Call for a Human Evolution! New World Order

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 20, 2010 at 4:01pm

Onto currency. Yes, currency is nothing more than a tool. What is done with that tool is a desire that comes from within. I will stand strong with you on that observation. However, I feel inclined to point out what that tool has become, and what it has been twisted into. It is a tool in which people will literally kill for because they think that they need it. They want more. They are consumed by greed. Currency is not only a tool of our society for trade. It is also a tool for greed. A tool for murder. A tool for corruption, but still a tool. Without currency to separate social standing where would that leave us? Lost? I believe that would leave us equal.

Yes. Money is just a tool but not just a tool for evil. It is an equally powerful tool for good. For every evil use of money, I could match you with a good use. In the end, we would just realize that money has no mind of it's own. Therefore, if we eliminate money but not the desire for the abuse then people will simply find other ways to pay for their crimes.

No cash, then perhaps you'll take six months worth of food or a kilo of cocaine to kill someone. Money is just the tool.

Now we can address some of the flaws of money by taking it out of the state's control. The state controls the money so that it can give itself free loans (inflation). They then use those loans to do what the state desires and not necessarily what is best for the people.

And then the people have to pay back these "free" loans by losing value in the currency we have (the US dollar has lost over 90% of it's value since the FED started "managing" it). So if we simply save our money, then we're actually losing money slowly every day.

Additionally a major part of why we all have to work so hard is to simply support the theft of the state. We all pay 20%+ of our income taxes, then we add sales taxes, gas taxes, school taxes, etc, etc, etc. If we were to remove the burden the state imposes then all of us could afford to work that much less. Or work the same and have more money for ourselves.

So the problem is not the tool. The problem is the state managing the tool. We need to free the tool from it's oppression as we free ourselves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 22, 2010 at 8:19am

(for example, wanting to end currencies but continue global trade).

On this issue i don't think I had totally thought it out through it's complexity. We have already established I do agree with you that currency and the trade there of for goods manufactured and produced is the simplest form of sharing what we need for what we need.

Now with that in mind, hypothetically, what if we were to eradicate trade all together. Create a sort of community store house to gather building materials, food, tools, spare parts, and anything else that we ship, other than finished products, on a day to day basis.

Now any "business" will need certain items to produce machines, entertainment, electronics, buildings, transportation equipment, etc. They can requisition the supplies needed to construct their products for free as per their schematics with a certain percentage additional for waste compensation.

Certain luxury items such as game systems, computers, books, exercise equipment, swimming pools, recreational equipment, and any other luxury item that is not absolutely necessary for a household to operate can be rented out of a community center, or perhaps used at a community center such as computers in a library. Beds, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators, furniture and such will be issued to each household to accommodate the number of residents in that household, free.

Now, make the workforce of the entire world work for free, compensated by whatever it is that they need and free access to all things that they want out of their local "community center".

Now that we have taken the cost of having a workforce employed by companies and a overhead of supplies needed for those companies to manufacture their product, their product is free as well. So all the community centers will now receive free items for people to rent free of charge.

Any fuel we might need, (being that everything would probably be solar powered anyway, or some other sort of non-polluting resource that can fuel our needs) will be free because all of the materials that a company would need to drill for oil or dig for coal would be free. Their workers would be free labor.

Being that we have established that everything is free in this model, we can have people working around the clock and production never stop. People would get the same free time they currently do, time to sleep, and then be back at work. All the same as it is currently, other than that whole trade thing.

I'm eager to read your reply and hopefully any additional suggestions you have along the same lines of this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 22, 2010 at 10:01am

OK, so you've invented...........communism?

The flaw with this system (and with communism) is that it is impossible to regulate without a large governing committee to decide who needs and/or gets what. This committee will be every bit as corruptible as we've seen in every nation to attempt communism.

Additionally,under a system like this there are few feedback mechanisms that allow the system to know the resources are being properly allocated.

For example, lets consider CAT-scan machines in a hospital. Under a capitalist system, they get allocated based on where the businesses can afford to buy one. And the business decides based on if it can sell enough sessions to make the individual price reasonable. Then other doctors who can't afford the equipment will subcontract to get their scans done.

On the other hand, under your system there will be no market feedback mechanisms. There will only be a desire factor. Every doctor will want a CAT-scan machine as convenient as possible. So they will write eloquent statements for all the good it will do. Then the community will try to provide for as many of those as they can. This will result in over-allocation of CAT-scan machines and many offices will have one not because they really needed one but rather because they had a good grant writer on staff or knew someone on the committee that decides.

Now if resources were unlimited this would not be a problem, but in reality resources are always limited. Especially when we're talking about hugely complicated and expensive machines. So if we over-allocate scanners then what other choices can't be made? How many fewer TV, game systems or washing machines can be made?

