gwho

it would also be cool if each user could mark and track their favorites.And then use that aggregate data to do a live ranking of community favorites...And do the same for play count and clicks(hits). Have this be public visible info to further give listeners queues into which podcasts other people found good. more transparency, more information, more perfection competition, more reviews!

I'm starting to see what you're seeing. I have to still stick with my guns tho. all that happened there was the market size decreased. supply became limited and demand is high. The fact that the guy is there is better for you than not You're still able to reject his offer, and it would be as if he wasn't there.While this may seem like a problem, it's something that will obviously get solved, just like how statists cannot see how a lack of a government to provide some sort of pretense of security would result in entrepreneurs providing a solution in the long run. In this case, people will have problems like these. Entrepreneurs always hear things, and come up with ideas. we actually have a solution to this right now. AAA.TRUE violence, structural or not, would be to force that guy to accept a lower pay (how else would you do this except violate NAP?)... or force him to provide that service and giving him compensation would be a matter of giving crumbs, after already forcing him to provide you the service - you can see how if you forced him to provide the service, any compensation you give him is... out of 0 obligation.Without the outrage that ensues with high prices in a high-demand, low-supply situation, a solution wouldn't occur. the outrage would provide more psychological demand for a solution to this, sending signals to entrepreneurs to give them more confidence that a solution like AAA will be a success. Had the prices been somehow kept to normal market levels outside of the guy just being nice, you would not get a more robust, responsive, hassle-handling enterprise similar to AAA to provide help. Instead, you would only have a prayer for a random passerby who happens to have the solution to your problem.QED.P.S. Regardless of whether you were talkign about structural violence or not, let's put that aside for now, and just talk about your situation put forth. Philosophically, you either have a choice or you don't. The guy can either help him voluntarily or not. He has property rights to his time and labor. You can only get him to provide the service for you if you get him to agree. anything else would be a violation of property rights and a violation of NAP. you either have property rights or you don't. It's binary. And from a utilitarian perspective, i've explained why this guy overcharging for repairs is a good thing. It more quickly invites a better long-term solution earlier. All of this can be generalized and applied to any other industry. market forces, high prices, leaving problems to be solved by the market and not by violation of property rights or NAP, invites true, longer term solutions, and competition, and is better for everyone, and cuts short the time where people have to make do without this better system.P.P.S. This is the level of argumentation that I would have liked to see between Peter and Stefan. Instead, Peter simply went "If you can't see that a state is simply an extension of free competition, then I don't know what to say" (paraphrased), and continued to make big, leaps regarding economic conclusions with just as little development, and just as little homage to concepts learned in econ 101, like scarcity, and the fact that money is a rationing system with the ever-so crucial feature of feedback built into it.... which would have to be artificially coded and designed in the supercomputer.... which may fall behind or become outdated..... whereas a monetary system would always take into account all the desires and preferences of infinite number of people....I'm not even an econ major and I can see through the flaws of TZM so easily. I really have to conclude at this point that TZM are economically illiterate, and are missing the same logical reasoning that socialists and the left miss. They're like the left of the libertarians.

can you expound? One sounds worse than the other, and may involve a hostile attitude, but the attitude is independent of the actual reality.Both stem from property rights. So if you don't want to give it, property rights says you don't have to. You can, if you want to trade it for something else. But there is only one reality. If you don't have to give it to someone else, that means you will not give it to another, provided on such and such a condition.What would be the alternative? There is only one. Someone gets to take it away from you, even if you don't. You either have property rights or you don't.Can you see another possibility?It seems to me like you're framing the same scenario in two different ATTITUDES, and thus cast two shadows to fool yourself and others into thinking there are two objects (scenarios).____________________________ Also, what determines structural violence? If some level of production is possible, and it is not met, then it's structural violence? So if there is a breakthrough in technology that can improve productivity, then everyone who isn't employing that is suddenly become violent? What made that increase in productivity possible? Not doing what is possible is violent? So what if we don't research to increase productivity, and instead use that labor for present consumption at present production levels - there is clearly an opportunity cost of not raising the productivity capacity associated with that, and therefore is not reseraching structural violence? I think calling not doing something made possible by work and effort in one form or another, is a dishonest outlook.

anyone who thinks they have the answer, whether they are TZM or not, ofc.Ya, I haven't been impressed with the quality of responses on the forums on various other topics so far either...

me2 >,<

amazon sells a lot of books.cherry picking fallacy.why get mad at amazon for selling them? get mad at the writer. you're opening a can of worms. you're also exercising democracy, rather than UPB.Even so, he has to right to say what he wants.

