The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[quarky]

Its not a moral issue. Its not about right and wrong. Its about the pay-off of our efforts.
That's the underlying morality of biological systems. The effort involved.

If a junkie has his junk, and its good, is he going to risk robbing someone for expensive, crappy junk, just for old time's sake?

We have invented manure shoveling jobs where there is no need for the shoveling.

The need for exploitation and power is fairly innate, but we aren't doomed to it forever.
It stems from poverty consciousness.

We need a gun to protect our wife from being raped, and our stuff from being stolen, even though she's 350 lbs, and all we own is debt.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why would anyone want to take something they already have?

I think he is referring to the minority who would not "fit". This happens all the time, within every animal community. Of course, the GREAT MAJORITY of people would be better in the proposed society than in the current one, and would have less merely survival matters to complain about.

 

[PingOfPong]

But when you are obligated to give them something in return.

I'm obligated because if I don't call my parents now and then they'll make sure I know how they feel at the next Thanksgiving. I would be a jerk if I didn't make time for them. Don't you think so?

Oh, and you are a slave simply because in this society you have no choice but to pay for your right to live.

Oh I have a choice. I could have filed for bankrupcy some time ago. Isn't that interesting? Society would have absolved my debt but I declined. I approach these things with a different philosophy than you. I would rather eat my debt than burden anyone else with my troubles. I always want to pull my own weight. I don't expect anyone to pull it for me. In fact, I'm hesitant to accept help. I'm proud like that. I know that not everyone can afford that kind of pride but I appreciate people who genuinely want to put forth the effort. I'm not too keen on the idea of a society where everyone could grow their asses out in front of the boob tube all day long.

It tickles me that you keep calling me a slave. It seems like a veiled insult that implies I'm too stupid to see the yoke around my neck. You know what? I'm doing all right. If I'm a slave then so be it.

Its not a moral issue. Its not about right and wrong. Its about the pay-off of our efforts.
That's the underlying morality of biological systems. The effort involved.

If that's your point Quarky then I have a question for you. Why would people, who are automatically entitled to all the good stuff they want, do anything at all to help make society work or improve on it?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm obligated because if I don't call my parents now and then they'll make sure I know how they feel at the next Thanksgiving. I would be a jerk if I didn't make time for them. Don't you think so?

Yes I do. But I also feel that you are having a personal gain here, and this will come handy at the end of this post.

Oh I have a choice. I could have filed for bankrupcy some time ago. Isn't that interesting? Society would have absolved my debt but I declined.

Yes, but just in the States and a couple of other places, not in every country of the world. And it is not easy, you have to face a society that will see you as a looser, and that's a high cost for anyone with a little bit of pride.

I approach these things with a different philosophy than you. I would rather eat my debt than burden anyone else with my troubles. I always want to pull my own weight. I don't expect anyone to pull it for me. In fact, I'm hesitant to accept help. I'm proud like that. I know that not everyone can afford that kind of pride but I appreciate people who genuinely want to put forth the effort. I'm not too keen on the idea of a society where everyone could grow their asses out in front of the boob tube all day long.

Here you go, then one of the reasons you could not accept help is because you are that proud. It is painful to accept that you have been defeated and you are a failure. That you are a looser. Don't worry I don't think you are, but what can you expect from this society when it is so heavily based on the assumption that if your car is not as new or fancy as the one in the garage of your neighborhoods then you are a looser?

Now, what really strikes me in your comment is this thing about it is a proved fact that when people have their basic needs solved they automatically will sit in front of the tv for the rest of their lives. Just by the way you talk about carrying your own weight you certainly do not sound as someone who can do this. Why do you assume that the rest of the population will ever want it?

That maybe part of the reason some people actually do this now is because their life sucks, and so they try to emancipate of it watching the "life's" of fictional characters, sports or Ophra?

It tickles me that you keep calling me a slave. It seems like a veiled insult that implies I'm too stupid to see the yoke around my neck. You know what? I'm doing all right. If I'm a slave then so be it.

