How soon will a moneyless society change the way we percieve each other?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Great, that gambling isn’t it?

 

Is there nothing in this whole wide world that could compensate you for the loss of gambling and alcohol?

 

Not loving, happy dinners with family and friends, and their friends?

 

Not white water rafting somewhere beautiful?

 

All of those things sound horrible. Give me the single malt scotch and the deck of cards anyday.

 

Do you think that if there was a single chink in the armour of my proposition, I wouldn’t have spotted it by now?

 

I think I've got it - you want to tell everybody else how to live.

 

No thanks.

 

TFS

[now your plan won't work. ]

[CraigD]

Do you seriously believe I would make the claims and guarantees I have made if I didn’t believe, absolutely, that I hold the winning hand, for all of us?

I simply don’t know you well enough, Peacemaker, to judge the extent of your convictions. This is a problem common to internet communities – to a great extent, we come into them without our usual social networks, by which we usually form opinions of each other. As a result, our opinions of one another are based almost exclusively on what we write, and how it relates to our formal and informal educations and experiences.

Do you think that if there was a single chink in the armour of my proposition, I wouldn’t have spotted it by now?

Based on what I’ve read of your proposition, and my education and experience, I think yes, there are critical flaw in your proposition, to which you appear oblivious.

 

The major one is, if your proposition - to follow 10 vague, simple rules, along with an implementation plan which is, as best I can interpret it, to immediately cease paying for or requesting payment for materials and labor – why has it not already occurred? I can personally attest that proposals such as yours have been made many times, and often been acceptanced by communities as large as several tens of thosands of individuals. In every case of which I’m aware, it has been critical that the elimination of money be applied only to those who consent to it. If you order essentials such as food to be delivered, or attempt to take them from a store, in exchange only for an offer to join you in the benefits of a moneyless society, you’ll be refused. If you dishonor this refusal, you’ll run afoul of the law, and likely wind up in jail. If you supply materials and labor without receiving money, and refuse to take money from welfare agencies, but can’t obtain essentials without paying for them, you’ll sooner or later have no money, and no longer be able to obtain essentials, including food and shelter. You may be able to live with and be fed by like-minded or simply charitable people who are not yet without money, but eventually you’ll all either be out of money, or someone realize you soon will be, and be forced to accept the neccesity of having income.

 

Note that I’m not speaking hypothetically. I’ve actually done this, and know many people who have also. It’s common among such communities to collect essential “green energy” – money – by means of the “magic hat” – a voluntary collection. To many people in these communities, the term “magic” is more than a clever euphamism, alluding to the idea that a supernatural agency will assure that the hat never comes up empty. In my experience, in gatherings of at least twenty, it never does, but only because someone has income. Over the long term, these communities can become very dystopic. I’ve seen them become thinly veiled confidence games, relying on a steady, transient stream of naieve, ideallistic newcomers. I’ve seen them become criminal gangs, in which prominent members with money demand that those without help traffic black market drugs. *

 

In short, Peacemaker, I don’t believe the “zero hour” of which you write will not occur without an underlying cause other than your message. Most people are very wary of becoming destitute – the term used in a money-full society for people who are moneyless – and unwilling to risk such a future in exchange for a vaguely and unconvincingly described utopia.

 

Please relieve me of my misunderstanding if I’ve failed to appreciate some part of your proposal, but as best I can interpret it, it depends entirely on the assumption that, by reading and hearing your words, nearly everyone in entire large, self-sufficient societies will simultaneously chose to stop using money. Other than that this is “obviously” a good thing to do, I find no explanation of how this is to happen, or when “zero hour” will be.

 

None of my objections should be taken to mean that I personally don’t believe that human society will eventually be moneyless – in the sense that nearly all goods any person wants will be available for free. I do believe this. However, I believe this will occur in the same way that certain goods today are practically free: by the unit cost of production of these goods becoming so small that the accounting cost associate with selling them exceeds their retail price. Examples of these include free newspapers, public water fountains, and plastic bags dispensed in dog parks.

 

As I envision it, such a future society would be distinct from present day society not as much by what it lacks (eg: “vices” such as recreational drugs and gambling), but by how much more of every thing it has – what is commonly termed an “abundance economy”, which I mentioned in post #11 of this thread. **

 

Causing such a condition to occurr, IMHO, is in large part a technical challenge. Nearly every good (and service) requires some definite amount of mechanical energy – for the generation of raw materials, the operation of machines, and human and animal work - to produce and deliver one unit, this cost setting a lower bound of that good’s sustainable price. Although considerable social challenges remain, I believe the most significant way to reduce the cost and price of all goods is to dramatically (by several powers of ten) increase the amount of power available to humankind. As I see it, the only means to accomplish this involve automated construction in space, as discussed in several threads at hypography and amongh the internet and larger community.

