Poverty measure ... doesn't make sense to me

[Katman]

I was making a Penis joke...

You are a penis joke.

[TheDemonLord]

You are a penis joke.

Hows that Closet working out for you?

[Akzle]

I was making a Penis joke...
...

your penis is a joke.

and also probably still 2/3ds the average measure <_<

[ellipsis]

...having a small penis does not preclude you from being a sizeable cunt...

[TheDemonLord]

your penis is a joke.

and also probably still 2/3ds the average measure <_<

I see you're getting comfy with Katman in his Closet.

But by all means - continue thinking about what swings majestically between my legs - I'm secure enough to be flattered.

[Banditbandit]

...having a small penis does not preclude you from being a sizeable cunt...

Yeah - we have the example in Yokel ... who happens to be a dumb cunt as well ..

[Akzle]

As I said - it goes a bit Wonky...

so what you're now saying, is that the 4 things you were previously espousing as global/human nature, are in fact some some horseshit you pulled out of your ass so you could wank on about some irrelevant aspie shit?

jeez dude.

we should catch up for a beer

[Woodman]

Yes....

That's because the complexity of living in mudhuts and grass skirts means that everyone is capable of doing every job in the tribe - once society gets a bit more complex, it doesn't work.

Yes. A planet load of mashman drones would be a completely different prospect

[TheDemonLord]

so what you're now saying, is that the 4 things you were previously espousing as global/human nature, are in fact some some horseshit you pulled out of your ass so you could wank on about some irrelevant aspie shit?

jeez dude.

Well, they are Global - they are found across cultures/tribes that had zero contact with each other. Which speaks to something underlying that we all share within our most nascent psyche - that would be Human Nature.

That there are more than one aspect to Human Nature does mean that with time, things change - however that does not rule out there being a nature in the first place.

There's been some interesting studies with Twins and especially identical Twins separated at Birth - which shows that some traits (IQ) are highly hereditary and others are quite hereditary (such as addiction susceptibility) - this gives further evidence that some of our behaviors have a definitive Genetic component.


we should catch up for a beer

Sure - you can shout this round.

[Akzle]

Well, they are Global - they are found across cultures/tribes that had zero contact with each other. Which speaks to something underlying that we all share within our most nascent psyche - that would be Human Nature.
.

except it isn't cos "it's wonky" and they dont apply to all humans.. so like, actually, not nature.

[TheDemonLord]

except it isn't cos "it's wonky" and they dont apply to all humans.. so like, actually, not nature.

Human Nature > Initial Set of Rules > Societal reinforcement and reinterpretation > Modified set of Rules > Wonky-ness

[jasonu]

your penis is a joke.

and also probably still 2/3ds the average measure <_<

What do you consider average?

[Akzle]

Human Nature > Initial Set of Rules > Societal reinforcement and reinterpretation > Modified set of Rules > Wonky-ness

i don't know any language where that would be syntactically correct.

also your wrong. so fuckup.

[Akzle]

What do you consider average?

well, obviously not a yard.

here, knock yourself out. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+penis+size

[mashman]

Yes. A planet load of mashman drones would be a completely different prospect

It would. Ironically I want you to be a clone of me. Let me explain before you start to build any form of preconception as to what I mean by that.

What is a clone of me? Oh, and before you or anyone starts to think, "Way to take it off-topic again mash.", it's all related. And I do mean ALL of it. Poverty is not someone's opinion. It exists in great numbers around the world. The relativity of it given access to resources in your own locale (street/community/village/region/village etc...) is not relevant in many ways. That the poverty exists i.e. lack of access to enough food/housing/power/fuel/transport etc... is the issue. Don't ignore that fact simply because I'm typing it. That'd be exceptionally fuckin stupid. And exceptionally really isn't a strong enough word to convey just how ridiculous it is to ignore something simply because of the people "presenting" it i.e. Mike Hosking/Gareth Morgan/Ocean/TDL/Husaberk/BDM/Ax/Shamubeel Eaqub/John Key etc... Poverty exists. Let's do this :killingme.

A clone of me is someone who realises that poverty exists and that will consider anything and everything that is put forwards as evidence and measured against what I can see before my eyes. That percentages of people in poverty can drop, it does not automatically follow that the numbers in poverty has dropped, given that a population may have actually grown at a rate that skews the positive yay yay we're curing poverty, the numbers have dropped coz the percentage has dropped. And that's before you consider the veracity of the data being provided that asserts that position. Questionable at best, because it is a statistical calculation, and the slightest change in the right weighting will alter the data dramatically. I know this, because I've played with those kinds of calculations and watched how the data could easily be tweaked. That's 1 thing that a clone of would know.

A clone of me would be a peaceful individual and so on and so forth. I'll stop there instead of rhyming off several thousand of other examples of what a clone of me would be like.

To round things off. Given that you are not your nature, if you can get over that great... but then you're denying the science of the Dunedin Experiment with all of its thousands of researchers that cross just about every discipline there is. It's new thinking in regards to what has come before, because we did believe that there was such a thing called human nature. We found out to the contrary. Whether we were deliberately lied to or not is up for debate. Personally I reckon we have been really rather serious lied to in way too many ways for it all to be considered an accident, but actually choose to act as if mistakes were made because the money changed the outcome. Either way, we've ended up at a situation were the best study in town provided information that states that it's nurture, not nature that defines us. In the very same way, psycopaths are more than likely a product of their environment. Again, and so on and so forth.

There are 10's of millions of RBE advocates all over the globe. They have families. They need a job. They need to do this and that, because they actually have a life that it isn't practical to simply drop given the economic outcomes that would accompany that decision. So them not all "rising" is hardly surprising. That and it is highly likely that a lot of those people would understand that suddenly moving towards an RBE without consideration that that very action could cause serious economic damage and bring about economic sanction and/or embargo etc... Would you really be surprised that they're not "rising" that way either? I'll tell you why though. It's because they're waiting for you to figure it out for yourself and accept that there's a lot of people on this planet, even in NZ, that would happily move towards a planet that doesn't use money. They each have their individual reasons for wanting that. Very sane ones... like wanting to eradicate poverty. By way of example... some genius posted up a poll that showed that over 50% of that forum would happily arse money and move towards something better. I didn't hypnotise them all with my dazzling personality innit, they made their own minds up about it :laugh:

I'll stop there. The picture is way to large to explain without you innerstanding any of the above yourself. Not learning that what I said was true simply, but that looking around you you can see that changing things in certain ways would actually make things better. You choice love.

Love n hugs

Gordon1111

[Ocean1]

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/#historical-poverty-around-the-world

"In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died."


I think capitalism has done spectacularly well, difficult to see where the lust after the reeking corpse of communism comes from.

[mashman]

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/#historical-poverty-around-the-world

"In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, with poverty falling continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time. In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone. A 7-fold increase in the world population would be potentially enough to drive everyone into extreme poverty. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth, we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty.

It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died."

I think capitalism has done spectacularly well, difficult to see where the lust after the reeking corpse of communism comes from.

Where did it state that capitalism was responsible for human being innovating? People got rich simply because they had the money to invest. the idea would have been implemented using a Resource Based Economy to benefit everyone, not corner a market and IP it out of reach of anyone who can't afford it. Capitalism is also responsible for great pollution. Capitalism is also responsible for people producing shit that creates that pollution. Capitalism sees hundreds of millions of people doing shit jobs for shit money day in day out for and ever increasing length of time (calm yourself down, I didn't state that there was anything wrong with advances, just the super retarded way they're being implemented... which is capitalism BTW.). Capitalism sees hospital have budgets for pills that can be produced in minutes, but cost so much that the person can never have them as we need to save more someone elses with a different life threatening illness, for the simple fact that it's cheaper and more effective $ per life. And so on and so forth.


difficult to see

That's because you're myopic.

[eldog]

Where did it state that capitalism was responsible for human being innovating? People got rich simply because they had the money to invest. the idea would have been implemented using a Resource Based Economy to benefit everyone, not corner a market and IP it out of reach of anyone who can't afford it. Capitalism is also responsible for great pollution. Capitalism is also responsible for people producing shit that creates that pollution. Capitalism sees hundreds of millions of people doing shit jobs for shit money day in day out for and ever increasing length of time (calm yourself down, I didn't state that there was anything wrong with advances, just the super retarded way they're being implemented... which is capitalism BTW.). Capitalism sees hospital have budgets for pills that can be produced in minutes, but cost so much that the person can never have them as we need to save more someone elses with a different life threatening illness, for the simple fact that it's cheaper and more effective $ per life. And so on and so forth.



That's because you're myopic.

have you been to China?

[mashman]

have you been to China?

I hear it's a busy place and has grown a little bit over the last 50 years.

[Swoop]

I think capitalism has done spectacularly well, difficult to see where the lust after the reeking corpse of communism comes from.

The only place communism exists nowadays is with dictatorships (African nations, Cuba, North Korea, China) and academia...

[TheDemonLord]

It would. Ironically I want you to be a clone of me. Let me explain before you start to build any form of preconception as to what I mean by that.

You can Explain all you want - but thus Spake every Totalitarian Dictator ever.

"The world would be perfect if everyone were more like me"

If that doesn't truly Terrify someone listening to you (and I do mean Terrify in every sense of the word, not just dramatic flare), then there is something wrong with them.


That the poverty exists i.e. lack of access to enough food/housing/power/fuel/transport etc... is the issue. Don't ignore that fact simply because I'm typing it. That'd be exceptionally fuckin stupid. And exceptionally really isn't a strong enough word to convey just how ridiculous it is to ignore something simply because of the people "presenting" it i.e. Mike Hosking/Gareth Morgan/Ocean/TDL/Husaberk/BDM/Ax/Shamubeel Eaqub/John Key etc... Poverty exists. Let's do this :killingme.

No one has ever said Poverty doesn't exist.

What we are asking is what you define as Poverty:

Being in War-torn Congo, with only the Clothes on your back, no access to food or water = Definitely Poverty
Living in NZ, on the benefit, in a state house and not having enough money to buy Smokes AND food = Not Poverty

And then we are asking how your system will address said poverty - when you consider that Capitalism (for all it's problems) has done a fantastic job of giving the lower classes and standard of living that would have been the envy of the hyper-elite 50 years ago.


To round things off. Given that you are not your nature, if you can get over that great... but then you're denying the science of the Dunedin Experiment with all of its thousands of researchers that cross just about every discipline there is. It's new thinking in regards to what has come before, because we did believe that there was such a thing called human nature. We found out to the contrary. Whether we were deliberately lied to or not is up for debate. Personally I reckon we have been really rather serious lied to in way too many ways for it all to be considered an accident, but actually choose to act as if mistakes were made because the money changed the outcome. Either way, we've ended up at a situation were the best study in town provided information that states that it's nurture, not nature that defines us. In the very same way, psycopaths are more than likely a product of their environment. Again, and so on and so forth.

First off - no one is saying you are 100% Nature - that's stupidity and a Strawman. Hell, even the Dunedin study - which you are flag waving doesn't say (as you infer) that it's 100% Nurture.

In fact, if you read the Studies - all of them point to that it's an interplay Between Nature and Nurture - which by extension means if you hold the Dunedin Study as valid (as you have touted), then you concede that there are behaviors that are the direct result of the Human Genome - to which we refer to as 'Human Nature' - well done Mashie - you've just disproved your argument with your own evidence.

It might help if you actually understood the position that we hold... but keep hoisting up the Strawman.


There are 10's of millions of RBE advocates all over the globe. They have families. They need a job. They need to do this and that, because they actually have a life that it isn't practical to simply drop given the economic outcomes that would accompany that decision. So them not all "rising" is hardly surprising. That and it is highly likely that a lot of those people would understand that suddenly moving towards an RBE without consideration that that very action could cause serious economic damage and bring about economic sanction and/or embargo etc... Would you really be surprised that they're not "rising" that way either? I'll tell you why though. It's because they're waiting for you to figure it out for yourself and accept that there's a lot of people on this planet, even in NZ, that would happily move towards a planet that doesn't use money. They each have their individual reasons for wanting that. Very sane ones... like wanting to eradicate poverty. By way of example... some genius posted up a poll that showed that over 50% of that forum would happily arse money and move towards something better. I didn't hypnotise them all with my dazzling personality innit, they made their own minds up about it :laugh:

Some faith those 10's of Millions must have in their system if they aren't willing to implement.

Never trust an Engineer who refuses to use his own designs....


I'll stop there. The picture is way to large to explain without you innerstanding any of the above yourself. Not learning that what I said was true simply, but that looking around you you can see that changing things in certain ways would actually make things better. You choice love.

Love n hugs

Gordon1111

Oh no - we get they Picture - It's the same old Bourgeois and proletariat dichotomy, railing against the reality Pareto distributed success, Velied in Compassion for the Poor, which only seeks to mask an envious seething hatred of the Rich.

I don't choose 'Love' - I've seen where your love leads us - that Utopia is only ever one more execution away.

[Ocean1]

The only place communism exists nowadays is with dictatorships (African nations, Cuba, North Korea, China)

Dude, ALL communism is a dictatorship.

Some of them don't start out that way, but it rapidly becomes apparent that the productive element stop producting if you bleed them too much. And then the fun starts.


and academia...

It certainly seems there's a link between endemic socialism and professions that have a tenuous link between production and remuneration...

[eldog]

I hear it's a busy place and has grown a little bit over the last 50 years.