It is good that you are happy about it, because there is no escape.

If that's your point Quarky then I have a question for you. Why would people, who are automatically entitled to all the good stuff they want, do anything at all to help make society work or improve on it?

I will jump on this one. This would rely on the assumption that human nature is to help society BECAUSE it is in their own benefit. And no, this doesn't imply high school lessons or debates on how the efforts of the individuals can improve society at large scale, we can just come to the example you gave at the beginning of your post... you feel obligated to do some things simply because you are avoiding trouble you are simply getting a personal benefit out of it.

 

[Francesca R]

Francesca, I have answered your other questions

You rather haven't:

Are you acknowledging that you are in favour of property ownership?

Who is going to support you and why will they do so (in whose interest?) [ . . . if you do not earn enough income to comepensate them]

See my point about a transferable medium of exchange making it easier and increasing choice. Please cite the "inadequacy" [. . . that arises because of the use of money . . . ] and explain why defeating price discovery and hampering specialisation and gains from trade (the things that allow you presently to do what you like the most and earn income from that) marks anything other than a significant degradation to the system currently in use almost everywhere.

Please say why "the best", and in fact "the only . . . incentives are related to gaining recognition, respect and love"

I believe it would be interesting for the current discussion if you can dig a little bit in to what are concepts and how are they achieved and maintained.

First you need to critique the concepts better than by saying: "They are flawed, let's start over"

Again, I believe that "property" is a key concept for this discussion, and I have clearly stated that it is not fixated in the human mind. In the same manner that we can learn to see ghosts or mediums as unreal, we can learn that what constitutes a property is merely a consensual agreement.

That property rights are a human construct is not to make them "unreal" or nonexistent. You need a basis for sweeping them aside--if that is what you propose doing (I am not sure).

Why cant we think (and thereafter create) a system in which MORE individuals have an improved standard of living compared to what most can achieve in this one?

So you approve of the endeavour? If so and you want to improve it, then start by critiquing the status quo and offering something superior.

 

[quarky]

In defense of BDZ, I don't think he came in here with a lot of answers...it looks more like a desire to question some of our basic assumptions. We do have a problem. Some serious re-think is indicated. I certainly don't have the answers, but i see the need for the dialog.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

s

Please say why "the best", and in fact "the only . . . incentives are related to gaining recognition, respect and love"

I have explained it... heck ok one more time. Do you work because you earn money? or because what you want to do with it. And whats the purpose of a new tv set, a fancy car, that nice wood wardrobe or your new iPod? You buy them to put them in a safe place, hidden from dust and from the sight of the rest of the world? or do you enjoy your tv with your family, feel pleasure talking to your co-workers about your new car and enjoy yourself when visits talk about your wardrobe?

First you need to critique the concepts better than by saying: "They are flawed, let's start over"

LOL, better!? I guess you are not paying attention to the world around you, ask what is wrong to the families of those in Iraq, to the families of 9/11, tell the homeless that they are doing ok, giving them a warm smile. I will not dig the numbers but here are a couple of hints (I don't believe that everything in how the world is actually organized is really that nice and pink for you, but I might be wrong):

www.storyofstuff.com

www.ted.com

That property rights are a human construct is not to make them "unreal" or nonexistent. You need a basis for sweeping them aside--if that is what you propose doing (I am not sure).

Again, you don't listen. If they are human constructs we can change them. If people can learn that god or ghosts are concepts and not real they can learn that the use of other concepts, like property or the value of money, are not fixated or naturally given. We can propose (and adopt) alternatives.

So you approve of the endeavour? If so and you want to improve it, then start by critiquing the status quo and offering something superior.

IMO, you start by observing, asking questions and exercising critical thinking. Later a proper critique can be established and only then you can begin to work in a model that would deal with the problems that are found.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In defense of BDZ, I don't think he came in here with a lot of answers...it looks more like a desire to question some of our basic assumptions. We do have a problem. Some serious re-think is indicated. I certainly don't have the answers, but i see the need for the dialog.

