Jump to content
Science Forums

Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?


Recommended Posts

You have just demonstrated that reading and understanding are separate things. Through the prism of your own values I am sure that everything you say is true. But your interpretations are far from my own. I would ask you what bile tastes like when you type things like this, but you would probably tell me it is not bile and it tastes sweet.

 

And quite an artful way of turning her into poison so to taint any well that might make mention.

Cool! Instead of just disdainfully calling it bile and marching off in a huff, why don't you take issue with my specific points? :ideamaybenot:

 

It's literature: by definition its open to interpretation! :cheer:

 

Calling someone's opinion bile without any associated explanation is not what I'd call literary criticism....it is though of course an excellent example of Egoism! :eek: ;)

 

By the way for those of you who are interested, there have been a couple of good biographies of Ayn Rand out recently:

 

Amazon.com: Ayn Rand and the World She Made (9780385513999): Anne Conover Heller: Books http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made/dp/0385513992

 

Amazon.com: Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right… http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Market-Rand-American-Right/dp/0195324870

 

What may be disturbing about my post above is that what I'm really pointing out is the uncritical attitude of many Randians: as The Economist said in a review of the two books, "many of her readers reacted to her writings in much the same way that leftists reacted to reading Marx." Too much blind devotion without objective analysis (and thus the irony of the term Objectivism!). That's where my complaints come in: I actually agree with much of her general pro-market, pro-meritocracy positions, but both she and her followers have the tendency to uncritically take these positions to their absurd conclusions. Both books go into these contradictions in her life and work in some detail.

The woman behind these right-wing myths was exceedingly odd. She had “a glare that could wilt a cactus” according to a writer in Time, and wore a broach in the shape of a dollar sign. She was even odder to live with. Ms Burns points out that she obliged her long-suffering husband to wear a bell attached to his shoe so that she could hear him come and go. She all but obliged her leading acolyte, Nathaniel Branden, to meet her for sex twice a week, informing both her husband and Mrs Branden that the arrangement was rational. She picked fights with “frightened zombies”, as she called her fellow intellectuals, and yet was mortally offended when anybody dared to criticise her writing.

 

Ms Heller and Ms Burns both dwell on the contradictions of Rand and Randism. Rand was an uncompromising rationalist. But she was also the plaything of powerful emotions. She devoted her life to fighting collectivism. But she would not tolerate dissent among her followers—and even playfully called her inner-circle “the collective”. There was more than just a right kind of politics, one of her followers recalled. There was also a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing.

 

So if you are interested in this debate, please do open a new thread! :cheer:

 

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What are the pro's and con's of a society based on Money compared to a society not based on money?   KiZzI :eek2:

Setting aside the dubious accuracy of your numbers, reflect upon why they were queuing up for the job.   What happens to supply and demand? Do those principle simply disappear, as our collective good

I don't see how there will be no need for labor. I disagree with the premise that there will be no need for labor. I also find the conclusion, anything you do it is because you choose, irrelevant.

It all started with a single word, "deserving".

To cut your objections off, this is not about greed or insecurity or even need for stardom: I know plenty of folks in this group who are Ayn Randian types who are on a crusade to make the world safe for other "deserving" folks.

Someone who is trying to make the world safe for "deserving" types is not "Randian" as I understand it. Rewards are earned not deserved. Value for value. Respect for intellectual and material property. I believe you used the word as ironic for that very reason as you believe these people to be hypocrites. As I understand the philosophy of Rand, and apply it to my own beliefs, there is no hypocracy, and I simply didn't like the implication you were making so blanketly. (Blanketly? hmmm, is sounds like a word but doesn't spell like one...)

 

Then in your response you really puzzled me, but mostly with this one...

As much as Ayn tries to make him the hero, it's obvious that quite frankly the one she'd actually want to marry is Ellsworth Toohey, who while a total sellout (but only known to us and the omniscient author) is the only one who in the end is a continued success and ultimately destroys Roarke.

Rourke was destroyed? The book ends with the image of Rourke at the pinnacle of his greatest achievement rising up over the whole world. He gets everything he wanted on his own terms in accordance with his own values. And you see this as being destroyed?

 

I don't look at these books as some sort of religious works, and Ayn Rand is certainly no messiah. It is the elements of truth in her works that ring out for me, as in anyone's works where truth is found. Her own personal foibles, even those printed in an objective, non-partisan, no agenda outlet like "The Economist" are irrelevant to me.

