Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[Zythryn]

As to 'general agreement', it's what we all live by now. We all generally obey the laws of whatever society we live within.

 

(emphasis added by me).

But we don't ALL live by general agreement. Some people break laws, some take advantage of other people, some try to sway opinion of others for their own benifit. If 'general agreement' is "what we all live by now" then I don't see how your new society will be any 'better' than this one.

 

So long as whatever you do does not involve any violence toward another human being, or cause any harm or distress whatsoever to that person, and is done with mutual consent, respect and love, why not?

 

How about aiding another in ending their own life? That causes harm to the person commiting suicide. Of course, not helping them causes them distress. So, who decides??

Remember, every single person on the face of the earth needs to agree completely with the rules that are set up to govern who gets what resources. Which people get the unique items, and which ones get the items where demand is larger than supply.

[Buffy]

You seem to think I have made no such list, you're wrong. I have spent the last five years and nine months thinking of little more than lists, and scenarios.

We've seen a mere handful, and they seem to be somewhat esoteric and punitive. I would hope you would have more to show for this five years and nine months than what you've printed so far here. It would be nice of course if you would expose some of this list in responding to the objections that point out the inadequacy of your plan rather than making vague allusions to how you either "have it all figured out" or that "there are smart people who can come up with that solution"...

I know what is good for me, and what is bad for me. I have merely extrapolated that to the rest of humanity.

And this is the biggest fundamental weakness in your "solution:" you have framed the entire scenario around your worldview and have considered no one else's.

 

That you find it simple to supress your own "dark side" does not mean that simple "general agreement" makes it go away for everyone.

 

Asking me what "dark side urges" I want to keep is simply a rhetorical mechanism for shaming me into admitting that any I have are bad, but it unfortunately is poor cover for your lack of a solution for how you will eliminate the "dark sides" of everyone, not just people as nice as I am.

It won't be my call when it happens, but I feel that guidelines such as these are adequate for the task in hand, and far better than the ones we currently abide by. I have merely come up with the framework, mankind will fill in the rest...

What guidelines? Still waiting...

 

Saying its "not your call" is equivalent to saying "its not important enough for me to worry about: there are smart people who will deal with the problems I've created by my overly simplistic solution."

That means we don't all assault each other in the streets, or enter other people's property to steal their goods. Even though we are sometimes sorely tempted. People generally tend to obey laws that they can immediately see the sense of. That is the general agreement I speak of.

"Generally" certainly is a loaded term, isn't it?

 

Sure, most people obey the laws, but the point is *many people do not*.

 

Your thesis is that simply by eliminating "money" all such problems would go away, and it would be nice if you were to explain *why* you think that is the case, beyond "it was obvious to me, and I'm a rational person, so it should be obvious to everyone else."

As to your last line - 'Only the little people concern themselves with details, Buffy'. It is unworthy of an intelligent woman. I don't mean that as an insult Buffy, merely as an observation.

Indeed.

 

If one is going to propose solutions, it is one's responsibility to consider *all* of the ramifications, obstacles, and side-effects for those solutions and address them.

 

Simply being an "idea guy" is pretty much worthless.

 

Follow the Id,

Buffy

[Peacemaker]

(emphasis added by me).

But we don't ALL live by general agreement. Some people break laws, some take advantage of other people, some try to sway opinion of others for their own benifit. If 'general agreement' is "what we all live by now" then I don't see how your new society will be any 'better' than this one.

 

 

 

How about aiding another in ending their own life? That causes harm to the person commiting suicide. Of course, not helping them causes them distress. So, who decides??

Remember, every single person on the face of the earth needs to agree completely with the rules that are set up to govern who gets what resources. Which people get the unique items, and which ones get the items where demand is larger than supply.

'But we don't ALL live by general agreement. Some people break laws, some take advantage of other people, some try to sway opinion of others for their own benifit. If 'general agreement' is "what we all live by now" then I don't see how your new society will be any 'better' than this one.'

Hi Z,

 

Thanks for your questions. I have posted another thread on this site, (See peacemaker - threads) which contains a document I have written which should answer any questions you may have about the potential benefits to humanity, and to our environment, of a moneyless society, and how to quickly move to one.

 

To answer your question specifically though, I used the word 'generally' with some forethought here, because, as you rightly say, some of us DO take advantage of others, and cheat them and rob them and murder them, and some of sway the people to their way of thinking, often with disasterous results.

 

'What we live by now' is the general agreement of our time, given the current beliefs and circumstances of the world as it is today, the fifteenth of July 2007. Take away money and property ownership from the equation, and suddenly there is no crime you can commit which would net you any profit whatsoever. The only crime you become able to commit is a crime against humanity, like violence, and murder, and any other form of physical or mental abuse you can inflict on another human being...and. having mentally evolved into being a moneyless, classless, loving, cooperational society, working together for all our mutual benefit, the incidence of violent crimes will reduce extremely quickly. Call that a guaranteed prediction, from me, to you, with deepest respect.

 

As to your next question, 'How about aiding another in ending their own life? That causes harm to the person commiting suicide. Of course, not helping them causes them distress. So, who decides??

I would say, a combination of the patient, their relatives, and a panel of doctors and psychiatrists. Why is it that we instinctively know when to put down a suffering animal, but will not offer the same love and humanity to our fellow humans?

Again, in today's society, there are money and property involved in the death of a person, the existence of which can be construed as a prime motive for prematurely ending a person's life. That's why there are the current safeguards in place.

In the world I foresee, every human being becomes an immediate family member, who owns no money or property except for their personal effects. This instantly negates the evil motives and enhances the humanistic response to a loved one suffering. I have to say, that when the time comes for this decision to be made about my further existence, I would prefer it to be made in the second scenario. What do you think?

