My first poll for the NZ public

[Katman]

How will said society determine who that is?

I'll choose.

[bogan]

I'll choose.

And this is the point where we share an understanding of your utopia, but in my opinion it is no utopia at all, just a dictatorship.

[mashman]

But will they? Do you think those who lust for power and greed will share what they own?

Indeed, they convinced the people to chose banking, the bankers did not bring in tanks and guns and force that choice.

The way I see it: they won't own anything (because they currently don't), but they will (remain) be the primary custodian and will have absolute power over the resource unless society deems otherwise... in exactly the same way society currently works in regards to ownership... except with the sharing element added.

"“It was unsound,“ they said, “to let the government finance its enterprises without getting into debt.”" and you say that people saw the sense in this even though they had successfully managed not to get into debt and still had an excellent standard of living? Not sure what you're smoking, but pass it man.

[Katman]

And this is the point where we share an understanding of your utopia, but in my opinion it is no utopia at all, just a dictatorship.

Perhaps you shouldn't take everything so seriously.

[Brian d marge]

What's thick is turning a blind eye to the fact that what's currently working is people, (including you) using money to value bread and diamonds.

Because the alternative is carrying around a bunch of bread or diamonds, or on alternate days in Mashland just giving/taking bread or diamonds 'cause there's no money and therefore no difference in value.

Now that's fucking thick.

hows those House prices ....

food prices ....

wages.....

oh no I forgot ...you are fine

my bad carry on


Stephen

[bogan]

The way I see it: they won't own anything (because they currently don't), but they will (remain) be the primary custodian and will have absolute power over the resource unless society deems otherwise... in exactly the same way society currently works in regards to ownership... except with the sharing element added.

"“It was unsound,“ they said, “to let the government finance its enterprises without getting into debt.”" and you say that people saw the sense in this even though they had successfully managed not to get into debt and still had an excellent standard of living? Not sure what you're smoking, but pass it man.

So to deal with the greedy, society would re-purpose assets they were not using? is this on a daily basis, or a permanent one? How would this be decided?

Their standard of living would be considered very poor by today's standard though I would think. Perhaps they realised to move forward, they had to chose debt; regardless the reason, debt is what they chose.

Perhaps you shouldn't take everything so seriously.

Perhaps you should not take utopian murder so lightly...

[mashman]

Those who lust for power and greed will be lined up against a wall.

Nah, they'll be snuffed out while they sleep.

How will said society determine who that is?

In exactly the same way that society currently decides such... you know, courts, general consensus etc... That and it'll be less easy for "them" to court power as they'll stick out like a sore thumb in an R.B.E. All you need is money in this world and you can murder thousands of people and get away with it. No money = drastically reduced influence as they will have to buy the support for their powerbase in another way. Much better way to find out what is fair and who really needs access to what.

[mashman]

So to deal with the greedy, society would re-purpose assets they were not using? is this on a daily basis, or a permanent one? How would this be decided?

Their standard of living would be considered very poor by today's standard though I would think. Perhaps they realised to move forward, they had to chose debt; regardless the reason, debt is what they chose.


Perhaps you should not take utopian murder so lightly...

The greedy won't be being dealt with... they'll find their own way. You asked about how everyone could have access to those resources, now you know how. It will be decided by consensus. Perhaps the consensus will be that the resource will be "publicly" available once the "owner" has died. There are many ways to skin that cat.

Eh? They had no money because of the Bankers. They decided to move forwards and print their own without debt. Who chose the debt? The entire island? In which case, you're gonna have to post up some proof because what I have posted really does point to quite the opposite of a free choice.

[bogan]

In exactly the same way that society currently decides such... you know, courts, general consensus etc... That and it'll be less easy for "them" to court power as they'll stick out like a sore thumb in an R.B.E. All you need is money in this world and you can murder thousands of people and get away with it. No money = drastically reduced influence as they will have to buy the support for their powerbase in another way. Much better way to find out what is fair and who really needs access to what.

Society does not currently decide such things through the courts though. You can own hundreds of houses and refuse to let anyone in them. And if the process is so long to seize? (I'm not sure if it was temporary or permanent) an asset, what is the process for acquiring one? could they not just go get more and clog up the legal system?
What influence, and what powerbase? if everything is free why would either exist at all?

[bogan]

The greedy won't be being dealt with... they'll find their own way. You asked about how everyone could have access to those resources, now you know how. It will be decided by consensus. Perhaps the consensus will be that the resource will be "publicly" available once the "owner" has died. There are many ways to skin that cat.