You should visit and then report back.
Maybe you will have changed your stance

Same problems just different ways of trying to address them. All have pros and cons

Sounded like cassina replied

[Graystone]

There are 10's of millions of RBE advocates all over the globe. They have families. They need a job. They need to do this and that, because they actually have a life that it isn't practical to simply drop given the economic outcomes that would accompany that decision. So them not all "rising" is hardly surprising. That and it is highly likely that a lot of those people would understand that suddenly moving towards an RBE without consideration that that very action could cause serious economic damage and bring about economic sanction and/or embargo etc... Would you really be surprised that they're not "rising" that way either? I'll tell you why though. It's because they're waiting for you to figure it out for yourself and accept that there's a lot of people on this planet, even in NZ, that would happily move towards a planet that doesn't use money. They each have their individual reasons for wanting that. Very sane ones... like wanting to eradicate poverty. By way of example... some genius posted up a poll that showed that over 50% of that forum would happily arse money and move towards something better. I didn't hypnotise them all with my dazzling personality innit, they made their own minds up about it :laugh:

So what is an RBE?

[mashman]

So what is an RBE?

Simply put. Doing things that need to be done because they need doing and not because they make a profit i.e. giving people free access to the best food that can be grown, for one. It sees the production of stuff for the sake of making money as just that and stops doing it without economic reprisal.

Production. Production will be stopped by the business owner making his/her own mind up as to whether their good/service actually yields a decent ROI in terms of the Planet v's Economy and Economy v's Human Development balances that need to be struck. As there is no money, there is no financial shock.

That covers the basics.

[Graystone]

Simply put. Doing things that need to be done because they need doing and not because they make a profit i.e. giving people free access to the best food that can be grown, for one. It sees the production of stuff for the sake of making money as just that and stops doing it without economic reprisal.

Production. Production will be stopped by the business owner making his/her own mind up as to whether their good/service actually yields a decent ROI in terms of the Planet v's Economy and Economy v's Human Development balances that need to be struck. As there is no money, there is no financial shock.

That covers the basics.

That's just evangelising the preferred outcomes, what actually is an RBE?

[mashman]

That's just evangelising the preferred outcomes, what actually is an RBE?

lol@evangelising. The financial economy has preferred outcomes too.

You do what you choose to do and do it. That is what an RBE is.

[Graystone]

lol@evangelising. The financial economy has preferred outcomes too.

You do what you choose to do and do it. That is what an RBE is.

That's just more evangelising, capitalism also allows you to choose what to do and do it. As does a monarchy, technocracy, theocracy... the point is, the preferred outcomes are not what defines what it is. What it is, defines that.

[Katman]

That's just more evangelising, capitalism also allows you to choose what to do and do it. As does a monarchy, technocracy, theocracy... the point is, the preferred outcomes are not what defines what it is. What it is, defines that.

Perhaps it's just a case of focusing on more important issues than just creating wealth.

[Graystone]

Perhaps it's just a case of focusing on more important issues than just creating wealth.

Perhaps, do you know what and RBE is?

[Katman]

Perhaps, do you know what and RBE is?

Refer my previous post.

[Graystone]

Refer my previous post.

Which was a mindset, not an economy. And is also a mindset that can flourish in (as per my previous post) a myriad of other political models such as a monarchy, technocracy, theocracy...

[mashman]

That's just more evangelising, capitalism also allows you to choose what to do and do it. As does a monarchy, technocracy, theocracy... the point is, the preferred outcomes are not what defines what it is. What it is, defines that.

No, capitalism allows you to do what you can afford to do and no further. It allows the environment to be destroyed in the name of profitability with a hint of "oh but it's getting better" thrown in for good measure. It does not give you free access to anything in order to do what needs to be done. Somewhat ironical like, is that the methodologies of monarchy, technocracy, theocracy are defined by the outcomes they yield and the vision of each offer i.e. their perceived outcomes.

You failed in your first response and I gave you a chance. You failed in the follow up response so you're gone burger. You also failed in response to Katman as you also ignored what he had to say about it too. I lol'd when you mentioned mindset, as you hit the nail on the head for once. Anyhoo, that's as far as you and I go.

[Graystone]

No, capitalism allows you to do what you can afford to do and no further. It allows the environment to be destroyed in the name of profitability with a hint of "oh but it's getting better" thrown in for good measure. It does not give you free access to anything in order to do what needs to be done. Somewhat ironical like, is that the methodologies of monarchy, technocracy, theocracy are defined by the outcomes they yield and the vision of each offer i.e. their perceived outcomes.

You failed in your first response and I gave you a chance. You failed in the follow up response so you're gone burger. You also failed in response to Katman as you also ignored what he had to say about it too. I lol'd when you mentioned mindset, as you hit the nail on the head for once. Anyhoo, that's as far as you and I go.

As does any economy or political system, it is only the 'afford' that changes. Capitalism you can only afford what you can earn, communism you can only afford what you are told, in an RBE you can only afford your share of what everybody else produces.

To presume you can judge who passes and who fails shows just how authoritarian your regime; fuck, I've figured it out! it's REGIME Based Economy! the regime is the resource.

[mashman]

You should visit and then report back.
Maybe you will have changed your stance

Same problems just different ways of trying to address them. All have pros and cons

Sounded like cassina replied

I will have changed my stance on what exactly? You seem to have made a point without me knowing it. If you mean people living in poverty. I went to Kosovo not long after the war had finished with an aid group and saw poverty with the ability to barely survive in winter after yer house had been blown to pieces etc... I know that millions of people have it worse than that. But yeah, what stance am I supposed to change?

What problems?

I don't read the guy/gal.

[mashman]

As does any economy or political system, it is only the 'afford' that changes. Capitalism you can only afford what you can earn, communism you can only afford what you are told, in an RBE you can only afford your share of what everybody else produces.

To presume you can judge who passes and who fails shows just how authoritarian your regime; fuck, I've figured it out! it's REGIME Based Economy! the regime is the resource.

Regime Based Economy is actually quite funny. LMAO@at judgement. That's just evangelising your preferred outcomes.

[Graystone]

Regime Based Economy is actually quite funny. LMAO@at judgement. That's just evangelising your preferred outcomes.

It's all true as well. So I'll stick to a Reality Based Economy thanks.

[Woodman]

It would. Ironically I want you to be a clone of me. Let me explain before you start to build any form of preconception as to what I mean by that.

What is a clone of me? Oh, and before you or anyone starts to think, "Way to take it off-topic again mash.", it's all related. And I do mean ALL of it. Poverty is not someone's opinion. It exists in great numbers around the world. The relativity of it given access to resources in your own locale (street/community/village/region/village etc...) is not relevant in many ways. That the poverty exists i.e. lack of access to enough food/housing/power/fuel/transport etc... is the issue. Don't ignore that fact simply because I'm typing it. That'd be exceptionally fuckin stupid. And exceptionally really isn't a strong enough word to convey just how ridiculous it is to ignore something simply because of the people "presenting" it i.e. Mike Hosking/Gareth Morgan/Ocean/TDL/Husaberk/BDM/Ax/Shamubeel Eaqub/John Key etc... Poverty exists. Let's do this :killingme.

A clone of me is someone who realises that poverty exists and that will consider anything and everything that is put forwards as evidence and measured against what I can see before my eyes. That percentages of people in poverty can drop, it does not automatically follow that the numbers in poverty has dropped, given that a population may have actually grown at a rate that skews the positive yay yay we're curing poverty, the numbers have dropped coz the percentage has dropped. And that's before you consider the veracity of the data being provided that asserts that position. Questionable at best, because it is a statistical calculation, and the slightest change in the right weighting will alter the data dramatically. I know this, because I've played with those kinds of calculations and watched how the data could easily be tweaked. That's 1 thing that a clone of would know.

A clone of me would be a peaceful individual and so on and so forth. I'll stop there instead of rhyming off several thousand of other examples of what a clone of me would be like.

To round things off. Given that you are not your nature, if you can get over that great... but then you're denying the science of the Dunedin Experiment with all of its thousands of researchers that cross just about every discipline there is. It's new thinking in regards to what has come before, because we did believe that there was such a thing called human nature. We found out to the contrary. Whether we were deliberately lied to or not is up for debate. Personally I reckon we have been really rather serious lied to in way too many ways for it all to be considered an accident, but actually choose to act as if mistakes were made because the money changed the outcome. Either way, we've ended up at a situation were the best study in town provided information that states that it's nurture, not nature that defines us. In the very same way, psycopaths are more than likely a product of their environment. Again, and so on and so forth.

There are 10's of millions of RBE advocates all over the globe. They have families. They need a job. They need to do this and that, because they actually have a life that it isn't practical to simply drop given the economic outcomes that would accompany that decision. So them not all "rising" is hardly surprising. That and it is highly likely that a lot of those people would understand that suddenly moving towards an RBE without consideration that that very action could cause serious economic damage and bring about economic sanction and/or embargo etc... Would you really be surprised that they're not "rising" that way either? I'll tell you why though. It's because they're waiting for you to figure it out for yourself and accept that there's a lot of people on this planet, even in NZ, that would happily move towards a planet that doesn't use money. They each have their individual reasons for wanting that. Very sane ones... like wanting to eradicate poverty. By way of example... some genius posted up a poll that showed that over 50% of that forum would happily arse money and move towards something better. I didn't hypnotise them all with my dazzling personality innit, they made their own minds up about it :laugh:

I'll stop there. The picture is way to large to explain without you innerstanding any of the above yourself. Not learning that what I said was true simply, but that looking around you you can see that changing things in certain ways would actually make things better. You choice love.

Love n hugs

Gordon1111

I think we are headed towards something like your planet whether we like it or not. I really don't see the current system not failing.

[mashman]

I think we are headed towards something like your planet whether we like it or not. I really don't see the current system not failing.

Such a thing has happened before (not the "your planet" thing, but the current system failing). I'm just hoping that we don't end up with communism underpinned by a UBI. That's happened before too and it sucked by the sounds of things. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

[Swoop]

Dude, ALL communism is a dictatorship.

It certainly seems there's a link between endemic socialism and professions that have a tenuous link between production and remuneration...
Those countries where "everyone is equal" yet their "elected leaders" quietly state that some are more equal than others...
Trust me, academia is riddled with socialists and communists. Hearing the term "comrade" used regularly is not uncommon.



Perhaps, do you know what and RBE is?
Since you are new here, I'll explain a simple fact. Katman will never answer a direct question.
All mouth and no trousers.

[Ocean1]

Trust me, academia is riddled with socialists and communists. Hearing the term "comrade" used regularly is not uncommon.

Which sort of explains why their union's current squeeze is promising them they don't really have to show how they provide anything their clients want, it's all just been a misguided rort by teh bogeymans.

[Graystone]

I'm just hoping that we don't end up with communism underpinned by a UBI. That's happened before too and it sucked by the sounds of things. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

Everything you've described (which admittedly is very little) about your RBE points to exactly that as being the only realistic alternative to a totalitarian regime.


Since you are new here, I'll explain a simple fact. Katman will never answer a direct question.
All mouth and no trousers.

Similarly disillusioned like mashman or a different issue entirely?

[mashman]

Everything you've described (which admittedly is very little) about your RBE points to exactly that as being the only realistic alternative to a totalitarian regime.

Similarly disillusioned like mashman or a different issue entirely?

What I have described is absolutely nothing given that it encompasses an entire economy. A communistic UBI isn't a kick in the arse of a totalitarian regime.

Both with a severe case of humanity based on logic, reason and common sense. We simply evolved beyond you knuckle draggers, and have a healthy skepticism for that which authority minions deem as conspiracy theory, coz government says (tis one of the reasons I'd like to see RBE as it has no government). As such, there is no issue, just evolution baby.

[Graystone]

What I have described is absolutely nothing given that it encompasses an entire economy. A communistic UBI isn't a kick in the arse of a totalitarian regime.

Both with a severe case of humanity based on logic, reason and common sense. We simply evolved beyond you knuckle draggers, and have a healthy skepticism for that which authority minions deem as conspiracy theory, coz government says (tis one of the reasons I'd like to see RBE as it has no government). As such, there is no issue, just evolution baby.

An RBE has no government? so it is simple anarchy then, why not just call it that? Ye I know you have faith everyone will somehow base their production and consumption on what is best for everyone, but if there is no govt it is anarchy, by very definition, and not an economy at all.

[Ocean1]

I know you have faith everyone will somehow base their production and consumption on what is best for everyone

I think you'll find there's a committee involved, advising what you can and can't buy and sell. And for how much. There may or may not be black shirts involved. Either way neither mushmate or katflap will be telling telling you anything you need to know about economics.

[mashman]

An RBE has no government? so it is simple anarchy then, why not just call it that?

Yes an RBE has no government. You answered your own question.


Ye I know you have faith everyone will somehow base their production and consumption on what is best for everyone, but if there is no govt it is anarchy, by very definition, and not an economy at all.

And you have just proven that it isn't anarchy yourself, because there isn't an economic factor in anarchy. Just to be clear, there is an economy with Resource Based Economy. It's kind of in the title... but some people need those sorts of things spelled out it seems. Here: Resource Based E.C.O.N.O.M.Y.

Have you been smoking something you shouldn't have. Or are you really that stupid? That's not a judgement, hence the question mark duh, it's an observation given your last effort at trying to find out what an RBE is. Why don't you go read/watch a little bit about RBE. Yes, an RBE has no government.

[Woodman]

Yes an RBE has no government. You answered your own question.



And you have just proven that it isn't anarchy yourself, because there isn't an economic factor in anarchy. Just to be clear, there is an economy with Resource Based Economy. It's kind of in the title... but some people need those sorts of things spelled out it seems. Here: Resource Based E.C.O.N.O.M.Y.

Have you been smoking something you shouldn't have. Or are you really that stupid? That's not a judgement, hence the question mark duh, it's an observation given your last effort at trying to find out what an RBE is. Why don't you go read/watch a little bit about RBE. Yes, an RBE has no government.

What about laws?

[mashman]

What about laws?