________________

* Some readers may be thinking at this point that the experiences I describe are irrelevant to them, belonging as they do to a small subculture. However, a thoughtful examination of society as a whole will reveal the existence of many small “moneyless societies”, typically consisting of families and circles of friends – people who give and take from one another with no expectation of financial compensation. It’s revealing, I think, the larger semi-moneyless societies with which I’m familiar tend to referr to themselves as “families”, also.

 

** Peacemaker, I recall that you found previous discussion of the subject of abundance economies and other “gradual” social changes unimpressive.

People think that their slick quotes and wild guesses and suppositions will be accepted as effective argument. I beg to differ.

I beg to differ with you, and suggest that you not refuse to consider the ideas of others. Doing so not only deprives you of knowledge that might help you in better forming and expressing you own ideas, but discredits you in the eyes of people who believe it wise to consider many ideas on a subject before drawing conclusions about it.

[TheBigDog]

Money is the single greatest invention of man. It is the concept that has allowed our society and culture to prosper. It is what has allowed the power of the human mind, new ideas, to benefit humanity in a matter of months and years instead of decades and centuries. Without money we would be tribal clans scavenging the country side with lifespans a fraction of what they are today, and knowledge of the universe that is a tiny fraction of what we know today.

 

********************************************

 

Let us do a little role playing. Let us assume that Peacemaker's plan has been bought into by everyone in the world. And all at once we have abandoned money. Midnight of Dec 31, 2009 it happens, so January 1, 2010 is the first day of the Peacemaker Era. I wake up. What do I do?

 

Well I am hungry, so I am going to eat. What should I eat? I don't have any food in the house, so I go out to get food to eat. Where do I get it? There is a store down the street, so I walk in. Do I just take what I want? Can I take a month's worth of food so I don't have to make this trip again? How is my acquisition of food regulated, and how is it enforced, or is every person on the honor system that we will all do the right thing?

 

When I get to the store I find the foods I like to eat are all missing from the shelves, others have come and cleaned out the supply before I arrived. I try to find a clerk, but there is nobody working. The store is just "open". Since there is no value to the food, and no profit to be made, and no value to working, the market has become a free-for-all with nobody running the ship. The world collective government has a plan to monitor the flow of food and control the supply lines, but with people just taking it out the door there is no way to count what is happening.

 

I leave the store angry because all I could get is white rice and canned asparagus. So I head to Micky D's to get a burger instead. Seems I am not the only person with this idea. Since they are not allowed to charge anything for their burgers, and many people like me are unhappy with what remains at the store, there is a run on fast food. I get on the line, which is moving very slowly. When I finally get to the counter I see that despite the demand they have only 3 people working in the restaurant, the three who are not bright enough to realize that there is no longer a reason to go to work at Micky D's or anyplace else.

 

I order far more food than I need because I don't want to have to wait on this line again - I am shopping for a couple of days. At least now I am full, but I need to hurry home and get my extra burgers into the fridge.

 

I live alone, but I have a modest two bedroom condo. My living room has a large couch, and I have a giant TV set so I can enjoy movies. When I get home I am stunned to find that my couch is missing, and has been replaced by a chair. My neighbor tells me that since nobody owns anything anymore, and he has a big family but could not afford a big couch, he has traded me his chair for my couch. Since there is no possession, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, I cannot object. When I get to my kitchen I find my refrigerator is gone, replaced with a mini-fridge. Another neighbor of mine gives me the same story. They have a big family, but have never gotten a big refrigerator, now they have swapped their small one for my big one since that is the better fit for society. They have also taken three parts of my service for eight dining set, with no replacement, for the same reason.

 

Going into my bedroom I find my king sized Soma Water Bed has been replaced by a twin bed. Seems I have a neighbor with a bad back, and he would be better off with the Soma Water mattress than me, so he got some people to swap it. So far I have been totally of the Peacemaker mindset, but now I am upset. I got that mattress to prevent getting a bad back, and because I am taller than a normal twin mattress. I never went to a doctor about it, or really complained about it, I just helped myself as I could in a preventative fashion. So I need some arbitration about my bed.