Yes!. seriously. I'd say "Can you point me to the economic foundations for their work." Every speaker from TZM i've ever heard fall pretty hard on the second step of the explanation race, so to speak. Concepts like scarcity... overcoming the double coincidence of wants... currency being naturally facilitating, and therefore if people are free, they will implement some form of currency when they want to trade scarce resources with each other (because you will hit production delays, bottleneck production times, shortages of rare resources on earth, shortages of land, etc.

It would be nice to search podcasts by category or topic or tags.For instance, if you really dig anarchy, you could search that tag and get the results 1,2,64,65,131,203,563,591,803....if you dig personal freedom relationships, you'd get results...if you tag "state", you might get anarchy results plus some more that deal with criticism of the state.philosphy, religion, call in shows, women, feminism, economics, movie reviews... and my other favorite: interviews and management.I started to do a spreadsheet, but i'm not really keeping up with it all. I think it woudl be best to do it crowdsourced, or wiki style, where everyone puts tags. on, and someone checks and approves them....I imagine you would need to actually add those tags onto the podcasts, which may involve some complicated migrating... But you don't need an actual filter and search directly from the webpage. a referenced spreadsheet is that can be filtered with simple excel filters is good enough and more than does the trick. This alone would be valuable. It really is just a low-tech bypass for searching and filtering. There could be a public google docs, or we could make something on wikia.Later, it could be integrated as an actual page on the FDR website, perhaps still leaving it free to edit.It seems like a worthwhile project.

as far as kids are concerned, they are.Remember the podcast about a listener criticizing his sister for being a socialist... due to their child hood stories about easter egg hunts? The sister certainly took home the lesson that a state to regulate fairness was necessary. Kids can very easily end up inferring this lesson too. Considering the alternatives in the kid's short term unfolding of scenarios, which is rushing, fighting, crying, over the cake (if you don't believe me, you need to get in touch with your childhood and find some friends with kids and watch some sibling interactions) There is not DRO equivalent for kids in this scenario.EVERYTHING in this thread that I post is prefaced by "what a child is likely to pick up on"