Next issue, use of natural resources. When the state owns the resources, it generally does a very poor job of managing them. Lets take logging as an example. When the state owns the land and leases it to logging companies, then the company has very little interest in protecting the land. They simply want to make as much money as they can before they move onto the next lease. Fines can mitigate this a little but not entirely because eventually the potential profits will outweigh the fines and some companies will take the risk. This is what we see in the US today, what has been seen under communist governments is even worse.

Note: Also remember that the state has very little incentive to protect the land because it gets more money from the leases than from enforcing the law. Additionally logging companies will lobby the government to insure the absolute best possible legal environment for their business.

Now, the solution to this problem is private ownership of the resources. If logging companies had to buy every piece of land that they wanted to harvest then they would have a much greater incentive to take care of that land. If they do clear cut the land then when they try to sell it, the value will generally be much less than what they paid for it. So much less that it will ruin profitability. So what do logging companies do? They will create methods to sustainably harvest the land a little each year. This will reduce per year profits per acre but provides all the incentive necessary to protect the land. Remember that they simply can't continuously go buy new land because they will face competition from other groups that want to do log or other things with the land. For example conservationists may band together to purchase large chunks of land to leave them undisturbed and allow their members access (much like current national parks or what Ducks Unlimited do).

Note: This may drive up the price of lumber but that's not so much an increase in the actual value as a recognition that prices have been kept artificially low due to state interference.

And finally, there is the question of freedom. A system like this could be more equal than what we see today but it will always be considerably less free. And we have to remember that the remaining inequality (those on the deciding committees vs everyone else) will be fairly significant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 22, 2010 at 11:33am

OK, so you've invented...........communism? The flaw with this system (and with communism) is that it is impossible to regulate without a large governing committee to decide who needs and/or gets what. This committee will be every bit as corruptible as we've seen in every nation to attempt communism.

These are the factors that would make up a communist government.

Abolition of Private Property.
I didn't suggest the abolition of private property. Everyone would be in direct control of their own property once it has been given to them and they would be allowed to do with it as they pleased.

Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
No income, no income tax

Abolition of Rights of Inheritance.
Nothing to inherit other than personal property, which you would already have the same of.

Confiscation of Property Rights.
This would not be necissary because everyone has a copy of the same property. No more, no less. And as I said, everyone reserves the right to do with their property as they see fit.

Central Bank.
No money, no need for a bank. However with that in mind, i did suggest a centralized store house. This is much like a food store in an ant colony.

Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
Government would obviously regulate these due to the fact that they are issuing the tools needed to utilize these luxuries. However, the citizens would still maintain and supply parts and tools necissary to provide them.

Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
Again the "government" I suggest in my model would regulate the flow of tools necissary to provide the world population with the products of such industries. And again it would be the population providing services to supply their fellow man with the products.

Government Control of Labor.
To a certain degree the "government" would control the labor force, but not to the extent of telling people what to do, where to do it, and how it's done. Individual industries would regulate what is done and how it needs to be done. The "government" would only regulate the fact that everyone needs to contribute their time in a work day or their right to a contribution of food or household items or even privlaged usage of recreational items would be revoked. If their lack of participation persisted they would be exiled.

Corporate Farms and Regional Planning.
I don't think that farms would have to be regulated by the "government" because they would be given land to grow on and the choice of what to grow. Usually certain areas and regions yeild more or less of certain produce. The farmers would know better of what to grow in their area and what not to grow. Now as far as regional planning, that would have to be regulated by a "government" due to the fact certain space needs to be given for housing, industry, and farming.

Government Control of Education.
Obviously this is a necessity in any society to uphold a societal standard of education. We can't expect an indiginous child from the amazon jungle to be able to operate in a factory environment as well as a child educated around a factory environment, or a child who has a factory worker as a parent in modern terms. Therefore everyone would have to have the same requirements as far as general education. Upon graduation i would say that they have their choice at a technical school of their choice to learn their trade that they wish to go into. Later on in life if they feel they would be happier elsewhere then they may re-attend technical school to change their profession. Again, all of this would be free to the population.

And as far as the governing committee, i would believe that everyone in the world would have a voice in that governing. You, myself as well as everyone I associate with knows the needs of our households. If there is no "keeping up with the jones'" there would be no need for greed of having more than our neighbor. Why would we need something which everyone has?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 22, 2010 at 1:09pm

While your communism does not match those features, it is an exact match for the basic motto "from those that can to those that need".

Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation. Government would obviously regulate these due to the fact that they are issuing the tools needed to utilize these luxuries. However, the citizens would still maintain and supply parts and tools necissary to provide them.
Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture.
Again the "government" I suggest in my model would regulate the flow of tools necissary to provide the world population with the products of such industries. And again it would be the population providing services to supply their fellow man with the product

This level of regulation is on pair with communist nations. It defers from socialist because the industry is effectively government controlled (and owned). For socialism, you simply control the resources allocated to each, but this controls where the outputs can go too.

