value to others. No. Money can be used as a gauge to determine what value any given One places on anything. Now We're back to you claiming I agreed with something I did not.
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Ok well its been fun but I simply cant validate this discussion any further by pretending this massive and cruicial contradiction doesnt exist, especially because your whole argument seems to rest on it.

Let me state this simply. MEANINGFUL = VALUE TO OTHERS. Thus you are in contradiction when you state that money =/ value, but instead = 'meaningful energy expended'.

Translation = 'ENERGY EXPENDED THAT IS MEANINFUL TO OTHERS.' Thus MONEY = VALUE TO OTHERS. Your distinction between *meaningful* and *value* is arbitrary and meaningless.

In other words, something of value to others must be meaninful to others, and something of meaning to others must have value to others.

I realize that admitting that money is simply and free exchange of value between willing partners and is thus GOOD shatters your false anti money premise and thus you cannot ever admit that you might be in contradiction. That is, unless, you posessed a truly powerful mind that could assimilate lessons and correct falsehoods the moment they were detected. (^as is illustrated above)

So I challenge you, as one thinker to another, to answer plainly this question:

1 - Does money represent *energy expended*? (joules, sweat, calories ect) (this is objectively measured by energy input)

OR

2 - Does money represent *others* meaningful value placed on said energy and time expenditure? (this is objectively measured by the monetary value of the meaningful energy expended)

The answers are mutually exclusive so a simple 1 or 2 will do.

To not answer in a plain fashion (or correctly show my false choice, which i believe you cannot as per the above logic) is to sacrifice any of the considerable intellectual capital or intergrity you posess, in this random posters eyes, anyways.

Either way, its been fun. If you respond to my request to clarify your contradiction with more contradiction, this will be my last post.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf



Gadzooks, dude, Did I forget the word "meaningful" again. Sorry. Money represents meaningful energy expended. The value we place on that energy expended varies. I never agreed (though you keep telling me I did) that money = value to others. No. Money can be used as a gauge to determine what value any given One places on anything. Now We're back to you claiming I agreed with something I did not.
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Ok well its been fun but I simply cant validate this discussion any further by pretending this massive and cruicial contradiction doesnt exist, especially because your whole argument seems to rest on it.

Let me state this simply. MEANINGFUL = VALUE TO OTHERS. Thus you are in contradiction when you state that money =/ value, but instead = 'meaningful energy expended'.


No contradiction. "Meaningful" does not mean "objective." Although money represents meaningful energy expended, it does not follow that the value is always the same. Nor that everyone places value on the work done. Just that someone does. Money = meaningful energy expended, upon which we attach an arbitrary value.


Translation = 'ENERGY EXPENDED THAT IS MEANINFUL TO OTHERS.' Thus MONEY = VALUE TO OTHERS. Your distinction between *meaningful* and *value* is arbitrary and meaningless.


Not so. Money = representation of meaningful energy expended. Value is how much We subjectively place on the particular energy expended, defining the framework for pricing. Though the two - meaningful and value - are related, they are not the same thing.


In other words, something of value to others must be meaninful to others, and something of meaning to others must have value to others.


Yes, but that just demonstrates their relationship. Something may have meaning to many, but the value placed on that meaning can vary widely. It may be that the meaning is seen as having little value - the creation of a "chick flick," for example. To all, it has meaning - but the value is not placed identically. Some may not spend the time and money to see it. Some may go see it five times. And then buy the DVD when it comes out.


I realize that admitting that money is simply and free exchange of value between willing partners and is thus GOOD shatters your false anti money premise and thus you cannot ever admit that you might be in contradiction. That is, unless, you posessed a truly powerful mind that could assimilate lessons and correct falsehoods the moment they were detected. (^as is illustrated above)


You have hardly proven my stance false. So perhaps You should own that remark. As in, "...your premise that I see as false and anti money..." I cannot admit that I am in contradiction because I am not, as I just demonstrated above.

I am unclear what that last sentence is about.


So I challenge you, as one thinker to another, to answer plainly this question:

1 - Does money represent *energy expended*? (joules, sweat, calories ect) (this is objectively measured by energy input)

OR

2 - Does money represent *others* meaningful value placed on said energy and time expenditure? (this is objectively measured by the monetary value of the meaningful energy expended)


Number one. But there is no set value on the meaning. The joules expended create the money (as long as value is greater than zero to someone) - but how much depends on the value placed on the expended energy, so number two comes into play. (Time is not a consideration - it, like the number of joules, plays no part in determining the value of the meaningful work.)


The answers are mutually exclusive so a simple 1 or 2 will do.


Actually, they're not exactly. Because there is a relationship between meaning and value, they cannot be extricated. Both play a part in economics, but before value is set for the meaning of a given work, the work is creating something upon which the meaning can be determined and any value then set to determine the amount of money the work represents.


To not answer in a plain fashion (or correctly show my false choice, which i believe you cannot as per the above logic) is to sacrifice any of the considerable intellectual capital or intergrity you posess, in this random posters eyes, anyways.


I'm doing my best.


Either way, its been fun. If you respond to my request to clarify your contradiction with more contradiction, this will be my last post.


Well... If you see value and energy expended as being the same, I will bet you will see "contradictions" in this. I hope not. I hope I clarified the distinction.

It has been fun, I agree.