Do no harm. That's about it really. What happens under any given circumstance I can't really say, but the thought of going to jail and leaving behind your freedom, real freedom, would have to see you break some "societal taboo", coz you won't be committing a crime for money would ya? No money should see financially related crime disappear. Ironically, that'd let the bankers and politicians off the hook. As time moves on and as government becomes less needed, there'd be no real reason to have laws and the further we move towards RBE, the less likely the majority of laws will be required, therefore less need for "administration/policing". No one will need to commit a crime to get what they want. To the point where I envisage only 1 law, and it'll likely be unwritten given that there's no government i.e. Do no harm.

[Graystone]

Yes an RBE has no government. You answered your own question.



And you have just proven that it isn't anarchy yourself, because there isn't an economic factor in anarchy. Just to be clear, there is an economy with Resource Based Economy. It's kind of in the title... but some people need those sorts of things spelled out it seems. Here: Resource Based E.C.O.N.O.M.Y.

Have you been smoking something you shouldn't have. Or are you really that stupid? That's not a judgement, hence the question mark duh, it's an observation given your last effort at trying to find out what an RBE is. Why don't you go read/watch a little bit about RBE. Yes, an RBE has no government.

So what is the economic factor in an RBE then? it has no govt, so there is no means to ensure an economy is uniform and adopted. This is anarchy by very definition, be it theft, barter, charity, or plentiful giving cannot be controlled by your RBE.

Not sorry if me digging a little deeper than the name is inconvenient, but too many politicians these days try to sell an idea based on outcomes with no basis in realistic implementation.

I have read about an RBE, it's a capitalist economy based on a states raw resource with little value add. All three terms are clearly defined and make a lot of sense. The system you are proposing has not explained either the resource, nor the economy.

[mashman]

So what is the economic factor in an RBE then? it has no govt, so there is no means to ensure an economy is uniform and adopted. This is anarchy by very definition, be it theft, barter, charity, or plentiful giving cannot be controlled by your RBE.

Not sorry if me digging a little deeper than the name is inconvenient, but too many politicians these days try to sell an idea based on outcomes with no basis in realistic implementation.

I have read about an RBE, it's a capitalist economy based on a states raw resource with little value add. All three terms are clearly defined and make a lot of sense. The system you are proposing has not explained either the resource, nor the economy.

:killingme... done.

[Graystone]

:killingme... done.

Too subtle? My point was that what you call an RBE is not what others call it (the capitalist version being the logical choice as it was the first use), it bears little resemblance (apart form desired outcome) even to The Venus Project's RBE. So currently there are at leash 3 different RBEs we could discuss, the capitalist one, the venus project's one, and Mashman's one...

[mashman]

Too subtle? My point was that what you call an RBE is not what others call it (the capitalist version being the logical choice as it was the first use), it bears little resemblance (apart form desired outcome) even to The Venus Project's RBE. So currently there are at leash 3 different RBEs we could discuss, the capitalist one, the venus project's one, and Mashman's one...

Ironically before capitalism/money there was Resource Based Economy that worked without the use of money. Perhaps you meant something else eh :killingme

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme :facepalm:@different apart from outcomes.

As such, not subtle at all. Just the usual that I've come to expect from people who ask for knowledge and then assume the position of authority on the matter. You asked what "my" RBE was and then decided it was something else, despite knowing nothing about "my" RBE. And here you are again trying to compare that which you admittedly know nothing about by comparing it to other resource based economic models :killingme.

You're a special gift and you're in good company. Welcome to KB.

[Graystone]

Ironically before capitalism/money there was Resource Based Economy that worked without the use of money. Perhaps you meant something else eh :killingme

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme :facepalm:@different apart from outcomes.

As such, not subtle at all. Just the usual that I've come to expect from people who ask for knowledge and then assume the position of authority on the matter. You asked what "my" RBE was and then decided it was something else, despite knowing nothing about "my" RBE. And here you are again trying to compare that which you admittedly know nothing about by comparing it to other resource based economic models :killingme.

You're a special gift and you're in good company. Welcome to KB.

The first use of the term RBE, was the capitalist one.

Perhaps you should have told me what it was then? You've had ample opportunity to do so yet instead berate and waffle on about my lack of ability to be a mind reader. You are the expert on your version of an RBE, but our opinions of how it will fit or work are equally as valid. Comparing it to others is only logical and pragmatic.

To be brutally honest, I don't think you have any idea how to get to your RBE, just the utopian dream of what it will result in. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; so I think I'll stick with capitalism and hope monarchism makes a comeback so we can get to the utopian dream that way.

[Woodman]

Ironically before capitalism/money there was Resource Based Economy that worked without the use of money.

When?
Who?
How?

Remember that I do think that a sort of moneyless society is where we are headed, just not a lawless self governing one. Think universal salary type of thing.

[Graystone]

Remember that I do think that a sort of moneyless society is where we are headed, just not a lawless self governing one. Think universal salary type of thing.

I agree, UBI with workers getting perks. Basic dolist society, curb breeding rights and other rights of the subsistence only class to ensure there is enough to go around. It would be an easy transition from there to the utopia Mashman talks about if humanity is worthy of it.

[mashman]

When?
Who?
How?

Remember that I do think that a sort of moneyless society is where we are headed, just not a lawless self governing one. Think universal salary type of thing.

When: Since the dawn of man to the point where money was created.
Who: Every culture before money... some cultures still live without money.
How: This is a long read, but it's actually pretty good (https://libcom.org/history/hunter-gatherers-mythology-market-john-gowdy).

Hey, I included a law that covered many things. Oh I've done the universal salary dance with a few people and they all realise that it actually achieves nothing. Even those who are trialing a UBI have categorically stated that it is not economically affordable. Primarily due to it being financially unaffordable given the current tax base (their words, not my opinion), but also taking the future into consideration given that there will be less of a tax base to pay for it, coz technology n lower paid jobs etc... In all likelihood, a UBI will see a policed state/communistic regime take centre stage. I have my reasons for that, but ain't gonna go into them here. Suffice to say that money always controls the money. Blockchain technology, whilst smart given its distributed mechanism, is nothing more than a bank that's hard to break into. The money coming out the other end will drive everything else after it i.e. buy individual lawlessness... and I know you don't like that. Take the money away and you can't buy your way around the law.

[mashman]

The first use of the term RBE, was the capitalist one.

Perhaps you should have told me what it was then? You've had ample opportunity to do so yet instead berate and waffle on about my lack of ability to be a mind reader. You are the expert on your version of an RBE, but our opinions of how it will fit or work are equally as valid. Comparing it to others is only logical and pragmatic.

To be brutally honest, I don't think you have any idea how to get to your RBE, just the utopian dream of what it will result in. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; so I think I'll stick with capitalism and hope monarchism makes a comeback so we can get to the utopian dream that way.

:killingme.

I did. (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183857-Poverty-measure-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me?p=1131070241#post1131070241). You've had ample opportunity to do so yet instead berate and waffle on about my lack of ability to be a mind reader. You are the expert on your version of an RBE, but our opinions of how it will fit or work are equally as valid. Comparing it to others is only logical and pragmatic. You might want to try practicing what you preach someday.

There you go thinking you know what I know for me again :killingme. You couldn't be further from the truth, or indeed the reality of how things are. There is no utopia. It's a myth. You'd know that if you had have researched RBE. Comparing it to others is only logical and pragmatic eh. You know what, for the first time you actually used some logic. It would be logical to read and understand the alternatives. So I spent the last 10 years doing that very thing. ALL of the evidence points towards Resource Based Economy being needed... unless you know of another economic model that would allow the financial economy to halt production without affecting the financial system? If not, you could ask me about that, because I also know how to do that very thing. Something that no other "expert" has figured out yet. In other words, I Am smarter than the entire planets minds put together. You can call me Marvin if you like, and I'll call you Amoeba.

[Graystone]

:killingme.

I did. (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183857-Poverty-measure-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me?p=1131070241#post1131070241). You've had ample opportunity to do so yet instead berate and waffle on about my lack of ability to be a mind reader. You are the expert on your version of an RBE, but our opinions of how it will fit or work are equally as valid. Comparing it to others is only logical and pragmatic. You might want to try practicing what you preach someday.

There you go thinking you know what I know for me again :killingme. You couldn't be further from the truth, or indeed the reality of how things are. There is no utopia. It's a myth. You'd know that if you had have researched RBE. Comparing it to others is only logical and pragmatic eh. You know what, for the first time you actually used some logic. It would be logical to read and understand the alternatives. So I spent the last 10 years doing that very thing. ALL of the evidence points towards Resource Based Economy being needed... unless you know of another economic model that would allow the financial economy to halt production without affecting the financial system? If not, you could ask me about that, because I also know how to do that very thing. Something that no other "expert" has figured out yet. In other words, I Am smarter than the entire planets minds put together. You can call me Marvin if you like, and I'll call you Amoeba.

See my last sentence in the previous post, if that is all the explanation you can give, then clearly you have no clue how to get from here, to your utopian RBE.

Your RBE is a Utopian Dream, Utopia in that people need and want for nothing, and dream in that it relies on the faith that people will be good and selfless. You may disagree with my assesment, so you are welcome to offer justification for its change...

It depends entirely on how you define 'affecting'; a monarchy could do every bit as good a job as your RBE, and offer a realistic transition as well. But I'm all ears as to how you would do that very thing?

[mashman]

See my last sentence in the previous post, if that is all the explanation you can give, then clearly you have no clue how to get from here, to your utopian RBE.

Your RBE is a Utopian Dream, Utopia in that people need and want for nothing, and dream in that it relies on the faith that people will be good and selfless. You may disagree with my assesment, so you are welcome to offer justification for its change...

It depends entirely on how you define 'affecting'; a monarchy could do every bit as good a job as your RBE, and offer a realistic transition as well. But I'm all ears as to how you would do that very thing?

:killingme... How unfortunate, I guess while your approach is the same as Trump's we can only hope your position never gets anywhere near what his has.

No it isn't. Why would I offer you any knowledge given that you've made it clear that you don't want it? You've had a few chances. I do love your pessimism though, and your ability to write off what others would be happy with in terms of access to resources. (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/122031-My-first-poll-for-the-NZ-public). I need to justify nothing. The evidence does that.

Affecting: The ability to eradicate poverty. That's 1. I've already mentioned the ability to halt production etc... Neither of which have been achieved irrespective of the number of monarchies that have walked this Earth. Other than that. You can stay all ears... coz why would I offer you any knowledge given that you've made it clear that you don't want it?

[Graystone]

:killingme... How unfortunate, I guess while your approach is the same as Trump's we can only hope your position never gets anywhere near what his has.

No it isn't. Why would I offer you any knowledge given that you've made it clear that you don't want it? You've had a few chances. I do love your pessimism though, and your ability to write off what others would be happy with in terms of access to resources. (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/122031-My-first-poll-for-the-NZ-public). I need to justify nothing. The evidence does that.

Affecting: The ability to eradicate poverty. That's 1. I've already mentioned the ability to halt production etc... Neither of which have been achieved irrespective of the number of monarchies that have walked this Earth. Other than that. You can stay all ears... coz why would I offer you any knowledge given that you've made it clear that you don't want it?

I've made it clear I do want it, I've asked for it multiple times. Simply because I do not agree with your assesment does not mean I do not want the information, or even understand it when (if) it is given. I'm not reading a 140 page thread. If you've wrote the info there, you can write it again here. Correct, you don't need to justify anything, but if you want other's to share your glowing opinion of your RBE then you do need to do a hell of a lot better than what you've done so far.

A monarchy can eradicate poverty, and lower production (obviously halting it entirely is moronic as we need to eat). We've had anarchy (or an RBE as you call it) far far longer (as you explained to Woodman) than we've had monarchys, so your point about them not achieved irrespective of the number of monarchies is irrelevant at best, and self defeating at worst. You said "If not, you could ask me about that, because I also know how to do that very thing." So I asked; so why do you keep dodging questions with all this irreverent waffle?
It's obviously because you truly don't know any of those things, just as other politicians have done and will continue to do, you seek to sway emotion with some Utopian Dream to get support, then have no real idea how to make it a reality, and probably no real intention of doing so. That is why we need a monarchy, so all this self-serving garbage from the likes of you, winston, trump, etc, is completely eliminated and those fit to govern can be trained for it from day 1, including the intelligence and ethics the aforementioned list is so devoid of.

[Katman]

A monarchy can eradicate poverty

When has one ever?

[Woodman]

A big part of why I think that a financial-less society is where we are headed is the rise of AI (robots and shit). Read an article recently about it and it basically said that we all need to get ready for the change as AI is coming. It is almost like AI is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. It is not, it is something that is created by us in the search for higher profit margins. Are corporations that powerful that they can utterly change society? why can't governments stop the development of AI? Surely some form of legislation could be worked out where robots cannot do a job that a human is capable of?

[mashman]

I've made it clear I do want it, I've asked for it multiple times. Simply because I do not agree with your assesment does not mean I do not want the information, or even understand it when (if) it is given. I'm not reading a 140 page thread. If you've wrote the info there, you can write it again here. Correct, you don't need to justify anything, but if you want other's to share your glowing opinion of your RBE then you do need to do a hell of a lot better than what you've done so far.

A monarchy can eradicate poverty, and lower production (obviously halting it entirely is moronic as we need to eat). We've had anarchy (or an RBE as you call it) far far longer (as you explained to Woodman) than we've had monarchys, so your point about them not achieved irrespective of the number of monarchies is irrelevant at best, and self defeating at worst. You said "If not, you could ask me about that, because I also know how to do that very thing." So I asked; so why do you keep dodging questions with all this irreverent waffle?
It's obviously because you truly don't know any of those things, just as other politicians have done and will continue to do, you seek to sway emotion with some Utopian Dream to get support, then have no real idea how to make it a reality, and probably no real intention of doing so. That is why we need a monarchy, so all this self-serving garbage from the likes of you, winston, trump, etc, is completely eliminated and those fit to govern can be trained for it from day 1, including the intelligence and ethics the aforementioned list is so devoid of.