TZM tzm tzm. you say we should get rid of money.let's say we achieve an RBE (resource based economy).are people free to do what they want? what if they create a cryptocurrency like bitcoin? supercomputers is not a magical answer to infinite everything. scarcity will still exist, whether it be in the form of gold, bottlenecks on production capabilities, inflexibility of capital goods, or limited living space in 3d.When the supercomputer cannot create the things people want in time, people will want to exchange among themselves. But how do you trade a car for some bread? how much is worth what? And lots of goods don't last very long, how will save up to trade those? They also need to barter, because there is no medium of exchange.People will naturally start instituting money in one form or another - (again, stop with the delusion that suptercomputers will put an end to scarcity. if it's not infinite, it's scarce. It just means the world will be able to support a lot more people, but once that limit is reached, scarcity will apply once again).So once a currency is instituted, there will be so many advantages to it, that it will stick around. TZM ppl like Peter Joseph say states are a natural result of freedom of action and wanting better for yourself in competition with others. Well, that's questionable. What's more solid is that media of exchange will arise naturally in an RBE.Now My big question is this: Will the people in charge of the central RBE system forcibly outlaw and ban money, in order to maintain the RBE? Or will people be free to do what they want, and use whatever media of exchange they want (or not) under an RBE? Will they be "cut off" from receiving resources from the RBE supercomputer, or in reduced amounts (I know you will say "no", but scarcity will hit, so that is not a legitimate answer). Will you support the RBE system to the point of disallowing the monetary system that was so reviled by TZM-ers? Will you engage in force to stop monetary systems from coming back alive? Will money be the new 'sin" of the new "state"?And while we're at it, when scarcity hits, and everything is free, how do "runs" or flocking to deplete the resource about to become in shortage get prevented? In a market system, prices go up, and you have a nautrally self-regulating feedback mechanism, which also sends signals to tell people to produce more of it and increase the supply. if you can push a button and just get it, you've essentially engaged in price-fixing, so you will get the same results as rent-control: no additional housing development, and massive shortage of housing (or the particular good). *edit: tries really hard not to calling TZM-ers economic illiterates, and instead posts this instead.My real question and purpose of this thread is to inquire about the policy and use of force of the RBE / TZM utopia, knowing that the time would come when they'd have to face that decision. You do have to face that decision because scarcity is not gone with a supercomputer whose magical algorithm is not even being developed by TZM as far as i know.Also, is there only one super computer that handles all the variables of everyone's supplies and demands and preferences and tastes? or can there be multiple? If multiple, who decides which computer governs which area or number of people? If so, is there a central management group that does this? What if everyone wnats to work for that? Who says they can or can't? Can there be overlapping of geographic or person coverage by different supercomputers? Why is it so deplorable to rely on supply and demand, property rights, voluntary trade, and the price mehcanism, which accomplishes things that no central supercomputer can't? the supercomputer would have to tap into everyone's brains (or just get super super scarily accurate in predicting what people want) to be anywhere near accurate. privacy issues. do we even want such a computer? Isn't that much power just a giant barrel of gunpowder waiting to be lit up by a violent sociopath that works for the world's suptercomputer department? It hardly seems stable from a game theory point of view.I used to be pretty ignorant, but critical of anarchy before i heard how it would work and all of the game theory objections were addressed by podcasts 1,2,64,131,and 203. So it's possible I'm being like that again about RBE. But i've yet to hear any real address to these issues. Why not have a king of the hill approach to truth? Science seems to do that just fine. But seriously, if we're going to talk, you have to accept that scarcity is not rid of by a supercomputer (again, which you aren't building). You have to learn basic economic principles. edit: excuse the grammar and the spelling. I just don't really care that much. Infer or impose whatever irrational, or statistically true judgement you want. I'm more concerned about the substance of the discussion, and if you're not, then do what you want. If I'm making money with this, or doing it for some professional thing, I'd consider it, but I just don't care. Just like I don't wear suits in my own home or when I visit my neighbor's house.

valid statement, assuming vaccines work and are safe.vaccines are bullshit and dangerous.http://vactruth.com/2013/09/26/how-pharmaceutical-hide-dangers/ but of course, i realize that was a descriptive analogy, so. i won't derail too much here. I just recently came across this article so it's kind of on my mind. please continue.

dont have kids. 1 younger brother. we could go into it deeper, but i'm just coming to these possible conclusions with what occured to me. sure what occured to me can be generated by my unconscious and experiences, but they went through my logical filter. And I do think they are sound propositions in terms of game theory.I look at power, and the worse case scenarios, and what is stopping someone from doing X, just as disarming peaceful citizens gives governments power to screw the people over in the worst case, scenario. I'd like to discuss the topics at hand before going into why and how I came up with these. imagine they came from a magic speakerphone from the sky spoken through an steven hawking voice typed by a remote-accessed computer typed by a hacked robot, instructed by a written will of an algorithmic super computer that processes game theory decisions. lol.

there is a resistance against rationality. Arrogance is one cause of irrationality. Emotional attachment is the bigger thing imo. There are people who aren't arrogant, but really stick to the idea out of some other psychological emotional need. arrogance is oen emotion. so i'd generalize it to emotion.emotional attachment (for one reason or another) is the appropriate scope and cause of it imo.

Use stickers or substitutes!Use the technical solution if the opinionated/emotional/moral battlefront is too insurmountable.You can also use the technical solution as leverage against the moral: "You have this completely reversible, non-pain inducing method, so why do you insist on actually piercing?" (this is the same argument used against circumcision and vaccination)