Additionally what is the point of non-government owned factories, when the government is the only buyer? Since everyone gets everything from the government......why pretend that the government doesn't run it?

Government Control of Labor. To a certain degree the "government" would control the labor force, but not to the extent of telling people what to do, where to do it, and how it's done. Individual industries would regulate what is done and how it needs to be done. The "government" would only regulate the fact that everyone needs to contribute their time in a work day or their right to a contribution of food or household items or even privlaged usage of recreational items would be revoked. If their lack of participation persisted they would be exiled.

Since people are not getting paid, then how do you encourage people to do the necessary but undesirable jobs? (Trash, sewage, etc).

No one will want to do them if there isn't a "bonus". That's why garbage men make so much comparatively.

So you will have to force some people to do jobs that they hate. Imagine yourself being forced to spend your life doing a job you hate. Could you do it for the good of the community? Would you consider it a successful life?

Have you read Anthem by Ayn Rand? It's a very short story that illustrates the failure of government controlling what people do. Fairly simplistic but overall not a pretty picture.

Corporate Farms and Regional Planning. I don't think that farms would have to be regulated by the "government" because they would be given land to grow on and the choice of what to grow. Usually certain areas and regions yeild more or less of certain produce. The farmers would know better of what to grow in their area and what not to grow. Now as far as regional planning, that would have to be regulated by a "government" due to the fact certain space needs to be given for housing, industry, and farming.

OK, this idea conflicts with your "central storage" idea. A central store will have to be able to regulate what the farmers produce so that it can keep a reasonable quantity of everything available. If you allow the farmers to decide then you might end up with too much or too little of some items. This will cause shortages. It would have to be centrally planned.

Government Control of Education. Obviously this is a necessity in any society to uphold a societal standard of education. We can't expect an indiginous child from the amazon jungle to be able to operate in a factory environment as well as a child educated around a factory environment, or a child who has a factory worker as a parent in modern terms. Therefore everyone would have to have the same requirements as far as general education. Upon graduation i would say that they have their choice at a technical school of their choice to learn their trade that they wish to go into. Later on in life if they feel they would be happier elsewhere then they may re-attend technical school to change their profession. Again, all of this would be free to the population.

Government control of education is indoctrination. Look at the results of 100 yrs of public education in the US. People are graduating barely able to read. 100 years ago, fifth graders were expected to read & understand Shakespeare. Today, your average high school graduate cannot do it.

Also when anything is regulated as a large group, the inevitable trend is for quality to go down. Because you cannot focus on the top performers. You have to focus at the middle. In the case of education, it creates mediocrity.

Once again, under you system the state would have to regulate what people went to what schools based on the positions they need filled. Free choice would be minimized and people would be assigned career fields based on assessment tests. Those who knew people on the committees would be able to have their kids "specially" selected for preferential jobs.

And as far as the governing committee, i would believe that everyone in the world would have a voice in that governing. You, myself as well as everyone I associate with knows the needs of our households. If there is no "keeping up with the jones'" there would be no need for greed of having more than our neighbor. Why would we need something which everyone has?

The committee cannot be everyone because democracy is tyranny of majority. Those in the majority will always vote against the minorities.

There will be still greed. When you allocate things based on need, then people will find ways to increase their need. If you get a bigger house by having more kids, then why not have more kids? If being disabled gets you paid without work, then you will find a way to become disabled (either literally or just by paperwork through a friend who's a doctor, etc).

I just don't see how the society you are proposing would turn out any different than what we've seen in Russia, China, Vietnam or North Korea.

So it seems to me, that your society would create a massive slave class who existed to provide for the members of the ruling committee. Just like history shows us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 23, 2010 at 12:05am

Additionally what is the point of non-government owned factories, when the government is the only buyer? Since everyone gets everything from the government......why pretend that the government doesn't run it?

What I am suggesting here is not that the government is the only buyer, it is the supplyer by directing flow of goods and supplies. There is no buying or selling in a free society. There is no monetary gain.

No one will want to do them if there isn't a "bonus". That's why garbage men make so much comparatively. So you will have to force some people to do jobs that they hate. Imagine yourself being forced to spend your life doing a job you hate. Could you do it for the good of the community? Would you consider it a successful life?

First and foremost, you suggest garbage men make a good amount of money. How much money do you think they make? Have you even looked up their average wages in a metropolitan area? They make the same as I do, and all I do is clean floors for a living.

Secondly you missed the point where no one would be stuck with a job that they hate. After high school, do you think that I knew what I wanted to do with my life? I was scared out of my mind and had no idea what I was doing for the rest of my life. I still don't. Why would I suggest that people do what they would hate for the rest of their lives with no option to change that profession. Also, yes upon results of a job assessment test some people would initially get stuck with jobs that they don't necissarily like. However, they would get the option to change that in time.

