My first poll for the NZ public

[mashman]

Why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

despite the fact that the vast majority of people I've spoken with understand exactly what I mean

No reason.

[bogan]

No reason.

So, how do you know they understood, and that I don't?

[mashman]

So, how do you know they understood, and that I don't?

Because they relayed back to me the sorts of things that that would mean to their life and the lives of others. In other words, they started to figure it out for themselves. In fact I'd go as far as to say, they started to figure out everything that I could never tell them.

[bogan]

Because they relayed back to me the sorts of things that that would mean to their life and the lives of others. In other words, they started to figure it out for themselves. In fact I'd go as far as to say, they started to figure out everything that I could never tell them.

I've done the same. I've figured out that this can only work if it emerges from and supersedes the financial system, it will never overthrow it. What this means for the lives of others, is it would be a bad thing for it to be forcibly implemented. What this means for my life is that it is a good thing to personally pursue, and that it is very well suited for those who want to be the change they wish to see. I've also figured out how to answer the Ownership vs Usership question.

So again, why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

[Katman]

What this means for the lives of others, is it would be a bad thing for it to be forcibly implemented.

Where has anyone ever suggested that it should be forcibly implemented?

[mashman]

I've done the same. I've figured out that this can only work if it emerges from and supersedes the financial system, it will never overthrow it. What this means for the lives of others, is it would be a bad thing for it to be forcibly implemented. What this means for my life is that it is a good thing to personally pursue, and that it is very well suited for those who want to be the change they wish to see. I've also figured out how to answer the Ownership vs Usership question.

So again, why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

Congratulations.

Coz if you understood, you wouldn't say things like

I think a society made up predominantly of people who do fuck all would be quite detrimental to that society, not from a lack of work output but flow on effects of laziness like stupidity, and moral decay.

[Jin]

How does taking money away remove individual choice? In RBE everyone is a volunteer. They do what they like.



The greater good is just a side effect of things being better under RBE. It's not a design feature.

So. Tell me again about what you know in regards to what RBE is?

Removing money removes choice because for individuals and in the market place. In a RBE i bet there would be only one motorcycle manufacturer because more than one would be a waste of resource and inefficient. And only one kind of motorcycle because more than one would be costly and inefficient. So individuals would have less choice. And it wouldnt just be for motorcycles. It would be for everything.

And not everyone would want to volunteer. I bet most of the posters on here would volunteer to be motorcycle racers, testers etc. Not many would volunteer to be the mechanics or the one who spends a lifetime in the rubber factory making the tyres.

As a result the "planners" would have no choice but to resort to force and assign tasks and jobs to individuals to ensure the system can work. Thats why socialist/communist systems always without fail result in brutal suppression and removal of individual human rights. I see a RBE being no different because it relies on individuals acting for the greater good rather than their own self interest. That may sound nice but it goes against human nature.

Remember Adam Smith and the example of the baker. The baker is amoral, selfish and only cares for himself thats why he bakes bread to solely to make money. That was his insight how personal self interest serves the public interest. Yamaha are the same. They could give a toss about anything except profits. As a result we get an amazing array of bikes to choose from that get better and better.

Money is more a symptom of the problem, I personally think an RBE, with the right technology would be viable and preferable - but you would need something Star Trek's Replicator technology in order to make it work. There might still be some need for a monetary or meritocracy based system to govern resources that cannot be replicated (such as Land etc.) but that would still be a better place than where we are currently.

However whilst there is a cost of oppertunity for any given resource, an RBE is doomed to fail and end up in a totalitarian dictatorship that will end up resembling communism.

The problem of RBE is that they want to remove money and more importantly prices. Prices are just signals and transmitters of information between buyers and sellers/producers/manufacters etc. Yet RBEers think they dont need prices they can figure out themselves where resources are needed. Nice idea but wouldnt work. Prices are never a problem. RBE would just end up like any other socialist failure like cuba or venezuela. Under RBE we wouldnt even have pencils.

[TheDemonLord]

The problem of RBE is that they want to remove money and more importantly prices. Prices are just signals and transmitters of information between buyers and sellers/producers/manufacters etc. Yet RBEers think they dont need prices they can figure out themselves where resources are needed. Nice idea but wouldnt work. Prices are never a problem. RBE would just end up like any other socialist failure like cuba or venezuela. Under RBE we wouldnt even have pencils.

Not quite right - Prices reflect the cost of opportunity for any given resource:

Take wood for example - it can be used as fuel, to build a house, to make furniture etc. Using wood to fuel a fire means I can't use it to build a house - If I own a house but am cold, then I would use the wood as firewood, If I'm homeless - I might use it to build a house. When I buy wood, I am compensating the seller for all the things he can no-longer do because he doesn't have that resource.

Now, imagine a system with no cost of opportunity - ie if I decide to use the wood for a fire, I can also use that wood to build a house. Currently impossible, unless I go and chop down a tree (but don't tell Mashman - he'll just tell you that you can magic more wood from somewhere else)

However if one had something akin to a Star Trek replicator (that turns energy into any form of matter) - then there is no cost of opportunity (okay, there is a cost of energy, but should such technology exist - we'd probably have gotten to a point where energy was close to limitless).

[Katman]

Currently impossible, unless I go and chop down a tree (but don't tell Mashman - he'll just tell you that you can magic more wood from somewhere else)

Impossible you say?

Couldn't you just plant more trees?

[TheDemonLord]

Impossible you say?

Impossible refers to burning a piece of wood, then using that same piece of wood to do something else

Wouldn't you just plant more trees?