In podcast #562, Stefan talks about a scenario of cutting cake among siblings as a tool to teach UPB to children. The scenario is two siblings, who want the most amount of cake. you let one kid cut the cake, but let the other kid choose which slide first. Stefan says this can be used to teach UPB, and i'm sure it can be. But i want more explanation on how because I can see it teaching the complete opposite.First, the kid is concerned with cutting the cake even because of the rules of the game. He is still acting out of self-interest, and perhaps even selfishness. The kid can certainly comprehend fairness and that his sister would end up getting very close to 50% as well. UPB wouldn't necessarily be learned through this, and the parent might have to teach it overtly. My question is how.Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules. The kid would certainly understand that this rule results in more fairness, as opposed to the kid or his sister getting more or less in greater variance. So the kid can end up learning the lesson that the state is virtuous, and necessary (for without that rule, it would result in fighting and unfair proportions - it may not, but it will be hard for kids to see other solutions.Third, it teaches that you can maximize and focus on self-interest, and still result in fairness, and that it is the responsibility of the parent (state) to set up fair rules. While as an adult, we can appreciate the more subtle lesson that we cannot rely on the goodness of people, but rather things are more stable if people rely on their self interest, but as far as kids... i think this is a sophisticated lesson. They are much more likely to learn that they can shrug off being concerned with fairness, and that maximizing their self-interest can and will result in fairness, as well as inferring that the state should set the rules.Fourth, it will teach the smarter kids to be crafty, set up barriers to entry, and deceive. If the kid cuts the cake in a very complicated manner, so that it is harder for his sister to tell which piece is bigger (relative to the cake being cut in one stroke along the diameter), then it increases the kid's odds of getting a bigger piece. It rewards and directs his efforts into being crafty in a zero-sum game, rather than craft in increasing productivity and wealth for all parties. Now, this skill may be a very useful thing as you get older ( you learn a lot of great things in poker, trading, physical fighting, etc ), and can be channeled for positive endeavors (like being resiliant in face of hardships, being clever to save a company to beat the competition in a legal, legitimate manner, etc ). but for kids??? Also, a smarter kid will use a scale to weigh out the cake's size (or mass), which again is great for cleverness, but the scenario is one of competition and zero-sum and deception and counter-deception. not great for kids imo.I'd love to your hear people's thoughts on these four points.

This is the kind of basic basic economics that go unaddressed and seemingly uncomprehended by TZM.you still need to exchange things. Things will still be scarce, no matter how much of a great of a computer algorithm (are any TZM people working on the super computer btw?), or how automated and capable manufacturing is.This leads to the problem of coincidence of wants. You can only trade something with someone if they also want your thing. This limits your ability to trade SO much. If you can't imagine, think about fantasy sports, or trading cards where you have to arrange 3 way trades, and forego a lot of potential trades. It facilitates trade.This also leads to the problem of retention of value. Someone who produces food cannot accumulate enough food to buy jet. The food will go bad before he can save up enough, unless he produces a LOT of food, and the jet maker so happens to want that much food.You cannot get around these two facts. You may argue that scarcity won't be an issue in an RBE, but that is not true. it always will be. Once population rises, you will reach limitations once again, just as we reached limitations after the industrial revolution. If it's not infinite, it's scarce, and it simply raises the possible population ceiling, which gets reached. How would RBE address these two issues? Answer in DETAIL please. I've already heard all of the hand-wavy leaps of logic, and the misunderstood, oversimplified economic platitudes by Jacque, Peter, and other TZM members. Their answers are not sufficient, or valid.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyBnaYCUhwThis is basic basic basic basic basic economics. It blows my mind TZM people do not even attempt to address these cogently with some substance after having heard these objections. If they really wanted to make a great society, wouldn't they work out the holes and objections in their proposition not only to gain more supporters, but to actually know and make sure for themselves it is doable and functional with a greater degree of confidence and reliability? Wouldn't they want to make their case as strong as possible, as well as make sure your plan is actually feasible? Building a society is a lot like engineering a machine. You are subject to all the laws of reality (phsyics), or in TZM's case, economics and human nature. Even if they did somehow convince everyone and achieved their plan, what good would it be if that plan could not stand up to reality? I know TZM people want the best, and would definitely not want for their plan to be futile or impossible.So what gives? ADDRESS these fundamental problems that you cannot avoid. Don't delude yourself with oversimplifications and a very shaky understanding of foundational economics. Either face up to the idea that your idea of scarcity and how things would play out is oversimplified and delusional, or make the case that it's not. Either address the coincidence of wants problem an the retention of value problem without money in detail (not just a hand-wavy "supercomputer" answer, which isn't even being worked on), or admit your ideas have some serious flaws (and no one is saying they can't be worked on and developed further). Don't even get me started on the stability of the system - the flaws of preventing corruption, all very predictable by applying game theory.