The only issue I really have is that I brought up that old lady three times, I believe, and You skirted her like a plague. What do You suggest for a woman who is in a very desperate job market, who cannot get a job in the fierce competition, who applies avidly but is never hired.

What do you do? Leave Her to starve?



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   


No contradiction. "Meaningful" does not mean "objective." Although money represents meaningful energy expended, it does not follow that the value is always the same.


Perhaps we should have discussed definitions off the bat. We might have saved a lot of time and miscomunication.

In the context of money (and thus exchange between parties), 'meaningful' and 'value' are interchangable. No object of 'meaning' could be without 'value' to an interested trading partner, and nothing that is 'valuble' could be 'meaningless' to anyone who would wish to trade for anything.

A pair of shoes has 'value' to me because it 'means' I will be able to walk around town, and a new computer is 'meaningful' to me because its 'value' allows me to have this discussion with you.

Conversely, you offering me a handful of sand has no 'value' to me, as your offering is 'meaningless' when I consider that were standing on a beach. Just as my offer to trade you H2O is without 'value' and is thus 'meaningless' when we are standing next to a kitchen tap.

Value/meaning is determined by the trading partner/s. How this value/meaning is determined is irrelevant to the bottom line. Energy expended is only meaningful to the degree in which it bids up the price of whatever is being traded for.



Nor that everyone places value on the work done. Just that someone does. Money = meaningful energy expended, upon which we attach an arbitrary value.


The only relevant factor when considering the value of something measured in dollars is *what someone is willing to pay for it*.



Not so. Money = representation of meaningful energy expended. Value is how much We subjectively place on the particular energy expended, defining the framework for pricing. Though the two - meaningful and value - are related, they are not the same thing.


Please define 'meaningful energy expended' without reference to "Value is how much We subjectively place on the particular energy expended"

You cannot draw a random and arbitray line between meaning (value to others) and value (meaning to others). They are one in the same, and you have not been able to convince me otherwise.

Try this: give me an example of a possible voluntary trade between parties that is meaningful, but not valuble. Or show me a situation where an exchange is made with an object of value, but that object is also meaningless to the interested parties.




Yes, but that just demonstrates their relationship. Something may have meaning to many, but the value placed on that meaning can vary widely.


This is *why* we have money.



It may be that the meaning is seen as having little value - the creation of a "chick flick," for example. To all, it has meaning - but the value is not placed identically. Some may not spend the time and money to see it. Some may go see it five times. And then buy the DVD when it comes out.


Im not sure what your point is, but we can both agree here that the 'chick flick' in question would never have been produced if it was expected to lose money.



You have hardly proven my stance false. So perhaps You should own that remark. As in, "...your premise that I see as false and anti money..." I cannot admit that I am in contradiction because I am not, as I just demonstrated above.


Meaning must have value to be meaningful, and value must have meaning if it is to be valuble. Your distinction between the two is arbitrary and thus contradictary.



I am unclear what that last sentence is about.


It means that the wisest are those who do not assert what they do not know.






Number one. But there is no set value on the meaning.


OK either you didnt understand the option, or youre being deliberatly obtuse. Option 1 explicitly required that value would be measured in energy expended, which is a set value.



The joules expended create the money (as long as value is greater than zero to someone) - but how much depends on the value placed on the expended energy, so number two comes into play.
(Time is not a consideration - it, like the number of joules, plays no part in determining the value of the meaningful work.)

So why werent you just clear in saying number 2 is correct?

Im sorry, but at this point Im starting to wonder if youre trolling me, and having a good laugh. I would actually prefer this.

Option 1 was money = joules, which you agreed with. You then went on, in your next breath, to state with firmness that "(Time is not a consideration - it, like the number of joules, plays no part in determining the value of the meaningful work.)"

Surely you can see that you chose both option 1, and option 2, with certainty?



Actually, they're not exactly. Because there is a relationship between meaning and value, they cannot be extricated. Both play a part in economics, but before value is set for the meaning of a given work, the work is creating something upon which the meaning can be determined and any value then set to determine the amount of money the work represents.


And meaningless work has no value. This has been covered above.



I'm doing my best.


If i felt you were doing your best I wouldnt be so insistent that you do better.



The only issue I really have is that I brought up that old lady three times, I believe, and You skirted her like a plague. What do You suggest for a woman who is in a very desperate job market, who cannot get a job in the fierce competition, who applies avidly but is never hired.


I fully accept and agree with the argument, dare i say fact, that there are some members of humanity that are unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their own. I also accept that a functional society must have an aswer to the question 'but what about grandma/little timmy?'

I admit that I do not have a universal answer to this question that could satify all. Afterall, if I did, that would be a great argument for the State, as you could just vote for me to solve all the problems of the elderly. I dont know how they should be cared for in a free society, I just know that they should be, by some means.

What I *do* know is that violence is the *worst* possible way to solve this problem. Violence, while effective in the short run for the guys behind the gun, always results in an ever increasing spiral of destruction that always hurts the most amount of people and causes the most amount of harm, and this ruin is always by order of magnitude more destructive than the initial problem may have caused, that force was sanctioned in order to cure.

So of course I dont want to see my fellow humans suffer, I just will not condone the use of force as a bandaid solution to the percieved problem. The initiation of the use of force is a universal moral evil, and thus I cannot propose some law or plan that everyone would be compelled to abide by in order to satisfy your anxiety to my proposed freedom.