Yes, this is, supposedly, a forum for skeptics and critical thinkers, not for fans of establishment nor for dogmatical creatures. I believe that one of my favorite quotes comes handy:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

-George Bernard Shaw

 

[paximperium]

Because I believe the system's efficiency is astonishingly poor. And sometimes, the easiest way to prove it is to use the simplest facts available. That's why. If you have enough food, and you have the power to distribute it to every member of society, and you don't, then you are not doing your job very well.

I agree.

But what are the incentives for the fertilizer makers, farmers, food pickers, truck drivers etc. to grow food for people?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I agree.

But what are the incentives for the fertilizer makers, farmers, food pickers, truck drivers etc. to grow food for people?

Let me turn this around, what would stop such people from continuing to do what they do?

Are you telling me that nobody on this planet would love to design new fertilizers, no biologist would find the field irresistible?

Food pickers (an image of hands blooding came to my mind) might be unnecessary, I bet machines can pick the food (come one we have the technology for this, it is just cheaper, in a monetary based economy, to employ people).

As for truck drivers, again, lots of people love their jobs, and no, not every people would love to do intellectual jobs. I don't see why they would want to stop and plant themselves in front of a tv set when they are outside in the countryside, enjoying the road, talking with people, working out, etc.

 

[dudalb]

Are you two claiming that work itself could not be interesting enough for people actually WANTING to do it?

YES!
Some jobs that have to be done are going to be crappy, boring jobs no matter what. Taking out the Garbage, cleaning the Sewers etc. And a "Jetsons" world where all these things are done by robots is a long,long,way off.
I think people who do these jobs should be well paid (they are a lot more important to the basic functionaing of society then a lot of more "interesting, intellectual " jobs) but they are going to be crap jobs.
For someone who claims to be a critical thinker, you show a incredible ability to avoid facts when it interferes with your fantasies.

 

[paximperium]

Well, this is easy, contrary to the communist communes from the 60s, they have been right there for CENTURIES. That's what makes them successful.

Successful by being unethical, isolationists and protected by a large well armed nation that surrounds their communes. Not something I want see in large civilizations.

This is very interesting (to me at least) Why do some people automatically ASSUME that if no money were involved and the basics for life are covered... a LARGE proportion of the people will not want to do ANYTHING AT ALL? Must rich kids would be parasites by this logic. How come (I would bet) most become successful citizens after all, and not fat people eating hamburgers and watching tv while they are smoking weed... Ok, I don't know if a large number of this kids do become parasites, but it would be interesting to find out what the statistics are saying.

Please keep your strawman to yourself.
No where did I say that the vast majority of people will not work because they have the basics covered in fact I believe a sizable number will likely work.

What I am asking, HOW DO YOU TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT IF THE RESOURCE UTILIZATION OUTPACES PRODUCTION?

I believe, or at least I want to believe that people in general (and this is something related to our genes and not to our cultural painting) do want to do things. Some will love to use their hands and follow directions. Others will love to use their brains and will create new things and improve the existent ones. Some will be sport geniuses and will continue to amaze sport fans. Others will still love to cook food, or to design cars, computers, and etc. etc. etc.

That is not really an answer. People will do things but will people do ENOUGH?

Again, how can you substantiate this claim? Is it a gut feeling or are there hard data demonstrating that large portions of a population would do NOTHING if their basic needs are covered?

Your strawman is getting exceedingly annoying. If you want an honest discussion, I suggest you keep it to yourself.

I said what if? And nowhere did I say people do NOTHING. I am asking about the disparity between resource utilization and production.

If someone decides to work 2 hours a day as a trucker for fun, but the economy needs him to work 10hours. How do you make up for this deficit?

You tell me, how many people actually perform such jobs? A fairly great amount of any city? or about .00000001% of the population?