"Also since I don't have just "That one hobby" and do a little bit of everything I relate to what they are saying but not the same "passion" if that makes sense?"are you saying you don't have just one hobby where you go up on the quality/price scale, but various ones where you go up just a little bit?

seriously, therapy is expensive. What is an average or medianish rate for a decently competent therapist/psychologist? i've been getting quotes of like $125-$175/hour

you get satisfaction from the challenge of finding the cheapest.others don't, and put a greater value on the additional features and capabilities of the higher end products, and even more so than the money (i.e. alternative purchases that could have been made )."need" and "want" are a spectrum.I'd also guess that you're running into different people whith this behavior for different products, but experiencing this when they do get this way about their certain thing. one person may be really into bikes, and be that way with bikes, but not cameras. Another guy may be like that for cameras, and not bikes. You may be like that with computers ,but not bikes or cameras.It may be possible that all three people in my example get that way about their pet interests, but everything else, frugal and efficient like you are about your non-interests. But when you talk about people as a group, and describe them as "running to the extreme", you're getting an overrepresentation of this behavior. Or to think about it in another way, cherry picking (not that you're doing it intentionally, or that i'm being hostile about it). Chery picking can be unintentional, like noticing that a word you just recently learned seems to show up everywhere after learning it. BTW, I am like you, always have been. But I noticed with certain things I like, I want some better quality stuff. Sometimes i want slightly better quality, and have a minimum standard for preference, sometimes I like it a lot that i'll go more. Rarely do i go for the super quality, to the level that most people might consider excessive and at a level of garnering remarks of, "hey, you don't need that." I think this preference for greater quality is a spectrum, and you're just noticing the extremes when they do occur more, because it is in such stark contrast with your natural mentality.just a guess.For instance, I think 100k for a house is ridiculously insanely expensive. It's just a damned house. yeah 400k ones are nice, but with that difference, i could get so much more other things that I would enjoy more. So to my tastes and preferences, anyone with an 80k home is "going to the extreme", and I think "they dont need that." Yes, i understand the low fixed interest rates, the flipping potential, and the equity line of credit utility you get out of buying a home that expensive, but still. To pay it off would mean to pay the full price, plus interest. yeah.I'm sure you guys can think of areas or things in your lives that you pay extra quality for. At least across a distribution of people, those that 100% or close to 100% always prefer the cheapest, minimum level of quality, would be quite rare in that distribution.

yea, but spending time studying coding will make me a better coder. spending time learning cooking will make me a better cook. opportunity cost. I fully admitted I'm not familiar with his work. That's why i inquired about them. I'm going by the arguments of what Hobbesians have explained, and the cliffnotes of Leviathan now. And I may be entirely missing what Hobbes himself actually is saying by doing that. But i'm not about to invest a shit ton of time on something I don't perceive to get me closer to the truth. I still see huge glaring leaps of logic and empirical falsehoods in the first few pages. It would be easy for you to capitalize on my admission of ignorance on this point and just be like "yeah, see, so go read it, and don't talk until you do", rather htan summarizing any of the points here yourself, and correcting my strawman if i am strawmaning (you certainly think I am, so you should have a specific example in mind). I'd really appreciate if you did post here, specifically. You sound like a proponent. I'd love to hear some of the points... instead of just calling me ignorant for what I already fully admitted, I don't appreciate it, and to be honest, the rest of your post seems quite empty of any solid argument, and smells rather.... not emotionally honest. Again, I may be wrong. But I'm not getting a constructive vibe from you, based on the reasoning i've laid out here, of your comments.That being said, If he claims something as grand as "the natural state of mankind is war", but that proposition is has a fallacy or falsehood in its argumentation, then it really doesn't matter whether his work is the first logically rigorous examination, or how much it's praised, does it? There is no sacred cow with logic. What's incorrect is incorrect,no matter the success rate, reputation, track record, or praise, or prevalence, or acclaim of its champion or completely different points that happen to exist in the same book by the same author.I'm welcome to discussing them. If you have a certain point in mind, i'd actually love to hear. The best would be a certain point and syllogism of Hobbes you're familiar with, that you think is tight, and contradicts some of the things I said I think Hobbes is wrong about. Some topics would be the natural state of man being war, or that government has reduced violence, is an overall benefit to society than not existing, or that government is the the best thing we have so far (this last one may be the opinion of a general Hobbesian follower, rather than Thomas Hobbes himself.) When I understand something, or have an objection to a point someone raised, I can usually verbalize and specify somewhat succinctly what and why i find it problematic. sometimes I can't do it right away. Sometimes my mind is blown rather far that I haven't understood it. Sometimes i'll get a feeling that something is awry, but can't put my finger on it. But really, if you understand it to a level enough to be pretty confident in something to claim you know it, or that it has truth value, then you should be able to verbalize it.I may be projecting, but I think not being able to do so is just lazy on the part of that person..

