The Resource Based Economy:

[Milton]

I have to admit, Joseph is very convincing. And if this was a straight debate, he would have won the audience.

Although I dont trust it, and can empathise with Molyneux's conclusions.

It does sound like Marxism, and it does seem to be the revolution led by the workers, creating the fairest system. Which is why it always suckers students in.

Our Monetary System will always corrupt any political philosophy, so is this a glimpse of the new Left's new answer?

Get rid of the Monetary System? And Socialism, via technological innovation will replace it with the Utopian dream?

Its clever.

Anyway, isnt the Price System indestructable?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Dan1

[Milton]

I came to the conclusion Marx was on to something, becuase money (or lack of) plays on peoples fear and greed and survival traits. I think its kind of inevitable but you cant achieve this unless you take some of the chemicals out of humans which stimulates the fear and greed.

The reason the US won the cold war was becuase individuals will always put themselves first over and above others to secure a better future. Desires are weaknesses.

Joseph doesnt like it being referred to as Marxist. But Josephs problem is that there is nothing new under the sun.

Game Theory only works on rational minded Economists and Pyscopaths.

[Traktion]

Does anyone believe that Value should not be contingent to natural resources?

Or just that it is unachievable? As Joseph states that it is an inevitable logical choice. But sounds like he's discussing the far future.

Is The end of Hayeks definition of the 'Price System' achievable or desirable?

It already is - you only need look at the price of fuel to see that limited supply and high demand leads to higher prices, which in turn discourages usage. It also encourages alternatives, such as alternative energy sources.

For other resources, as they become more scarce or problematic to otherwise dispose of, the need to recycle grows. We have seen the growth in recycling over the last decade or two, which reflects this.

Also, he is speaking as if science knows all. It doesn't. Science is constantly evolving, as are solutions to problems. Designing a computer to last 50 years now, would be a pointless, over engineered approach, as technology will have extended far beyond it. Sure, it's good to recycle stuff, but we don't need to design everything to last forever. Sticking with the computer theme, loads of old kit gets sent out to poor countries, along with old mobile phones.

As a software engineer, I can always look at problems in ways which maximise the life cycle of the component. However, it is often unwise to over engineer one component, investing too much time in it, when others need the attention - providing a finished product with adequate provision is often more useful. Additionally, future requirements may be different to current requirements, meaning the old (even over engineered ones) components are simply obsolete. Sure, it is good to adequately engineer components and modules, but there is a limit to how far is ideal. Ultimately, we want to use the technology, not revel in over engineering it.

We have been somewhere similar before and, without meaning to sound clichéd, it didn't work for the USSR. Sure, they made fridges which lasted for 50 years, gave everyone 'basic' housing and centralised food and resource provisioning. However, technology moves on, which means a 50 year old fridge may not be as efficient as a new one, with modern electronics/mechanics. Basic housing is still not as good as quality housing. Feeding everyone with standard bread and meat, doesn't always provide the choices people want.

[Injin]

Link?

Your response proves it.

[Traktion]

I have to admit, Joseph is very convincing. And if this was a straight debate, he would have won the audience.

Although I dont trust it, and can empathise with Molyneux's conclusions.

It does sound like Marxism, and it does seem to be the revolution led by the workers, creating the fairest system. Which is why it always suckers students in.

Our Monetary System will always corrupt any political philosophy, so is this a glimpse of the new Left's new answer?

Get rid of the Monetary System? And Socialism, via technological innovation will replace it with the Utopian dream?

Its clever.

Anyway, isnt the Price System indestructable?

This sort of stuff always sounds great. It appears logical and it spells out a pathway to a new ideal world. Fortunately, the world is a wonderful, colourful, chaotic place with many people with completely different ideals. Forcing them all to use single framework is a recipe for disaster... just give people freedom and let them express themselves as they want to.

Joseph doesn't understand banking at all either. The stuff about the principle not being repayable is nonsense (hint: any interest comes from the loan and is recycled back into the economy via the bank overheads). Not understanding this core point undermines his whole point about how money doesn't work. Debt isn't even required for there to be money either, even if it is easier and more flexible to use it.

My views align much more closely with Stephan Molyneux's. He seems to see the similarities with Marxism/communism correctly, IMO. Joseph also seems unable to see the problem of state violence being used to make many decisions, despite us knowing that violence is morally wrong. Joseph doesn't understand that free market monopolies can't happen, due to being too expensive/difficult to maintain. He seems to only see the current system or his solution, but in the process completely missing the anarchist solution, even appealing to authority to discredit it. At least anarchism has two, clear, central planks - the non-aggression principle and no government monopoly.

