Prime Minister Dotcom?

[TheDemonLord]

the advancements of Humanity??
The understanding of the world around us??
You are on your own fucking planet.
Riddle me this, science guy, what is fire?

A vigourious Oxidation reaction which produces heat, light and plasma?

(really if you are going to play that Card - at least pick a phenomena that isn't well known and understood)

There may be one of you - but you are just one of over 7 Billion - want to prove that you are valuable? then do something of Value.

as to printing more money - yes, we are printing more to keep up with the Rate of Inflation and to replace notes lost/destroyed - we learnt the lesson of printing money to increase wealth in Germany in the 1930's.

Bandit:

"No, I am not denying the use value of medicine (notice I talk about a use value and not a monetary value) .. I am certainly challenging it's all-knowing, all-powerful stance - and I would certainly fought against its attempts to control my health ... I would also challenge the empiricist basis of science and therefore medicine ... and as such place it as another belief system - with no more privileged a position than the magic of which you speak ... "

If you think Science or Medicine is all knowing and All powerful - then you clearly don't understand Science - the only things that claims to being all knowing and All powerful are those created by Religons - known as Gods.

Science accepts it does not know everything, but what it does have is the best currently availible method for finding out - yes it isn't perfect - but tell me this what other system has had more tangible and measurable results? if a new system came along that was better than Science, Scientists would be the first to acknowledge it.

[Banditbandit]

Oh ... alright ..

If you think Science or Medicine is all knowing and All powerful -then you clearly don't understand Science - the only things that claims to being all knowing and All powerful are those created by Religons - known as Gods.

No - I do not think Science is all knowing and all powerful .. I was challenging the view that many people hold (including some scientists) that science is exactly that ... I am currently writing rather a lot of words for publication based in the Anarchistic Philosophy of Knowledge of Paul Fereyabend and engaging with Imre Lakatos' Philosophy of Science ... It's a critique of "knowledge as truth" and offering a Use Value as the basis of knowledge rather than a truth value ... (yeah - I know .. but shit happens ... I'd rather be riding my bike ... but ya gotta earn petrol money)

Science accepts it does not know everything, but what it does have is the best currently availible method for finding out - yes it isn't perfect - but tell me this what other system has had more tangible and measurable results? if a new system came along that was better than Science, Scientists would be the first to acknowledge it.

Better at what ??? Better at producing the truth? ... you are basing your judgements in the cognative domain, which really leads nowhere ...

[mashman]

1: Okay a challenge then - All you need to do to prove me wrong is point to one system that evolved across different physical, cultural, linguistical or ideological divides that is 100% compatable with all the other systems without any Central governance or body that agreed on or dictated Standards.

If you can provide an example and upon scrutiny it fulfills the criteria above - I will conceed.

2: We agree on this point but from different view points - I agree it would be nice if everyone just did their job without needing someone to oversee it - but that isn't reality is it?

3: okay this is going to take me a while because there are many factors to consider - to be highlight this, let me use an example:

In your ideal system - everyone works and contributes to society and in return is provided with the things they need - FYI - this is what they tried in Soviet Russia and failed, I don't deny that it isn't a nice idea, but it falls flat on its face in reality.

Person A is a Doctor - they have sacrificed 6 years of their life training to be a Doctor, they work in a high stress job where they have to deal with Death, Grieving and upset Family, they have to make quick decisions that often have life or death consequences. They are also required on a regular basis to work late or extended hours due to the nature of their work, they have to be oncall which often pulls them away from spending time with their family.

Person B Cuts the grass on the berms - they have no training past how to start a lawn mower, they don't need to make any real decisions, they don't have to deal with anyone, occassionally they have to work in the rain, but they also get to finish on time and spend time with their family.

Let me first ask this:

Who contributes more to society? and the follow up - assume that you say that both contribute equally to society, well let us test this - what are the consequences of each person not doing their job for a day? well in Person B's case - the grass grows maybe 1-2 CM longer but what about Person A - well someone could Die, or at the best suffer due to not getting the care they require.