 

As I am arranging for the arbitration I see another king sized Soma water mattress being brought into my house, and put into my spare bedroom, followed by a middle aged guy with a nap sack. He is introduced to me as my new room mate. Since I have a spare room, and he has been homeless, it has been decided that he is now going to share my condo with me. He has a history of a bad back, so he has been given a Soma Water mattress, and my spare room. I guess I don't mind so much, I am willing to share, but the deal with the mattress starts to chip away at my understanding of "fairness".

 

Later that day I get a ruling about my bed, and I am awarded a queen sized mattress inner spring mattress. I am told that I can sleep diagonally to accommodate my height, and that if my back becomes a problem I can raise the issue again.

 

That night I eat another burger and go to sleep at an angle. The room mate spends the night watching movies on my entertainment system. When I wake up he is very apologetic about the fact that he accidentally broke the TV. I agree it was an accident, so after eating some asparagus, white rice and a burger for breakfast, we head off to the electronics store to get the TV repaired.

 

The store is a stunning sight. It is completely empty. Even the shelving has been taken. It looks like the looters have been here, but really all that has happened is everything in the store has been distributed "fairly" to people who didn't have it before. Some of it was by professing need, some of it was first-come-first-served, but since there was no value to anything anymore, there was no way to regulate the distribution. And just one day into the new ideal plan everything is gone. A couple of employees are hanging around and smoking cigarettes, so I ask them about getting my TV fixed. "You can just leave it here to get it fixed," the one guy says. "I love fixing these things so I will just order the parts and fix it when they get here." "When will the parts get here?" I inquire. "No way of knowing, but if you can get me a couple of cartons of smokes I can do some scavenging, I like fixing TV's, but I hate looking though junk piles for parts." I turn to leave when he shouts a warning to me. "Just make sure you are here when it gets fixed, otherwise someone else will take it. There are not enough TV's to go around."

 

I decide to follow the rules. I leave the broken TV and tell them I will not be back. Then I try to find the administration office where I add my name to the list of people without a TV set. I am feeling a little better because I am doing the right thing, I am living as a model citizen in the Peacemaker Era - putting my needs and wants into the capable hands of the collective.

 

The next day I am really tired of rice and asparagus. The Micky D's has been out of food for a day and a half, and the local store has received only one truck load instead of the normal three per day, despite the fact that it went completely empty the first day.

 

I get two visitors almost at the same time. One is a neighbor and the other an official from the world collective administration. The neighbor managed to horde some choice foods, but still does not have a DVD player. He heard that I didn't have a TV anymore, and was interested in my rack system. He would be glad to exchange it for some food, to be neighborly, rather than just taking it since I can no longer use it, and he could. The official is there to collect the DVD player and distribute it to someone who has a TV but no player. I am in a bind now. I am hungry and there is practically no food available, so giving it to my neighbor for food would fill a need of mine, or I can follow the rules and give the DVD player to the official. The official makes the decision for me. He talks with the neighbor and gives him the player. I am left with nothing but an empty spot on my shelf and a warm feeling inside because I have done the right thing again. I have given to those who needed things more than me. My neighbor needs the food as much as I do. His offering was an unreasonable self sacrifice since we both get from the same supply, I will get more food before he does since he has more now than I do. Wisdom is so beautiful...

 

************************************

 

As Racoon stated early on, money is a medium of exchange. It is a way of measuring the relative value of abstract things. Goods, services, quality, beauty, success, failure, preparation, effort, energy... pretty much everything is convertible to the $$ unit of measure. And in this way we can monitor and regulate the exchange of all things.

 

I have needs as an individual. At the most basic level I need air, food, water, shelter, medicine, education, and clothing. On the most basic social level I need those things for my immediate family as well. On the grander scale want those things for society as a whole, but I my sphere of influence concerns me first with myself and my immediate family. If I am embracing the Peacemaker Philosophy, I have a duty to myself, my family, and my society, but I do not understand how I prioritize that duty under that philosophy. My child is sick, and a strange child is sicker, there is only enough medicine for one, do I let my child suffer to relieve the suffering of a stranger in more dire circumstances? How far do I carry being an advocate of my own needs?