Oh good god. I'm not looking for followers. I've haven't even scratched the surface of RBE yet. You'd know this if you understood RBE. Yet you choose to ignore what I've stated or indeed have chosen to translate it and when corrected have claimed that it's me playing some form of game and that I didn't mean what I said in the way I meant it. I've danced that dance before... as well as dancing the dance with people who actually are curious and ask questions without making judgements until they've had their questions on the topic answered. I know the difference having done the dance a few hundred times now. I picked you from minute one, which is why I responded to you the way I did. Like I said, you've had chances and also as I've said, it's you that needs to come to terms with RBE on your own terms. That has nothing to do with me. It's all you. As for the 140 pages. I guess you missed the context in the post despite it being posted in bold and underlined. Yet another reason for me not to bother offering you a different perspective. It is entirely up to you.

No, a monarchy never has and therefore on the balance of probabilities a monarchy never will. I did not call an RBE anarchy. You did. That it shares traits, I mean, damn. :killingme@trump goading. Try another tactic, that might work. You make me laugh. That's primarily why I respond to your posts at the moment. You go ahead and believe anything you choose to believe. Just make sure you don't find out for sure eh... you'll be guaranteed to be satisfied then. Maybe you should read about Ubuntu Contributionism (first Mayor sworn in recently and should be fun to see if it catches on), or perhaps the New Earth Project, maybe AmUnity, or Free World Charter or Money Free Party or TZM or TVP or any one of the numbers of others who have formed to promote Resource Based Economy. Some are even creating crypto currencies. Maybe they'll give you the answers you're not looking for. You'd make an awesome queen though.

[Graystone]

When has one ever?

Fundamentally, has and can are different things, specifically, operate in different tenses. I say can because we have both the technology and production to do so (arguably we have already done so) and a monarchy is different from a democracy in that there is no disincentive to long term planning, there are no party squabbles and jockeying for position which bring the me-me-me policies to the forefront and leave things like the lowest class, environment, and future planning out of it.

[Graystone]

Oh good god. I'm not looking for followers. I've haven't even scratched the surface of RBE yet. You'd know this if you understood RBE. Yet you choose to ignore what I've stated or indeed have chosen to translate it and when corrected have claimed that it's me playing some form of game and that I didn't mean what I said in the way I meant it. I've danced that dance before... as well as dancing the dance with people who actually are curious and ask questions without making judgements until they've had their questions on the topic answered. I know the difference having done the dance a few hundred times now. I picked you from minute one, which is why I responded to you the way I did. Like I said, you've had chances and also as I've said, it's you that needs to come to terms with RBE on your own terms. That has nothing to do with me. It's all you. As for the 140 pages. I guess you missed the context in the post despite it being posted in bold and underlined. Yet another reason for me not to bother offering you a different perspective. It is entirely up to you.

No, a monarchy never has and therefore on the balance of probabilities a monarchy never will. I did not call an RBE anarchy. You did. That it shares traits, I mean, damn. :killingme@trump goading. Try another tactic, that might work. You make me laugh. That's primarily why I respond to your posts at the moment. You go ahead and believe anything you choose to believe. Just make sure you don't find out for sure eh... you'll be guaranteed to be satisfied then. Maybe you should read about Ubuntu Contributionism (first Mayor sworn in recently and should be fun to see if it catches on), or perhaps the New Earth Project, maybe AmUnity, or Free World Charter or Money Free Party or TZM or TVP or any one of the numbers of others who have formed to promote Resource Based Economy. Some are even creating crypto currencies. Maybe they'll give you the answers you're not looking for. You'd make an awesome queen though.

I think fundamental to any great society is the free sharing of information, starting with how the society works. Given your great relucatance to share such information about your RBE society, I guess you disagree, and that should make anyone very weary of that which you promote.

You said an RBE had been around before as well, that clearly didn't fare any better than the monarchys. In fact it was around far longer, so on the balance of probabilities... monarchy comes out on top again! Pragmatic and logical comparisons work.

I have read about many of those things, they are not the RBE you put forward, I'd rather not sully their versions by assuming their attributes transfer to your anarchistic bastardisation of the term. Cryptocurrencies are a joke, let's not bother going there.

[Graystone]

A big part of why I think that a financial-less society is where we are headed is the rise of AI (robots and shit). Read an article recently about it and it basically said that we all need to get ready for the change as AI is coming. It is almost like AI is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. It is not, it is something that is created by us in the search for higher profit margins. Are corporations that powerful that they can utterly change society? why can't governments stop the development of AI? Surely some form of legislation could be worked out where robots cannot do a job that a human is capable of?

It's a scary thought alright, the collision course metaphor is apt though, someone will produce one. The govt needs to control that to ensure what is produced is ethical and just; otherwise we'll be back to the dark ages or worse.

[mashman]

A big part of why I think that a financial-less society is where we are headed is the rise of AI (robots and shit). Read an article recently about it and it basically said that we all need to get ready for the change as AI is coming. It is almost like AI is an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. It is not, it is something that is created by us in the search for higher profit margins. Are corporations that powerful that they can utterly change society? why can't governments stop the development of AI? Surely some form of legislation could be worked out where robots cannot do a job that a human is capable of?

Wow, you have been busy. Allow me to answer your questions. Who knows, you might even understand what I explain ;)

Are corporations that powerful that they can utterly change society?: Yes. The money controls production.

Why can't governments stop the development of AI?: Other than profit margins and the effects on tax base etc... that you highlight, we need the technology to help us limit our pollution. This can be as simple as "robot" efficiency v's human efficiency when it comes to bending nails, or chopping too much off the end of a piece of wood, or creating substandard materials and so on. AI is useful. Did you read about facebook turning off their AI because it invented a more efficient language to communicate and the hooman got scared? They should be scared, coz AI will do things for a logical reason, not a political one, and that scares the living shit out of them, coz it'll be bad for business.

Surely some form of legislation could be worked out where robots cannot do a job that a human is capable of? Bill Gates said that you should pay the robot and tax it. I state that you can implement the automation and still pay the human. That we don't do it that way is amusing given that the approach I have found uses the same resources that exist today. It's an approach, not a solution, because it has a shelf-life as eventually technology will render the approach moot within approximately 10 years. All you need to remember is that your Employee is someone else's Customer. Removing their remuneration renders the businesses that relied on the Employee discretionary income open to financial hardship. They too have employees and are a part of a relatively complicated set of supply chains. But yeah, we could easily handle it for 10 years. It would also give us a chance to divest in terms of moving from dairy to hemp on the fields that pollute the most. I R a smart muthafucka that way.

[mashman]

It's a scary thought alright, the collision course metaphor is apt though, someone will produce one. The govt needs to control that to ensure what is produced is ethical and just; otherwise we'll be back to the dark ages or worse.

The govt :killingme

http://imoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1-Hulk-quotes.gif

[mashman]

I think fundamental to any great society is the free sharing of information, starting with how the society works. Given your great relucatance to share such information about your RBE society, I guess you disagree, and that should make anyone very weary of that which you promote.

You said an RBE had been around before as well, that clearly didn't fare any better than the monarchys. In fact it was around far longer, so on the balance of probabilities... monarchy comes out on top again! Pragmatic and logical comparisons work.

I have read about many of those things, they are not the RBE you put forward, I'd rather not sully their versions by assuming their attributes transfer to your anarchistic bastardisation of the term. Cryptocurrencies are a joke, let's not bother going there.

Not disagreeing with that at all. I have outlined my reasons for not engaging with you on that front. It is a purposeful and calculated decision not to bang my head against that brick wall given the evidence of your responses during the interactions we did have. But your goading is funny.

And there it is. You've made your mind up. You aren't accepting new information. Granted I see a lot of that in RBE circles, but some people are just like a Corgi with a bone.

You do realise that they advocate the removal of government right? Nice try. Again with the you know what "my" way is and how it is done :killingme. So ingratiating. There's pills for your performance issues you know. I've heard that P is pretty good too, if not somewhat dangerous.

[Graystone]

Not disagreeing with that at all. I have outlined my reasons for not engaging with you on that front. It is a purposeful and calculated decision not to bang my head against that brick wall given the evidence of your responses during the interactions we did have. But your goading is funny.

And there it is. You've made your mind up. You aren't accepting new information. Granted I see a lot of that in RBE circles, but some people are just like a Corgi with a bone.

You do realise that they advocate the removal of government right? Nice try. Again with the you know what "my" way is and how it is done :killingme. So ingratiating. There's pills for your performance issues you know. I've heard that P is pretty good too, if not somewhat dangerous.

Just as I've outlined my reasons why you need to do so; in short, I don't believe what politicians say, I demand more than just their/your word.

It's clear you've made up you mind not to fairly compare you RBE to any other system. I want to know why you discount monarchy's since they have come and gone without eliminating poverty, yet cannot discount RBEs for coming and going without eliminating poverty as well? it's a clear double standard.

I'm not saying there are no similarities, but they are not the same, and only by discussing it can we determine what the similarities are and their detail. So why not cut to the chase? I suggest it is because you don't know what they are either, you have no clue how to get from here to your Utopian Dream.

[Ocean1]

It's a scary thought alright, the collision course metaphor is apt though, someone will produce one. The govt needs to control that to ensure what is produced is ethical and just; otherwise we'll be back to the dark ages or worse.

There's entirely too much of this "govt needs to control" shit going on. Stop it.

Allow me to introduce the Rational Anarchist:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible For everything I do."

- Robert A. Heinlein

[Graystone]

There's entirely too much of this "govt needs to control" shit going on. Stop it.

Allow me to introduce the Rational Anarchist:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me.
If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible For everything I do."

- Robert A. Heinlein

Rules? We're talking the emergence of AI. I don't think rules really enter into it...

[Ocean1]

Rules? We're talking the emergence of AI. I don't think rules really enter into it...

And yet rules is what happens as a direct result of "govt needs to control" shit. AI or no AI.

The ability to maintain fidelity to individual ethics in the face of the resulting, sometimes conflicting rules is the key to maintaining personal responsibility.

Only a Rational Anarchistic approach works there.

[mashman]

Rules? We're talking the emergence of AI. I don't think rules really enter into it...

Robot rules. You gotta wonder if we're humanising AI by claiming that we are intelligent.

[mashman]

And yet rules is what happens as a direct result of "govt needs to control" shit. AI or no AI.

The ability to maintain fidelity to individual ethics in the face of the resulting, sometimes conflicting rules is the key to maintaining personal responsibility.

Only a Rational Anarchistic approach works there.

Alan Greenspan. Is that you?

[Graystone]

And yet rules is what happens as a direct result of "govt needs to control" shit. AI or no AI.

The ability to maintain fidelity to individual ethics in the face of the resulting, sometimes conflicting rules is the key to maintaining personal responsibility.

Only a Rational Anarchistic approach works there.

I see, I was more thinking to control it's emergence by supporting it and being involved to ensure it is done right, yes there will be rules nut I think warranted given the stakes.

[mashman]

Just as I've outlined my reasons why you need to do so; in short, I don't believe what politicians say, I demand more than just their/your word.

It's clear you've made up you mind not to fairly compare you RBE to any other system. I want to know why you discount monarchy's since they have come and gone without eliminating poverty, yet cannot discount RBEs for coming and going without eliminating poverty as well? it's a clear double standard.

I'm not saying there are no similarities, but they are not the same, and only by discussing it can we determine what the similarities are and their detail. So why not cut to the chase? I suggest it is because you don't know what they are either, you have no clue how to get from here to your Utopian Dream.

And fair enough. But I don't need to do it with you. It's a choice. I do not identify with being a politician, and you can't make me. I'm someone who, like yourself, demands more from politicians. Ideally for them to ditch politics and get on with it.

Not with you, no. I didn't discount monarchy, I stated that it was highly improbably that it'd meet the goals you state. The RBE's didn't have poverty. They didn't have words for please or thank you. They didn't wear shirts and ties. They got on in general. It is quite well documented that the indigenous were treated badly wherever the west went. Badly being an understatement and a half. Til then, they had survived there for thousands of years without needing a financial system. But hey.

I've told you why we're not going to discuss it. By all means believe what you like about what I know and understand. You've been doing that throughout our interactions. So suggest away all you like.

[Akzle]

AI? Surely some form of legislation could be worked out where robots cannot do a job that a human is capable of?

and how long do you think that will last before thesuperintelligent robots realise we're artificially limiting a resource, in an horrendously inefficient manner, for the sake of... being petted on the back?

and then they'll kill all the humans.

[Akzle]

It's a scary thought alright, the collision course metaphor is apt though, someone will produce one. The govt needs to control that to ensure what is produced is ethical and just; otherwise we'll be back to the dark ages or worse.

"oh lawdy lawdy, pleas massa guvament sah, i's don wan no robot supavisa, nuh-huh no sir-ee"


child.

[Akzle]

as far as i understand the only given rule for ai is "dont let it on teh internet" (see aforesaid skynet becoming active)

facebook killed their ai when it stopped speaking english.

everyone rocking iphone is teaching the siri (and google, the droid) speech patterns, internet behaviour, where and when you do what...

machine intelligence is the next step in evolution. i dont think humans will survive it.

sofia was granted citizenship...^.-

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

[Woodman]

as far as i understand the only given rule for ai is "dont let it on teh internet" (see aforesaid skynet becoming active)

facebook killed their ai when it stopped speaking english.

everyone rocking iphone is teaching the siri (and google, the droid) speech patterns, internet behaviour, where and when you do what...

machine intelligence is the next step in evolution. i dont think humans will survive it.

sofia was granted citizenship...^.-

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

That was a fucking good read.

I always knew that intelligence would be our downfall, that's why I never indulged in it.

[Akzle]

That was a fucking good read.