So we can agree that the Consequences of their jobs not being done are vastly different thus their contributions cannot be equal.

Now Person A looks at Person B and says:

Why am I working a 60 hour week, having to deal with Stress related problems if I get the same as if I just went and cut the Grass for a 40 hour week?

Then Person A stops being a Doctor (cause there is no benefit or reward for the Extra work that is required as part of the Job) and Goes and Cuts the Grass. This is what caused the Soviet empire collapse - The lack of Incentive to work harder/smarter/longer/better than the next person.

And that is the reson why Ideas like NOW (which is really just Sociailism 2.0 - same idea that failed miserably when done in the real world, only with a new coat of paint and new technology) will fail and why it hasn't been implemented by anyone.

to answer your question do all builders become builders because of Money - No. There are a small percentage who would be Builders because it is what they Love to do and would do it regardless of the reward but all the other builders - sure I don't doubt they like their job, but would they do it if they got paid the same as what someone on the Dole gets? I doubt it.

Now onto Resource Scarcity - there are a finite number of Trees for example, and we could dish out Resources to where they are needed - until the supply ran out - then what? if there are 2 competing projects that need wood - how do you decide between them? of course you could arbitrarily assign resources, however the best way to assign resource is assigning a value to the project - what is the most convieniant way to assign Value? in Monetary terms.

Should the Dollar value of something be the only Metric we use to determine Value? now that is a different question entirely - and I agree, it shouldn't be the sole metric we look at but it is the easiest metric to measure and evaluate. if there was an objective way to measure say quality of life, then that would also be useful - but there isn't.

So yes - I am advocating that resources go to those who can afford it - does that make me a selfish asshole while half the world population is dieing in squalor - maybe, but would they do any different if the roles were reversed? I doubt it.

People are the problem, People are imperfect, thus anything created by People will be inherently flawed - Same is true of the current Financial system or the proposed NOW system.

Now in order for you to claim it wasn't base human nature - you would have to provide me with a group of People that have not exhibited their traits - they are far too universal to be learned behaviour. "we'd be fighting like the animals and we'd all be gredy and seeking power." You say this like we aren't? Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan - and these are just the ones we are involved in and know about - not to mention all the in-fighting that gets done at the local, family, individual level. Certainly it might not be as overt as 200 years ago where we are going into lesser countries and colonising them (and do you really think that in 200 years we have managed to un-learn millions of years of genetic behaviour?) but we are still going about it, except much more subtely.

As for your comment about Pacificists - funnily enough, they never seem to be able to breed enough of them to make a difference - probably because they Die out because they refuse to fight for what is theirs (Darwin strikes again!)

I have not read reports on the Middle Class shrink - Source?

and finally - 5 Year olds can and Do sit IQ tests and can score very highly - you must disasociate knowledge with Intelligence:

What is the Capital of NZ?
Auckland!

This is an Example of Knowledge - there is no way to work this out except throwing knowing the Answer

but what about this:

1,1,2,3,5,8,13, What comes next?

Now you could know that it is the Fibonacci sequence and so the next number is 21, but you could work out that the Sequence conforms to N=(N-1) + (N-2) - this doesn't require knowledge, it just requires Logic, same with pattern recognition and higher reasoning/Deductive Reasoning.

You might wish to read more on this subject:

1. Nature, without the interference of man.

2. True, it's not reality because there are no real mechanisms that are incorruptible when it comes to overseeing our decision makers given that we're all too busy doing other things. Does that mean we should just settle and accept that?

3. You're right on there being many factors to consider, heh...

In my ideal system, not everyone has to work and not everyone has to contribute. If everyone does work, they will work less hours in (many) jobs that require doing. By way of an example, me. I'm a programmer. I have written the same software using different languages/platforms for different company's servicing different clients. This would be standardised to yield better results i.e. 1 piece of software for all. This would remove the need for, let's say 50% of the programmers in the country. I could retrain to become anything else... preferably something that society requires. I could go fishing 24/7. That will be my choice and I will exercise my personal responsibility as I see fit. Because I'm a sweety, I WILL do something for society. It likely failed in Russia because of the financial system and its behaviour changing ability. Again, apples and oranges.