OK, this idea conflicts with your "central storage" idea. A central store will have to be able to regulate what the farmers produce so that it can keep a reasonable quantity of everything available. If you allow the farmers to decide then you might end up with too much or too little of some items. This will cause shortages. It would have to be centrally planned.

I disagree with your assessment here due to the fact that you fail to recognize that we currently have a system like that set up in our local grocery stores and farmers markets. We would obviously have to ship goods from all over the nation to the store houses based on need, as we currently do. So again, no regulation of what is grown at what farm would be necissary. The regulation of what is grown will be done by the planet itself by what will bear fruit the best in each reagion respectively.

Once again, under you system the state would have to regulate what people went to what schools based on the positions they need filled. Free choice would be minimized and people would be assigned career fields based on assessment tests. Those who knew people on the committees would be able to have their kids "specially" selected for preferential jobs.

I find this assessment of yours disturbing. I don't see why anyone would be granted special favors because of a friend. Both friends had to go through the same system to get the careers they currently have. There is no gain because the parties involved will have nothing extra to offer the other in form of material. So there is no sway of incentive.

The committee cannot be everyone because democracy is tyranny of majority. Those in the majority will always vote against the minorities.

Although this is a correct analysis of what i suggest, there are flaws in it.

The committee will be ever changing, replacing its members quite in the same fasion we replace our current government. I believe that those who desire to be on the committee would have to fill out an application of some sort. Those who apply would then take a generalized assessment test. After which the candidates would be weeded out to a sizable amount and the communities in which they would govern over would cast votes to decide their leaders.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 23, 2010 at 12:26am

There will be still greed. When you allocate things based on need, then people will find ways to increase their need. If you get a bigger house by having more kids, then why not have more kids? If being disabled gets you paid without work, then you will find a way to become disabled (either literally or just by paperwork through a friend who's a doctor, etc).

There would be ways of regulating "greed" based on a standardized form of need. To enforce that those are met, you would have your neighbors keeping you in check as well as an official audit, similar to our current census we have.

I want to continue this... but i must go for now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 23, 2010 at 8:03am

It doesn't matter how you regulate it. Some people will want more and will find ways to influence their auditors as necessary.

Any system like this becomes massively dependent on a large police or governmental organization to initiate the use of force & violence to keep people in line. Those people will expect certain privileges for their work.

So you system will create at least three very distinct classes. The ruling committees. The enforcers. And the slaves.

And even with all those abuses, it still will not be able to provide equality.

Equality is a pipe-dream. It does not happen in nature and it cannot be artificially forced down by the state. We need to accept our differences and try to build our strengths.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 23, 2010 at 10:26am

How then, pray tell, would you suggest a government be organized and implimented. Since the way our state runs our economy and society is so wrong, and any sort of suggestion I have tried to offer is wrong, and would ultimately fail, I am at a loss. How would your ideal system differ from any that are either in existance or have been attempted. And how would we go about implimenting them into society?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 23, 2010 at 11:24am

I believe any state is doomed to failure. So lets not have one. We don't need one. We've been lied to and we believe the propaganda.

All relationships should be voluntary. All business is done by voluntary agreement and contract.

Disputes can be settled by private firms called Dispute Resolution Organizations and in many ways are similar to the arbitration firms that exist today. We just increase the scope of their contracts.

Wikipedia has an excellent page that goes into many of the theories.

Now, no one has all the answers on how to implement an anarcho-capitalist society because it's never been done. So we would have much to learn and figure out as we go but that's not a flaw that's simply a recognition that we can't address a problem until we know what the problem is.

So what can we do today? Work on educating people on ethics, philosophy, economics and history. Once people understand what has happened and why it did not work, then a natural desire for something better will grow. So I see this change as a multi-generational project. We probably won't be alive to see the results, but we can plant the seeds.

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 19, 2010 at 4:55pm

Note: Just to be clear, I am an anarcho-capitalist. The symbol I use for my avatar is a combination of the Libertatis Æquilibritas symbol superimposed on the yellow and black of the anarcho-capitalist flag.

My replies to this discussion will be from that perspective since I believe it offers a more equitable solution to everyone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 20, 2010 at 9:29am

My problem with that is just as you said, equitable solution. I believe that is a side effect of greed, to be equitable. It's an unecissary comodity that should be done away with. The world offers us resources without a value being placed on them. The animal life that we feed on will breed and replenish. Why must value be placed on that which is abundant?

I see the labor that i put into helping my neighbor or my community as an abundant resource and a service that requires no valuable payment for. The fact that I am gratified for my contribution and that i am still alive is enough for me.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page