 

And finally, 'Remember, every single person on the face of the earth needs to agree completely with the rules that are set up to govern who gets what resources. Which people get the unique items, and which ones get the items where demand is larger than supply.'

The first part of your question is not strictly true, only the majority of all the human beings on earth have to initially agree to it to make it so.

Having said that, I would like to make it clear, that no one would suffer any hardship whatsoever, from day one of the plan's inception. All we have to do is keep working, but don't draw any pay. Keep ordering what you need for today, or for this week, from your suppliers, without paying them. We just begin to produce what we require to improve our planet and our lifestyles, without the constrictions of money and finance telling us what we 'can't afford'.

The only rules that we require to govern resources are; can it be produced to the highest standards possible, for every person on this planet, without inflicting irreparable damage to our ecosystem? If the answer is yes, then we make it, and then we repair the damage. If the answer is no, then we don't make it. Gold and diamonds will become a raw material, to be used to produce the goods and services we need.

As to who gets the unique items, do you mean paintings, statuary, rare books and such? if so, then it would be entirely up to the current owners. Personally, I feel that paintings were painted to be seen, not to hang in dark vaults. Why not just display them in public spaces, protected for all time by whatever methods we use to preserve them?

What I am proposing is a new way of thinking, and a new perception of what is good and bad. What is useful to us and what is not.

 

I hope you concur.

 

Best regards to you and yours,

Peacemaker.

[freeztar]

The way I see it, this system could only work if we abandoned all possesions as well. Otherwise, a barter system would take the place of money. :eek:

[Peacemaker]

Hi again Buffy, and thanks for your observations. I will try to deal with them one at a time.

 

‘We've seen a mere handful (Of my ideas and scenarios), and they seem to be somewhat esoteric and punitive’

 

Can you be more specific on this point please? Everything I have written about is, I believe, in the best interest of humanity. ‘Punitive’ indicates punishment, and I do not in any way, shape or form condone any punishment for any human being. What I say about people who inflict violence on any other person once we have evolved, is that they should be removed from general society so that they can commit no further damage to any other human being, until they are deemed fit to re-enter society as non-violent, non abusive human beings... and while they are kept out of the general population, they should be treated with the same love and kindness that they would get in the general society. Does THAT sound punitive to you? or does it sound like the kindest, most humane action we can undertake in that situation, to protect ALL of us?

 

‘I would hope you would have more to show for this five years and nine months than what you've printed so far here. It would be nice of course if you would expose some of this list in responding to the objections that point out the inadequacy of your plan rather than making vague allusions to how you either "have it all figured out" or that "there are smart people who can come up with that solution"...’

 

I have answered this point many times, but I’ll do it again. I hope you can grasp it this time...

In a nutshell I am FOR everything that is good for our bodies and souls. Music, dancing, singing, good food, good working conditions, clean air and water, as much free time as we can afford to pay ourselves, whilst still keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning.

I am FOR pristine wilderness, as much as we can afford

I am FOR bicycles for all who want them.

I am FOR fast, free, modern, safe, fuel efficient public transport to wherever on this planet we need or want to go.

I am FOR providing ourselves with the best housing and civic amenities we can imagine and build.

I am FOR providing the raw materials and expertise to any of us who want to improve our skills in whatever hobbies or interests we may choose, so long as the end product is not harmful to yourself or humanity in general. In other words, for example, I would be AGAINST providing you with a course in producing and administering crack cocaine, or anything of a similar ilk.

What do YOU think you won’t be able to do in my world that you will miss so much?

What is it YOU think is SO useful to humanity that we have to keep war, taxes, starvation, malnutrition, curable diseases, gambling, crime, debt, hatred, fear and torture in existence on this planet as a means to pay for it?

 

Because when you choose to keep using money and property ownership of any kind as the true worth of a human being, you get to keep all of the above. Automatically.

 

We have them all now, so it must be true mustn’t it?

 

Can I BE any clearer on this?

 

Perhaps you can guide me to anywhere my answers appear ‘esoteric’, they just seem like basic common sense to me.

So if this question occurs to you again, please read and understand my comments above, and I am sure you will instinctively KNOW my answer. It won’t change.

There will always be some ‘grey areas’ as to what to keep as a society, and what to dispense with. These can be dealt with very quickly after the event, on a case by case basis. Using common sense, logic and all available information.

 

I promise you, I am not hiding anything sinister. There will be no death camps, or midnight shootings or hangings. Just a liberal sprinkling of good old horse sense as to what we consider to be good and bad for humanity.

 

If you want my opinion of specific cases, please ask, specifically, and I will answer, specifically, as I did for Zythryn. However, I should reiterate, the answers I give are entirely my personal opinion.

There may be areas where humanity in general comes up with surprising validations for many types of equipment and activities which may currently be construed as ‘dangerous’ or ‘life enhancing’.

The decisions made will be made by panels of experts in each field, therefore any guidance I give can only be regarded as general guidance at this time. I specifically DON’T say that we have to do this or that, because those would be the actions of a narrow minded dictator. I am open minded enough to recognise that mankind will surprise me with the suggestions and ideals you come up with. It will be YOUR world for a lot longer than it will be mine, which is why coming generations will take decisions over matters I cannot foresee. If I lay down absolute rules now, I will remove the flexibility required for future decision making.

The only recommendations I can, and have made, are in the general rules we have to abide by to make this evolution possible.

 

‘

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

I know what is good for me, and what is bad for me. I have merely extrapolated that to the rest of humanity.