Person A v's Person B

Brief, required imho, comparison of the financial system v's NOW in regards to Corporations, I mean, Persons A & B.

Things that'll stop people from wanting to become Doctors. The fear of being laden with huge amounts of debt if they fail (fiscal prudence) or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. Poor grades at a time when they didn't know they wanted to be Doctors. Number of Uni places available. There are more, but they'll do.

v's

Things that'll stop people from becoming Doctors. They fail or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. No worries, go do something else. They will have no debt. They will have not taken up a Uni place as there will be no limit to the number of people who want to study to be Doctors. Grades will be irrelevant so long as they can pass the first year. After all, if they want to be a Doctor, they'll be willing to put in the hard yards. Furthermore, to relieve the pressure on Doctors, people will submit blood every 3 months to a central database. This will allow computers (quantum maybe) to alert Doctors that something has entered that person's system that will cause an issue if not caught soon. That will never happen within a financial system, because it costs too much.

Win - NOW. You may disagree.

Your questions:

Who contributes more: Long grass will cause more crashes as it grows onto the highway keeping the Doctors at the hospitals for longer, which in turn will make them over tired and possibly prone to more mistakes. That's if the Doctor can get to work, that's if the ambulances can navigate the roads to get to people in need etc... The grass dude, if he chops his hand off, will need a Doctor. So who has contributed more, both. Profession does not dictate contribution outwith perceived effort. Which will be, and is, a personal choice. Yes a Doctor not being at work can mean the death of someone. I hope they never call in sick.

Yes, the consequences are different, but try living without either and you end up in a worse position. Both contributions are required. In fact what about a Binman. He only lifts bins right? Well what happens to the Doctors workload if the rubbish isn't collected? Similarly with the Sewerage Worker, or the food producer, or the oil worker, or the nurse, or the teacher etc... the Doctor has relied on all of those people throuought his life and could not have become a Doctor without them. Measuring who is more important is futile given the chain of people that we ALL rely on.

Person A wants to be a grass cutter: He will not be as stressed under NOW and will have access to absolutely everything that he currently does, but so does the grass cutter. So if he enjoys being a Doctor, why would he become a grass cutter? Surely nurses do more as much work as Doctors, but they get paid a fuckload less. Why do they persist in that job? The incentive is not financial, in fact the incentive is to do a good job. Working harder/smarter/longer/better is no guarantee of top remuneration... just as those who claim benefits from the govt whilst working 2 jobs in order to put food on the table (more stressful than being a Doctor I bet). That only happens because someone has deemed that their contribution is all but meaningless. So the guarantee isn't there.

Socialism requires money too. So it isn't Socialism either. The reason it hasn't been implemented, is because of the financial system and those who fight tooth and nail to protect their position. If "they" weren't scared of it, it would be on the ballot as an options.

A small percentage do it for the love of it? A small percentage? You're speaking for an awful lot of people and I think you're miles out in regards to percentages. Remove the financial system and they won't be paid... and I still think that the majority would stay as builders. The world is full of pau inequality, yet people still do their jobs. Why would that change under NOW given that they won't be losing anything?

The whole point is to avoid Resource Scarcity by putting something in place to manage the resources. Unfortunately trees are a bad example because you can grow them. Also under NOW, there would be no need for bus/train/cinema etc... tickets, no need for circulars, no need for bank statements, electricity bills etc... so you will have already put yourself in a better position in regards to using less resources. In regards to competing for resources, which project will be of more value to the people will be the benchmark. Money shouldn't come into it, but for arguments sake, if my project cost more than the other project, I would bring the costs of my project down in order to get the resources. In your book that competition is a win, in my book, I know that my project can't come in on that budget, so the job will either get half done or more resources will be required. In which case, neither project gets done.