I dont know what should be done to help granny, nor *can i know*. The only people who can care for her effectively are her loved ones and close friends. Failing that, private charities or 'friendly societies' might be a solution, as they have proved effective in the past in the absence of a government enforced welfare state.

But in your world, such problems like 'food' and such are a thing of the past, so I dont know how we got bogged down into my mundane and backwards world of 'scarcity'. Why bother discussing the ethics of a finite system when infinite resources is just a few short years away? Surely in abundance, granny has a roboid for every task she cant do anymore, and maybe even some cybernetic implants that will allow her to garden well past her century mark~



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf


No contradiction. "Meaningful" does not mean "objective." Although money represents meaningful energy expended, it does not follow that the value is always the same.


Perhaps we should have discussed definitions off the bat. We might have saved a lot of time and miscomunication.

In the context of money (and thus exchange between parties), 'meaningful' and 'value' are interchangable. No object of 'meaning' could be without 'value' to an interested trading partner, and nothing that is 'valuble' could be 'meaningless' to anyone who would wish to trade for anything.


I disagree. "Meaningful" just means that some [undefined] value is placed by at least one Individual. "Value" is a variable as to how much that meaningful result is worth. Objects or results are meaningful if one or more Individuals assign meaning irrespective of the value then given, and the assignment of value, though intertwined with meaning, is an overlay We place on meaning. You are correct that if We find meaning We overlay a value We each ourselves assign. But they are not interchangeable.


A pair of shoes has 'value' to me because it 'means' I will be able to walk around town, and a new computer is 'meaningful' to me because its 'value' allows me to have this discussion with you.


A pair of shoes has meaning to You, and You therefore overlay a value on them in terms of some recompense - how much You're willing to pay.


Conversely, you offering me a handful of sand has no 'value' to me, as your offering is 'meaningless' when I consider that were standing on a beach. Just as my offer to trade you H2O is without 'value' and is thus 'meaningless' when we are standing next to a kitchen tap.


If I offer You a hand full of sand that offer has no meaning to You if You can get it for free, and therefore You overlay no value upon it. Sure. This is all the basis of economics...which, as I have said...I understand VERY well.


Value/meaning is determined by the trading partner/s. How this value/meaning is determined is irrelevant to the bottom line. Energy expended is only meaningful to the degree in which it bids up the price of whatever is being traded for.


Yes, a trade will not take place if one or more of the parties sees no meaning in the offered goods or recompense. If both see meaning, each will overlay a value on that meaning - and if the values coincide, a trade will take place. If they are disparate, no trade will take place. Again. Economics.



Nor that everyone places value on the work done. Just that someone does. Money = meaningful energy expended, upon which we attach an arbitrary value.


The only relevant factor when considering the value of something measured in dollars is *what someone is willing to pay for it*.


Right. And that is arbitrary. Value is an arbitrary overlay that often coincides with others' arbitrary overlays therein allowing trade to take place.



Not so. Money = representation of meaningful energy expended. Value is how much We subjectively place on the particular energy expended, defining the framework for pricing. Though the two - meaningful and value - are related, they are not the same thing.


Please define 'meaningful energy expended' without reference to "Value is how much We subjectively place on the particular energy expended"


Energy expended that one or more individuals appreciate for any reason.


You cannot draw a random and arbitray line between meaning (value to others) and value (meaning to others). They are one in the same, and you have not been able to convince me otherwise.[/qiote]

Meaning is NOT value to others. Meaning prompts the overlay of value. Value is NOT meaning to others. It is the overlay of worth given to that meaning.


Try this: give me an example of a possible voluntary trade between parties that is meaningful, but not valuble. Or show me a situation where an exchange is made with an object of value, but that object is also meaningless to the interested parties.


Since value only exists RELATIVE TO meaning, the above is an absurd request. Just saying.



Yes, but that just demonstrates their relationship. Something may have meaning to many, but the value placed on that meaning can vary widely.


This is *why* we have money.


No. Why We have money is to account for meaningful energy expended. Money is but one method of value assignment. Barter, personal satisfaction, good relationships, betterment, all can be used for this purpose.



It may be that the meaning is seen as having little value - the creation of a "chick flick," for example. To all, it has meaning - but the value is not placed identically. Some may not spend the time and money to see it. Some may go see it five times. And then buy the DVD when it comes out.


Im not sure what your point is, but we can both agree here that the 'chick flick' in question would never have been produced if it was expected to lose money.


My point is that meaning exists for all in some capacity - but the value assigned differs (or can differ) radically. One might not pay to see the movie, but if One's partner places high value on the movie, One might watch the DVD with One's partner, offering that time in exchange for a better relationship. The movie still has a meaning of some degree, just not as much value is placed as the partner places.



You have hardly proven my stance false. So perhaps You should own that remark. As in, "...your premise that I see as false and anti money..." I cannot admit that I am in contradiction because I am not, as I just demonstrated above.


Meaning must have value to be meaningful, and value must have meaning if it is to be valuble. Your distinction between the two is arbitrary and thus contradictary.


No. Meaning comes first, and then a value overlay is assigned. So... No. My distinction is valid and not at all contradictory.



I am unclear what that last sentence is about.


It means that the wisest are those who do not assert what they do not know.


True. And your point?



Number one. But there is no set value on the meaning.


