Stalker. You get what you ask for. My first post was light and simple. Even had a bit of humor. But you came along and shoehorned it into marxism or some other ideological blunder, and haven't stopped since.
That's a troll/spammer. Since you haven't changed your rhetoric at all, we've heard you. This is my post, you can make your own if you want to. But you choose not to. So I can get just as vindictive, we won't get anywhere. But I still have responders, so I would kind of like to be here, since it is my post. But you don't have to be here, you can make your *gasps* omg! Your OWN POOOOOST
HOLY SH&T Captain! I can't f*ckn',... can you imagine, making your OWN post? WOW. stalker.

This post was edited by anonplanz on Nov 25 2011 12:24pm

Apology accepted, and please, when you have the time, and if you are so inclined...
You seem to have a handle on energy resources, your opinion is valued by me.

-Z

Heh, "stalking." I suppose if you can't wrap your mind around the central tenet of Marxism (communal ownership of the means of production), I suppose I'd be wasting my time spelling it out for you.

UMAD brah?

Shoe fits, so wear it.

You're too comical. You write a post in a discussion forum, and get mad when someone engages you. If you want a blog, post in the blog section, this is a discussion forum.

A stalker with an ideological misnomer. I've read Carl Marx's philosophies. I happen to agree with some of them. However you are way out in left field.
If you put in a bit of effort, read the link I've supplied. Don't just browse, actually try to understand it, fully. Read every single word, let it sink in.
If after reading that you still say marxism again, I'll just stop posting here altogether. Im involved with too many other productive groups to be bothered with a gaming community.
Im only here to get my mind off what I put my mind right back into by writing on this forum. I see this is not the place to attract like minded people.


The second treatise of civil government, John Locke 1690, Chapter 5, On Property

http://constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

Read that, and you will understand how I feel about "ownership"

And anyway, Marx's rants were always based on labor. I'm suggesting to get rid of the mundane labor. Im suggesting to get rid of money altogether.
Marx's ideas were often about how much labor per reward. Who you work for, who owns the output of your labor etc. All that stuff is great, in a society where that sort of behavior exists.
What I'm speaking about, is attempting to get rid of that behavior altogether. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp at first. Especially if you don't believe that the technology is ready.
I not only believe it, I helped create some of it, so I know technology is ready, and with the billions of minds freed from the cyclical mundane trap of man's current trading (slave) systems, he can push technology
to new heights faster than any year previous. For every (for lack of a better term) bad job we discontinue, it frees the displaced people to work on *good* jobs. It's not like people would suddenly have nothing to do.
They would have as much as they wanted to do, and always it would be for the betterment of humanity, and not profit. Is that marxism? Since when does marxism deal without a profit system?

It took me a long time to realize, that either we start to move towards
a society without a trading system, and live together as symbiotic organism, or we become extinct.
At that point, does it really matter what "word" you've used to classify anything?

Imagine just for a second the resources freed just from the marketing community. Without a system that rewards a marketer to trap you into buying the next great cell phone, the next big SUV, the next giant 9 family home for a single parent, etc....
Just think of how many people are involved and how many resources are used , just for marketing... just for stuff, that 99.9 percent of the time, we don't even want to hear or look at.

No more commercials, it isn't profitable. No more junk mail, it isn't profitable. No more phone calls, holy good god.
No more of your favorite magazine filled to the brim with crap you don't even read. No more door to door guys wearing out the treads on their shoes for minimum wage.
No more hidden opt in/out traps, with a continual service secret contract so small you need a microscope to read it.
No more lying, cheating, scamming con artist salesmen, who'd steal from their own mother.

And of course every industry related to it. Food and beverage, legal departments, accountants, security guru's and computer tech people. All their cars, and all their gas, and all their insurance fees, and all their taxes, and license and registration.
That means motor vehicle is going to take a dive, so good because I should be able to travel without paying the troll under the bridge anyway, constitutionally sound idea to me.
No more janitors in their buildings, moping around for 9 hours a day and working for 2. No more plumbers in their either, or electricians, or anything related to marketing and marketing subjects.
No more cop in the security booth with his hands in his pockets making 60 + k a year with full benefits to do nothing.
It just goes on and on and on and on.