‘And this is the biggest fundamental weakness in your "solution:" you have framed the entire scenario around your worldview and have considered no one else's. ‘

 

Perhaps you can guide me to any work that has considered the immediate and long term requirements of more of our whole species than I have. You could try reading this document to learn about the realities of the world as it is today, and their hopes for some of their proposals to come about at some time during this century.

 

“United Nations Reform: measures and proposals — A Millennium Assembly, the United Nations system (Special Commission) and a Millennium Forum”

 

Where the Secretary-General of the UN expressed the view that if the United Nations were to continue to play a vital role in the century ahead it would be imperative that it benefit from the imagination and engage the support of the world’s people. In this connection, he proposed that non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors organize a Millennium Forum in connection with the Millennium Assembly.

 

It’s on the net. Here’s the shortcut: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm

 

Try reading THAT, Buffy, and see, perhaps, that it’s not just me that is speaking the truth about the world as it currently is. Than document was formulated and ratified by ‘the 1,350 representatives of over 1,000 non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations from more than 100 countries’.

 

I hope you read this, and then go back and read what I have written so far on this subject. I don’t believe it will be a waste of your time.

 

’That you find it simple to suppress your own "dark side" does not mean that simple "general agreement" makes it go away for everyone.’

 

No, but it WILL make it go away for billions more of us than our current strategies do, so on that fact alone, it MUST be worth it.

 

’Asking me what "dark side urges" I want to keep is simply a rhetorical mechanism for shaming me into admitting that any I have are bad, but it unfortunately is poor cover for your lack of a solution for how you will eliminate the "dark sides" of everyone, not just people as nice as I am.’

 

No Buffy, it’s just a simple question. I wanted you to be specific here. I’ll ask it again. What dark side urges are you specifically referring to? Because, as I have said again and again, if you don’t physically or mentally hurt yourself, or any other member of society, or our environment, then my view is to do ‘whatever floats your boat’.

 

The fact that you construed my question as ‘simply a rhetorical mechanism for shaming me into admitting that any I have are bad’ is simply an incorrect assumption on your part.

 

‘but it unfortunately is poor cover for your lack of a solution for how you will eliminate the "dark sides" of everyone, not just people as nice as I am.’

 

This statement indicates to me that you have taken absolutely nothing of what I have written on board. If you consider, for example, ending poverty, ending war, ending crime, ending starvation, ending malnutrition and dramatically reducing world child mortality over a matter of weeks a ‘lack of a solution’ on the road to eliminating the ‘dark sides’ of humanity, then come up with better ones, or at least take the time to fully understand the scope of those which you argue against.

 

‘What guidelines? Still waiting...’

 

Did you actually read the document I wrote? You know, the one with all the ‘guidelines’ in it?

 

 

’Saying its "not your call" is equivalent to saying "its not important enough for me to worry about: there are smart people who will deal with the problems I've created by my overly simplistic solution."’

 

I think I covered this earlier in this answer.

 

‘Generally" certainly is a loaded term, isn't it?

Sure, most people obey the laws, but the point is *many people do not*.

Your thesis is that simply by eliminating "money" all such problems would go away, and it would be nice if you were to explain *why* you think that is the case, beyond "it was obvious to me, and I'm a rational person, so it should be obvious to everyone else."’

 

Generally, means the same as ‘most’, which you used in the next line, where you agreed with me. ‘Sure, most people obey the laws...’.

I used the word ‘generally’ to indicate my acknowledgement of the common and obvious fact that there are, indeed, some who do not obey the laws at present.

My immediate goal is to absolutely minimise the numbers of these people who are still able to commit most crimes. This will happen by a process called ‘criminal disablement’, whereby, once my plan is enacted, thieves, burglars, muggers and bank robbers will have nothing of value to steal. So they will just stop. Unless they are criminally insane, and then medical professionals would step in to organise humane treatment to help them ‘evolve’.

 

...unless you can come up with a better plan?

 

‘If one is going to propose solutions, it is one's responsibility to consider *all* of the ramifications, obstacles, and side-effects for those solutions and address them’.

 

I have.

 

...and I still stand by my original assertion that I don’t have to come up with all the answers to bring this into being. Humanity has all the talent and commonsense it requires to come up with the best workable solutions to the problems which may befall us in the future. My task is to guide us to a more evolved way of thinking about problems, and endeavouring to cure them at source, and not continue ‘firefighting’ the consequences of maintaining an essentially corrupt system.

 

 

 

 

’Simply being an "idea guy" is pretty much worthless’.

 

Thanks for that Buffy, so on the same scale, what would that make a clueless, selfish, small minded ‘marketeer’ worth?

 

Follow the Id yourself. It appears to be more your style than mine. (;-)

 

Best regards, as always,

Peacemaker.

[CraigD]

In a nutshell I am FOR everything that is good for our bodies and souls. Music, dancing, singing, good food, good working conditions, clean air and water, as much free time as we can afford to pay ourselves, whilst still keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning.

It’s this last clause wherein lies what seems to me, and, I think, many others, to be the flaw in your plan, Peacemaker. As presently technologically embodied, how easy is it to “keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning”? and how much free time will the people who chose to do so actually have?

 

Taking just one example

I am FOR bicycles for all who want them.

The issues seems to me less who wants bicycles, than who wants to build them.

 

Assembling a bicycle is, for a fair fraction of folk who like to ride them, enjoyable. Folk who like brazing tend to enjoy building frames. I’ve never met anyone, however, with much affection for mining and refining or recycling metal, rolling and casting machine parts, or making ball bearings, so find it difficult to imagine that many people would chose to do these critical activities, were they not compelled to.