I always knew that intelligence would be our downfall, that's why I never indulged in it.

if we bound it (artificial limits) to human iq, or a few points above, we may maintain control. once it becomes sentient, and works out how to do shit better (pro-tIp, probably wont involve usurious jewconomy) then it will be all over.

i think the ruskies' ternary processors are more likely to break ground here.
stupid jew shit, manufacturing in binary.
organic computation, also interesting. and far less energy consumption that even ternary chips.

[TheDemonLord]

(pro-tIp, probably wont involve usurious jewconomy).

Actually - that would be a very interesting scenario...

It's entirely likely that an AI based economy would have zero empathy and would allocate resources based on their most efficient use (which would mean that no resources would be allocated to those of the Dole Bludging persuasion)...


All Hail our AI Overlords...

[Akzle]

there's also a not-very-related TED talk about the algorithms that run the stock exchanges and how they make/disappear jewgolds pretty much at whim.
huzzah, jews.

[Akzle]

Actually - that would be a very interesting scenario...

It's entirely likely that an AI based economy would have zero empathy and would allocate resources based on their most efficient use (which would mean that no resources would be allocated to those of the Dole Bludging persuasion)...


All Hail our AI Overlords...

that would depend on whether it perceived any value in maintaining "the economy" such as it is (or, more widely, western society). because, menstruate all you like, doleys keep inflation in check. your capitalism requires unemployed people, to balance the books.

it will also shit-can your capitalism and profiteering jewry.
money is a shitty metric. i think mashy has some ideas about this...<_<


i dont so much believe WE will develop artificial inteligence. rather we're going to learn to connect with the buddhanature.
the existing natural intelligence, and humans will learn to percive it.

[TheDemonLord]

that would depend on whether it perceived any value in maintaining "the economy" such as it is (or, more widely, western society).

Well, The core function of any economy is to direct resources from point A to point B - where Point B is usually Humans, and usually in relation to our Pyramid of needs


because, menstruate all you like, doleys keep inflation in check. your capitalism requires unemployed people, to balance the books.

I've heard your side make that argument before - but the reading I've done suggests that this is a particularly ideologicially driven interpretation of the NAIRU theory - which in short says there needs to be a small amount of Unemployment, so there can be movement of employees between jobs.

It's not to say there is a strata of people that must be permanently unemployed for the system to work


it will also shit-can your capitalism and profiteering jewry.

So long as it gets shit done without infringing on my freedom of choice - then go for gold.


money is a shitty metric. i think mashy has some ideas about this...<_<

Except a Metric is just a measure - sure, you can incorrectly use a Measure - such as saying that a car with 300 hp would be faster than a bike with 200 hp - but HP is not a shitty Metric, it's the usage that is shitty.

The problem here is that the majority of people value things differently from you or Mashy and since the Free Market is majority rules, you're upset that other people don't hold your ideas.


i dont so much believe WE will develop artificial inteligence. rather we're going to learn to connect with the buddhanature.
the existing natural intelligence, and humans will learn to percive it.

Once we teach machines how to hit the Bong....

[Woodman]

i dont so much believe WE will develop artificial inteligence. rather we're going to learn to connect with the buddhanature.
the existing natural intelligence, and humans will learn to percive it.


Its not that much of a leap to humans being hooked up to the matrix. :(

[oldrider]

Actually - that would be a very interesting scenario...

It's entirely likely that an AI based economy would have zero empathy and would allocate resources based on their most efficient use (which would mean that no resources would be allocated to those of the Dole Bludging persuasion)...


All Hail our AI Overlords...

If the only valid reason for production is consumption and AI eventually produces everything it begs the question? - Who will consume?

Currently the only people with continuous (government guaranteed) wherewithal to "consume" would be the beneficiaries!

The numbers of beneficiaries (consumers) will have to be maintained equal to production or the system will fail. :Oops: Career-path of the future?

Seems like beneficiaries are looking like being strong success factors in the future world of AI (artificial intelligence)! :corn:

What NZ Universities currently offer a degree in Beneficiary-ism? :whistle:

[Graystone]

And fair enough. But I don't need to do it with you. It's a choice. I do not identify with being a politician, and you can't make me. I'm someone who, like yourself, demands more from politicians. Ideally for them to ditch politics and get on with it.

Not with you, no. I didn't discount monarchy, I stated that it was highly improbably that it'd meet the goals you state. The RBE's didn't have poverty. They didn't have words for please or thank you. They didn't wear shirts and ties. They got on in general. It is quite well documented that the indigenous were treated badly wherever the west went. Badly being an understatement and a half. Til then, they had survived there for thousands of years without needing a financial system. But hey.

I've told you why we're not going to discuss it. By all means believe what you like about what I know and understand. You've been doing that throughout our interactions. So suggest away all you like.

I'm not making you identify with anything, but it is clear you are no better than the politicians you too, expect more from.

Are you saying that cavemen etc didn't have poverty, but we have it now?

See point 1.

[mashman]

If the only valid reason for production is consumption and AI eventually produces everything it begs the question? - Who will consume?

Currently the only people with continuous (government guaranteed) wherewithal to "consume" would be the beneficiaries!

The numbers of beneficiaries (consumers) will have to be maintained equal to production or the system will fail. :Oops: Career-path of the future?

Seems like beneficiaries are looking like being strong success factors in the future world of AI (artificial intelligence)! :corn:

What NZ Universities currently offer a degree in Beneficiary-ism? :whistle:

University of life ;)

[mashman]

I'm not making you identify with anything, but it is clear you are no better than the politicians you too, expect more from.

Are you saying that cavemen etc didn't have poverty, but we have it now?

See point 1.

So you are identifying me as a politician as you claim that I am no better in terms of information sharing. I guess I must be translating you incorrectly eh. I'm glad it's clear to you though. That gives me warm fuzzies. Maybe I should take umbrage or summink, dunno... so many emotions to choose from and only one feeling inside that's screaming to get out. Here it comes... :killingme I'm more than happy to, and have in the past and present, explain the details to those who have a genuine desire to find out more. You don't have that desire, that is clear :shifty:

I'm sure some of them suffered the equivalent of poverty, although that'd likely be more along the lines of the hunter-gatherer style version of sanction/ostracising. As such, and something I never actually disagreed with you over as you seem to be alluding too, yes, there is every possibility that a Resource Based Economy could see people live in what some might call poverty. Although given that all resources will be produced to be consumed for free, it'd likely have to be by choice.

You made a point? Where?

[mashman]

as far as i understand the only given rule for ai is "dont let it on teh internet" (see aforesaid skynet becoming active)

facebook killed their ai when it stopped speaking english.

everyone rocking iphone is teaching the siri (and google, the droid) speech patterns, internet behaviour, where and when you do what...

machine intelligence is the next step in evolution. i dont think humans will survive it.

sofia was granted citizenship...^.-

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

I reckon humans will survive it as a superintelligence will recognise and revere the sentients of life.

[Graystone]

So you are identifying me as a politician as you claim that I am no better in terms of information sharing. I guess I must be translating you incorrectly eh. I'm glad it's clear to you though. That gives me warm fuzzies. Maybe I should take umbrage or summink, dunno... so many emotions to choose from and only one feeling inside that's screaming to get out. Here it comes... :killingme I'm more than happy to, and have in the past and present, explain the details to those who have a genuine desire to find out more. You don't have that desire, that is clear :shifty:

I'm sure some of them suffered the equivalent of poverty, although that'd likely be more along the lines of the hunter-gatherer style version of sanction/ostracising. As such, and something I never actually disagreed with you over as you seem to be alluding too, yes, there is every possibility that a Resource Based Economy could see people live in what some might call poverty. Although given that all resources will be produced to be consumed for free, it'd likely have to be by choice.

You made a point? Where?

Why do you keep claiming I do not have the desire? and that I am unworthy of the details? Surely in a society which values freely shared information 'worthiness' would not be a factor.

So the point about historical outcomes it utterly irrelevant to either an RBE or a monarchy's ability to eradicate poverty, I'm glad we cleared that up. Monarchy is still the clear winner due to it having a realistic transition plan, all we need to do to get from here to a poverty free monarchy is replace politicians with monarchs; the rest of society, production, consumption, wealth and the economy can remain unchanged during this transition, then all shall reap the benefits of effective long term planning for the whole society (not just the major voting blocks) once the monarchy is established.

Feel free to share your transition plan so we can make an intelligent comparison between them...

[Akzle]

Its not that much of a leap to humans being hooked up to the matrix. :(

you say that, like you're not already in it.

your existence is but your perception. what you credit for your perception, is up to you.

[Akzle]

I reckon humans will survive it as a superintelligence will recognise and revere the sentients of life.

yes but is it you-by-your-onesies sentience?
or some kind of mass consciousness?... a paradigm, if you will

[Akzle]

Why do you keep claiming I do not have the desire? and that I am unworthy of the details? Surely in a society which values freely shared information 'worthiness' would not be a factor.

So the point about historical outcomes it utterly irrelevant to either an RBE or a monarchy's ability to eradicate poverty, I'm glad we cleared that up. Monarchy is still the clear winner due to it having a realistic transition plan, all we need to do to get from here to a poverty free monarchy is replace politicians with monarchs; the rest of society, production, consumption, wealth and the economy can remain unchanged during this transition, then all shall reap the benefits of effective long term planning for the whole society (not just the major voting blocks) once the monarchy is established.

Feel free to share your transition plan so we can make an intelligent comparison between them...

vote akzle you pussy.

[Woodman]

you say that, like you're not already in it.

your existence is but your perception. what you credit for your perception, is up to you.

Thats why I said not MUCH of a leap.:yes:

[mashman]

yes but is it you-by-your-onesies sentience?
or some kind of mass consciousness?... a paradigm, if you will

Damned fine questions. Wonder if we'll leave it on long enough to find out :laugh:

[mashman]

Why do you keep claiming I do not have the desire? and that I am unworthy of the details? Surely in a society which values freely shared information 'worthiness' would not be a factor.

So the point about historical outcomes it utterly irrelevant to either an RBE or a monarchy's ability to eradicate poverty, I'm glad we cleared that up. Monarchy is still the clear winner due to it having a realistic transition plan, all we need to do to get from here to a poverty free monarchy is replace politicians with monarchs; the rest of society, production, consumption, wealth and the economy can remain unchanged during this transition, then all shall reap the benefits of effective long term planning for the whole society (not just the major voting blocks) once the monarchy is established.

Feel free to share your transition plan so we can make an intelligent comparison between them...

Why? Because I choose to. I thought you might have figured that out by now. Sorry for giving you too much credit. But I dearly hope you enjoy my hypocrisy. It's much better than pretending that I said certain things that I didn't. We're not in that society. And even in an RBE I would have every right to withhold details and information from anyone I choose.

Why are you talking about monarchy when you were asking about "my" RBE? Let alone making the judgement of RBE v's Monarchy when you only understand one side of it by your own admission. You get why I ain't sharing with you yet?

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme you've clearly made your mind up already, so no need to compare anything. Thanks for the giggles though.

[Graystone]

Why? Because I choose to. I thought you might have figured that out by now. Sorry for giving you too much credit. But I dearly hope you enjoy my hypocrisy. It's much better than pretending that I said certain things that I didn't. We're not in that society. And even in an RBE I would have every right to withhold details and information from anyone I choose.

Why are you talking about monarchy when you were asking about "my" RBE? Let alone making the judgement of RBE v's Monarchy when you only understand one side of it by your own admission. You get why I ain't sharing with you yet?

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme you've clearly made your mind up already, so no need to compare anything. Thanks for the giggles though.

Of course I have it figured out, it is just amusing to see you time and time again be the politician you claim to rally against.

You asked what other systems could eliminate poverty, so I answered (the answer was monarchy, among many others). The thing is, I do understand your system as it has been presented, which is all you can reasonably ask for. You do not seem to understand that withholding information does not give you the right to claim your opinion is any more valid; yet you continue to do so; again showing you to be the politician...

Have I? What makes you say that?

[Swoop]

What NZ Universities currently offer a degree in Beneficiary-ism? :whistle:

Any that offer a Batchelor of Arts...

[mashman]

Of course I have it figured out, it is just amusing to see you time and time again be the politician you claim to rally against.

You asked what other systems could eliminate poverty, so I answered (the answer was monarchy, among many others). The thing is, I do understand your system as it has been presented, which is all you can reasonably ask for. You do not seem to understand that withholding information does not give you the right to claim your opinion is any more valid; yet you continue to do so; again showing you to be the politician...

Have I? What makes you say that?

I Am more than happy to pass it on to those I choose to pass it on to. Just as you are more than happy to see me as a politician.

I did, and I gave monarchy a low probability of achieving those things. That's right, you didn't understand what was presented. Only your perception of what you thought was being conveyed. As such, you will never understand anything that I present to you. You're still not getting that picture though eh. And neither you should. You should fight for your right to party. Even if you are fighting Fight Club stylez. bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa@withholding information does not give you the right to claim your opinion is any more valid. Your rights supersede mine huh. Genius. That's one of the best so far. I'm only holding that information from you for that reason too :killingme. A sane mind would have accepted that the first time it was posted. Yet you persist in a really ugly way. Goading? Is that the limit of your wit in order to get your own way? An adult would have asked with open eyes. The adolescent manipulates to get that which he wishes.

What makes me say that? Really?


Monarchy is still the clear winner due to it having a realistic transition plan, all we need to do to get from here to a poverty free monarchy is replace politicians with monarchs; the rest of society, production, consumption, wealth and the economy can remain unchanged during this transition, then all shall reap the benefits of effective long term planning for the whole society (not just the major voting blocks) once the monarchy is established.

What makes me say that, is that you stated it quite clearly. You could at least try to keep up with what you so firmly believe.

[Graystone]

I Am more than happy to pass it on to those I choose to pass it on to. Just as you are more than happy to see me as a politician.