 

I get the things that I need with money. I get my money by providing some of my time and talent to another person's interest. It is an exchange of value for value, and it is measured in dollars. The better the value I provide, the more I can receive in exchange for my time and talent. The more I receive for my time and talent, the better I can provide *superior* basics to myself and my family. I can choose to use my accumulated wealth in any fashion. I can build houses for the less fortunate, or I can build vacation homes for myself. But the most ethical thing I can do is put my money to work to generate more wealth - investing in the talents of others to help them to provide superior value exchange in new and innovative ways, providing me with a share of the profits for enabling their efforts. The accumulation of wealth through investment is one of the highest moral and ethical actions a person can make, and it is both the fuel and lubricant of innovation and advancement of societal potential (longer, healthier life, better distribution of abundance).

 

If you remove money from the equation, you remove value from the way that we do business - and business is based on value, not good intentions. If you remove money from the system then there will be no grand industry. There will be no constant improvement of methods and products. There will be ambivalence and apathy.

 

There are not enough raw materials to provide all things to all people. If you remove the market from the distribution of raw materials then you remove the impetus to even gather raw materials. I own a mining operation. Today I have contracts to gather so much material and deliver it on specific dates. I negotiate those contracts so that I can profit from what I am doing, and invest in improvements so that I can reduce my own costs to either lower my prices, or gain profits, depending upon the competition level in my industry. All of this is driven and enabled by money. If I fall behind schedule my money affords me the ability to pay people overtime to catch up on work - the overtime affords people compensation for giving up more of their time and talent to my purpose of delivering material to a customer on time. If my machinery breaks my money affords me priority to get it fixed or replaced fast enough to stay on schedule. Financial penalties in my contracts motivate me to run my operation in such a fashion that my customers can rely on me and run their own businesses smoothly. If there is no more money then I cannot prioritize myself for fixes or replacements of equipment to keep on schedule. Some other method of determining the priority of my needs must be used. The company that helps me repair my machines is completely booked. With money I can pay a surcharge so they can either schedule via overtime to have my machines looked at right away, or subcontract with someone else. The emergency surge in demand for a skill is handled by injecting money into the pockets of those with that skill set. Without money there is no reason for a surge to take place.

 

The individuals with the limited skill set need to balance their work and their lives. They cannot just add more work without adding compensation for giving up their personal time. The other result of removing money is that you have removed compensation for individuals. So when there is a surge in demand for a skill, there is an expectation that those people with that skill will take it upon themselves to do it for the good of society, to keep the wheels of industry moving. If you work those skilled people too hard they will choose other lines of work, after all without the concept of superior compensation to afford a lifestyle there is no reason for a person want to do a difficult or dirty or thankless job unless the job itself provides them some measure of joy. As you remove compensation you remove self prescribed incentives. When I worked in an hourly job I used to translate overtime into the things I was saving for. When my shift ended and I was still there preparing for another four hours of labor I would say this is four hours toward my new stereo, or this is four hours toward the down payment on my house. I could motivate myself through choosing how to utilize the trade of my extra time and talent to the company I worked for, so that ultimately I would be shaping my life into one that I find more pleasant. Without compensation, the only incentive is that you are a productive member of society, but the personal wants and needs of people remain. Money is the means by which people can afford their abstract wants and needs. In a world based upon necessity there is no longer a place for desires unrelated to the goal of the collective, because your time and talent are not your own any more.

 

People will rebel against this when they realize that no matter what they do, they get the same compensation for it. Some people will work hard and be dedicated because that is their nature, but the vast majority of people will get as much as they can for as little as they can - value for value is part of human nature. Without providing more for giving more, you are lowing the expectations and lowering the general output of everyone.

 

In the Peacemaker Plan, if I go to college will I have a more comfortable life than a person who does not? Is there a bonus of abundance or access from going to college? Is there a penalty for not going? I do not know why anyone would seek an education beyond what is forced on kids to give parents free time if there is no reward for it at the end of the day. The most efficient method is to teach people just as much as they need to know to succeed in life. Enough general education should be provided for people to realize their own potential and help them envision a future of interest if they continue with a course of study, and then provide that course of study to them. But what method is used to "entice" people into the areas most desirable by society without money? Why would people want to be structural engineers and spend their days inspecting bridges - which must be done, when they can be a lifeguard and work at the beach and get the same compensation for their efforts? I guess without the market to drive people's choices, the governing body would simply assign people to the various jobs that it feels are most important. Work satisfaction is not a consideration, unless you desire to be something that there is a shortage of. This dissatisfaction leads to lower care about quality and efficiency, and lowers the general standards of everything.