 

Currently, this compulsion has a financial character. In my part of the world, nobody is actually compelled by a lash or the point of a gun to work. A person without preexisting wealth can chose not to, if he is willing to accept a life of poverty, in which many of the good things you mention are inaccessible*.

 

Under your plan, Peacemaker, what will compel people to do unpleasant but necessary jobs? More importantly, will these compulsions be as readily refusable as those under which we live now?

 

If the answer to this last question is no, I find present conditions preferable to those you envision. Not having what you want is a bad thing, but being irrefusable compelled to do what you do not want to is, IMHO, far worse.

 

In my vision of a moneyless society, the need for human beings to do unpleasant labor is eliminated by a continuation of the technological trend that has already reduced the amount of such labor that is presently required. Absent a need, the means of the compulsion becomes, I believe, irrelevant, and the compulsion, nonexistent.

__________________________________________

* Interestingly, in my experience, bicycles are a thing of which even the utterly destitute are not deprived – so many are thrown out as they are discarded by families with children shunning them in favor of automobiles that there are more than enough for any houseless person who wants one. A way to gain immediate high status among the houseless is to specialize in salvaging, distributing, and maintaining bikes.

[TheBigDog]

A moneyless society that maintains anything approximating the lifestyle enabled by our modern service based society fueled by capitalism is the economic equivalent to perpetual motion.

 

Bill

[Peacemaker]

It’s this last clause wherein lies what seems to me, and, I think, many others, to be the flaw in your plan, Peacemaker. As presently technologically embodied, how easy is it to “keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning”? and how much free time will the people who chose to do so actually have?

 

Taking just one exampleThe issues seems to me less who wants bicycles, than who wants to build them.

 

Assembling a bicycle is, for a fair fraction of folk who like to ride them, enjoyable. Folk who like brazing tend to enjoy building frames. I’ve never met anyone, however, with much affection for mining and refining or recycling metal, rolling and casting machine parts, or making ball bearings, so find it difficult to imagine that many people would chose to do these critical activities, were they not compelled to.

 

Currently, this compulsion has a financial character. In my part of the world, nobody is actually compelled by a lash or the point of a gun to work. A person without preexisting wealth can chose not to, if he is willing to accept a life of poverty, in which many of the good things you mention are inaccessible*.

 

Under your plan, Peacemaker, what will compel people to do unpleasant but necessary jobs? More importantly, will these compulsions be as readily refusable as those under which we live now?

 

If the answer to this last question is no, I find present conditions preferable to those you envision. Not having what you want is a bad thing, but being irrefusable compelled to do what you do not want to is, IMHO, far worse.

 

In my vision of a moneyless society, the need for human beings to do unpleasant labor is eliminated by a continuation of the technological trend that has already reduced the amount of such labor that is presently required. Absent a need, the means of the compulsion becomes, I believe, irrelevant, and the compulsion, nonexistent.

__________________________________________

* Interestingly, in my experience, bicycles are a thing of which even the utterly destitute are not deprived – so many are thrown out as they are discarded by families with children shunning them in favor of automobiles that there are more than enough for any houseless person who wants one. A way to gain immediate high status among the houseless is to specialize in salvaging, distributing, and maintaining bikes.

Hi Craig D,

 

I agree completely. There will be no compulsion. All we can do is to ask people who are in these types of jobs, to carry on doing them to the best of their ability, and to teach others to do them. I fervently hope that we as human beings, and recipients of the whole of the common wealth, will, if the call goes out to society that we need people to train in certain skills, come forward and volunteer. Just because it is the best thing you can do at that time to help this all go forward. I have no doubt that volunteers will come forward. I have worked in factories, and in industry. Working and manual labour hold no fears for me. I would shovel manure if it became necessary. The rewards will be infinitely better than we currently have. Can you imagine coming home after a hard day's work, shower, change, go to a restaurant, pursue a hobby, go for a walk, make new friends, socialise with old ones, go swimming, or whatever you like. You can just go out and enjoy yourself. You won't have to worry about the bills any more. Most of us don't have such opportunities today.

 

As to how much free time we have, millions of people currently employed in finance based industry and in the military and security forces will become jobless immediately. They will immediately become available for placement and training in any area they wish to work. These are some of the most talented people on the planet. Statisticians would very quickly be able to tell us how many hours per day we would all have to work to achieve the goals we set ourselves.

 

Clearly, a formula like 8 hours each to begin with, 4 days on, 4 days off on a rotational basis would be extremely simple to administer and would very quickly make a dent in the task we wish to achieve. It may well be that this is an optimum work period for all of us. It gives time to rest and recuperate and to take recreation. I believe this would maintain a balance in our lives. But again this is merely my point of view, and a suggestion to make a start. It will I'm sure, develop into something that I can't envisage, due to studies made as to the best time for each individuals metabolism to perform work. Who knows? It's evolution.

 

I also believe that the dirty dangerous jobs will be the ones which are improved first. During the second world war, the average age of an american bomber pilot was 21 years old and had a one in four chance of not coming home after an operation, and they were queueing up to do it. We should not underestimate the good nature and willingness of people who believe they are getting a fair deal and who beleive that what they are doing is good, and right. If you can understand exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it, and understand your work is a small repayment to the society which is providing everything you want and need, and plenty of it, people will begin to develop a rhythm, and a willingness 'to do their bit'.

Does it sound like a high price to pay? I don't think it is.

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker.

[TheBigDog]

During the second world war, the average age of an american bomber pilot was 21 years old and had a one in four chance of not coming home after an operation, and they were queueing up to do it.