OK either you didnt understand the option, or youre being deliberatly obtuse. Option 1 explicitly required that value would be measured in energy expended, which is a set value.


No... I am saying that value CANNOT be measured - except in terms of what any given Individual assigns it to be. It is not measured in energy expended. Nothing is measured economically in energy expended. But money represents arbitrarily meaningful energy expended, and the price reflects the overlay of value on that meaningful energy expenditure.



The joules expended create the money (as long as value is greater than zero to someone) - but how much depends on the value placed on the expended energy, so number two comes into play. (Time is not a consideration - it, like the number of joules, plays no part in determining the value of the meaningful work.)


So why werent you just clear in saying number 2 is correct?


Because it's not.


Im sorry, but at this point Im starting to wonder if youre trolling me, and having a good laugh. I would actually prefer this.


Neither. But I was wondering the same of you.


Option 1 was money = joules, which you agreed with.


No I didn't. You keep saying things I "agreed with" which I (often specifically) state I do NOT agree with. Money = meaningful energy expended. It may be 1 joule or 100 joules per dollar - this is arbitrary, and then a value on that work is overlaid.


You then went on, in your next breath, to state with firmness that "(Time is not a consideration - it, like the number of joules, plays no part in determining the value of the meaningful work.)"


Uh, yeah. Because I DID NOT AGREE as You are saying I did.


Surely you can see that you chose both option 1, and option 2, with certainty?


As I recall, I said neither and both - as aspects of each do not apply and aspects of each do.



Actually, they're not exactly. Because there is a relationship between meaning and value, they cannot be extricated. Both play a part in economics, but before value is set for the meaning of a given work, the work is creating something upon which the meaning can be determined and any value then set to determine the amount of money the work represents.


And meaningless work has no value. This has been covered above.


Yeah, but that doesn't mean meaning and value are interchangeable.



I'm doing my best.


If i felt you were doing your best I wouldnt be so insistent that you do better.


Well, insist all You want, this is My best and this is what You get.



The only issue I really have is that I brought up that old lady three times, I believe, and You skirted her like a plague. What do You suggest for a woman who is in a very desperate job market, who cannot get a job in the fierce competition, who applies avidly but is never hired.


I fully accept and agree with the argument, dare i say fact, that there are some members of humanity that are unable to take care of themselves through no fault of their own. I also accept that a functional society must have an aswer to the question 'but what about grandma/little timmy?'

I admit that I do not have a universal answer to this question that could satify all. Afterall, if I did, that would be a great argument for the State, as you could just vote for me to solve all the problems of the elderly. I dont know how they should be cared for in a free society, I just know that they should be, by some means.


Not an argument for the State. Argument for the abundance paradigm, where there is no One in control per se, where any can, through expertise and drive, control the solving of problems, where there is no One "unemployed" because no One needs to work except as Their own Heart leads Them. In this solution, Our present "needy" will have no needs unmet.


What I *do* know is that violence is the *worst* possible way to solve this problem. Violence, while effective in the short run for the guys behind the gun, always results in an ever increasing spiral of destruction that always hurts the most amount of people and causes the most amount of harm, and this ruin is always by order of magnitude more destructive than the initial problem may have caused, that force was sanctioned in order to cure.


Oh, never violence or coercion. Add the energy of the plenum, instill the Betterment Ethic, produce the central site, and get the word out about it all, and all the coercion of having to find some job to survive, expending energy to others' profits, and so forth will dissipate, leaving in its place the chance to pursue life as is interesting, plenty of organic food, and freedom (and capability) to travel.


So of course I dont want to see my fellow humans suffer, I just will not condone the use of force as a bandaid solution to the percieved problem. The initiation of the use of force is a universal moral evil, and thus I cannot propose some law or plan that everyone would be compelled to abide by in order to satisfy your anxiety to my proposed freedom.


Um... Since there is no force whatsoever in what I propose... Why do you mention (seemingly non-sequitur) "[My] anxiety?" My actual plan? Add plenum energy, focus on robots to make Human slavery obsolete, set up a central governance site driven by Individual contribution, insist on the three Laws (how basic can it be, eh?), teach the Betterment Ethic, insist on organics in Our fields (as it stands now, profit overrides health), and let go.

Yup. Just let go. Society will take care of itself.


I dont know what should be done to help granny, nor *can i know*. The only people who can care for her effectively are her loved ones and close friends. Failing that, private charities or 'friendly societies' might be a solution, as they have proved effective in the past in the absence of a government enforced welfare state.


Or... Raise everyOne's standard of living such that granny has the option of doing nothing, going to see the Pyramids around the world, finding a mentor for something She loves, spending time with Her family, or whatever else pleases Her, without worry of hunger, exposure or lack of help if She needs it.

When the economy is as it is now - failing - there is no help for Granny. Granny and multitudes upon multitudes more - billions and billion, to quote Carl Sagan - will have no help whatsoever when the currency collapses (hyperinflates) with no energy coming in to fill the void. That is why My Ideas are so important to spread. Now.


But in your world, such problems like 'food' and such are a thing of the past, so I dont know how we got bogged down into my mundane and backwards world of 'scarcity'. Why bother discussing the ethics of a finite system when infinite resources is just a few short years away? Surely in abundance, granny has a roboid for every task she cant do anymore, and maybe even some cybernetic implants that will allow her to garden well past her century mark~


Or insights and cures into Human health and aging, suppressed by the PTB for profit and control, will be released...