 

Where are the penalties in this system. Pain and pleasure. Carrot and stick. I have already outlined how incentive is all but eliminated, but what of punishment? If I never report to work, am I allowed to starve? If I never help anyone, am I allowed to be homeless? If I spend my life wearing a government protest sign and ringing a bell am I denied the same medical care as everyone else? If I have no purpose and provide no value, what happens to me as a member of this society? Do I have access to the same compensations and the same resources as the most productive member of society if I contribute nothing? If a person drives 100 mph down main street of town, how does the world collective react? How do you penalize a person who only has what is given to him to survive? The only penalty left is incarceration, physical beating, or death.

 

The final and most damning argument against this concept is how it kills innovation. In 1980 we had phone service covering the whole world. It was reliable and proven. In the Peacemaker world would we have ever invented and implemented the cellular network? No. There would have been no incentive to invest resources in such an effort. The proven technology and its upkeep would have consumed the available resources. If a person had the idea of the cell phone, they would have had to convince a world collective of the genius of the vision and have them divert scarce resources into the development and testing of what in its infancy was a far more expensive technology. It would never have had the benefit of investors able to risk their own capital, money used to buy resources of materials and talent to develop the new technology, money that would spell ruinous loss to the investors if it didn't work out, but huge profits if it did. The years of practical experience, R&D, and innovation that have created the cellular system we enjoy today would never have happened. If we look at personal computers, what advances in the PC market will happen during the next 20 years if there is no fiscal incentive for research and development. A committee could very easily look at computer technology today and say, lets just drop anchor, we have more urgent things to invest resources in than making faster game systems, we can run the world on today's technology for the next 100 years very successfully. The manpower and raw materials dedicated to incremental marketing advantages that drive innovation would stop immediately. And we would save even more because we would not need to write any more books about newer technologies as they come out, or update people's educations with each new generation of technology. It is the most effective use of resources in a world government moneyless society.

 

Finally, even with abundance, there is an need for distribution. We can grow enough food to feed the whole world, but can we get the food to where the people choose to live? Some places are abundant with resources and have relatively low populations. They are capable of having a rich lifestyle for the people who live there at a low cost. Other places are resource poor, and the people who live there lead lives that seem like suffering to those from the more abundant places. Is the elimination of this inequity one of the primary purposes of the Peacemaker plan? Will fresh water be transported, free of charge, to every place on earth that people choose to reside? Will a balanced diet be provided to each person on earth every day no matter their location? What is the balance of responsibility between an individual and the world for having the basic necessities? Would the world collective dictate the regions for all human habitation for the purpose of simplifying distribution? If a person chose to violate the "where you must live" rule, would the world collective have authority to force them into compliance? Would that person lose all benefits they would otherwise be entitled to?

 

Peacemaker, at first glance the idea of a moneyless society that collectively fills the needs of its members seems noble and ideal. Upon examination and when walked through based upon the reality of human motivation, needs, and behavior, it is not only impossible, but would in fact be harmful from the very first day. Your ideal would only achieve your desired ends by enslaving the will of all people on earth to the purpose of the collective. Is that part of what you desire? If so then you are a madman and we should either ignore you or protect society from you. If not then your idea is self defeating and by its own definition impossible.

 

I would thank you to refrain from calling me closed-minded in your response. I am quite capable of rational thought and consideration of abstract concepts. Your base assumption that you can convince the entirety of humanity to change the basic social-science components of human nature through reading a 65 page document is stunning in its arrogance and ignorance of fact. I am not alone in my understanding of humanity and the value of money to society. And after reading your paper I have not been convinced. After reading all of the posts in this thread I have not been convinced. Many have not. I hope that your quest brings you joy, and I hope for humanity's sake that it never ever happens.

 

Bill

[Cedars]

Money is the single greatest invention of man.

 

Bill

 

Holy Cow TBD!! How many hours did you spend on that??

 

I loved it, but would suggest these two things:

 

The guys at the electronics store wont be smoking cigs. As I understand it, mankind as a species will outlaw tobacco. It could be the guys at the shop will offer to fix you up if you can find them some smokes.

 

The DVD player, the neighbor with the food and the Government official. I would suggest the government official get the DVD player from you and trades it to your neighbor for the food, to speed up the process/reduce the paperwork/wait your neighbor would have to endure under the proper condition....

 

Most excellent post anyways!

[TheBigDog]

Holy Cow TBD!! How many hours did you spend on that??

 

I loved it, but would suggest these two things:

 

The guys at the electronics store wont be smoking cigs. As I understand it, mankind as a species will outlaw tobacco. It could be the guys at the shop will offer to fix you up if you can find them some smokes.