Would you like me to pull out the San Francisco or New York City Municipal Garbage disposal numbers? We are talking thousands and this does not include police, sewer workers, rail workers etc.
I find your tone condescending. Many people work hard blue collar jobs.

And if this is the case, why do you assume that when costs are no longer an issue we would not be able to implement and create better systems for almost everything you can think of?

Wait a minute. You think that by just not paying people for work the "cost" of labor will dissapear? No, the "cost" of labor will still be there but spread throughout entire society instead of just the employer. It does not magically dissapear.

Again, some people will naturally prefer to use their hands and sweat instead of having to decide things and have more responsibility.

Not the question at all.
Are they enough of them if you don't have proper incentives?

 

[paximperium]

Let me turn this around, what would stop such people from continuing to do what they do?

A better more comfortable job that actually suits their interest.

Are you telling me that nobody on this planet would love to design new fertilizers, no biologist would find the field irresistible?

No. But will there be enough?(side note: Fertilizer is designed mostly by chemists)

Food pickers (an image of hands blooding came to my mind) might be unnecessary, I bet machines can pick the food (come one we have the technology for this, it is just cheaper, in a monetary based economy, to employ people).

No. Many parts of the farming process still requires human hands and many types of food and fruits still need to be handpicked.

Japan is a very expensive place to grow food, they have more automation than anyone else in the world and they still need workers in the fields.

As for truck drivers, again, lots of people love their jobs, and no, not every people would love to do intellectual jobs. I don't see why they would want to stop and plant themselves in front of a tv set when they are outside in the countryside, enjoying the road, talking with people, working out, etc.

That is exceedingly patronizing.

 

[Francesca R]

I have explained it... [ . . . ]

Nope. Oh well I shall consider the questions not answered and any associated claims dropped by you.

Again, you don't listen. If they are human constructs we can change them. If people can learn that god or ghosts are concepts and not real they can learn that the use of other concepts, like property or the value of money, are not fixated or naturally given. We can propose (and adopt) alternatives.

Yes, thank you, I am aware that "property" can all be collectively surrendered. What you are missing is why and what for? Particularly since you say nothing about surrendering your income. You seem to think "Let's all do this because it is possible".

IMO, you start by observing, asking questions and exercising critical thinking. Later a proper critique can be established and only then you can begin to work in a model that would deal with the problems that are found.

Right. Yet pursuing this line with you does not get past first base since you don't answer direct questions, and apparently you are not in possession of answers. Never mind.

 

[paximperium]

In defense of BDZ, I don't think he came in here with a lot of answers...it looks more like a desire to question some of our basic assumptions. We do have a problem. Some serious re-think is indicated. I certainly don't have the answers, but i see the need for the dialog.

But that's not the issue with BDZ. I love these types of discussion, I have it all the time with friends and colleagues.

The problem is that BDZ, asserts things and often does not answer direct questions. Instead of saying "I don't know", he uses strawmen or goes into tangents.

I don't think he is being purposefully dishonest but it is annoying.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

YES!
Some jobs that have to be done are going to be crappy, boring jobs no matter what. Taking out the Garbage, cleaning the Sewers etc. And a "Jetsons" world where all these things are done by robots is a long,long,way off.
I think people who do these jobs should be well paid (they are a lot more important to the basic functionaing of society then a lot of more "interesting, intellectual " jobs) but they are going to be crap jobs.
For someone who claims to be a critical thinker, you show a incredible ability to avoid facts when it interferes with your fantasies.

How can someone avoid fact when we don't know the facts? You assume I'm talking about this society but without money. I'm talking about engineering a new kind of society that would be based on science and technology instead of political ideologies and money.

What to do with "crap jobs" or how to motivate people to perform them? I don't know, how could I? I just believe that we should be looking for alternatives.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Please keep your strawman to yourself.
No where did I say that the vast majority of people will not work because they have the basics covered in fact I believe a sizable number will likely work.