 

Bill

 

ps. Is that article really from Oct 22, 2010?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Powerful people will still own labor, and labor will be compensated in some fiat currency, and that fiat currency could be gold. :friday:
They "own labor" if they own the means by which it is organized and made profitable. John Lennon is suggesting a scenario in which this is prevented. The only trouble is making it feasible in this society of apes. :rant_red2:

 

If I owned all resources contributing in and to CERN, my sole goal would be just that. For, what else really matters. If we are smashing particles, the constitutional requirement should be that the ultimate goal is to produce gold from manure. No other goal is as worthy, and everything else is a consequence. Gold from Dung.
I think you did not catch the guy's point. The value of gold would be no more than the value of the dung it's made from, plus the cost of the transformation. Unless, of course, the inventor of the method... ehem, guards the secret like gold.

 

His point was that if the value of these things ceased, the balance of power would change, just like I said about limitless supply of energy which, currently, is the real currency of the global economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They "own labor" if they own the means by which it is organized and made profitable. John Lennon is suggesting a scenario in which this is prevented. The only trouble is making it feasible in this society of apes. :rant_red2:

 

You are of course correct. But Lennon focused on goods, and not services. His premise maybe if goods are free, then there is no need to labor. While this may be the case for some individuals, most people will be born and find a way to be productive, to do something. My point is that as long as there are human relationships, there will be labor and money. In other words my argument goes like this:

 

So long as there are humans in "free" society, there will be sex and children, there will be communities. So long as there are communities, there will be division of labor and problems. Someone taking care of someone else, someone dioing something for someone else, someone unhappy about something, someone needing assistance.

 

So long as there is division of labor, there will be specialization of labor. So long as there is specialization, there will be demand for specialized labor by those who can not do it. So long as there is demand for labor, there will be value in labor. So long as that's the case, labor = value. So long as there are values, there will be fiat currency.

 

Of course, all this falls through if we live in a "non-free" society. If we are slaves.

 

I think you did not catch the guy's point. The value of gold would be no more than the value of the dung it's made from, plus the cost of the transformation. Unless, of course, the inventor of the method... ehem, guards the secret like gold.

 

His point was that if the value of these things ceased, the balance of power would change, just like I said about limitless supply of energy which, currently, is the real currency of the global economy.

 

I got his point. That's why I called gold fiat currency. But, I don't see how we get around not needing any labor, or doing free labor. Hence, even if we get gold from dung, we still need to get paid. In other words, I don't see it happening, so long as there are humans in a free society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaw, you appeared to think gold from dung would make everybody rich.

 

But Lennon focused on goods, and not services.
The impression I got from the video of Fresco was that necessary services would be catered for (presumably including the maintenance of the machines that perform the maintenance of the machines that clean out the toilets and sewage treatment &c.) so that everybody is left perfectly free to do only what they like, all that they like and as much as they like.

Yes that would be great, wouldn't it? :rant_red2:

 

I got his point. That's why I called gold fiat currency.
This is the kind of thing that generates misundestanding. Gold is a currency because it is of limited availability. Gold from dung would be no more of a currency than banknotes that everybody has the right to make at will, on their own printer, without it being classed as forgery.

 

Hence, even if we get gold from dung, we still need to get paid. In other words, I don't see it happening, so long as there are humans in a free society.
This is not a problem if Fresco's scenario is feasible because there is no need for labour; anything you do, it's cuz you so choose.

 

This is not a problem if Fresco's scenario is not feasible because anything that people want and requires labour to produce is a currency. This boils down to the Marxist theory, in which people's labour is not alienated. Only it doesn't happen in this society of apes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no need for labour; anything you do, it's cuz you so choose.

 

I don't see how there will be no need for labor. I disagree with the premise that there will be no need for labor. I also find the conclusion, anything you do it is because you choose, irrelevant. Anything I do now is because I chose. Heck, if I choose I can start building rockets or perform heart surgery, but who would let an idiot do that. We will always need specialists. IMO, the demand for specialists sets the value, not the choice of profession. Speciailized labor -> value -> money.

 

This boils down to the Marxist theory, in which people's labour is not alienated. Only it doesn't happen in this society of apes.

 

Not alienated from private to private, but alienated from private to community. It is still alienated. The only unalienated labor is selfemployed labor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We work for reward. But does that reward have to be financial? Clearly not - I'm "working" in creating this post, but I strongly doubt that anyone will pay me for it :friday:

 

Most of the internet - this vast, still-growing, still-developing, indispensible resource - has been created by people working for no pay. The reward comes in other ways - mainly in self-esteem and the esteem of others.