EDIT: typos

Edited July 13, 2011 by Traktion

[nixy]

People dont do anything for free, they give up their time. Everything else I have explained in previous posts.

OK but they do not expect a direct monetary payment in exchange for their time.

I'm afraid you are going to have to explain it again....... it's how these places work.....new people join HPC all the time..

You'll have to give up some more of your time to explain yet again......for free ....... if you so choose.

[Harry Sacks]

Check stefan molyneux's debate with them, if you want a coherent and concise set of reasons why it can't possibly happen.

You're taking the pi$$, right?

Edited July 13, 2011 by dom

[Nuggets Mahoney]

I have to admit, Joseph is very convincing. And if this was a straight debate, he would have won the audience.

Zeitgeist is riddled with claims and assertions which don't stand up to critical scrutiny. The parts devoted to the history of religion are especially egregious and contain outright falsehoods. So, whilst Joseph may sound plausible, he is only convincing if you take him at his word

Zeitgeist is a blatant attempt at bait and switch. It attempts to trash existing religions only to replace them with another religion, the worship of 'science' - as defined by Jacque Fresco and his followers at the The Venus Project

The central conceit of the individuals behind Zeitgeist is that Humanity understands the mechanics of natural systems well enough that it can plug everything into a computer and centrally plan and control everything - something along the lines of a fusion of Dan Dare, Karl Marx and Brave New World

It's arrogant, deluded, cultish, authoritarian, anti-human rubbish

[Moneyalchemist]

Zeitgeist is riddled with claims and assertions which don't stand up to critical scrutiny. The parts devoted to the history of religion are especially egregious and contain outright falsehoods. So, whilst Joseph may sound plausible, he is only convincing if you take him at his word

Zeitgeist is a blatant attempt at bait and switch. It attempts to trash existing religions only to replace them with another religion, the worship of 'science' - as defined by Jacque Fresco and his followers at the The Venus Project

The central conceit of the individuals behind Zeitgeist is that Humanity understands the mechanics of natural systems well enough that it can plug everything into a computer and centrally plan and control everything - something along the lines of a fusion of Dan Dare, Karl Marx and Brave New World

It's arrogant, deluded, cultish, authoritarian, anti-human rubbish

+1

[Injin]

To use your empirical logic is similar to the chicken and egg but in order for you to measure your sensory data, you need something logical in which for you to process your sensory data.

Nope, as it is possible to be illogical but still have sensory data and because sensory data is what logic is about processing, sensory data must come first.

And whenever sensory data gives you a different conclusion that logic, your logic is wrong, not the data.

This is science for you.

Sure I agree alot of what we do and sense drives us into certain actions and conclusions, but in order to process that data you need something logical to arrive at your conclusions.

And if your conclusion has no sensory data for it, then it's wrong.

So to go back to your previous point about society cant exist. If society cant exist by your definition, then nothing exists.

Nope. Society doesn't exist. There are individual people, they do stuff but the claimed link "society" is not present.

Just try and prove society exists for me rather than taking it as the default posistion and then torturing yourself to prove it is so.

But I experience things which others also experience and in order for two people to experience the same thing there needs to be some rules some logic of sorts in which to make that data which you sense appear anything other than random, otherwise no two people can observe the same thing and thus you would have a random nothingness, static for want of a better description.

Those patterns you rely on to make your theory of knowledge needs a structure of sorts otherwise you cant arrive at the same conclusion, therefore the theory and everything else we all know and relate to cant exist as it would be like vacuum, a random nothingness.

It is possible for two (or even absolutely loads) of people to get the wrong conclusion.

Overwhelmingly you will also find people thinking countries, gods, religions etc exist, families exist and so on - they are all incorrect. A widespread false belief is still false.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Injin

[Injin]

In order to describe something as data to even get to the stage of classing it sensory data, it will need to be structured otherwise it is just random nothingness, no patterns no nothing and you cant draw conclusions about random nothingness so by virtue of having a structure to the data which would enable you to arrive at the theory of empricism there needs to be a logic in order to structure your data in order for you to interpret it otherwise you have no structure to your data and your cant draw any conclusion about anything.

Data is there first, patterning comes second. This process is called being a baby, iirc.

No logic = No Structure and thus No Data aka a void, vacuum or whatever you want to call it.

No, it's just random sensory information. And is still there.

People can be illogical but that can arise for a number of reasons like people are not in possesion of all the data, or put anotherway the absence of some data can draw the wrong conclusion, but this is a different point to the point I make about sensory data which is used to form and I think your thinking is blurred or blind to this fact quite possibly due to an emotional reason or the absence of other data which has led you to draw the wrong conclusion.