"A gallon of milk is very cheap, and accessible at any nearby store. Doesn't that mean milk is not scarce?" "scarce" in the economic sense is not the same as "scarce" in the colloquial sense. Milk is still scarce in the economic sense. This is because there are a limited number of cows, grass, farmland, etc, all of which have opportunity costs associated with them. The industrial revolution vastly increased productivity and output. Even though the cotton gin made cotton processing less of a bottle neck process, cotton and cotton processing was still scarce. Only so many cotton gins could be made, and if you make too many, beyond what is really demanded, then all that is a waste of time, labor, or processing power. Relative to those times, an explosion of productivity if achieved by the Zeitgeist's system would still be scarce. As long as something is not infinite, it is scarce. It is because human desire is infinite. The limit of the ratio of human desire to supply is infinite and not finite. Achieving Zeigeist's economic prosperity would not make it "no longer scarce"As long as scarcity in the economic sense exists, a rationing mechanism is required (which includes production quantities, production rates, production periods, and production ramp phases production/processing power is also a finite resource). If we become so much more abundant in goods on the earth, the population will grow, and then reach a point where things are scarce, whether it be squarefootage of land, squarefootage of ocean if we develop ocean dwelling technology, 3d space of the atmosphere, if we develop gravity defying dwelling technology, amount of food the planet can produce in a given period of time... So then scarcity will hit again. So the zeitgeist solution really needs to address the mathematical limit of the ratio of infinity to non-infinity being infinity, and therefore scarce in the foreseeable future."Resrouced based economy" is not an answer to this. Resources were always limited. Going from a money system of rationing to a supercomputer system of rationing doesn't change this fact. The question still remains - how are you going to decide between making/doing A or B when we do reach the inevitable limits of resources? who gets them and who first? will a car be built, or will 100 desks be built instead?You'd think such foundational economic issues would get addressed quite early on. Jacque Fresco in the 3rd part of the original 3-part zeitgeist movie does not address this. Stefan's first debate with a Zeitgeist person didn't address it. Neither did his debate with Peter from the Zeitgeist movement. All the very intelligent people spokespeople at Zeitgeit do not seem to see this point. Just like how Noam Chompsky is blind to the gun in the room when advocating his social policies, the Zeitgeist people are blind to these basic economics concepts, and skip a bunch of steps when they go from economic observations to mechanism to philosophical conclusion. It always struck me that all of the Zeitgeist proponent spokespeople lacked a level of rigor when developing their macroeconomic conclusions. To make a really concise illustration of my point, I'll say this. The talk about 3d printers, supercomputers making possible a huge increase in production doesn't mean it's infinite or will make things no longer "scarce" (a conflation between the colloquial and economic senses of the word).Because the mathematical limit of the ratio of wants to goods will always remain infinity until human nature changes, there will always be scarcity.If people before the industrial revolution saw the vision of how massively wealthier and productive the would could be with machines, and started saying how things won't be "scarce" anymore, those people would be quite disappointed if they lived in the post-industrial revolution, where there was still scarcity due to natural physical limitations. supercomputesr MAY increase that limit by a lot again, but it is nowhere near infinite. So you will run into that limit again. resources may not be the limiting factor, but production rate capacity is also a limitation, and there is still the problem of allocation/rationing.All the talk of magical buttons, talk of human endeavor being art, growing up in non-violent society really aren't sufficient answers. People can still abuse systems. they can still order more than they need. The incentives as far as game theory is concerned can still favor greed and waste, since there is no punishment or personal cost to ordering another house, or car. See, the market mamkes things more costly as they become more scarce. the DRO model handles criminals by creating the proper incentives and disincentives for a given choice of action, so it's all self-sustaining and stable, and promotes good behavior while creating uncoerced disincentives for doing wrong. A solution like the DRO actually addresses issues. The resourced based, supercomputer allocating economy is no where near addressing some basic glaring problems (like "What is the rationing algorithm?" and "how do you deal with opportunity cost?"), let alone being a fully developed plan for organizing society.