Well, I'm all for sustainable logging - the issue is that we can cut down trees far quicker than it takes for a tree to be planted, grow to maturity, ready to be harvested.

If there was no cost for wood then demand would outstrip supply, which would then mean that in order to balance supply and demand - you would need a member of the Politburo to dictate which government projects as part of the 5 year plan would be allocated the wood as a resource.

Thus, Consumer choice is removed.

It's exactly what happens in every Communist System. Also - Hilariously on the NZ RBE website:

http://rbe.org.nz/faq/

The bit where it talks about an RBE vs Communism is hilarious it even concedes that the 2 systems are very similar (but don't tell Mashman - He'll have a heart attack, complain you don't understand and then block you for Heresy)

Traditional communism is aligned with ‘class struggle’, whereas a RBE is inclusive and is beneficial for everyone. Communism is often associated with being frugal and a lack of good quality products and food. Today we are able to produce an abundance of goods which are easily accessible to people.

The hilarity is because it misses the reason WHY we are able to produce in abundance. And it isn't a technological issue, afterall there are modern communist countries (Cough, North Korea Cough) that have a very high level of technology (compared to say a 3rd world country) but aren't producing goods and services in abundance.

[Ocean1]

Impossible you say?

Couldn't you just plant more trees?

Instead of what? Only, there's probably more important things to do.

How do we know they're more important? 'Cause people pay more for them to be done than they do planting trees.

That's pay, as in money. Without money you don't know what everyone else thinks is the correct answer to your question. That may make it the single most powerful tool for democracy.

[Ocean1]

Traditional communism is aligned with ‘class struggle’, whereas a RBE is inclusive and is beneficial for everyone. Communism is often associated with being frugal and a lack of good quality products and food. Today we are able to produce an abundance of goods which are easily accessible to people.

Yes, that "we" would be those states most closely following free market principles.

It's sure as fuck not any communist state, and it sure as fuck wouldn't ever be any RBE based "economy".

Which begs the question: Why change a winning formula?

[mashman]

Removing money removes choice because for individuals and in the market place. In a RBE i bet there would be only one motorcycle manufacturer because more than one would be a waste of resource and inefficient. And only one kind of motorcycle because more than one would be costly and inefficient. So individuals would have less choice. And it wouldnt just be for motorcycles. It would be for everything.

And not everyone would want to volunteer. I bet most of the posters on here would volunteer to be motorcycle racers, testers etc. Not many would volunteer to be the mechanics or the one who spends a lifetime in the rubber factory making the tyres.

As a result the "planners" would have no choice but to resort to force and assign tasks and jobs to individuals to ensure the system can work. Thats why socialist/communist systems always without fail result in brutal suppression and removal of individual human rights. I see a RBE being no different because it relies on individuals acting for the greater good rather than their own self interest. That may sound nice but it goes against human nature.

Remember Adam Smith and the example of the baker. The baker is amoral, selfish and only cares for himself thats why he bakes bread to solely to make money. That was his insight how personal self interest serves the public interest. Yamaha are the same. They could give a toss about anything except profits. As a result we get an amazing array of bikes to choose from that get better and better.

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced? Sounds like more choice for more people to me. What's wrong with 1 manufacturer? Especially if they have every motorcycle that was ever devised on catalog and all of the bits n pieces required to produce any component off of any one of those machines? What's wrong with that as an incentive? It's more efficient and you get exactly what you want. Things aren't as black and white as you've taught yourself... there are some rather beautiful shades, more than 50, of grey that RBE can unleash. So no, not less choice at all... just yer usual kneejerk reaction to something that you've never really considered, but that there are more than 2 variants of.

True, not everyone would want to volunteer. However, if they want to live in an RBE and understand RBE, then they will look for something that they can do to be of assistance whether they want to or not... else risk going back to a financial economy which offers no benefits over RBE.

How can you force a volunteer workforce to do something that they don't want to do? Human nature lulz. Of course RBE requires individuals to act on their own interest. Coz if they didn't, they wouldn't be RBE advocates now would they? Why do you morons instantly think hippy when people talk about sharing?

Adam Smith. From 300 years ago? That Adam Smith? So therefore all bakers only bake for money

[Brian d marge]

Oh Adam and ur hidden hand ...one wonders whose hand and where it was hidden

sent for a divine source

[TheDemonLord]

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced? Sounds like more choice for more people to me. What's wrong with 1 manufacturer? Especially if they have every motorcycle that was ever devised on catalog and all of the bits n pieces required to produce any component off of any one of those machines? What's wrong with that as an incentive? It's more efficient and you get exactly what you want.

This completely misses the reason why a company chooses to invest time and resources in developing a new Bike - it's so that people will buy it, as opposed to their competition. Just like the Blackbird, Just like the Hayabusa, Just like the H2.

No reason to compete = no competition.
No competition = no excellence.
No Excellence = no motivation to strive for excellence.
No motivation to strive for excellence = no choice.

Things aren't as black and white as you've taught yourself... there are some rather beautiful shades, more than 50, of grey that RBE can unleash.

Never was a truer word spoken An RBE will be resplendent in drabs of grey. No color, no flair, no style, no excellence. Drag. Boring. Grey.

Why do you morons instantly think hippy when people talk about sharing?

Cause it's Hippies that talk about Sharing maybe? And it's also Hippies that are disconnecting from reality as to why their Utopia is a pipe dream. Furthermore it's Hippies that assume just because they are nice and kind and want to share, that everyone in turn is kind, nice and want to share.