Point is... If these ideas do not spread, the money system will collapse, civil disorder will ensue, TPTB will establish martial law, a new currency - the Amero - will be introduced in NA, and We will still be slaves but in a corporo-fascist state. So it is imperative that the Ideas spread, lest the State become ever more a Demon on this planet.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'll score you many a point for the above post. Upon review, I did indeed state that value and meaning were interchangeable synonyms without distinction, and you indeed aced me and called my fallacy. Nice shot. I withdraw any posts resting on that premise.

But it was not entirely untrue, as while the two are not the same, they do describe two aspects of the same action; the action of exchange.

Meaning, as you correctly pointed out, is an arbitrary value placed on some material object. Its meaning to the owner may determine its value to him, but that does not mean it will be valuable in trade to others. ex. If I have what I think is a magic seashell that I found on my sixth birthday, that is invaluble to me based on its emotional meaning, does not mean that that same shell would have any value to a trader.

Thus meaning can exist without value, but value cannot exist without meaning.

So to clarify, 'meaning' describes the arbitrary 'value' placed on a material object by an individual, while 'value' describes the objective measurement(measured in objective monetary units, aka cold hard cash) of the 'meaning' of the object to other parties.

Thus 'meaning' is what *i* want, and 'value' is what *they* want.

or

meaning = subjective (measured in feelings)

while

value = objective (measured in numbers, which are objective)

Thus if parties wish to exchange scarce resources, they need an objective and measurable standard to facilitate this.

That objective standard is called money. If voluntary trading of privately owned scarce resources is not immoral and is indeed required for living, the object that facilitates this also cannot be said to be inherently evil.

Thus, if you believe humans should be allow to 'own' things, and in consequence have exclusive rights to that which they 'own', and one of those rights is to trade it to another for whatever reason the 'owner' sees fit...if you agree with this (and your own platform expressly protects human property) then you simply cannot find that money, which is simply a facilitator of trade (which is moral) to be inherently immoral and the root of all societies woes.

Since you accept non aggression, and private property, you must also accept the consequences of these principles we both find to be true. Money is simply a symptom of freedom.

In conclusion, I find your heart to be in the right place. (and you may not share the same assessment towards me) Since you accept the axiom of non aggression, Im perfectly happy to discuss how this should be implemented, or more to the point, how it should look in a better world. We both hold an almost desperate hope for the future and I think a deep empathy for humanity as a whole. (although you probably dont think I give a damn about anyone besides myself. This is only half true
)

We both recoil at the evils of the wider world, and we both place our identity not just into our immediate environment like most, in a constant state of reaction. We both get that theres a wider and deeper picture to reality that directly effects our day to day every waking moment and runs, as some sort of distorted background noise, through our very thoughts and the way we see the world. You and I *get it*! We get that theres a lie that all the other lies gravitate around. We are acutely aware of its dark tugs on us, and its complete and invisible thrall over the great majority of people around us. We awaken, like Neo, to its all encompassing blackness, and we are horrified by its seeming totality.

Like Neo, when we first awaken to the Truth of the Lie, at first we flail, reject, deny. We devise intricate layers of self deception and avoidance to avoid our responsibility to the truth. Maybe we imagine the whole thing is nothing more than an entertaining fantasy. We smugly reassure ourselves that, although our intellect accepts it, in reality, it cant be real.

To come to my point that has just crystallized in my mind while writing this post, I think that somewhere along the journey to true wisdom (which is simply non contradiction, ever, or A=A, which I am faaar from attaining) some of us, and I can certainly attest to this myself...some of us take a side road. A shortcut to wisdom, and thus salvation from the certain evil of the darkness we cannot quite yet accept.

Thus, and this is just pure speculation and probably a healthy dose of projection, when we wont allow ourselves to know the true nature of the problem, (which, terrifyingly, turns out to be *ourselves*) we instead gravitate towards fantastical solutions to our fantastical problems.

It seems to me that the principle that a schoolboy believes when reading comics about superheros is also present in many ideas we project onto one another as adults. As individuals, we feel powerless and weak in the face of the undefined blackness; proposing a system, any system no matter how improbable, that could manage our feelings of powerlessness could be a valuable survival strategy in an irrational world.

I think you might see where this is leading, so let me say it plainly and without any kind of condensation or ill will whatsoever. I think your proposed system is illogical and based on flawed premises. (mainly that removing money will cure mankind.) In the same way that religious people place their salvation in the afterlife, you seem, to me, to place yours *only* in the future, and more specifically in unrealized robots that will solve every human woe. To me, resting your *entire* argument and world view on something that does not yet *exist* is fantastical thinking, and only in fantasy does the logic of the fantastical apply,

You have absolutely *no way* of knowing how the evolution of man will play out, when he will aquire robots and to whom those robots will belong, and how they will be used. You have nothing other than an assertion that said robots will eliminate almost all scarcity, (without providing how remaining scarce goods will be allocated without money.) an assertion that you have no way of verifying until the robots arrive. Indeed the opposite of your utopia could be true - the robot armies could perhaps totally enslave man once again.