And you what? Want to call what Im talking about, marxism? I don't care what coin you want to phrase. When you take the profit off the table, and man starts working
for more viable solutions rather than this cyclical cut your mothers throat for a meal environment, you want to call it marxism, be my guest. At that point I'd be happy to hear you call it anything you wanted.

dot dot dot.. no more trees to make the paper, to print stuff you don't want to see. No more recycled paper wasted on marketing. No more ink to print the crap, and no more printers
to use the ink for marketing. No more 3.50 an hour guys mulling through billions of unethically and ill gotten target lists, your name, your address, even your social security numbers activity sold by the government as, (as allowed), no more DMA (direct marketing association) and the 90 thousand laws on the books. No more layers of course supporting all those laws, and lots and lots of saved traffic and energy and gas, and oil, and and and and.. Did I say no more trees cut down for making the paper to make the marketing materials? Oh yeah I did.
Let's see... how many eco systems can we include? Forests are defiantly a good start.

Quick! Let's change targets. HOMES! When I researched buying a monolithic dome, I was curious as to what the criminal banking cartel would say if I asked for a loan.
I had a perfect credit score and made over 130 thousand a year, I figured no problem. But what they said was an astounding NO. Why? Because there is no "resale" value.
Here we are talking about the most efficient design of a home, that I know about. It's fireproof, withstands hurricanes, doesn't get bug infested, radiant heat, insulation about a foot thick after you apply all the materials. But there is no resale value. Why? Because houses made from wood, ROT. They burn down. They get termites. They are susceptible to shitty building and shitty inspectors, shitty loan modification programs after the economy is squeezed, the value of the dollar drops, you get laid off because the company downsized, and you can no longer afford your loan. The are an integral part of the wood farming industry. Which by the way uses TONS of oil to produce, over and over and over again, as the old houses wither and get torn down. And rather than make a house that would stand for a 1000 years, houses today are lucky if they last 100 before being torn down. Tear down, rebuild tear down rebuild, tear down rebuild. Know what the definition of insanity is?

1 in 4 homes in America are under the criminal banking cartels repossession program (exactly as planned. Why not? If you can manipulate the economy on whim, first by deflation then by inflation, and it caused this type of repossession scandal in a legal way, wouldn't you? Sure you would. You have a family to feed to.) 1 in 4 homes, yet there is NON stop construction of new homes ALL OVER AMERICA. There are people living out of cardboard boxes, but I guess that's ok, at least the banks make their scam, the contractors get to go to work, pay a bunch of taxes on their tools, and taxes on their income and stuff like that, hell everyone is ripping each other, let's all give it a try. So?

<shakes head> Humanity, are you really that stupid? Don't you see how everything is so connected? And how a few men in power install this, this.. this illusion with a piece of paper and man agrees that it has value. Then when there "isn't enough", or one man doesn't do any of his own labor, and another does 20 times the labor of everyone else, it doesn't work out to be a fair deal. Hell, I have some mud in my back yard. We're gonna start trading with that ok? My Mud, My money system. You guys ok with that? No? Then why are you ok with the federal reserves monetary system? It's the same exact concept.

Ok, well, you go on and have your lives of labor and build your giant homes, for the sake of rebuilding them over and over again, you have non stop wars to destroy a whole bunch of stuff to get haliberton in there to render building contracts, have a couple coup's while your at it, replace some leadership, hell even have a publicized hanging while your at it. Man, you guys are right. Money is cool. It's the right thing to do by golly. Let's all give it a try!

WTFU People!

An admirable work, to say the least, insomuch as it covers the origins of property, but Locke's labor theory of property allows for money too. Without money, we must either greatly lessen humanity's standard of living to that of barely above subsistence, or we must enact a supremely cumbersome system of barter to acquire that which we desire. Money is simply the facilitator of ease in barter, so long as value is perceived by the participants by mutual agreement. And mutual agreement here is the key. While I will certainly side with you in a discussion regarding the evils of private enterprise being in charge of the issuance and control of money (the Fed), that doesn't necessarily mean money itself is bad, or what people do with the money they acquire, so long as it is acquired lawfully. To me, the obvious answer (at a bare minimum) is to end the dual purpose of the Fed, in trying to contradictorily control prices and maximize employment, and instead concentrate purely on maintaining prices (end intentional inflation). I also don't believe we've had an honest accounting of inflation since ~1980, but that could be the topic of a whole new thread. Inflation that is accounted for properly would properly erode compiled bank deposits while benefiting borrowers over time, leveling the playing field between hoarders and those of a more laborious nature. (See http://www.shadowstats.com/ for greater detail than I could provide.)