Eh? They had no money because of the Bankers. They decided to move forwards and print their own without debt. Who chose the debt? The entire island? In which case, you're gonna have to post up some proof because what I have posted really does point to quite the opposite of a free choice.

Yet their own way would deprive society of the resources it needs. Decided by consensus is different to allowing the greed to have their own way. Ie, greedies own way is owning 10 houses and cars etc, nobody else to use; consensus decision is saying no, we will leave you with two of your choice and take the rest.

The islands leaders, the same people who chose to print their own without debt. The aritcle does not make a distinction with whom chose what at which point, just that it was chosen, not forced.

[Brian d marge]

My green rep count is far higher than the pathetic reds from you and your loser mates. I notice your coherence is slipping again, you really need to work on it.

If you can that is.

If mine is slipping , yours is on a shinkansen

I don't give out red ... what I do Is call a spade......... a spade and post it here .

My coherence is fine , its your end thats broken ,

possible causes; Narrow mind , lack of education, reading was difficult at school ....

After spending a good portion of my life travelling. I can tell you , many people in NZ have the same trait....as in... I dont understand you, so YOU must be a moron.

I think you fit that bill rather well

[mashman]

Society does not currently decide such things through the courts though. You can own hundreds of houses and refuse to let anyone in them. And if the process is so long to seize? (I'm not sure if it was temporary or permanent) an asset, what is the process for acquiring one? could they not just go get more and clog up the legal system?
What influence, and what powerbase? if everything is free why would either exist at all?

You first have to sign "ownership" papers which are nothing more than a lease. They are the legalities of ownership. Such a waste leaving such things empty. Seize? Some house is empty and someone needs a house to live in, job done no process required. Not sure how you're clogging up the legal system over ownership. On paper they will still own the asset, but society will deem how that asset is to be used if it deemed to be under utilised.
The influence that is drastically reduced by people not being able to buy other people, the one you inferred: "But will they? Do you think those who lust for power and greed will share what they own?". Exactly, if everything is free that powerbase will be much harder to attain.

[bogan]

You first have to sign "ownership" papers which are nothing more than a lease. They are the legalities of ownership. Such a waste leaving such things empty. Seize? Some house is empty and someone needs a house to live in, job done no process required. Not sure how you're clogging up the legal system over ownership. On paper they will still own the asset, but society will deem how that asset is to be used if it deemed to be under utilised.
The influence that is drastically reduced by people not being able to buy other people, the one you inferred: "But will they? Do you think those who lust for power and greed will share what they own?". Exactly, if everything is free that powerbase will be much harder to attain.

That is exactly what forced donations of assets is. Sure there is still paper ownership somewhere around, but if empty houses can be moved into then that is asset donation by force. The other point to that is expensive assets, greedy people could still choose a 20 bedroom homestead to live in, staff with cooks and cleaners and top quality food; while doing no work at all. How could said society deal with them?

Which I can understand, but it comes back to the balance of work in vs work out. I do not believe it will come anywhere near close enough to support society.

[mashman]

Yet their own way would deprive society of the resources it needs. Decided by consensus is different to allowing the greed to have their own way. Ie, greedies own way is owning 10 houses and cars etc, nobody else to use; consensus decision is saying no, we will leave you with two of your choice and take the rest.

The islands leaders, the same people who chose to print their own without debt. The aritcle does not make a distinction with whom chose what at which point, just that it was chosen, not forced.

See the above wrt influence and money. With the financial system, they can deprive, and do deprive people of resources they need. There's no reason to stop the greedy from trying to exert their influence and get their way... but they should NOT be able to buy it. You can't drive in or live in every car or house at the same time. Consensus saying, "stop being a cunt and let people use that which you aren't". If further action is required, I'm sure society can call them economic terrorists and have them legally shot using their own laws.

What are bankers "usual methods"? Therein lies the answer as to chosen or coerced.

[mashman]

That is exactly what forced donations of assets is. Sure there is still paper ownership somewhere around, but if empty houses can be moved into then that is asset donation by force. The other point to that is expensive assets, greedy people could still choose a 20 bedroom homestead to live in, staff with cooks and cleaners and top quality food; while doing no work at all. How could said society deal with them?

Which I can understand, but it comes back to the balance of work in vs work out. I do not believe it will come anywhere near close enough to support society.

It's not by force, it's by consensus. Society would deal with that fine... unless of course people decide not to work for the "owner" of the house.

Given that many financially related people will be without jobs and available to train in anything they choose without financial penalty, there will be more people to dig in... and I believe that the majority of them will.