My problem with your proposal is that it is essentially reactionary, and irrationally so imo. You react to the evil in the world by projecting utopia, but no problem can be solved without addressing its root causes, and not just its symptoms. Robots and nanotech cannot solve the problem of trauma based child rearing which leads to violent and authoritarian adults. Give your proposed technology to the people of today and we would destroy ourselves in a week.

The core is deeper than you ascribe. The core is blacker more deeply rooted than you would admit. The core lies in mans desire to live in fantasy instead of dealing with reality. The rotten core of our collective soul lies in our unwillingness to yeild to reality, in all situations, and not to dream up fictional solutions to our fictional problems.

Money is not the problem. Money as the root of all evil is a convenient goat perpetrated by all those who would not look at the truth, or know the truth too well. You yourself have admitted that moral people may trade using money and remain moral. Thus by implication you must admit that mans moral nature is the problem, and his use of it just a symptom. Thus, if money is eliminated, mans immoral capacity would simply manifest in a different form, and you will have made no progress.

Thus it is mans moral nature, starting with child rearing that we must prioritize. Identifying the cause of evil (irrationality due to traumatic childhood and no education in rationality) must be the very first thing sorted, and since you must believe as per your ideology that money is the source of evil and not the effect, we cannot progress any further.

A future enlightened society populated by people raised peacefully and with critical thinking skills could benefit hugely from a money based economy, and conversely, our current generation of trauma wounded and philosophically illiterate people, given the power of futuretech, would almost certainly destroy itself for lack of wisdom. Look at our futuristic world now, and observe how we humans use our toys. Eliminating money will not eliminate evil.

Anyways, late night tangential rant, take it for what its worth.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'll score you many a point for the above post. Upon review, I did indeed state that value and meaning were interchangeable synonyms without distinction, and you indeed aced me and called my fallacy. Nice shot. I withdraw any posts resting on that premise.

But it was not entirely untrue, as while the two are not the same, they do describe two aspects of the same action; the action of exchange.


Agreed. One exists relative to the other.


meaning = subjective (measured in feelings)

while

value = objective (measured in numbers, which are objective)


Value, too, is subjective, but We can objectively state a given person's value of something in terms of money or other mode of expression.


Thus if parties wish to exchange scarce resources, they need an objective and measurable standard to facilitate this.


Mutually agreed upon subjective evaluations. Sometimes all that could be is doing something for the smile on One's child's face. I am not disputing that some form of gratification will not take place in abundance. If You read The Abundance Paradigm, You will see that an economy of giving develops. As no basic need is unmet (and is met royally), arts and crafts become valued and cherished when given. Teachers become valued. The sciences become valued. And there is no motive to manipulate masses. War is no longer profitable, and few really want to participate.


That objective standard is called money.


The agreed upon gauge. It standardizes nothing.


If voluntary trading of privately owned scarce resources is not immoral and is indeed required for living, the object that facilitates this also cannot be said to be inherently evil.


And again, money is not the problem. It is not evil. The LOVE of money is evil. If everyone were willing to trade honestly, fairly, openly and thoughtfully...having money around would not be an issue. BUT... People tend to love it. They tend to have a price. And secret, dishonest, unfair and thoughtless "trading" - for the LOVE of money - takes place all the time. Rampantly.


Thus, if you believe humans should be allow to 'own' things, and in consequence have exclusive rights to that which they 'own', and one of those rights is to trade it to another for whatever reason the 'owner' sees fit...if you agree with this (and your own platform expressly protects human property) then you simply cannot find that money, which is simply a facilitator of trade (which is moral) to be inherently immoral and the root of all societies woes.


I'm saying that, with plenum energy, no need for slave labor (robots), and the Interweb, We will not need money. The owner if something is welcome to trade it if (S)He wishes - but that trade will be unnecessary for survival. Unnecessary for rich comfort, even. Perhaps (S)He wants appreciation and therefore "trades" (gifts) the item in exchange for that appreciation.


Since you accept non aggression, and private property, you must also accept the consequences of these principles we both find to be true. Money is simply a symptom of freedom.


Money is a symptom of needing to account for meaningful energy expended. With abundant energy, money is no longer needed. (And some very repressive regimes have used and do use money - money facilitates Their control.)


In conclusion, I find your heart to be in the right place. (and you may not share the same assessment towards me) Since you accept the axiom of non aggression, Im perfectly happy to discuss how this should be implemented, or more to the point, how it should look in a better world. We both hold an almost desperate hope for the future and I think a deep empathy for humanity as a whole. (although you probably dont think I give a damn about anyone besides myself. This is only half true
)


I admit I am unsure how to assess you. [smile] It does seem that We hold hope for the future. I know I hold none for the dollar, though. It's a goner. Better to replace it with energy than another currency which maintains the control the banksters have.


I think you might see where this is leading, so let me say it plainly and without any kind of condensation or ill will whatsoever. I think your proposed system is illogical and based on flawed premises. (mainly that removing money will cure mankind.) In the same way that religious people place their salvation in the afterlife, you seem, to me, to place yours *only* in the future, and more specifically in unrealized robots that will solve every human woe. To me, resting your *entire* argument and world view on something that does not yet *exist* is fantastical thinking, and only in fantasy does the logic of the fantastical apply,


Removing money will not "cure" Humankind. It will remove the motivation for virtually all crime, however. The robots are mostly here in prototype, and many jobs have already been automated. Will these solve all problems? Probably not, but will it radically raise the standard of living for everyone? Yes. Will the problems of "planned obsolescence" and packaging waste disappear? Yes. The list is long.