 

The DVD player, the neighbor with the food and the Government official. I would suggest the government official get the DVD player from you and trades it to your neighbor for the food, to speed up the process/reduce the paperwork/wait your neighbor would have to endure under the proper condition....

 

Most excellent post anyways!

Peacemaker inspired me, so the effort was effortless. ;)

 

Bill

[wise one]

Hi Everyone,

I have read the 65 page document and have also read all the posts to this thread. Having done so, I am conviced that this is the way forward for mankind. The few points made by bigdog were good but reading the document look like they are easily solved.

Before zero hour, assuming everyone in the world is in general agreement that this is a better way to live, we could use all the money in the world to ensure that everyone has all they need, then implement a structured society whereby everyone knows their role thereby eliminating the need for greed.

Children would still go to school but instead of just teaching them five or six subjects, why not teach them real practical skills. People could continue to learn new skills throughout there lives. Why not have six people doing one job so we only need to do a few hours work each day? Then we could do another job the next day. We would never get bored.

This would also bring back a strong social structure that has sadly been broken down due to advancement in technology. Instead of having one full time job we could all have several part-time jobs. I know I would be happy to collect rubbish for a few hours one day if I could help rescue animals the next.(my dream job)

 

Those that do not contribute to society will only suffer from guilt. For if they do this it means that they are failing not only themselves but their friends and family. If there are no limits due to money then of course everyone can can have clean water. If engineering allows it, there are no limits. Food could be grown locally in any part of the world again because there are no limits. I can see the frustration of the author because people are looking at it from their own angle and not from the angle of those who are suffering.

 

I'm not agreeing with everything the author proposes but we live in a democratic society and I certainly don't agree with most of what my priminister proposes for our future.

How can you you say money is one of the best things invented when It can make someone who may have no morals but have an endless amount of money have a better life than a good hard working honest citizen?

 

This is not a communist dictatorship which is being proposed this is a well structured society where the rewards seem to be endless.

 

Help yourself by helping others - simple!

[TheBigDog]

Before zero hour, assuming everyone in the world is in general agreement that this is a better way to live, we could use all the money in the world to ensure that everyone has all they need

This is as far as I need to go. Assuming *everyone* in the world is in general agreement. I don't agree at all. Assumption is false. NEXT!

 

The part about needing money to solve the need for money is just precious.

 

Bill

[wise one]

At least I came up with a suggestion. If you don't agree fine but come up with a decent argument or better still a solution. How would you propose to do it? Or is your little tiny bubble you live in flawless? I think not!

[Buffy]

At least I came up with a suggestion. If you don't agree fine but come up with a decent argument or better still a solution. How would you propose to do it? Or is your little tiny bubble you live in flawless? I think not!

This is the kind of argument that prompted all of my Werner Erhard quotes above: This approach of shaming others by saying "at least *I'm* working for the good of everyone, while you're just making sure that things stay bad" has been popular from Scientology to est to Karl Rove. Its a despicable form of argument and holds no water whatsoever.

 

If you are going to insist on only "positive" comments being made, then you are disingenuously missing the point: dismissively passing off the key implementation details as "something that we have plenty of smart people who can figure it out" is exactly why most unplanned "great ideas" never go anywhere. There is a reason why the old saying "the devil is in the details" is so widely used: its far too often true.

 

Iraq would be fine if the Democrats didn't want us to fail so badly,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

At least I came up with a suggestion. If you don't agree fine but come up with a decent argument or better still a solution. How would you propose to do it? Or is your little tiny bubble you live in flawless? I think not!

Peacemaker has hypothesized that a moneyless society would be beneficial, and gone so far as to outline his method of implementing such a society. I have countered the argument, and proven his hypothesis and method of implementation false. The purpose of this thread is to discuss his hypothesis and proposed methods of implementation, not to solve the problem of making a moneyless society work. I have clearly outlined that I think money is of great benefit to society. Hypothesizing another solution would be hijacking of this thread, and it is still lively enough that it doesn't need that.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

At least I came up with a suggestion. If you don't agree fine but come up with a decent argument or better still a solution. How would you propose to do it?

I’ve summarized and offered links to other threads proposing an approach to improving human society by so greatly reducing the cost of practically everything anyone needs by greatly increasing the amount of mechanical power (power = energy / time) available to every human being, and developing technologies to effectively use it. It shares with your proposal the characteristic of eliminating money as we currently know it. This approach is not my original invention, having a fairly large community of supporters in various societies and disciplines, but it is one I find compelling, and support.