Easiest? Why confuse a simple issue i.e. a project needs to be done, by throwing in a budget when the outcome will not be measured in financial terms, but in the usefulness of the "product"? It's a middle man that isn't required.

yeah, you're a selfish arse... again, you're speaking for a population that you know nothing about. You need to ask them first. You may not get an honest answer, but hey, when does a person when money is involved? What if that half of the population that is dying contained an individual that could create a pure power source? or a vaccine to replace all others? or design a teleportation system? Put it this way, a 16 year old german kid solved a problem set by Newton 300 years ago. It has eluded the greatest minds of our time, but this kid solved it. Yet you are prepared to kill that potential off?

I agree that people are imperfect and yes we will create things that are flawed... however we can mitigate those "mistakes" should we wish too. As you say NOW looks great in theory, so why would you not try it (given that is has never been tried before) when there are obvious benefits for everyone. After all, isn't that what the financial system claims to be attempting to do too? It has failed, what's the worst that can happen? We end up going back to a financial system. We will have learned plenty and will have lost nothing. NOW will work.

Many tribes in the jungles don't exhibit many of the negative traits that we do. Yes they are territorial if you come to take their land. If you come to share the land, they're more accomodating. Just ask the Maori. WE aren't acting like animal waging war across the globe, a tiny tiny percentage of people are. Individually we argue with those we come into contact with, but it's usually for a reason and seldom end in death. Why is there still war? To remove dictators? In which case, why is the longest serving "butcher" (Mugabe, kighted once upon a time) on the planet not dead? It's a fight for control of the resources, plain and simple. I have a feeling that should more reasonable "men" be in charge that these resources would freely be shared.

They do breed enough of them. But how do you fight a system that throws out propaganda such as the comment you made? The fight probably gets boring after several years, although some will fight to the bitter end. Oddly enough, they're doing it with your future and welfare in mind... as am I.

Type this search term "middle class shrinking" into the search engine of your choice... and if you want it the easy way, just view the images.

I'm sure they sit IQ tests that are designed for 5 year olds... but if a kid does not know what a number is, they cannot work out that 21 comes next. If you understand how to work the answer out, then you have knowledge in regards to how to work it out. Otherwise they're just meaningless numbers. Someone always has to go first i.e. Fibernacci, after that, everyone learns how to work it out.

[ellipsis]

.....

........

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps a different Tack is required to see my point (and to understand my position)

When I was younger (around 14-18) I read a lot of Anarchist Literature and firmly believed that Anarchy was the perfect political system, no mob rule, no oppression, complete free will etc. etc.

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

[mashman]

The $1000 comes from the gold Reserves held by Governments/Banks.

Whilst your example may seem logical - it is missing a key step:

I go out into the Forrest, and cut Down a tree (a really big tree) and I say the value of my Tree is $1,000, I could Barter the Tree for services I want, but barter is a rather ineffecient system with several inherant problems which Money Solved (sort of)

Someone else goes into a Mine and digs up $1,000 worth of Minerals - this is where the Generation of Money comes from - the Money we use is actually just a place holder for Gold Reserves (cause carrying around Gold is problematic)

There - you Maths problem has been solved by Primary Industries and the Generation of Wealth. from there Goods are produced from the Raw resources (secondary Industries) and then Services are provided using those Goods (tertiary Industries)

To answer your inevitable question 'What happens when there is no more of Resource X on earth' - look up to the Solar System, then out to our Galaxy and then on to our Universe and whilst Human Greed is infinite - it will take longer than my lifetime to consume all the resource in the Universe and besides.

All fine and well... but the convenience factor i.e. money carries a debt bearing interest. As for barter. If both party's agree on the value, they use exactly the same logistics to get gems to A and trees to B as if money were involved.

Oh and these days, money isn't backed by gold.

