My first poll for the NZ public

**bogan** · 29th May 2015, 15:28

Originally Posted by Brian d marge

Ok when i get home Ill resend
Im sure you will just love the document

Resend will not work as I don't get PMs.

Post it here.

**Brian d marge** · 29th May 2015, 15:39

Originally Posted by bogan

Resend will not work as I don't get PMs.

Post it here.

Sure
Your going to love it

**Banditbandit** · 29th May 2015, 16:07

Originally Posted by Gadget1

My green rep count is far higher than the pathetic reds from you and your loser mates. .

That's not hard .. I green blinged you for something that you said which made me laugh ... but we still agree on bugger all ... I think I'd rather be in the camp with mashman and 'his loser mates' ...

But I'll still bling you if you make me laugh ...

**Gadget1** · 29th May 2015, 16:17

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

That's not hard .. I green blinged you for something that you said which made me laugh ... but we still agree on bugger all ... I think I'd rather be in the camp with mashman and 'his loser mates' ...

But I'll still bling you if you make me laugh ...

Green bling by itself means little to me, the accompanying comments are of more interest. However, feel free not to respond to me or rep me for anything.

**Ocean1** · 29th May 2015, 18:09

Originally Posted by Brian d marge

Now why would you be adverse to banks and artificial markets ( not that we have been telling you that for how long)
Is it because, they are ..................................

Banks because it's far less work in the long run to earn money before you spend it. (Told you I wasn't a capitalist).

And artificial markets because by definition the provider and the client aren't free to agree the price without outside interference, the antithesis of a free market. Outside of charity I try to avoid paying for more than I receive.

**mashman** · 29th May 2015, 19:07

Originally Posted by bogan

So if the program decides we need more gardeners, they get valued at more? so have more to spend. What are the people who choose not to work valued at?

If the program says we need more gardeners, we search for someone to do gardening, then the program alters the value in whichever direction it needs to to hit its target. The people will be valued at whatever the program has been configured to value them at. I expect that a current financial system value record will also be held, if only for "fair" rollback purposes.

**bogan** · 29th May 2015, 19:14

Originally Posted by mashman

If the program says we need more gardeners, we search for someone to do gardening, then the program alters the value in whichever direction it needs to to hit its target. The people will be valued at whatever the program has been configured to value them at. I expect that a current financial system value record will also be held, if only for "fair" rollback purposes.

You do realise what you've described are the basic concepts behind our current system right?

Jobs (services) valued by supply and demand.
Spending capped by job value (earnings).
Resources/products valued by supply demand.

**mashman** · 29th May 2015, 19:19

Originally Posted by bogan

You do realise what you've described are the basic concepts behind our current system right?

Jobs (services) valued by supply and demand.
Spending capped by job value (earnings).
Resources/products valued by supply demand.

I've known that all along, and have mentioned it on a few occasions. Perhaps we can share that understanding NOW

. It fits almost perfectly because it avoids financial shock.

**bogan** · 29th May 2015, 19:22

Originally Posted by mashman

I've known that all along, and have mentioned it on a few occasions. Perhaps we can share that understanding NOW

. It fits almost perfectly because it avoids financial shock.

Better than that, it fits so well it can be 100% opt in, in fact that is a better option than forcing change through by majority vote. I still have issues with it so I won't be, but when are you going to opt in to it? or start one up so others can?

**Brian d marge** · 29th May 2015, 19:23

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Banks because it's far less work in the long run to earn money before you spend it. (Told you I wasn't a capitalist).

And artificial markets because by definition the provider and the client aren't free to agree the price without outside interference, the antithesis of a free market. Outside of charity I try to avoid paying for more than I receive.

We will be holding hands singing "hey non e nonny " if you keep this up

**mashman** · 29th May 2015, 19:43

Originally Posted by bogan

Better than that, it fits so well it can be 100% opt in, in fact that is a better option than forcing change through by majority vote. I still have issues with it so I won't be, but when are you going to opt in to it? or start one up so others can?

What's wrong with using a majority like you do? Ya know, that democracy thing?

, that way there's no force and people get to make there own minds up as to how they would like to live in the future for a change... instead of questionable representatives. That, and not everyone would be able to afford to live in such a way.

**bogan** · 29th May 2015, 19:49

Originally Posted by mashman

What's wrong with using a majority like you do? Ya know, that democracy thing?

, that way there's no force and people get to make there own minds up as to how they would like to live in the future for a change... instead of questionable representatives. That, and not everyone would be able to afford to live in such a way.

You mean besides obtaining one? Nothing I guess, there is still force with a majority though... Of course if you want to minimise force, you wouldn't change even if you did have a majority. All you need is people to agree to join. Re-evaluate your idea of the society's border, there is no reason it needs to be national.

**mashman** · 29th May 2015, 20:38

Originally Posted by bogan

You mean besides obtaining one? Nothing I guess, there is still force with a majority though... Of course if you want to minimise force, you wouldn't change even if you did have a majority. All you need is people to agree to join. Re-evaluate your idea of the society's border, there is no reason it needs to be national.

There is still force with a majority, especially an uninformed one (which we are). But I'm talking about using the democratic process as it is, ya know, electing representatives of the system to put in place what the majority wants i.e. asking people if they want to join. Given the current state of geo-political bolitics and the fact that society can be guided by a few with lots of money, and that you have given me no solid reason to re-evaluate the border, sorry, I can't grant you what you wish.

**bogan** · 29th May 2015, 20:48

Originally Posted by mashman

There is still force with a majority, especially an uninformed one (which we are). But I'm talking about using the democratic process as it is, ya know, electing representatives of the system to put in place what the majority wants i.e. asking people if they want to join. Given the current state of geo-political bolitics and the fact that society can be guided by a few with lots of money, and that you have given me no solid reason to re-evaluate the border, sorry, I can't grant you what you wish.

Don't you want to live in your society? The solid reason I give is you can live there when you get to 1% or less to just opt in, not the 51% majority to force it through.

**mashman** · 29th May 2015, 21:48

Originally Posted by bogan

Don't you want to live in your society? The solid reason I give is you can live there when you get to 1% or less to just opt in, not the 51% majority to force it through.

I do, yes... but "my" society involves "everyone" in the country. So I can't, and don't want to live there with just 1%.