 

Not everyone who concludes that a plan such as yours - which requires nearly all people to suddenly and nearly simultaneously behave in a way that no large population of people have ever in known history behaved – will not succeed agrees with positions such as TBD’s (and more famous people of a similar mind, such as Ayn Rand) that

Money is the single greatest invention of man.

I rank the greatness of money no where near such inventions as controlled fire, the lever, rope, or a host of other technologies, nor as an idea as important as representational democracy (republics) or many others. I believe that money has been very important in recent human history, and on the whole, has benefited individuals and society, but not that it is a necessary, innate and irreducible feature of human society past or future.

 

I believe that at some time in the future, money in its present form will cease to be useful, and will, as most un-useful ideas and systems do, pass out of social significance. I don’t believe a purposeful rejection or prohibition of money can cause money to disappear. Only a diminishing of its utility can, IMHO, do that.

Or is your little tiny bubble you live in flawless? I think not!

The bubble in which I live – which I suspect is not dramatically tinier or vaster than that of most people – is, as you surmise, flawed. Compared to those of many of the world’s people, the flaws in mine are minor – a bit of car trouble here, a house always in need of maintenance, working on projects not of my choosing when I’d rather be having fun outside, etc. Having your adult family killed in front of you and being pressed into guerilla combat at age 12, living without adequate food and water, living in the midst of untreated epidemic – all of these conditions of bubbles far from mine, seem in much more urgent need to attention than my own. The solution to which I subscribe promises to slightly improve my bubble, while greatly improving those of people less fortunate than I – many of whom are already living in nearly moneyless societies. Although I find its sentiment uplifting and heartening, I’m skeptical that the solution proposed by Peacemaker or wise one has such a potential.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Money is the single greatest invention of man.

 

:hihi:

 

If you have it.

 

If not, I think it's probably the torch/pitchfork combo.

 

TFS

[wise one]

CRAIGD

 

I Think you made some great points and I, like you, believe that we will cease to use money in the future. I do also believe that in order for this to happen, we need to plant the seed in the young minds of todays society.

 

We also need encourage people not to admire people who have money but admire those great engineers, inventors, scientists, doctors, charity workers etc. The people that really make a difference in the world.

 

There is nothing that saddens me more than a young girl telling me her idol is Paris Hilton or Victoria Beckham. :(

[Buffy]

There is nothing that saddens me more than a young girl telling me her idol is Paris Hilton or Victoria Beckham. :D

Gosh, do you actually know one? If you polled my daughter's 6th grade class, you'd find that Paris Hilton is an object of derision, and none of them know who Victoria Beckham is or why she even shows up anywhere (The Spice Girls had broken up by the time they were all *born*)...

 

A more appropriate example--Lindsay Lohan--is in for major trouble because this is her fan base, and she's managed to teach all those fans that famous folks can become a horse's *** overnight, and the perils of drugs in one swell foop. In 2 years or less she'll be relegated to the "where are they now" column.

 

As a mom, its not something I'm actually worried about...if you looked closely right now, culturally, there's quite a backlash going on in the tween/teen world, and its getting some publicity.

 

With their itsy-bitsy doggies and their teeny-weeny tees http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar6bhinHVh4, :(

Buffy

[Peacemaker]

Hi Buffy,

 

Originally Posted by wise one

At least I came up with a suggestion. If you don't agree fine but come up with a decent argument or better still a solution. How would you propose to do it? Or is your little tiny bubble you live in flawless? I think not!

 

This is the kind of argument that prompted all of my Werner Erhard quotes above: This approach of shaming others by saying "at least *I'm* working for the good of everyone, while you're just making sure that things stay bad" has been popular from Scientology to est to Karl Rove. Its a despicable form of argument and holds no water whatsoever.

 

(I have to take you to task over this statement Buffy. Whilst those on the receiving end of this type of argument may consider it as 'despicable', it is however, morally correct. Once you fully understand what I am offering to humanity, to argue against it is to argue in favour of most of the bad stuff that happens in the world currently).

 

If you are going to insist on only "positive" comments being made, then you are disingenuously missing the point: dismissively passing off the key implementation details as "something that we have plenty of smart people who can figure it out" is exactly why most unplanned "great ideas" never go anywhere.