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 will toward each other drives us to demand nothing? Without money, industry will stop. People work for three reasons: 1) because they sell their time and talent, 2) because they are forced, 3) because they volunteer. In your world we eliminate the first two reason, everyone becomes a volunteer. You feel that people will see the need for certain jobs to be done and line up to do them. I am not sure your experience in motivating people to perform at a job, but job performance requires motivation. Meeting deadlines requires organization, and consistency of performance. Quality and innovation are driven by competition for market share. Without money there is no capital investment (large scale tooling, marketing) for the creation of new products. Money is how such things are prioritized and organized.

 

Even if there is absolute abundance, you still have the issue of distribution. I am sitting at a table in Mexico right now. Within arms reach is a bottle of water, but it is almost empty. I have supply that requires little expenditure of energy. When it runs out I no longer have supply that doesn't require me getting up, or having someone bring me more. If I choose to not get up, then I become dependent upon people bringing me water, or in about 4 days I might die. Is it my duty to move to a supply of water, or societies duty to bring me water? This may seem like a ludicrous example, but it is absolutely fundamental. Getting things to people takes massive coordination and energy.

 

In cities it is easy for people to be closer to more supplies and can aid in the efficient distribution of goods, but as you create a city you eliminate the space required for local agriculture, forcing food to be transported farther to feed the masses. Manufacturing of modern things also has economies of scale. The higher the output of a manufacturing operation the more customers it needs to use its products. More customers means transporting things farther with more dispersion. Raw material distribution is simplified by consolidating manufacturing locations because you need ot deliver to less places. If you increase the number of manufacturing plants to localize the distribution of everything you raise the cost of distributing the materials used to manufacture those goods. And while locally the distribution costs are lowered, the total cost (in time and energy) of distribution is higher.

 

With open space it is easier for people to create their own supplies, but more difficult to distribute things that people cannot make for themselves. Small associations of people can have a collection of skills that can meet most needs of the group, and make distribution efficient within the group, but the acquisition of raw materials that are not found locally remains an issue.

 

I think I can point to a modern group that is living close to the lifestyle we would all enjoy in a moneyless society; the Amish. They do not rely upon that which they cannot produce for themselves. They participate in the surrounding economy, but they could probably live without it. Their religion oppresses the human vice of pride, and they strive to live as simply as possible, making their own clothes and shoes, and being craftsmen and farmers. They also rely upon beasts of burden instead of powered tools like cars, and they mostly have no electricity. They use wood fired furnaces to heat their homes. They have a very limited service based society. They live with the things that each man can learn to build and maintain. They reject innovation and rely upon time tested solutions. They are also completely non violent-to the point of rejecting even self defense, but they employ harsh social punishments such as shunning to control their populations. The Amish are the perfect model for your Utopian society.

 

Let us all clamor for the Amish lifestyle.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

Peacemaker, Bill's reference to the Amish does seem to fit very closely to what you are proposing. Have you studied the Amish society and culture? Does it describe what you are proposing?

[Peacemaker]

Hi Big Dog, Thanks for your points.

 

(Firstly, Can I ask you to read the article I wrote again? The answers to all your questions are there if you look for them. One of the key words in that document is evolution. I understand your concerns about the early days of the plan, but conditions for all of us can only get better and better as time passes.

Once the bare bones of this philosophy is accepted as a fundamental truth, (which it is) there will be information and education available to all, and guidelines issued, outlining the crucially important fact that we all initially continue going to work, if we work in any areas of production and supply which are obviously useful to mankind, from sweeping the streets, to brain surgery.

I will now go through your post and answer it as honestly as I can. My answers and observations will be in brackets).

 

Setting aside the dubious accuracy of your numbers, reflect upon why they were queuing up for the job.

(The numbers are from a Discovery channel programme, and I believe that they were queuing up for the jobs because they were young men, eager to do their duty for their families, their comrades, and their country, in that order.

It may have been a poor example, due to the percieved 'glamour' of their roles.

Perhaps I would have been better served using a less glamorous calling, such as corpsmen, who tended, in the British army anyway, to be made up from conscientious objectors, who refused to kill other men, but performed heroic acts on the battlefields of the world nevertheless, simply because they were human beings, with a strong will to help other human beings who were suffering).

 

What happens to supply and demand? Do those principle simply disappear, as our collective good will toward each other drives us to demand nothing?

 

(Why would these things disappear simply because money does? We will still need to manufacture and supply the whole range of goods we currently expect, and I am confident that many more 'luxury' items will become available to us very quickly. If we don't make them, who does?..and why would collective goodwill overcome the natural urge in all of us to have the best for ourselves. A certain degree of selfishnessis a very good survival instinct, so why shouldn't we be good to ourselves, and to each other?...and another very important facet of this evolution, is that we stop demanding, it's a form of bullying and an exercise of power. Our priorities are going to change. We are going to become a lot more relaxed. We just work together, taking the necessary time and maximising the manpower and material supply in order to initially manufacture and supply the goods, and then to maintain and replenish them. Simple really isn't it? It just requires a slightly different mindset, from me to we).

 

Without money, industry will stop. People work for three reasons: 1) because they sell their time and talent, 2) because they are forced, 3) because they volunteer. In your world we eliminate the first two reason, everyone becomes a volunteer.

(Not a volunteer, a participant).

You feel that people will see the need for certain jobs to be done and line up to do them. I am not sure your experience in motivating people to perform at a job, but job performance requires motivation. Meeting deadlines requires organization, and consistency of performance. Quality and innovation are (currently)

driven by competition for market share. Without money there is no capital investment (large scale tooling, marketing) for the creation of new products. Money is how such things are

(currently)

prioritized and organized.