Nope, i'm just using data to form my conclusions. Not forming conclusions and then merely insisting on being right.

Being in posession of all the data or all the facts makes the difference between being able to draw the right and wrong conclusion.

No it doesn't.

You are confusing logic with conclusions.

However in some instances its possible to theorise and yet to use your definition, there has been no sensory data provided ergo your empericism theory fails again, its all theorised and we know from history that pure thinking has been right, like Newton for example.

I think you are getting yourself confused because you dont take into account the emotional element in people which can lead them into drawing the wrong conclusion and these misconceptions or lack of understanding can easily lead people into drawing the wrong conclusion.

One such example which most people can relate to is spin especially political.

Unfortunately society does exist but due to your emotional elements I doubt I can prove anything other than you are illogical and a jumbled up thinker. If you cant see what I see then you will not understand, its as simple as that.

For a start when it suits you, you make the assertion words and their meanings dont exist, yet I know they exist becuase you used those very words to say they didnt exist, put another way, if something didnt exist there would be no word to describe it.That data has a common structure a form of logic which has enabled one or more people to observe through their senses and agreed to call it X, just the same as you have to come to the conclusion about empricisim even though its flawed. If I could analyse your data stream I'm sure we could spot where you came to your conclusions about empiricism.

Language has evolved to make it possible for humans to describe the common data structures we all see, so if society didnt exist we wouldnt have a word for it, afterall its something we get from the same sensory data that you use to form your opinions, that same data is structured and thus the existance of logic is proven by the existance of any structure. Put another way, how can you create a word for something that doesnt exist other than what we already have, ie "nothing".

I think empricisism is jumbled up thinking, its a cop out, quite possibly something created just to be a fly in the ointment. You see, to use empricism would deny the ability of pure thinking like pure maths, quantum physics and all sorts of other mathematical knowledge.

yeah, yeah, yeah.

But lets have some proof for this society horseshit, shall we?

you ain't given any at all yet.

[Injin]

Right you acknowledge data exists, but if there is no logic how do you draw a conclusion tha pattern exists?

You don't have to, the data keep on streaming in.

No pattern can exist unless there is some logic to enable you to recognise the pattern.

Who said anything about patterns?

A baby is a program a logical construct using carbon based materials instead of silicon or graphene. The same rules that apply to carbon ie the chemical interactions can be simulated in any logic processor. Just becuase we dont have the physical capabilities to create that processing power the brain and the rest of the program would need to follow doesnt mean you cant make a virtual baby. Logic are rules, and without rules you have random nothingness and therefore you and I would not exist. But we do exist therefore there are logic rules that apply to everything around us.

Oh, do behave.

Do you accept the universe and this planet exists?

First yes, second nope.

How can you form a conclusion in the absence of logic? You need logic first before you can draw a conclusion.

Possibly but here we aren't drawing a conclusion, we are dismissing a conclusion because the data we have says it's wrong.

Just look around and listen, you can see and hear society all around us. What are words? They are a pattern in the visual sense to describe another pattern which can be experienced by one or more sensory inputs.

Lets go back to the definition of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

You say it doesnt exist, yet do you acknowledge there is a land mass known collectively as the UK? Do you acknowledge the existance of humans? Do you acknowledge the word group is used to describe a collection of things in whatever form they may take?

You acknowledege the existance of the word society becuase you used it, therefore you also acknowledge the definition of the word society, becuase you assert it doesnt exist. How can you make an assertion about something that doesnt exist? Thats illogical.

Look, lets just have some proof and stop buggering about.

I'll happily drop my position down to "i odn't know whether it exists or not, convince me."

Give me more than the four winds and guff about logical levels. Ta.

[Riedquat]

Look, lets just have some proof and stop buggering about.

That society exists? The proof is that humans don't act as completely independently. What do you think society means that doesn't exist? I suspect that there's a problem with your definition.

[Injin]

That society exists? The proof is that humans don't act as completely independently. What do you think society means that doesn't exist? I suspect that there's a problem with your definition.

Humans always act independently.

I suspect a problem with your eyesight.

[enrieb]

Curios which claims dont stand up to scrutiny, any examples? Its worth noting there are a number of followers who believe or dont believe, but why the existance of non-believers? Do they stand to lose something, hence the existance of the poo-poo'ers.

The onus of proof is on you and the Venus Project. Yes the world economic/political system is imperfect, but if you want us to completely change the political/economic system into something new and untested, you can start by at the very least providing some crayon drawing showing how our new civilisation will operate.