I did, and I gave monarchy a low probability of achieving those things. That's right, you didn't understand what was presented. Only your perception of what you thought was being conveyed. As such, you will never understand anything that I present to you. You're still not getting that picture though eh. And neither you should. You should fight for your right to party. Even if you are fighting Fight Club stylez. bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa@withholding information does not give you the right to claim your opinion is any more valid. Your rights supersede mine huh. Genius. That's one of the best so far. I'm only holding that information from you for that reason too :killingme. A sane mind would have accepted that the first time it was posted. Yet you persist in a really ugly way. Goading? Is that the limit of your wit in order to get your own way? An adult would have asked with open eyes. The adolescent manipulates to get that which he wishes.

What makes me say that? Really?



What makes me say that, is that you stated it quite clearly. You could at least try to keep up with what you so firmly believe.

Do you think people incapable of changing their mind as more information is presented? I find this (that they can) to be fundamental to the idea of freely shared information. People can all have opinions just as valid as your own, if you think their opinion to be wrong, simply supply them the same information you find to be so compelling. The notion that some are simply unworthy of even being given such information is utterly abhorrent. In this your RBE is very different from the likes of The Venus Project.

My mind is not 'made up', as the saying goes, I am simply making a judgement (and yes it is a valid one) based on the information at hand...

[mashman]

Do you think people incapable of changing their mind as more information is presented? I find this (that they can) to be fundamental to the idea of freely shared information. People can all have opinions just as valid as your own, if you think their opinion to be wrong, simply supply them the same information you find to be so compelling. The notion that some are simply unworthy of even being given such information is utterly abhorrent. In this your RBE is very different from the likes of The Venus Project.

My mind is not 'made up', as the saying goes, I am simply making a judgement (and yes it is a valid one) based on the information at hand...

Of course people can change their minds as more information is presented. I've found that too. :killingme@abhorrent and deciding that "my" RBE, despite you admittedly knowing nothing about it, is very different from the likes of TVP. I know a couple of people who have spoken with Mr Fresco and found that they were exceptionally closed minded to certain approaches and wouldn't even discuss what they had to say further. So, actually, given the evidence, you're wrong, again.

Yes it is. I have decided that it is based on the information at hand. Yet you say you need more information? ... and then you go on to make a judgement based on what you know despite the fact that you also know that there's more information to be had, but instead of postponing your judgement til you have all the facts like any normal person, well, :killingme. I picked how useless you were from the start. You went on to prove it and we ended up with the only conclusion that could be drawn i.e. you've made your mind up. You clearly stated it in your own words, and now you're backtracking. It's really isn't tempting at all to have to deal with your inconsistencies... so I spared myself the trouble, as well as you the embarrassment fumbling in the dark at something you have proven to be incapable of understanding. A simple thanks would do.

[Graystone]

Of course people can change their minds as more information is presented. I've found that too. :killingme@abhorrent and deciding that "my" RBE, despite you admittedly knowing nothing about it, is very different from the likes of TVP. I know a couple of people who have spoken with Mr Fresco and found that they were exceptionally closed minded to certain approaches and wouldn't even discuss what they had to say further. So, actually, given the evidence, you're wrong, again.

Yes it is. I have decided that it is based on the information at hand. Yet you say you need more information? ... and then you go on to make a judgement based on what you know despite the fact that you also know that there's more information to be had, but instead of postponing your judgement til you have all the facts like any normal person, well, :killingme. I picked how useless you were from the start. You went on to prove it and we ended up with the only conclusion that could be drawn i.e. you've made your mind up. You clearly stated it in your own words, and now you're backtracking. It's really isn't tempting at all to have to deal with your inconsistencies... so I spared myself the trouble, as well as you the embarrassment fumbling in the dark at something you have proven to be incapable of understanding. A simple thanks would do.

Cool, so present said information and change my mind.

Postponing judgement only makes sense when there is more information incoming. There isn't, so I didn't. Your assumption that I do not understand the information you have put forward is also quite poor, just accept that other people opinions are worthy, things get a lot simpler, The Venus Project is predicated on a similar value.

I'm always happy to change my mind as more info comes to light, you might choose to view this as backtracking, I just point to that first sentence in my post you quoted. This should also cause you to change your opinion that my mind had been made up, to 'backtrack' as you put it, clearly means it wasn't!

[mashman]

Cool, so present said information and change my mind.

Postponing judgement only makes sense when there is more information incoming. There isn't, so I didn't. Your assumption that I do not understand the information you have put forward is also quite poor, just accept that other people opinions are worthy, things get a lot simpler, The Venus Project is predicated on a similar value.

I'm always happy to change my mind as more info comes to light, you might choose to view this as backtracking, I just point to that first sentence in my post you quoted. This should also cause you to change your opinion that my mind had been made up, to 'backtrack' as you put it, clearly means it wasn't!

:facepalm: It's not up to me to change your mind. That's entirely up to you. Once you figure that out........ actually no.

You're saying that I don't accept other people's opinions? Whatever led you to think that? Given that I didn't outright write your Monarchy claim off. Which is, ironically, something you did with "my" RBE. I guess it's 1 rule for you and another rule for the other. As such, you're not worthy in any way shape or form to hear what I have to say. TVP may well be predicated on similar, but the reality is, as has been related by a couple of people I know that have directly confronted the man himself, has been to the contrary.

Congratulations and good luck with your progression towards changing your mind. You may as well drink in TVP given that "my" RBE is so incomprehensible. You still won't be able to change your mind though. You don't have the basic skills required to accomplish such a thing. You've had several pages to hold your judgement and be given the information you state you want, yet you've wasted that time with this little conversation instead. They are not the actions of someone who is curious enough about understanding something. I see no evidence of your ability to change your mind. None. Quite the opposite in fact as I have pointed out. But best of luck with that.

[Graystone]

:facepalm: It's not up to me to change your mind. That's entirely up to you. Once you figure that out........ actually no.

You're saying that I don't accept other people's opinions? Whatever led you to think that? Given that I didn't outright write your Monarchy claim off. Which is, ironically, something you did with "my" RBE. I guess it's 1 rule for you and another rule for the other. As such, you're not worthy in any way shape or form to hear what I have to say. TVP may well be predicated on similar, but the reality is, as has been related by a couple of people I know that have directly confronted the man himself, has been to the contrary.

Congratulations and good luck with your progression towards changing your mind. You may as well drink in TVP given that "my" RBE is so incomprehensible. You still won't be able to change your mind though. You don't have the basic skills required to accomplish such a thing. You've had several pages to hold your judgement and be given the information you state you want, yet you've wasted that time with this little conversation instead. They are not the actions of someone who is curious enough about understanding something. I see no evidence of your ability to change your mind. None. Quite the opposite in fact as I have pointed out. But best of luck with that.

Why do you assume it is me who needs to change my mind? Why not open yours instead?

Why do you say you didn't write off my monarchy claim but I did write off your RBE one?

To say someone is not worthy to hear what you have to say, is much the same as writing off their opinions I would think.

Don't be silly, I've asked multiple times for the information you continue to withhold, you can't blame me for it's lack.

[mashman]

Why do you assume it is me who needs to change my mind? Why not open yours instead?

Why do you say you didn't write off my monarchy claim but I did write off your RBE one?

To say someone is not worthy to hear what you have to say, is much the same as writing off their opinions I would think.

Don't be silly, I've asked multiple times for the information you continue to withhold, you can't blame me for it's lack.

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Coz you did.

Not at all. As I have proven I listened to your opinion, got a feeling for what you were capable of, and decided not to continue sharing information with you. I suggest you stop thinking for other people, it doesn't serve you well... moreover it seems to illicit the response whereby the other party chooses to keep you at arms length... or at least keep you around for laughs.

I can, I did, I justified every single one of the reasons I chose not to engage with you. I even said "Congratulations and good luck with your progression towards changing your mind". I'm not blaming you for me withholding the information, that's not your fault. As I have stated multiple times, something you still haven't grasped yet, it is entirely down to me and my reasoning that I'm not sharing the information. But you keep validating those reasons... in a really really cool way though.

[Graystone]

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Coz you did.

Not at all. As I have proven I listened to your opinion, got a feeling for what you were capable of, and decided not to continue sharing information with you. I suggest you stop thinking for other people, it doesn't serve you well... moreover it seems to illicit the response whereby the other party chooses to keep you at arms length... or at least keep you around for laughs.

I can, I did, I justified every single one of the reasons I chose not to engage with you. I even said "Congratulations and good luck with your progression towards changing your mind". I'm not blaming you for me withholding the information, that's not your fault. As I have stated multiple times, something you still haven't grasped yet, it is entirely down to me and my reasoning that I'm not sharing the information. But you keep validating those reasons... in a really really cool way though.

I disagree, and find your presumption that you know what I think in order to make your strawman argument to be most unenlightened.

Still sounds a lot like you wrote off my opinion doesn't it?

Which are all unjustified by the simple notion that freely shared information must underpin such a Utopian Dream as your RBE outlines. Double standards and hypocrisy make for a politician... do be honest and let us know if you ever run for office eh! That would put the irony/hypocrisy/(probly deserves its own term) meter stratospheric!

[Woodman]

I disagree, and find your presumption that you know what I think in order to make your strawman argument to be most unenlightened.

Still sounds a lot like you wrote off my opinion doesn't it?

Which are all unjustified by the simple notion that freely shared information must underpin such a Utopian Dream as your RBE outlines. Double standards and hypocrisy make for a politician... do be honest and let us know if you ever run for office eh! That would put the irony/hypocrisy/(probly deserves its own term) meter stratospheric!

Lets just hope that mashman isn't charged with selling in an rbe to the populous. You would be off to the gulag for asking the wrong question.

[Ocean1]

let us know if you ever run for office eh!

About that...

[mashman]

Lets just hope that mashman isn't charged with selling in an rbe to the populous. You would be off to the gulag for asking the wrong question.

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa@gulag. How do you sell something, I assume you mean for money, in an RBE that doesn't have any money? I see yoiu thought that one through Graystone styles.


I disagree, and find your presumption that you know what I think in order to make your strawman argument to be most unenlightened.

Still sounds a lot like you wrote off my opinion doesn't it?

Which are all unjustified by the simple notion that freely shared information must underpin such a Utopian Dream as your RBE outlines. Double standards and hypocrisy make for a politician... do be honest and let us know if you ever run for office eh! That would put the irony/hypocrisy/(probly deserves its own term) meter stratospheric!

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa@me presuming that I know what you think. Son, I did that purposefully as that's exactly what you've been doing all the way though. I might have mentioned it once or twice. You've admitted such in virtually every post and I knew you'd fall for it. So you're disagreeing with yourself. That was way too easy, but chur for the giggles.

Only if you choose to read it that way. From my perspective it sounds like nothing of the sort.

In which case, and given that I've already stated that utopia doesn't exist, means that I Am completely justified in withholding the info from you. No double standards. I ran in the 2016 Mayor election and this years General Election. Fortunately someone came up to me and stated that I didn't sound like a politician. In fact, the only person that did state that I sounded like a politician was one of the politicians. The politician he compared me to is now the leader of the country. Maybe I'll get in next time :killingme. On that note, I was commended by a few constituents regarding the approaches I was proposing. So you see, I share "my" information wherever I go. Tis just you I choose not to do so with. The irony wasn't wasted on me, but there were those who heard me speak that stated that I didn't come across as a politician. That's probably coz I'm not. Those who believe otherwise are simply wrong and are projecting their own faith.

[Graystone]

About that...

Has it happened already? that would explain a lot actually...

[TheDemonLord]

Has it happened already? that would explain a lot actually...

I think he barely got a triple digit number of votes...

But as per this thread - it's everyone else that's wrong, and the world would be perfect if we were all like Comrade Mashman

[Graystone]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa@me presuming that I know what you think. Son, I did that purposefully as that's exactly what you've been doing all the way though. I might have mentioned it once or twice. You've admitted such in virtually every post and I knew you'd fall for it. So you're disagreeing with yourself. That was way too easy, but chur for the giggles.

Only if you choose to read it that way. From my perspective it sounds like nothing of the sort.

In which case, and given that I've already stated that utopia doesn't exist, means that I Am completely justified in withholding the info from you. No double standards. I ran in the 2016 Mayor election and this years General Election. Fortunately someone came up to me and stated that I didn't sound like a politician. In fact, the only person that did state that I sounded like a politician was one of the politicians. The politician he compared me to is now the leader of the country. Maybe I'll get in next time :killingme. On that note, I was commended by a few constituents regarding the approaches I was proposing. So you see, I share "my" information wherever I go. Tis just you I choose not to do so with. The irony wasn't wasted on me, but there were those who heard me speak that stated that I didn't come across as a politician. That's probably coz I'm not. Those who believe otherwise are simply wrong and are projecting their own faith.

Yeh I see what's going on, seems I struck more of a nerve than I thought as you've already failed at the politician thing. Sorry about causing offense and I get why you are so reluctant to share ideas that are unlikely to be well received again.

[Woodman]

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa@gulag. How do you sell something, I assume you mean for money, in an RBE that doesn't have any money? I see yoiu thought that one through Graystone styles.





No you took "sell" to literally. If the rest of the rbe supporters have your arrogance then you will have zero chance of it being adopted.

[mashman]

Yeh I see what's going on, seems I struck more of a nerve than I thought as you've already failed at the politician thing. Sorry about causing offense and I get why you are so reluctant to share ideas that are unlikely to be well received again.

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme Yeah, you struck a nerve. My funny bone is kicking off like there's no tomorrow. Chur.

[mashman]

No you took "sell" to literally. If the rest of the rbe supporters have your arrogance then you will have zero chance of it being adopted.

I did state that I was making an assumption and also added a question mark to underline the need for clarification. Now I'm arrogant? :killingme Got any evidence of that?

[Woodman]

Now I'm arrogant? :killingme Got any evidence of that?

Your conversations with Graystone............

[mashman]

Your conversations with Graystone............

Where's the arrogance? coz I never put any in there.

[TheDemonLord]

Where's the arrogance? coz I never put any in there.