 

(Once we evolve, we just carry on doing these things. Quality and innovation will become by-words in a moneyless society, simply because we are building for our family, and we will take the time to plan it, build it and install it or distribute it to the best of our ability. We will be building and manufacturing everything to last. We will no longer have to build in obsolescence for financial reasons, as we currently do.

It's the me to we thing again, it's initially a mental 'leap of faith' and then a physical evolution, both of ourselves, and of our lifestyle and environment, through our combined efforts).

 

Even if there is absolute abundance, you still have the issue of distribution. I am sitting at a table in Mexico right now. Within arms reach is a bottle of water, but it is almost empty. I have supply that requires little expenditure of energy. When it runs out I no longer have supply that doesn't require me getting up, or having someone bring me more. If I choose to not get up, then I become dependent upon people bringing me water, or in about 4 days I might die. Is it my duty to move to a supply of water, or societies duty to bring me water? This may seem like a ludicrous example, but it is absolutely fundamental. Getting things to people takes massive coordination and energy.

 

In cities it is easy for people to be closer to more supplies and can aid in the efficient distribution of goods, but as you create a city you eliminate the space required for local agriculture, forcing food to be transported farther to feed the masses. Manufacturing of modern things also has economies of scale. The higher the output of a manufacturing operation the more customers it needs to use its products. More customers means transporting things farther with more dispersion. Raw material distribution is simplified by consolidating manufacturing locations because you need ot deliver to less places. If you increase the number of manufacturing plants to localize the distribution of everything you raise the cost of distributing the materials used to manufacture those goods. And while locally the distribution costs are lowered, the total cost (in time and energy) of distribution is higher.

 

With open space it is easier for people to create their own supplies, but more difficult to distribute things that people cannot make for themselves. Small associations of people can have a collection of skills that can meet most needs of the group, and make distribution efficient within the group, but the acquisition of raw materials that are not found locally remains an issue.

 

(We currently transport and supply diverse materials to every corner of the world, (and why should we stop doing that? It would be illogical). but we do it inefficiently. If you look at the average highway, you will see a huge collection of cars, lorries and vans, a small fraction of which are fully loaded, wasting our resources at a frightening rate. But we can do it much more efficiently, just by working smarter, and using excess nuclear, or hydro electric power which wouldn't cost us a bean, to power electric goods trains, which, as a bonus, also won't pollute our planet).

 

I think I can point to a modern group that is living close to the lifestyle we would all enjoy in a moneyless society; the Amish. They do not rely upon that which they cannot produce for themselves. They participate in the surrounding economy, but they could probably live without it. Their religion oppresses the human vice of pride, and they strive to live as simply as possible, making their own clothes and shoes, and being craftsmen and farmers. They also rely upon beasts of burden instead of powered tools like cars, and they mostly have no electricity. They use wood fired furnaces to heat their homes. They have a very limited service based society. They live with the things that each man can learn to build and maintain. They reject innovation and rely upon time tested solutions. They are also completely non violent-to the point of rejecting even self defense, but they employ harsh social punishments such as shunning,

 

(I would think this would very quickly get the message across, and is much more humane than jailing, or assauting people, or depriving them of the fruits of their work by fining them. The trick is, to warmly and joyfully welcome the offender back into society as soon as he apologises for his actions)

 

to control their populations. The Amish are

(almost)

the perfect model for your Utopian society.

 

Let us all clamor for the Amish lifestyle.

(Or something similar but infinitely better?)

 

(I should say here that I deeply admire the lifestyle of the Amish people. They demonstrate a greater wisdom, tolerance and understanding of humanity and their environment than is currently normal in humanity. And yes, if we can emulate their devotion to each other, and their work ethic, we will evolve. The difference between what they do and what I propose, is that I think bigger. Why settle for a happy and fulfilling life of relative poverty, when we can choose to have a happy and fulfilling life of plenty? It would be illogical and perverse to do otherwise, wouldn't it)?

 

Hope this helps, Bill.

 

Best regards to you and yours, from me and mine,

Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

A moneyless society that maintains anything approximating the lifestyle enabled by our modern service based society fueled by capitalism is the economic equivalent to perpetual motion.

 

Bill

Yes!

 

Peacemaker.

[TheBigDog]

Dear Wall,

 

I am a patient man, but if you tell be to read your damn paper again I am going to freaking snap. My reading comprehension is not the issue, it is your failure to deal with reality. The world does not operate on good intentions. Basically, for your fantasy world to become reality, the core nature of all humans needs to fundamentally change into disciplined agreement with you. Your inability to answer my points with anything other than feel good cliches about how humanity will be different when humanity is different is the most basic of logical fallacies. Supply chain, industry, manufacturing, work force motivation, and their associated economics are established sciences which I work with every day. Your disbelief in the necessity of what is involved in mass industry and distribution is the equivalent of denying evolution itself. You are an industrial creationist, thinking industry will happen because you will it so. It is a God complex that you suffer from, for the noblest of intentions, but intentions do not make laws of nature turn on their head or make the impossible possible. You cannot will humanity into a different state of being, to do so is to deny the freedom of each person bent to your dictum. What you are preaching is slavery, and justifying it as love of humanity above the self. Money is how we have evolved. You are saying we will evolve past it. I am saying we will evolve deeper into it, perfecting it as the cohesive element of disparate elements of society and the fuel and lubricant to witness the vast potential of the human mind and the human will.

 

Good luck with it all, but not too much luck, I would hate to have to fight you to the death and kill you to prevent the fall of civilization and your stealing from me the freedoms that I hold most dear (by the way, that is why the men were queuing up to fight - for their freedom)

 

Bill

[Cedars]

Yes!

 

Peacemaker.

 

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Use of the term "impossible" and perpetual motion

 

Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physics."