You didn't, but taking a post from you to one of their logical conclusions and then using it to represent the problem you are trying to bring to the table is making strawmans?? Hardly, you might read again what are strawmans are, and how I'm not "defeating" something else to what you have said, merely giving concrete examples to see if we can talk about specific issues instead of more abstract questions. You don't want to answer them that's fine, but don't accuse me of doing something I don't.

What I am asking, HOW DO YOU TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT IF THE RESOURCE UTILIZATION OUTPACES PRODUCTION?

We will not know if this is the case untill we try, dont you think? Thinking in an ant colony (to put another example, not trying to "defeat you") the needs are always followed by the means, why should human colonies must be different? Maybe things would balance themselfs.

That is not really an answer. People will do things but will people do ENOUGH?

How can I know? Wouldn't be able to solve the problem somehow? It is not true that, currently, there is never enough? Maybe there would be a hell lot more of Ferraris in a non monetarian economy, who knows?

I said what if? And nowhere did I say people do NOTHING. I am asking about the disparity between resource utilization and production.

That you assume would naturally exist. Why?

If someone decides to work 2 hours a day as a trucker for fun, but the economy needs him to work 10hours. How do you make up for this deficit?

Why would the deficit would be therein the first place? I don't know, this should be engineered.

Would you like me to pull out the San Francisco or New York City Municipal Garbage disposal numbers? We are talking thousands and this does not include police, sewer workers, rail workers etc.
I find your tone condescending. Many people work hard blue collar jobs.

Thousands against millions, again, which percentaje of the population actually perform such jobs?

Wait a minute. You think that by just not paying people for work the "cost" of labor will dissapear? No, the "cost" of labor will still be there but spread throughout entire society instead of just the employer. It does not magically dissapear.

Define "cost".

Are they enough of them if you don't have proper incentives?

Who's talking about no incentives? We have covered this when we talk about that (not in ZM system but in mine) people would have only covered 1) house 2) education, 3) food, 4) health services. Another important point is that it is not more "valuable" to be a football player or an actor than to pick up garbage. But when actors and bartenders want a new tv set they echange it for working hours. Something like that.

I believe we are in agreement in that in the ZM this questions are still without answers.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

A better more comfortable job that actually suits their interest.

Mmm no, the answer to what is "Better" and "More Comfortable" will change for every individual you can ask. It might be comfortable to sit in a library but I would rather drive a truck all day.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, thank you, I am aware that "property" can all be collectively surrendered. What you are missing is why and what for? Particularly since you say nothing about surrendering your income. You seem to think "Let's all do this because it is possible".

Why? Because the current system efficiency sucks thats why.

What for? To implemente a more efficient system.

But those two are implicit in the very desire to open this thread!

Now, what are you talking about surrendering my income?? This question is absolutely irrelevant, we are talking here about a possible way to organize things differently. AND YES, IF SUCH A SOCIETY WAS FOUNDED I WOULD HAVE ZERO PROBLEMS ACCEPTING THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A PROPERTY IN HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY A PROPERTY IN THERE. Is this what you want to hear? Otherwise explain the relevancy.

Right. Yet pursuing this line with you does not get past first base since you don't answer direct questions, and apparently you are not in possession of answers. Never mind.

I don't answer what I believe irrelevant, pointless or obtuse questions, you are right about that. And please point me to a single phrase in which I claimed to have answers. All I have been doing, and you can find this several times in the thread, is asking why it is not possible to organize a society in such a way that money was no longer necessary.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The problem is that BDZ, asserts things and often does not answer direct questions. Instead of saying "I don't know", he uses strawmen or goes into tangents. I don't think he is being purposefully dishonest but it is annoying.

Sorry you feel this way. If I don't see the relevance of a question I believe I have the right not to answer it. And this is in the case where I do KNOW the answers, because some of the "questions" that I have received here are not real questions as we are dealing with ideas, not actual facts nor real problems.

If I then choose not to answer what seems to be an irrelevant question and propose a CONCRETE example instead, I can't be accused of making strawmans, because I'm trying to give coherence to the thread instead of attempting impossible answers.