 

(Again you hark back to this idea that I have to come up with every detail and facet of how this evolution is going to happen. I don't have a crystal ball Buffy. I cannot do everyone's job for them. We have to delegate the 'devils in the detail' to those who have the experience and expertise to deal with them. What I am advocating is the general philosophy and the framework for this evolution. Planning will take place to bring it to fruition. The planning will be undertaken by those qualified to carry it out. Initially elected governments and their departments, and then specialists in their respective specialisations). I have every confidence that my not claiming to know everything will prove no obstacle to this plan flourishing. People tend to have enough common sense to see that everyone will have a role to play).

 

There is a reason why the old saying "the devil is in the details" is so widely used: its far too often true.

 

Iraq would be fine if the Democrats didn't want us to fail so badly,

Buffy

[Peacemaker]

Hi Buffy,

 

Originally Posted by wise one

At least I came up with a suggestion. If you don't agree fine but come up with a decent argument or better still a solution. How would you propose to do it? Or is your little tiny bubble you live in flawless? I think not!

 

This is the kind of argument that prompted all of my Werner Erhard quotes above: This approach of shaming others by saying "at least *I'm* working for the good of everyone, while you're just making sure that things stay bad" has been popular from Scientology to est to Karl Rove. Its a despicable form of argument and holds no water whatsoever.

 

(I have to take you to task over this statement Buffy. Whilst those on the receiving end of this type of argument may consider it as 'despicable', it is however, morally correct. Once you fully understand what I am offering to humanity, to argue against it is to argue in favour of most of the bad stuff that happens in the world currently).

 

If you are going to insist on only "positive" comments being made, then you are disingenuously missing the point: dismissively passing off the key implementation details as "something that we have plenty of smart people who can figure it out" is exactly why most unplanned "great ideas" never go anywhere.

 

(Again you hark back to this idea that I have to come up with every detail and facet of how this evolution is going to happen. I don't have a crystal ball Buffy. I cannot do everyone's job for them. We have to delegate the 'devils in the detail' to those who have the experience and expertise to deal with them. What I am advocating is the general philosophy and the framework for this evolution. Planning will take place to bring it to fruition. The planning will be undertaken by those qualified to carry it out. Initially elected governments and their departments, and then specialists in their respective specialisations). I have every confidence that my not claiming to know everything will prove no obstacle to this plan flourishing. People tend to have enough common sense to see that everyone will have a role to play).

 

There is a reason why the old saying "the devil is in the details" is so widely used: its far too often true.

 

Iraq would be fine if the Democrats didn't want us to fail so badly,

Buffy

[Peacemaker]

Hi Everyone,

I have read the 65 page document and have also read all the posts to this thread. Having done so, I am conviced that this is the way forward for mankind. The few points made by bigdog were good but reading the document look like they are easily solved.

Before zero hour, assuming everyone in the world is in general agreement that this is a better way to live, we could use all the money in the world to ensure that everyone has all they need, then implement a structured society whereby everyone knows their role thereby eliminating the need for greed.

Children would still go to school but instead of just teaching them five or six subjects, why not teach them real practical skills. People could continue to learn new skills throughout there lives. Why not have six people doing one job so we only need to do a few hours work each day? Then we could do another job the next day. We would never get bored.

This would also bring back a strong social structure that has sadly been broken down due to advancement in technology. Instead of having one full time job we could all have several part-time jobs. I know I would be happy to collect rubbish for a few hours one day if I could help rescue animals the next.(my dream job)

 

Those that do not contribute to society will only suffer from guilt. For if they do this it means that they are failing not only themselves but their friends and family. If there are no limits due to money then of course everyone can can have clean water. If engineering allows it, there are no limits. Food could be grown locally in any part of the world again because there are no limits. I can see the frustration of the author because people are looking at it from their own angle and not from the angle of those who are suffering.

 

I'm not agreeing with everything the author proposes but we live in a democratic society and I certainly don't agree with most of what my priminister proposes for our future.

How can you you say money is one of the best things invented when It can make someone who may have no morals but have an endless amount of money have a better life than a good hard working honest citizen?

 

This is not a communist dictatorship which is being proposed this is a well structured society where the rewards seem to be endless.

 

Help yourself by helping others - simple!

Thank you Wise One, you are well named. I hope to hear much more from you on this thread, and would love to discuss the details you disagree with in more detail. It's OK to disagree with the details, I don't claim to be perfect, or have perfect solutions to everything. All I ask is that every decision that is taken, once we evolve, is taken with absolute regard to the basic rules.

 

Best regards to you and yours,

Peacemaker.