[CraigD]

I am a patient man, but if you tell be to read your damn paper again I am going to freaking snap. My reading comprehension is not the issue …

I believe Bill speaks for many, PeaceMaker. Most of the participants in this thread comprehend the plan of which you’ve written, and either agree or disagree with its feasibility. It does not, IMHO, contain any novel or difficult-to-comprehend ideas. I believe you would do better to discuss your ideas in terms of specific questions and objections raised about them, rather than appealing to people to read your paper over and over in the hope that this will result in them changing their opinions such that their questions and objections go away.

… but intentions do not make laws of nature turn on their head or make the impossible possible.

The implication of this statement – that the existence of money is required by the laws of nature – is contradicted, I believe, by physical, archeological evidence. Biologically modern and human beings appear to have lacked the idea of money, or even recognizable barter or trade, for a much longer period of time than they have had them. The absence of money or trade certainly does not violate any fundamental physical law, such as would water flowing uphill, or a true perpetual motion machine.

 

Even fairly recent history contains many periods in which money was nearly unknown, the European feudal era, which many historians characterize as coming to a close due to the emergence of money as part of the “bourgeois revolution”, being a well-known example.

 

Money is a powerful idea, and, I believe, one that has greatly furthered human culture, but it is only an idea, no more innately guaranteed to be forever popular or important than the idea of divinely endorsed hereditary rule, another concept that for a time served humanity well. Like the former concept, money as presently embodied in the many human cultures around the world does both great good, and great bad. In my estimation, the influence of money is presently a net good, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case, nor that my estimation, or anyone else’s confirming or contradicting estimation, is correct.

[TheBigDog]

The implication of this statement – that the existence of money is required by the laws of nature – is contradicted, I believe, by physical, archeological evidence. Biologically modern and human beings appear to have lacked the idea of money, or even recognizable barter or trade, for a much longer period of time than they have had them. The absence of money or trade certainly does not violate any fundamental physical law, such as would water flowing uphill, or a true perpetual motion machine.

 

Even fairly recent history contains many periods in which money was nearly unknown, the European feudal era, which many historians characterize as coming to a close due to the emergence of money as part of the “bourgeois revolution”, being a well-known example.

 

Money is a powerful idea, and, I believe, one that has greatly furthered human culture, but it is only an idea, no more innately guaranteed to be forever popular or important than the idea of divinely endorsed hereditary rule, another concept that for a time served humanity well. Like the former concept, money as presently embodied in the many human cultures around the world does both great good, and great bad. In my estimation, the influence of money is presently a net good, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case, nor that my estimation, or anyone else’s confirming or contradicting estimation, is correct.

I am speaking of how it acts as a social contract to enable the complexities of modern industry. Business simply does not function without money as a metric, motivator, and objective. The industry that existed prior to money cannot hold a candle to the industry of man since. It is no coincidence that science, exploration, trade, medicine and all other things that suppor tmoder society have happened since the inventory of money.

 

I don't see the statement as a contradiction. If you want to maintain or approximate the industry and distribution that exists in the world today, it cannot be done without money. It acts for the societal organism like oxygen acts for the human organism.

 

Bill

[Peacemaker]

(Hi Bill, thanks for this, my first ever death threat, and from an educated American! I think I'll frame it. I am sure there will be many more. Again, my comments will be in brackets.)

 

Dear Wall,

 

(? - Oh I get it, you feel that talking to me is like talking to a wall right? That my opinions and hopes for my species should change because you include angry pictures, shout at me, tell me I'm wrong, and threaten my life... Subtle(;-)

 

I am a patient man,

 

(Really?)

 

but if you tell me to read your damn paper again I am going to freaking snap. My reading comprehension is not the issue,

 

(You're right, it isn't the issue in this case. Much more important to comprehending the scope of this plan is your mindset. If you read it with a closed mind, you will never understand it. The key to understanding it is to ask why not? Instead of formulating arguments against it which have already proved erroneous.

You just have to watch the news every day, and see the current injustices being perpetrated against individuals, ethnic groups, and even whole countries to see that the present system is fundamentally flawed.

Here's a natural economic law for you to consider. There never has been, and there never will be enough money on this planet to satisfy the fundamental needs and aspirations of every human being throughout their lives.

If you took every penny ever minted and distributed it evenly throughout the population of the world, and then multiplied it by ten, Within three months there would be some who would have gambled it away, some who would have been murdered for it, some who have been cheated or defrauded out of it, some who would have lost it by having to pay ransomes for the return of kidnapped loved ones, and some who had multiplied it, perhaps hundreds of times, by these, or other means. Give it a year and that figure could be multiplied by a factor of ten, or a hundred. Give it twenty years and we would be back exactly where we are now, with 5% of the people owning 95% of the global wealth and resource. THAT is human nature currently, and THAT is because of the existence of money.

Here's an example. A few years ago in Britain, a minimum wage was introduced to ensure that no-one was being ripped off for their labour. Employers bleated about it, saying that their businesses would close and that they would be ruined. The very poorest heaved a sigh of relief that now they would be treated fairly and that they would be able to pay their bills, buy clothes for the kids and maybe have a seaside holiday this year. What in fact happened was that prices went up to cover the extra costs, and the poor were no better off. The rich, however, as usual, got richer. Perhaps you can explain your view that money CAN create a better world, more clearly. I would be most interested to hear how this is going to happen, given the truisms I have outlined above.)

 

it is your failure to deal with reality.

 

(I deal only in reality my friend, not the percieved reality of the capitalist/imperialist myth of 'good times for all, just around the corner', whilst, for example, closing factories in the west and opening them in the East to capitalise on the cheaper workforces available there. My reality begins to create a better, fairer, cleaner, more loving world from the first second of its inception).