The main reasoning I use in equating such a state of economics as resource-based with Marxism is that whereas participation in a capitalist model using monetary exchange is done so on some form of voluntary basis (socialism of course can too), Marxism indeed calls for the use of force by the proletariat. I'm also confused as to why you'd quote Locke on his theory of property when it quite clearly acclaimed that labor was the merit behind property, and then state that we could "work an hour a day" to achieve our needs, implying removing labor from society, and therefore value. Is it that you would prefer us to live a non-working lifestyle being tended by machines in some grotesque "Matrix?" To live simple, easy lives without want, all the while being essentially useless?

I will state that I have absolutely no problem with people wanting to voluntarily engage in whatever communal enterprise they put their minds to, so long as participation remains voluntary. So if a group of people want to live in such a fashion as the Venus Project, by all means, make a good go of it. But don't for a second think I should have to join you. In my opinion, such socialist enterprises promise more than they can deliver. We need look no further than the Plymouth Plantation in the early 1620s. Their original charter called for common property, and it wasn't until private property was allowed in 1623 - even with their lives hanging in the balance - that people became industrious enough to plant more than enough to avoid starvation. They simply did the "bare minimum," doing no more than their neighbors. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1483686

....insomuch as it covers the origins of property, but Locke's labor theory of property allows for money too.
In general he downplayed money because once man agreed to give some arbitrary object a value, they were then able to let other things go to waste, without actually perceiving it as wasted. They were able to hoard this conduit, be it gold, silver or fiat. You can't hoard land without letting its resources go to waste.
I think that was his final conclusion.

...Without money, we must either greatly lessen humanity's standard of living to that of barely above subsistence, or we must enact a supremely cumbersome system of barter to acquire that which we desire. Money is simply the facilitator of ease in barter,
It's not that simple. Money is a facilitator yes, but eventually in any trading system you will get a dominating effect. IMO, one source controls an aspect of human life is a VERY dangerous proposition. You won't escape nepotism, monopolies, the cyclical consumerism requirement. Planned obsolescence therefor planned waste, scarcity illusions for profit. The list of negative attributes of a trading system is ultimately long enough to end mankind eventually. As a scientist, have you properly vetted a society without money? Has anyone tested it on a global scale, whereby the entire earth's resources are considered, and not just a farm someone has?

...Is it that you would prefer us to live a non-working lifestyle being tended by machines in some grotesque "Matrix?" To live simple, easy lives without want, all the while being essentially useless?
Absolutely not. What I am suggesting is to stop working on jobs that ultimately devour resources in such a negligible way that it is a threat to man's existence. This can only be done by recognizing trading system failures.
All trading systems will wind up in a domination syndrome. You can make a law to cap or protect certain aspects, but you see how well this works. It doesn't.

....So if a group of people want to live in such a fashion as the Venus Project, by all means, make a good go of it. But don't for a second think I should have to join you. In my opinion, such socialist enterprises promise more than they can deliver.
The venus project is an idea that unless the entire world held on to it, would go nowhere. Global society needs to make the decision to change if that is what they want. I don't think A: society is ready, B: they understand the importance, C: they can keep their ego out of things long enough to make the right scientific choices to the sustaining of the specie. If society wanted to move that way, you really wouldn't have a choice to join or not. I agree with failed socialistic communities. I've read on their failures. Eventually ego comes into play, one works more than the other, one wants this or that and there really isn't enough of whatever it is they are volleying for. People start to argue about the way they see things running. I get it. But these failed societies were a test if anything, and didn't have global resources or global attention. They didn't have the intel either.

The bottom line is this. When you use a trading system, then trading systems will decide humanity.
When you let science run humanity, without concerns for a profit, then the human specie is much more apt to survive than under any other social condition.

This post was edited by anonplanz on Nov 27 2011 06:42am

OK, but if no trading exists, and resources are available to all, how do you manage demand unlimited by price/ability to trade? Suppose everyone wants steak. Or a Maserati. A yacht. Or even if we go a little more mundane, like "$1000 worth" of electricity per month. What if I want to go skydiving every day (not that I would)?

I'll be happy to address the rest later, but this kind of sticks out. (And I'm not a scientist, though I'm very prone to thinking logically.)