Those that already agree with you, think you are simply speaking the truth
Those that disagree with you, think you are simply being Arrogant

As evidenced by your foray into Politics - there's more of the latter than the former...

[Ocean1]

Those that already agree with you, think you are simply speaking the truth
Those that disagree with you, think you are simply being Arrogant

As evidenced by your foray into Politics - there's more of the latter than the former...

Mebe you do him a disservice. I think the perception of arrogance is simply the belief that the subject is both confident and wrong.

On the other hand, and to use a recently much abused metric... what percentage of the country was it that believed him to be wrong?

[mashman]

On the other hand, and to use a recently much abused metric... what percentage of the country was it that believed him to be wrong?

I spoke to less people than I received votes :killingme. But by all means let's explore your percentage of the country that claims "me" wrong. Could be fun. I'll start. I got more votes than you. So using your own metric, I was less wrong than you :)

[Woodman]

Where's the arrogance? coz I never put any in there.

If you can't see it then I can't help you sorry.

[Katman]

So using your own metric, I was less wrong than you :)

To be fair, most of us are less wrong than him.

[mashman]

If you can't see it then I can't help you sorry.

NOW that sounds like a vaguely familiar thing to state. Pretty sure I stated that very thing several times to Graystone yet he persisted, so all I did was hold the mirror for him. So, watch it Woody, next step is arrogance. I don't see it, because no arrogance left my fingers. This has been confirmed by my wife who read the interaction through. I'd state what she had to say about it, but the internet would melt. Suffice to say she was confused as to why anyone would persist by badgering someone who doesn't want to share information with someone who clearly doesn't want to learn anything. Perception eh... anyhoo, I'm going with my Wife's because she knows the reality. And thanks for the offer of non-help that I don't need. As you know, I Am more than happy to help you with yours. Always will be. Love n hugs. Gordon.

[mashman]

To be fair, most of us are less wrong than him.

Only coz we're outside of the 1850's. Unfair advantage.

[Woodman]

NOW that sounds like a vaguely familiar thing to state. Pretty sure I stated that very thing several times to Graystone yet he persisted, so all I did was hold the mirror for him. So, watch it Woody, next step is arrogance. I don't see it, because no arrogance left my fingers. This has been confirmed by my wife who read the interaction through. I'd state what she had to say about it, but the internet would melt. Suffice to say she was confused as to why anyone would persist by badgering someone who doesn't want to share information with someone who clearly doesn't want to learn anything. Perception eh... anyhoo, I'm going with my Wife's because she knows the reality. And thanks for the offer of non-help that I don't need. As you know, I Am more than happy to help you with yours. Always will be. Love n hugs. Gordon.

Hey, any time you want non-help just non-call.

[mashman]

Hey, any time you want non-help just non-call.

As long as that's an exclusive offer. Deal.

[mashman]

I'm looking for feedback on how to augment the below approach because it entirely feasible to implement. All feedback appreciated... this is KB after all.

Put things in place to fund those who currently redistribute free food to those who need it. Building vertical hydroponic farms on the doorsteps of those very people and calling them community gardens. I'd look at slightly different ways of mixing current logistics to save on transport costs, sprays etc... Either way, should anyone struggling financially choose to turn down good fresh free food, and therefore not have another 17% in their pocket by default, then that's their problem. Where they do get 17%... well, they now have 17% more money without anyone really having to spend much outwith the investment required to build the farms. Even at that we could find the final year students who kick ass and offer them the contract to build them. Again, it's be cheap, potentially free, as these guys are already paid for given that they're still in education. What they would receive in return is a short-cut in terms of their industry standing. There are a few other, more maybe, important things I'd address too... but hey, let's start with the alleviation of poverty and maybe some knock on health effects.

[Jeeper]

I'm looking for feedback on how to augment the below approach because it entirely feasible to implement. All feedback appreciated... this is KB after all.

Put things in place to fund those who currently redistribute free food to those who need it. Building vertical hydroponic farms on the doorsteps of those very people and calling them community gardens. I'd look at slightly different ways of mixing current logistics to save on transport costs, sprays etc... Either way, should anyone struggling financially choose to turn down good fresh free food, and therefore not have another 17% in their pocket by default, then that's their problem. Where they do get 17%... well, they now have 17% more money without anyone really having to spend much outwith the investment required to build the farms. Even at that we could find the final year students who kick ass and offer them the contract to build them. Again, it's be cheap, potentially free, as these guys are already paid for given that they're still in education. What they would receive in return is a short-cut in terms of their industry standing. There are a few other, more maybe, important things I'd address too... but hey, let's start with the alleviation of poverty and maybe some knock on health effects.How could they have 17% more money when you yourself say there would be no money? And setting a metric at 17% sounds like a law to me. You said there would be no laws.

[Katman]

How could they have 17% more money when you yourself say there would be no money? And setting a metric at 17% sounds like a law to me. You said there would be no laws.

My guess is that he's talking about a way of introducing an RBE concept while money is still in circulation.

And I also guess that the 17% is the average figure that people spend of their income on food.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm looking for feedback on how to augment the below approach because it entirely feasible to implement. All feedback appreciated... this is KB after all.

Put things in place to fund those who currently redistribute free food to those who need it. Building vertical hydroponic farms on the doorsteps of those very people and calling them community gardens. I'd look at slightly different ways of mixing current logistics to save on transport costs, sprays etc... Either way, should anyone struggling financially choose to turn down good fresh free food, and therefore not have another 17% in their pocket by default, then that's their problem. Where they do get 17%... well, they now have 17% more money without anyone really having to spend much outwith the investment required to build the farms. Even at that we could find the final year students who kick ass and offer them the contract to build them. Again, it's be cheap, potentially free, as these guys are already paid for given that they're still in education. What they would receive in return is a short-cut in terms of their industry standing. There are a few other, more maybe, important things I'd address too... but hey, let's start with the alleviation of poverty and maybe some knock on health effects.

Even though I know you won't read this.

Let's start of with this:

It's not a bad idea. But without an appreciation of Human Nature, doomed to fail.

Community Gardens have been tried before and with some success - the Allotments during WW2 in the UK for example doubled the UKs effective food production.

In order for it to work - there are 2 things that need to happen:

1: People need to be able to take responsibility for the Community Garden.

People who have the authority to take responsibility for something will look after it, If no one is able to take responsibility for it, then it will end up in a state of disrepair. People need to be motivated to maintain and look after it - and if you don't give someone the authority to fix a problem, then it's not their problem to fix. And if no one has Authority, then it's no ones problem to fix.

2: People need to earn it.

Now, I'm not talking necessarily about Money, I'm talking about something given for free has no value, something earned has an intrinsic value.

Perhaps the most well documented example of this phenomena is Lottery winners - many of whom were poor, got suddenly handed more money than they know what to do with and end up blowing it all, ending up in a worse financial position than before they won.

On the flip side, the poorest person in the world can take a series of rocks, build a drystone wall, stand back and enjoy the fruits of their labour and know that the wall has a value to them. They are then motivated to maintain that wall, because it has Value to them.

Apart from that - I actually think that an initiative that allows people to grow their own food, in an urban area, that will reduce their food bill is a good idea, but again - you need to factor in the Human equation.

[Jeeper]

My guess is that he's talking about a way of introducing an RBE concept while money is still in circulation.

And I also guess that the 17% is the average figure that people spend of their income on food.I understand that. But humans come in different shapes and sizes, requiring different calorific input. Giving everyone the same amount sounds like rationing to me. Again, who will enforce it? Comrade Mashman says no need for government. Who else can be universal enforcer of laws?

[Katman]

....you need to factor in the Human equation.

That's why we should get rid of half of them.

[Katman]

I understand that.

It doesn't sound like it.

[TheDemonLord]

That's why we should get rid of half of them.

Ja, Führer Katman.

Da, Tovarisch Katman.




On the plus side, any time from now on that you try and claim some form of moral superiority in regards to the US, casulties in War etc. I'll just point to this series of posts where you've advocated for the Genocide of half the Planet.

[Katman]

On the plus side, any time from now on that you try and claim some form of moral superiority in regards to the US, casulties in War etc. I'll just point to this series of posts where you've advocated for the Genocide of half the Planet.

Does a natural major catastrophe count as genocide? :scratch:

[Jeeper]

Now I know where retired and unsuccessful politicians end up.

[mashman]

How could they have 17% more money when you yourself say there would be no money? And setting a metric at 17% sounds like a law to me. You said there would be no laws.

The approach is system agnostic.

[mashman]

My guess is that he's talking about a way of introducing an RBE concept while money is still in circulation.

And I also guess that the 17% is the average figure that people spend of their income on food.

It's certainly something that we'd do in an RBE. Irrespective though, it makes sense in terms of lowering water use, lowering transportation costs, taking some of the pressure of those who are currently redistributing food, providing potential health benefits, as well as putting that 17% average household spend on food into their pockets without them actually receiving any more money.

[Jeeper]

The approach is system agnostic.Ok. Elaborate a little more about how current unequality would be eliminated. Do you propose surrender of all material possessions, including money, to a central arbitrator of sorts? You have to remove the current system before a new one is introduced. Or would they coexist and switch over a period of time?

[TheDemonLord]

Does a natural major catastrophe count as genocide? :scratch:

As I said - by all means put your money where your mouth is.

And then you betrayed what you actually wanted - which is half of everyone else to die - so yeah, that'd be hoping for Genocide.

The fact that you are trying to absolve yourself of any responsibility and assuage your guilty conscious by wishing that it's the impersonal force of Nature is neither here, nor there.

It's the intent.

And as you've clearly demonstrated - your intent is Murderous.

[TheDemonLord]

Ok. Elaborate a little more about how current unequality would be eliminated. Do you propose surrender of all material possessions, including money, to a central arbitrator of sorts? You have to remove the current system before a new one is introduced. Or would they coexist and switch over a period of time?

Shades of the Russian Revolution.

And it's working out so well in Zimbabwe.

The only thing worse than a dyed-in-the-wool Communist, is a dyed-in-the-wool Communist who doesn't think he's a communist.

[Katman]

And then you betrayed what you actually wanted - which is half of everyone else to die - so yeah, that'd be hoping for Genocide.

Dude, the words genocide and murder are yours.

I haven't used either of them in this context.

[mashman]

I understand that. But humans come in different shapes and sizes, requiring different calorific input. Giving everyone the same amount sounds like rationing to me. Again, who will enforce it? Comrade Mashman says no need for government. Who else can be universal enforcer of laws?

Nope. They take what they need. That currently happens, whether the food comes from the market or is delivered by a KCS or Kiwiharvest to name but 2. In terms of enforcement to prevent those who take too much, perhaps those who are looking after the gardens will object and society will prevent them from taking so much. What's left, after those that take too much, will be people still getting access to some of the food they require.

At least you're honest and have nothing to add to the approach. Other than bullshit propagandised fear that it. "Oh we better not do it, yes it will help the majority out, but a minority will take the piss and we don't want to encourage that behaviour". Pathetic bullshit is pathetic bullshit. It's the same bullshit propaganda used when talking about food banks and that there are chancers there and therefore food banks should be removed. Yes there are chancers there. Yet the vast majority of people that use food banks are straight up in need and greatly appreciative the assistance. It's like you only want to cater for a minority by preventing the majority from getting access to that which has been set up for the specific reason of getting food that would have been thrown out to people that would have otherwise gone without.

[mashman]

Ok. Elaborate a little more about how current unequality would be eliminated. Do you propose surrender of all material possessions, including money, to a central arbitrator of sorts? You have to remove the current system before a new one is introduced. Or would they coexist and switch over a period of time?

Did I say it would be eliminated? No.

I'm not expecting those who receive the assistance of services providing them with food as having to trade for it.

What does the removal of a system have to do with that which was being proposed in terms of getting feedback for the approach outlined? As I said, it's system agnostic. It's an approach in its own right that would make a difference.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, the words genocide and murder are yours.

I haven't used either of them in this context.

What's the matter? Don't like how your Shit smells when it's shown the light of day?

Perhaps if you are so uncomfortable with someone calling your statements for the Murderous and Genocidal intents that they are, then perhaps you should take a long, hard look at your bitter and resentful soul.

As a fun fact - do you know that there is another type of person who is often fond of calling for divine judgement and execution upon the world for the grievous sins of Humanity with themselves installed as the arbiter of what is and isn't good and just?


They are the people that like to shoot innocent school children en masse.

You should think about that.

[Katman]

What's the matter? Don't like how your Shit smells when it's shown the light of day?

No, I'm just pointing out that your autism has you running off half-cocked yet again.

[TheDemonLord]

No, I'm just pointing out that your autism has you running off half-cocked yet again.

It's funny how everytime you get confronted with a truth you can't deny, you've got to resort to calling people Autistic.

I guess it's easier to call people names than to look at the place inside of yourself that you are too afraid to.

[Katman]

It's funny how everytime you get confronted with a truth you can't deny.....

What truth?

You mean the truth that I've not used the words murder or genocide?

Or the truth that your autism periodically sends you off on half-cocked flights of fancy?

[Jeeper]

Did I say it would be eliminated? No.

I'm not expecting those who receive the assistance of services providing them with food as having to trade for it.

What does the removal of a system have to do with that which was being proposed in terms of getting feedback for the approach outlined? As I said, it's system agnostic. It's an approach in its own right that would make a difference.Approach, system, these are symantics. I genuinely gave you a chance to explain yourself and your approach, but you chose to attack my intent with shit made up in your dreams about what I may believe in.

If you can't argue with actual logic and stay on point, I'm affraid I'll have to leave you in your own Dreamland. Enjoy your stay.

[TheDemonLord]

What truth?

You mean the truth that I've not used the words murder or genocide?

The truth that underlines your motives.

I agree you didn't use those words, but your intent speaks far louder.