And comparing my views to religion is like comparing economics to religion, particle physics to religion. One cannot deduce religion. One CAN deduce economics, physics, etc. And long and hard deduction went into My work.


You have absolutely *no way* of knowing how the evolution of man will play out, when he will aquire robots and to whom those robots will belong, and how they will be used.


No... But I could offer a solution and hope it spreads.


You have nothing other than an assertion that said robots will eliminate almost all scarcity, (without providing how remaining scarce goods will be allocated without money.) an assertion that you have no way of verifying until the robots arrive. Indeed the opposite of your utopia could be true - the robot armies could perhaps totally enslave man once again.


The plenum energy will eliminate scarcity by removing the cost of energy down the line until what is there is free. The robots will NOT eliminate scarcity. They will eliminate slavery...IF We have a goal in place - such as The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform offers.


My problem with your proposal is that it is essentially reactionary, and irrationally so imo. You react to the evil in the world by projecting utopia, but no problem can be solved without addressing its root causes, and not just its symptoms. Robots and nanotech cannot solve the problem of trauma based child rearing which leads to violent and authoritarian adults. Give your proposed technology to the people of today and we would destroy ourselves in a week.


Not at all reactionary. Very well considered, analyzed, and contemplated. Stemming from a deep understanding of what money represents and what the addition of plenum energy and a plan would result in. And again... It's not a utopia. Just one hell of a lot better than now.

As for as sociopaths are concerned, We would see no upswing, and likely a radical drop over time. As children are guided to Their bliss, rather than to a mold They need to fit in to make money, with a Betterment Ethic instilled, better rearing will take place.

And if We all had boxes We could plug our computers and appliances into (as a start), I doubt Humans will destroy Themselves.


The core is deeper than you ascribe. The core is blacker more deeply rooted than you would admit. The core lies in mans desire to live in fantasy instead of dealing with reality. The rotten core of our collective soul lies in our unwillingness to yeild to reality, in all situations, and not to dream up fictional solutions to our fictional problems.


Considering that reality is what I hope to affect, I don't see this as applying to Me. Great study and searching took place before I was able to put it all together two years ago. My main desire has been to approach reality, to solve for reality, and did NO dreaming. Just thinking and analysis, contemplation and research, observation and deduction. Nothing more.


Money is not the problem.


You're right. The LOVE of money is the problem.


Money as the root of all evil is a convenient goat perpetrated by all those who would not look at the truth, or know the truth too well.


If They're saying money is the root, They're wrong. The LOVE of money is the root. Money is the soil in which the root grows. Eliminate the soil and the root cannot grow.


You yourself have admitted that moral people may trade using money and remain moral. Thus by implication you must admit that mans moral nature is the problem, and his use of it just a symptom. Thus, if money is eliminated, mans immoral capacity would simply manifest in a different form, and you will have made no progress.


I don't truck with morals. I truck with Ethics. Morals are too arbitrary (is it moral to be female and wearing a bikini in public? Depends who You ask). And no. Humans are weak to money/power/energy. But the soil which allows the root to grow, if removed, would remove the support for the LOVE of money - thereby eliminating virtually all evil. So no. Humans are not "immoral" per se. They are weak to the temptations of money/power/energy, but if they had all the energy They wanted, there would be no motive to act poorly against another for more of it.

So painting Humans with an "immoral" brush is incorrect. Humans are, by and large, loving, giving Beings. Despite the hardships the system of meaningful energy accounting engenders, many shine through as volunteers, as caregivers, as donators, and so on. Many are Ethical despite temptation. BUT...

There are at least 1% (which control all the money) who have used money for very dastardly gains - like selling drugs before they've been fully tested, creating Neotame - from a rat poison! - and ensuring it can be put into foods labeled "organic," plants are made pariah which have an abundance of healing aspects because profit is threatened, prisons are built for profit, cures are hidden, plenum energy extraction methods are hidden, wars are created to make a profit off the death of Others, and so on. Without money, with an abundance of energy, there will be no motivation for these things.


Thus it is mans moral nature, starting with child rearing that we must prioritize. Identifying the cause of evil (irrationality due to traumatic childhood and no education in rationality) must be the very first thing sorted, and since you must believe as per your ideology that money is the source of evil and not the effect, we cannot progress any further.


I agree that Ethics should be taught. But again I say that Humans are mostly wonderful with a weakness for loving money. The "cause" of the evil is the love of money. And there you go saying that I say money is evil. It is NOT. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Until You let go of the idea that I think money is evil, I guess You're right. We cannot progress any further.


A future enlightened society populated by people raised peacefully and with critical thinking skills could benefit hugely from a money based economy, and conversely, our current generation of trauma wounded and philosophically illiterate people, given the power of futuretech, would almost certainly destroy itself for lack of wisdom. Look at our futuristic world now, and observe how we humans use our toys. Eliminating money will not eliminate evil.


What toys have You in mind?