 

Many of the posts here have explained how money is essential for our society. I wonder if they realise that the internet is turning into a template for a different type of society. Sure, you need money to get online, but once you've paid your entrance fee it doesn't matter whether you're a billionaire or broke. What matters is your own knowledge, ability, workrate, perseverance...

 

A society where wealth isn't the scoreboard? It's coming, and all of us are part of it! :rant_red2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
We work for reward. But does that reward have to be financial? Clearly not - I'm "working" in creating this post, but I strongly doubt that anyone will pay me for it :friday:

 

Most of the internet - this vast, still-growing, still-developing, indispensible resource - has been created by people working for no pay. The reward comes in other ways - mainly in self-esteem and the esteem of others.

 

Many of the posts here have explained how money is essential for our society. I wonder if they realise that the internet is turning into a template for a different type of society. Sure, you need money to get online, but once you've paid your entrance fee it doesn't matter whether you're a billionaire or broke. What matters is your own knowledge, ability, workrate, perseverance...

 

A society where wealth isn't the scoreboard? It's coming, and all of us are part of it! :rant_red2:

Consider what allows your unpaid contribution to happen. Then consider if the unorganized free donation of time could create or sustain the complexity and dynamic reality that is the infrastructure of the Internet.

 

The Internet is built by big money from big players. Someone is paying for all of it. Much of it seems free, but the price is always being paid by some entity or another for you to use it without dipping into your pocket.

 

Value for value. Money is just a medium of exchange. It serves someone's purpose to let you do the for free the way you do, so they pay for it for you. When the value you bring no longer serves that person's purpose this ends and you need to find some new way of using the Internet for free.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how there will be no need for labor.
Neither do I but I tried to clear your misunderstanding of John Lennon's ideas because there's no point in judging something without having understood it.

 

I disagree with the premise that there will be no need for labor. I also find the conclusion, anything you do it is because you choose, irrelevant.
It seems you alienated my words from what I had said. Look again, a bit better.

 

Anything I do now is because I chose. Heck, if I choose I can start building rockets or perform heart surgery, but who would let an idiot do that. We will always need specialists. IMO, the demand for specialists sets the value, not the choice of profession. Speciailized labor -> value -> money.
Now this is a much more solid objection against Freco's ideas; neither do I see a way of sorting out these things in such a way as to eliminate competitivity that drives progress but causes iniquity.

 

Let's forget about how many heart surgeons and engineers are idiots in the current system because, one way or another, it ain't God above that decides who is qualified and who is hired, it's just other apes that sort it out. That's a problem that Fresco will never solve.

 

Not alienated from private to private, but alienated from private to community. It is still alienated. The only unalienated labor is selfemployed labor.
We are not here to discuss Marxist economic theory, I wasn't requiring anyone to agree with Karl's opinions. I only said that a certain hypothetical scenario boils down to the same thing and you missed the overall argument.

 

Most of the internet - this vast, still-growing, still-developing, indispensible resource - has been created by people working for no pay. The reward comes in other ways - mainly in self-esteem and the esteem of others.
Do you really think so? I have worked on the non-user side of things. I did not do it for free and the bills the end customer pays for each team member per day are high enough.

 

There are plenty of toilets to be cleaned...

Link to post
Share on other sites
it ain't God above that decides who is qualified and who is hired, it's just other apes that sort it out. That's a problem that Fresco will never solve.

100% correct.

 

We are not here to discuss Marxist economic theory, it doesn't matter whether we agree with Karl's opinions. I only said that a certain hypothetical scenario boils down to the same thing.

100% correct. I agree that is what he's suggesting, and maybe as a probable outcome. I disagree, and don't even see it as a possibility. Not that I wouldn't love to do whatever I want and be taken care off. I am all in on that idea for as long as it lasts, and for as long as I can protect my property in case things go terribly wrong. Where do I sign up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that is what he's suggesting
Actually I meant that in the case of Fresco's aim being not quite reached: some labour and services still being necessary but the infrastructure belonging to all. Fresco's exact aim goes way way beyond Marx.

 

...as long as I can protect my property in case things go terribly wrong.
This is pretty much why it never works.

 

All apes are equal, but some of them are more equal than others.................:rant_red2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

We need a resource-based economy.

 

Not only is everyone's wealth equal, but no one has to work anymore. Technology's ultimate goal of making life easier is realized.

 

Although the Venus Project will not be complete unless it's supervisors have enough money to build a city run completely on AI without the use of money as an example that humans can have everything machines and technology make for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...