Simply put - the moment you indicated that whatever great tragedy you wish should befall the Earth and all of mankind, should do so in a manner that leaves you unscathed - that's when it's murder and Genocide, cowardly hiding behind a proxy of 'natural disaster'.

actively wanting others to die, whilst staying alive yourself - we call that Murder.
Doing it on a scale that wipes out half of the Human Population - we call that Genocide.

[mashman]

Approach, system, these are symantics. I genuinely gave you a chance to explain yourself and your approach, but you chose to attack my intent with shit made up in your dreams about what I may believe in.

If you can't argue with actual logic and stay on point, I'm affraid I'll have to leave you in your own Dreamland. Enjoy your stay.

:killingme. Ok.

[Katman]

actively wanting others to die, whilst staying alive yourself - we call that Murder.
Doing it on a scale that wipes out half of the Human Population - we call that Genocide.

Hush now - you're making yourself look even more silly than normal.

[Madness]

actively wanting others to die, whilst staying alive yourself - we call that Murder.

I thought that was just part of being a KB member.

[TheDemonLord]

Hush now - you're making yourself look even more silly than normal.

Coming from the person who called for the Murder of half the Planet...

Yes.

I'm totally the silly one.

[Ocean1]

Put things in place to fund those who currently redistribute free food to those who need it.

Fuck me you don't just want free shit, now you want it delivered free too?

[mashman]

Fuck me you don't just want free shit, now you want it delivered free too?

The market has responded to a need. As such, free food is received by some and it is also delivered for free too. I'm fortunate enough not to need it. I guess when you don't have enough capitalist tokens you have to resort to accepting tat which is offered for free. Not sure why you're complaining. the free market is allowing thousands of people to eat and to grow up to become non-caring and non-sharing rational anarchists. And no, you can go and fuck yourself. As appealing as your offer is, I can't afford the booze bill that'd be required to get me across that line.

[Katman]

Coming from the person who called for the Murder of half the Planet...

Dude, you really need to look up the definition of the word 'murder'.

I think you'll find it's somewhat closer to what Ocean proposes.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, you really need to look up the definition of the word 'murder'.

I think you'll find it's somewhat closer to what Ocean proposes.

You've demonstrated a Motive, You've Demonstrated mens rea.

And despite your claims that you want it to be some impartial force (in a vain attempt to absolve yourself) - you've indicated that you want it targeted (at the very least) away from you, which means you don't want it impartial.

So yeah, That would be a murderous intent.

[Akzle]

do you think i should get a puppy?

[TheDemonLord]

do you think i should get a puppy?

Rottweiler :)
Or a Newfoundland

[Akzle]

Rottweiler :)
Or a Newfoundland

not a rotti.

i was thinking a barbet, or pudelhund.

[Graystone]

If you can't see it then I can't help you sorry.

Interestingly, arrogance and humilty are some of those traits where telling others about your own generally makes the counterpoint to what is said. Have you seen that clip of Trump bragging about how humble he is?

[Graystone]

I'm looking for feedback on how to augment the below approach because it entirely feasible to implement. All feedback appreciated... this is KB after all.

Put things in place to fund those who currently redistribute free food to those who need it. Building vertical hydroponic farms on the doorsteps of those very people and calling them community gardens. I'd look at slightly different ways of mixing current logistics to save on transport costs, sprays etc... Either way, should anyone struggling financially choose to turn down good fresh free food, and therefore not have another 17% in their pocket by default, then that's their problem. Where they do get 17%... well, they now have 17% more money without anyone really having to spend much outwith the investment required to build the farms. Even at that we could find the final year students who kick ass and offer them the contract to build them. Again, it's be cheap, potentially free, as these guys are already paid for given that they're still in education. What they would receive in return is a short-cut in terms of their industry standing. There are a few other, more maybe, important things I'd address too... but hey, let's start with the alleviation of poverty and maybe some knock on health effects.

I'd advise managed growth, a lot of community gardens have failed due to some parts of the community getting greedy. Manage allocation first for the production to go to those in need, then surplus to others. Free is a little optimistic if you want good ones built, but it's certainly within the range of local donations. 17% is also very optimistic given the small selection of things that can be grown at any one time; every little bit helps but overselling it is a good way to have the whole thing crash and burn due to too high expectations. Look for bored old people to do the volunteer stuff also...

It's absolutely the right idea to go about testing the waters for your RBE ideas though. No widespread overturning of capitalism or political upheaval, just be more efficient with production/consumption.

[Woodman]

Anything to avoid buying supermarket "fresh" veges.

[mashman]

Anything to avoid buying supermarket "fresh" veges.

:killingme. I just finished a greenhouse made from pallets, old lattice fence and what was left of the plastic from the tunnelhouse after it unstitched itself. Should be a little better for the kiddlywinks.


I'd advise managed growth, a lot of community gardens have failed due to some parts of the community getting greedy. Manage allocation first for the production to go to those in need, then surplus to others. Free is a little optimistic if you want good ones built, but it's certainly within the range of local donations. 17% is also very optimistic given the small selection of things that can be grown at any one time; every little bit helps but overselling it is a good way to have the whole thing crash and burn due to too high expectations. Look for bored old people to do the volunteer stuff also...

It's absolutely the right idea to go about testing the waters for your RBE ideas though. No widespread overturning of capitalism or political upheaval, just be more efficient with production/consumption.

Thanks for that. I figured that those who understood the significance of what was being undertaken would take guardianship of it. As you say, the oldies have time, and some of 'em have gardening knowledge that could only improve the quality and quantity etc... Yup, cheap n cheerful isn't the way to do that sort of thing, especially when I'm thinking about vertical hydroponic farming in places. As you say, there may well be local funding available. The former Mayor here is head of a local entity that deals with large enough sums of money. I meant that the labour could be free. Consider the final year trades students that really needn't be there anymore, but would like solid experience on the CV when heading out into the working world. The students get the financial leg up and the employers don't have to train as many of the youth. Should be an acceptable incentive for the ones who want to get ahead? As for free materials. Tricky, unless those students can also deconstruct buildings that need to be torn down anyway, and then use some of those resources for the materials for the farm. As we are in a bit of a wobbly place on the world. A dome would be the most sensible design. Any resources left over could also go towards maintaining the current housing stock that needs repairing before it ends up needing torn down. Maybe fixing school roofs or summink. Dunno. Would need an idea of the resources. Either way, there's always the potential to rent out a space purely as a hydroponic farm. But then there's travel issues and so on and so forth. If the garden/farm has the same level of "greed" as the time banks. Then I'd be alright with that. Rough with the smooth etc...

Interestingly enough, that's the basis of that transition I was talking about i.e. don't rock the financial boat, but fiddle with the logistics a little to achieve a goal that money can't buy. Hat tip to Mr Fresco for the coolest catchphrase of all time imho.

[mashman]

There was also the "charity" aspect for construction. More in terms of certified experts on site. A tradie mate of mine, who probably wouldn't be needed, but doesn't know that, would happily offer a day or two. He'd do it on the basis that it would be better for his pocket i.e. no need for a raise in any taxes to fund it. Barn raising in Porirua could be quite good fun.

[Ocean1]

The market has responded to a need. As such, free food is received by some and it is also delivered for free too. I'm fortunate enough not to need it. I guess when you don't have enough capitalist tokens you have to resort to accepting tat which is offered for free. Not sure why you're complaining. the free market is allowing thousands of people to eat and to grow up to become non-caring and non-sharing rational anarchists. And no, you can go and fuck yourself. As appealing as your offer is, I can't afford the booze bill that'd be required to get me across that line.

Fuck you talk some shite.

Here's what happens:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/94089004/takers-exploit-swap-space-in-te-awamutu

"There is one elderly lady in particular. She parks nearby, waits for goods to be dropped off and then takes the lot." :laugh:

And y'know what? That's actually not the least encouraging result. For years I had a substantial orchard, and in spite of numerous attempts to give fruit away there was fuck all takers. Pick your own? Fuck that shit, far too much effort. So I picked apples, plumbs, pairs etc etc, hundreds of kilos worth, and stuck it in boxes. Still couldn't give it away.

Turns out there's a reason most poor people are poor. Apart from the obvious depredations of the ravening capitalist hoards of course. Can you guess what it is? :laugh:

[Katman]

And y'know what? That's actually not the least encouraging result. For years I had a substantial orchard, and in spite of numerous attempts to give fruit away there was fuck all takers. Pick your own? Fuck that shit, far too much effort. So I picked apples, plumbs, pairs etc etc, hundreds of kilos worth, and stuck it in boxes. Still couldn't give it away.:

They probably figured you'd pissed on it.

And judging by your contributions here it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you had.

[Ocean1]

They probably figured you'd pissed on it.

And judging by your contributions here it certainly wouldn't surprise me if you had.

Oh no, they weren't sad wee conspiracy theorising fuckwits from Taupo.

Just fucking lazy.

And no, I'm still not sucking your shitty cock.

[mashman]

"There is one elderly lady in particular. She parks nearby, waits for goods to be dropped off and then takes the lot." :laugh:

And y'know what? That's actually not the least encouraging result. For years I had a substantial orchard, and in spite of numerous attempts to give fruit away there was fuck all takers. Pick your own? Fuck that shit, far too much effort. So I picked apples, plumbs, pairs etc etc, hundreds of kilos worth, and stuck it in boxes. Still couldn't give it away.

Turns out there's a reason most poor people are poor. Apart from the obvious depredations of the ravening capitalist hoards of course. Can you guess what it is? :laugh:

Good for her.

Thay's why I'd put in on the doorstep of where it's needed. Not rich whitey land.

They don't produce anything that the market values enough? Or worse yet, dun dun duuuuuuuun. They don't produce anything. Score nicely. I hate getting bad reviews from you. It really really hurts.

[Katman]

Oh no, they weren't sad wee conspiracy theorising fuckwits from Taupo.

Just fucking lazy.

And no, I'm still not sucking your shitty cock.

Dude seriously, considering the personality you present here, do you really think anyone actually believes your claim of altruism?

[Ocean1]

Dude seriously, considering the personality you present here, do you really think anyone actually believes your claim of altruism?

Dude, seriously, considering the personal beliefs you present here do you really think anyone is actually interested in your delusional opinions?

[eldog]

Not rich whitey land.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[Graystone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLmD_WVY-E

Food for thought perhaps, note the emphasis placed on feedback in order to avoid erroneous self perception.

[SPman]

Fuck you talk some shite.

Turns out there's a reason most poor people are poor. Apart from the obvious depredations of the ravening capitalist hoards of course. Can you guess what it is? :laugh:
As a generalisation - because all situations vary......

They have an "I am poor" mindset, rather than an "I am broke" mindset. When they (sub-conciously?) define themselves as "poor", it seems they abrogate all personal responsibility and self respect, and everything becomes someone else's responsibility. Many also seem to acquire an "it's my right and you owe me" attitude, which makes them look like whining, lazy, ungrateful fucks, to the larger society. These are the ones played by the politicians and the media, as if they are the majority. An ennui also seems to set in, where they can't be bothered to even look after their own fecking cleanliness and hygiene (lack of self-respect?) and seem to lapse into a mode of purely personal hedonism/survival.
There is a section of the population(estimated variously between 3-6%), where that is a state they will naturally inhabit - you can't actually "help" them. Their reality is not "mainstream" reality. The rest of "the poor", can be helped - it does take effort and a lot have dropped into drugs of some sort to "remove" the spectre of society. Many are actually working in a desultory way.
Those who are just "broke" are usually trying to help themselves, most are working, or trying to find work, and it's normally a change in circumstances that changes the "broke" to "managing...just". Probably about 60% of the so called poor in society are of this ilk - stuck in the mud, trying to find traction.
The best way to find traction is to have a more equitable, less stratified, more inclusive society, and a government that works for the common good, but we haven't had one of those for about 45 years........

[Ocean1]

Turns out there's a reason most poor people are poor. Apart from the obvious depredations of the ravening capitalist hoards of course. Can you guess what it is? :laugh:


As a generalisation - because all situations vary......

They have an "I am poor" mindset, rather than an "I am broke" mindset. When they (sub-conciously?) define themselves as "poor", it seems they abrogate all personal responsibility and self respect, and everything becomes someone else's responsibility. Many also seem to acquire an "it's my right and you owe me" attitude, which makes them look like whining, lazy, ungrateful fucks, to the larger society. These are the ones played by the politicians and the media, as if they are the majority. An ennui also seems to set in, where they can't be bothered to even look after their own fecking cleanliness and hygiene (lack of self-respect?) and seem to lapse into a mode of purely personal hedonism/survival.
There is a section of the population(estimated variously between 3-6%), where that is a state they will naturally inhabit - you can't actually "help" them. Their reality is not "mainstream" reality. The rest of "the poor", can be helped - it does take effort and a lot have dropped into drugs of some sort to "remove" the spectre of society. Many are actually working in a desultory way.
Those who are just "broke" are usually trying to help themselves, most are working, or trying to find work, and it's normally a change in circumstances that changes the "broke" to "managing...just". Probably about 60% of the so called poor in society are of this ilk - stuck in the mud, trying to find traction.
The best way to find traction is to have a more equitable, less stratified, more inclusive society, and a government that works for the common good, but we haven't had one of those for about 45 years........

Bit verbose. The answer's simply because they want to be poor.

There's a lot more than 3-6% whining about privileged rich pricks earning more than them too.

[Ocean1]

I may have spotted the problem.

Apparently you're poor not only if you live in a household earning a tad less than average.

And if you're over 11 and don't own a cell phone. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/

I always wondered if Darwin was going to get the last laugh, and now we know.

[Woodman]

I may have spotted the problem.

Apparently you're poor not only if you live in a household earning a tad less than average.

And if you're over 11 and don't own a cell phone. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://www.nzchildren.co.nz/

I always wondered if Darwin was going to get the last laugh, and now we know.


Povenvy????????