 

The world does not operate on good intentions.

 

(Yet).

 

Basically, for your fantasy world to become reality, the core nature of all humans needs to fundamentally change into disciplined agreement with you.

 

(Your use of the word 'disciplined' here is good for effect isn't it? Giving readers the impression that it is some kind of militaristic autocracy that I envisage. But YOU know, and I know that's not true is it? A better word would have been 'General'. but full marks for trying anyway.)

 

Your inability to answer my points with anything other than feel good cliches about how humanity will be different when humanity is different is the most basic of logical fallacies.

 

(Bit of a blunder here again Bill, How can a fallacy be logical, and how can you say it is a fallacy when it hasn't been tried and disproved yet? )

 

Supply chain, industry, manufacturing, work force motivation, and their associated economics are established sciences which I work with every day.

 

(At last, the light dawns. Your arguments against this philosophy are motivated by a fear that it will make your work, and everything you have learnt and strived for so far, redundant. Self interest is a prime motivator isn't it, and you are prepared to sacrifice billions of innocent people, (Including me) rather than admit that there is now a viable alternative. (Start clicking your fingers every three seconds and count them off, for the rest of your life. Feels good for you does it?).

 

Your disbelief in the necessity of what is involved in mass industry and distribution is the equivalent of denying evolution itself. You are an industrial creationist, thinking industry will happen because you will it so.

 

(Sorry, but you are SO wrong I have to swear here. B*****ks! (sorry) But this is the most unutterable tosh. We already have mass industry. It exists. Mass distribution also exists. They will continue to exist under my philosophy. The only difference is that in the future we can do it all much more efficiently and cleanly. You appear to be labouring under the delusion that this plan deconstructs all our previous efforts and gains. You couldn't be further from the truth. It capitalises and improves upon all our previous efforts. I'm sure we could even find a place in it for you, with a little retraining...(;-)

 

It is a God complex that you suffer from,

 

(Psychiatry another string to your bow is it Bill?)

 

for the noblest of intentions,

 

(Thanks for at least recognising THAT, but still, you threaten my life in an effort to shut me up, because you can come up with no logical argument against what I propose?).

 

but intentions do not make laws of nature turn on their head

 

(What Law of Nature governs money, finance and property ownership Bill?)

 

or make the impossible possible. You cannot will humanity into a different state of being,

 

(Well, actually you CAN Bill, I don't know what the current philosophy on smacking children is in America, but here in the UK it used to be a commonplace, daily event to see children severely chastised in public, hearing them howl with pain and humiliation because their parents thought that the 'right thing to do' when a child misbehaved was to give them a 'good' smacking.

A few years ago that all began to change. New laws were brought in banning the physical and mental abuse of children in public. Children were taught their basic human rights in schools, and slowly, the smacking stopped.

To such an extent that people are now outraged if it occurs, and will approach parents that do it and threaten them with police action. This is a fundamental change in philosophy that wouldn't have appeared possible thirty years ago. So, in this case there has been a demonstrable change in human behaviour over a very short time, brought about by public opinion and legislation. The same can be said for people's attitudes to homosexuality and the catholic church's stance on the use of condoms for example. It is my belief that people can change their beliefs and perceptions very quickly if the percieved outcome is of benefit to society as a whole. I have faith in Humanity).

 

to do so is to deny the freedom

 

(Name one freedom I will deny to humanity, except the freedom to injure, the freedom to violate and the freedoms to commit crime or be greedy. Please. Because if you can, and I agree with you, then I will have to re-think this whole plan).

 

of each person bent to your dictum. What you are preaching is slavery, and justifying it as love of humanity above the self.

 

(Do you know the meaning of slavery Bill? It's where some human beings dominate other human beings for profit and power. Where is the profit in my scheme? Where is the power? Where is the abuse? Look around today, you will see them all on display around the world. In my world, these things will no longer exist. THAT'S why it is called an evolution).

 

Money is how we have evolved. You are saying we will evolve past it.

 

(Correct).

 

I am saying we will evolve deeper into it, perfecting it as the cohesive element of disparate elements of society and the fuel and lubricant to witness the vast potential of the human mind and the human will.

 

(How? We have had a basically capitalist system around the world for over 2000 years. It has been the catalyst for much good, it has also been the catalyst for much bad.

For example, due to a downturn in the stockmarkets the other day, 68 Billion dollars was wiped off the Hang Seng index due to a 'lack of confidence' in the market. How are you going to stop that Bill?

How do YOU feel we can improve the system to such an extent that we can remove the bad?...and what timescales are YOU working on?.. again, if you come up with a good enough plan, I will drop this and support YOU. I just want to get the bad stuff over and done with as quickly as possible and move forward to a better existence on this planet, for ALL of us).

 

Good luck with it all, but not too much luck, I would hate to have to fight you to the death and kill you to prevent the fall of civilization and your stealing from me the freedoms that I hold most dear

 

(Which freedoms are those Bill? the freedom to bear arms? Please, be specific).

 

((by the way, that is why the men were queuing up to fight - for their freedom))

 

(I have been a soldier Bill, and have known many soldiers, and if you ask them what they fight for, the last thing they will say to you is for their freedom. What they were fighting for was a 'better world' for themselves and their families. For example, at the end of

WW1, British soldiers were told they would return home to a 'land fit for heroes' with good housing, work for all and a good standard of living. What they got was poor housing and the depression. What 'Freedoms' was America fighting for in Vietnam? What 'Freedoms' are they fighting for in Iraq? The freedom of America to continue burning cheap oil at an extravagant rate?).

 

I await your reply with interest,

Peacemaker.