The Venus Project are a cult, and if you are taken in by the slick presentation propaganda mix of half truths that manifests itself as the zeitgeist films, then you will probably think an resource based economy is a good idea. The Venus project don't want to build a village, town, city and test their ideas, they don't want builders, plumbers or civil engineers, what they want film makers, marketing people, publicists to help sell their idea to gullible members of the pubic who will join one of their 'chapters' and then go on to promote it to others.

If it looks like a cult, talks like a cult, reasons like a cult, pushes negative proof like a cult, its a cult.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Curios which claims dont stand up to scrutiny, any examples? Its worth noting there are a number of followers who believe or dont believe, but why the existance of non-believers? Do they stand to lose something, hence the existance of the poo-poo'ers.

Here you go

As for standing to lose something, oooh let me think about it, what could I possibily lose if the world was taken over by delusional space hippies centrally planning everyone's lives with a big computer?

[enrieb]

Here you go

As for standing to lose something, oooh let me think about it, what could I possibily lose if the world was taken over by delusional space hippies centrally planning everyone's lives with a big computer?

Shun the non-beliver, shun him

[tomandlu]

Humans always act independently.

I suspect a problem with your eyesight.

Do social creatures have the same set of general responses as solitary creatures? Evolutionary changes to accommodate herds and social groups of animals may be 'selfish' in a general way, but they lead to modes of behaviour that are social, hence society.

[Injin]

Do social creatures have the same set of general responses as solitary creatures? Evolutionary changes to accommodate herds and social groups of animals may be 'selfish' in a general way, but they lead to modes of behaviour that are social, hence society.

Nope.

There is no such thing as a shoal of fish either.

[tomandlu]

Nope.

There is no such thing as a shoal of fish either.

If you're going to talk ******, at least make an effort.

[Injin]

If you're going to talk ******, at least make an effort.

I'm being completely straight with you.

There is no such thing as society, there is no such thing as a shoal of fish.

[tomandlu]

I'm being completely straight with you.

There is no such thing as society, there is no such thing as a shoal of fish.

I'm going to regret this, but wtf is that a photo of then? Are you saying fish that shoal have exactly the same behaviour as solitary fish? Or are you trying to make the non-point that shoal behaviour benefits the individual? (which no one, I hope, would dispute).

[Injin]

I'm going to regret this, but wtf is that a photo of then? Are you saying fish that shoal have exactly the same behaviour as solitary fish? Or are you trying to make the non-point that shoal behaviour benefits the individual? (which no one, I hope, would dispute).

You have the idea of a shaol of fish.

But it isn't really there.

Perceptual error.

Have another one -

These two squares are the same colour. We are fooled into collective thinking such as society and country in the same way we might be "fooled by randomness." We can become aware of the colour limitation but probably not overcome it but the collective one can be worked through.

[tomandlu]

You have the idea of a shaol of fish.

But it isn't really there.

Perceptual error.

Evolutionary biologists would disagree with you (and then disappear up their own arses by arguing about selfish genes, no doubt).

Shaols (sic) are structures that serve the individual fish who constitute them. They are fairly simple to model computationally (you only need two rules iirc), and they depend on each individual being aware of their nearest neighbour. How is an visible phenomenon resulting from group behaviour a perceptual error?

Have another one -

These two squares are the same colour. We are fooled into collective thinking such as society and country in the same way we might be "fooled by randomness." We can become aware of the colour limitation but probably not overcome it but the collective one can be worked through.

Colour is not a simple 1-to-1 relationship between physics and perception. At a physical level, colour is the interaction between light and material, which, given a specific material and a specific light, will always return the same wave-length.

In other words, the eye is correct in this case. Those two squares are not the same, since they show the same colour under two distinct lighting conditions. The eye, in this case, is being cleverer than 'reality'.

[Injin]

Evolutionary biologists would disagree with you (and then disappear up their own arses by arguing about selfish genes, no doubt).

Shaols (sic) are structures that serve the individual fish who constitute them. They are fairly simple to model computationally (you only need two rules iirc), and they depend on each individual being aware of their nearest neighbour. How is an visible phenomenon resulting from group behaviour a perceptual error?

There is no group, no shoal, just the individual fish.

They move, then there is something which you are thinking of as shoal, but the shoal isn't there.

Colour is not a simple 1-to-1 relationship between physics and perception. At a physical level, colour is the interaction between light and material, which, given a specific material and a specific light, will always return the same wave-length.

In other words, the eye is correct in this case. Those two squares are not the same, since they show the same colour under two distinct lighting conditions. The eye, in this case, is being cleverer than 'reality'.

The wavelength from the pair is the same, metamerism is the eye getting it wrong due to conditions.