[mashman]

Hey G, I see Bitcoin (?) in the news, apparently is gaining momentum big time!

heh... it always will whilst there's a profit to be made... even the die hard anti-bitcoin brigade will invest on that basis.

[mashman]

Perhaps a different Tack is required to see my point (and to understand my position)

When I was younger (around 14-18) I read a lot of Anarchist Literature and firmly believed that Anarchy was the perfect political system, no mob rule, no oppression, complete free will etc. etc.

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

I get your point. I understand your position. I have been in your mental shoes to a certain extent. I have changed my mind for a very valid set of reasons.

The reason I have changed my mind, is that I could not, and still can't, challenge NOW on any logical basis... and given that human beings will make the best of whatever system is in place and given that money curtails innovation, it would seem logical to remove the financial system and try something different. People are simple. Feed them, cloth them, provide shelter, offer holidays, bikes, entertainment etc... and they won't give a shit about the system they live under because they don't have to think about it. This will not change, or it will but not in ways that we can imagine. To that end, NOW takes human behaviour into consideration and can handle it very well as it does not rely on money to get things done. Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need, because it does not rely on a financial system to get things done.

But make no mistake, I have been where you are.

[Scuba_Steve]

Fort Knox and the US gold reserves disagree with your assertion that Gold reserves dont' exist anymore

Yea 'cept Fort Knox has more gold in theory then it does in reality. In-fact most of the US's gold reserves are apparently over in Europe as payments for US debt

[oldrider]

Yea 'cept Fort Knox has more gold in theory then it does in reality. In-fact most of the US's gold reserves are apparently over in Europe as payments for US debt

Fort Knox could be full of rocks (probably is) and have the same value ... the value is a human concept.

[Banditbandit]

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure

Yeah .. I figured that was the path you'd taken ...

So tell me - this Human Nature you speak of ... is it hereditary or is it environmental ??? i.e. do we carry a basic nature in our "genes" or do we learn it as we grow up ???

[bogan]

Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need, because it does not rely on a financial system to get things done.

That's where your system falls over, any system has to harness human labor to provide the resources we need. We are not yet technically advanced enough that half the population could be unemployed and we could still provide everyone with the resources the need and want. To think it could is pure fantasy.

[Banditbandit]

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

Let me see now ... Capitalism is one of the best tools at alienating Human Nature .. Capitalism does not deal with people- it deals with positions in an economic system ... you are not a person, you are a worker, a taxpayer, a consumer - or a capitalist - all positions in an economic system.

Capitalism allows people to accumulate and benefit from their own wealth .. at the expense of other people ... rich people do not produce anything but gain their wealth from the physical work of others ... (they might put up the money and fund projects, but they do not do the labour - and their wealth is earned by exploiting others) productive people are alienated from their products of their labour and from the wealth generated by those products.

Capitalism requires wars and conflicts to be successful ... War is the world's biggest earner ...

Poverty and unemployment is a requirement of the capitalist system we currently have - if there were no unemployed people capitalists would have to pay higher wages to get workers - and either not make as much money as they do (horrors) or not set up in business.

Capitalism dictates the propaganda system which means people like you buy into the bullshit ...

Capitalism separates people into factions that fight each other (immigrants vs already there ... black versus white ... Māori vs Pākehā ... Christian vs Moslem) it cannot have unity because unified people might see the corrupt system and try to change it ...

So while you think this system allows for something which you call human nature, it alienates and exploits people ... buries them under mass propaganda ... creates wars and turmoil ...

Best we can do??? I seriously doubt it ...

[Banditbandit]

That's where your system falls over, any system has to harness human labor to provide the resources we need. We are not yet technically advanced enough that half the population could be unemployed and we could still provide everyone with the resources the need and want. To think it could is pure fantasy.

Are you suggesting that half the population is engaged in producing food, heat and shelter???

[Banditbandit]

Yeah Yeah .. I got sucked in .. Damm .. hard to walk away once you start - next time I'll try not to start ...