I see many caring about the environment, about poverty, about each Other. Eliminating money would not eliminate all individual issues, I agree. Rape may still occur. Personal feuds - over love, most likely - will not be eliminated. But the encroaching fascist state will be stripped of power and Humans will have Their first taste of true freedom.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by secretagentwomyn
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Ok so I totally just wrote a paper about this and how teaching the way of Humanism we can all be connected and share a common goal...One man really gave me the riot act when I said we must eliminate money though...He asked what culture was happy and didn't have money...I gave him some example like tribes in Papua and Africa...but he still thought I was nuts....
Nevertheless, I think what you wrote is beautiful, but I agree with others, we need dedicated people and we need a common area or meeting grounds....a commune of sorts to start this new system and branch out after we've become familiar in the new ways...Simply identifying as a party member will not suffice! Love and Light



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


First Off S & F
because we need to usurp/overthrow the government or we will be subject and subjugated to eternal slavery if we do not lend credence to your ideas and we must act swiftly and fast to achieve what you have brought forward.

I agree with your Party Idea Humans are shall all be equally treated.

Without money there will be little crime only passion crime

With Technology we can free ourselves from slavery/work and be free to do hobbies/sports activities and such or play etc or work on Space Exploration as a Race together; which i believe is an important goal.

Space exploration should be the main focus instead of War when all the Wars are ended through our/your party we will be able to set space Exploration to full speed is this something you want with the Socio-Party!



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.

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.


Yes i agree with pretty much all your ideas because almost all humans have a sense of empathy and understanding for what other Humans need/want to live without poverty.

But in todays society the materialness is rampant and Girls in particular including men though are incredibly dependent and/or brainwashed to want these material objects and or certain corporations products and/or brands.

We must be rid of this non-sense and free the Human race with the whole Human Race coming together and engineering developing machines together.

We are intelligent enough if we all come together and do this and if not we can have current engineers architects machinists teach people to learn how to construct such.

So we have the labor force to build the Machines.

We must also build machines to maintain the Machines; but we must not become to dependent on the Machines because it makes humanity vulnerable so we may have volunteers; or short time periods humans may be obliged to commit a short period of their time to maintain the machines and/or farming robots (Combines) and/or other things that will gather food and create products for us etc.

As humans we shall be free and together without monetary value no human will be above another.

The humans we dignify will be the humans of great intellect and innovation because they are the humans who strive to seek greatness through enhancing human innovation technology and achievement. Through these we will evolve to become a greater species and more capable of things.

We shall honor these citizens because they are not seeking monetary value but greatness through what i stated above.

This is a great Idea Amaterasu; we must seek to instill this Socio-Party; because with every moment the Elites the hoarders of Wealth and the cause of Disparity and real cause of poverty vs luxury(sumptuous)

In todays present

Money= Freedom

We must work to change this and we will with the Socio-Economic Party

We shall innovate and explore the Universe together as the Human Race and attempt to have a sustainable Earth.




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.


Google is Developing Cars that can drive by their self and such. So this shows the Transportation of Goods to human population centres will be possible. Through robots. We shall have mainframes that control these transportations of goods and volunteers may supervise them. Because people will volunteer especially when there is no work and no need to work when the Robots take over most of the work.

I know you probably know this but a lot of America and developing countries new jobs are about bringing services and being Slaves literally To the Elites and the top 10-1% wealthy of the country. Because many of the jobs of manufacturing/services/etc have been taking over by robots.

Services are the largest industry in the United states/Canada and are they for the sole purpose of Serving people various services but the main intention is too service the few 10-1% of the wealthiest who will buy and/or use the most services to obtain products and/or services.


So we have

This is a huge disparity in the Wealth and wealth can lead to power over other humans and many of the people with wealth can hire hit men to kill humans they don't like or don't agree with them

Police are there to Protect the Elite they serve only to protect the monetary rules of the Society.

The People are living under oppression from the few humans that have the power and wealth to manipulate people and through coercion do as they wish evil or good.

We must remove the current governments but this must all happen to all governments at the same time all humans must unite to overthrow their governments before its too late.

Because there is no other way we will be able to overthrow the power structure of the rich Elites and their Police Gestapo(Protectors) Army (SS-Gestapo).

Then we shall have a new Era in humanity the Era of True freedom after the completion of the Machinations that will service Humanity.

To free us from the slave labor of the Elites.

Then we shall transcend Ascent and become free as humans have always sought throughout our dark past.

The Zeitgeist movies i know are similar to your/our ideas and we may use the ideas from them as well or join them in achieving great things.

They also encourage the end of religion/money/disparity.

We must unite. And strike at the Heart of the Governments. Elites/Power Structure Before tis too late. My friends.

Otherwise we will fall under Fascist Socialistic Totalitarian Rule by the Elites then we shall be subject to slavery for all eternity.

The time is now my friends. July 1st July 4th GO AND PROTEST AND SEEK THE REMOVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT.




edit on 17-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


Ah, someone else who sees what I see. [smile]

Though percentage-wise, "volunteers" will be few, We do not need billions, a few thousand can probably handle any overseeing of robots - and given the number of People who love to mess around with robots...I imagine We will produce these few We need.

Also... Rather than "overthrow" governments, rather than demand "change" in some undefined fashion, demand that electrogravitics be made public. All We need is the plenum energy added - which is adding that which money represents (energy) - and money will dissipate.

I am working now on a piece that demonstrates that once the cost of energy is removed from all things, what is left is both abundant and free. It also will examine how this will affect society through the process of money-need dissipation.

Thank You so much for Your thoughtful post. I hope You pass on these ideas to many others that the ideas may spread.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join