It is now known that social rejection causes the same parts in the brain to be affected as physical injury does.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661304001433Physical pain receptors function with a threshold. Physical stimuli that do not break that minimum value (i.e. electrical activation potential for triggering a chain of neurons to the brain) do not trigger pain... as Charlie's brother so excellently demonstrated experimenting with:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSMSo since there is a threshold to experiencing sending the triggers of physical pain to the brain... the same part that is activated by social rejection. So I was thinking... perhaps might there be a threshold of sorts for experiencing social rejection (Typically this would be being "thick-skinned")?What governs how sensitive you are to this? Can this threshold change, and if so, by what causes? Could the fact that both paths lead to the same parts of the brain mean that the brain may influence controlling that threshold?

All of my attempts to explain that the facts and views they held about the effects and fruits of government were dismissed. All explanations and walkthroughs of incentives for each player's incentives and allusion to game theory were ignored. I find facts to be king, and logic as the guiding light. Game theory / incentives is just so huge in explaining actions, but I'm not sure most people understand, appreciate, or put as much stock into game theory and incentives. I can see the incnetives in just about every disastrous social phenomenon, and how to balance/adjust them in order to bring about a systematic, stable equilibrium, keeping feedback dynamics in mind. I don't know if it's difficult for most people to think this way, or something else. i got through the first two pages of the sparknotes summary and i've found so many incorrect, and dangerous bad premises. It's quite scary. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/terms.html First Principles - The fundamental and irreducible facts of nature that are established by philosophical definition and upon which philosophical arguments may be built. According to Hobbes, first principles are not discovered by observation or experiment but are decided by philosophical debate and social consent. holy fk. how do you talk to someone who believes that? well, i suppose you do it by showing observation contradicting an idea, and making them choose between observation vs social consent/debate. But this is so fundamentally blatantly wrong, that it blows my mind how people can just accept that. I really wonder if they accept it out of post-ex-facto justification of the conclusions of Hobbes... "The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another." Cherry picking fallacy, obviously. people cooperate for mutual benefit, even in primal, low tech environments, still want love, still want to be happy and have good times with friends and family. The other day, a Hobbesian alluded to the fact that we have internet, but people use it for porn and twitter... implying that people are irresponsible, immature, and unrelaible to take care of things, and that the state was necessary. SO many things wrong with that. First, it's a cherry picking fallacy. People use it for business, improve efficiency, and it allows hard working small entrepreneurs like 17 year old high schoolers to become millionaires. Twitter is also a means for marketing, so it serve as a capital and consumer good/platform, which addresses the implied notion that its not productive or hedonistic. And even if what this guy said about human nature was true, who the fk is to say that the benevolent, wise people will be in charge of the state? game theory shows that sociopaths and the ones willing to use violence, and the ones that can't provide others value are the ones that go to the state. The honest side of me wants to believe they simply haven't been exposed to such lines of thought and concepts of game theory, the strength of incentives in determining overall behavior outcomes over a distribution... but the other side of me is thinking,.... i've just presented you with evidence and theory that are consistent with each other, accurately reflects reality, is useful for predicting the future in such scenarios... and how the hell can you just accept a shoddy, loosely developed fiat statements out of nowhere? Of course this is compounded even further by the emotional and pride ties. I've been trying to keep back my stings, and it can be hard. Sometimes, my honest reaction is just "that is incredibly stupid, and willfully ignorant" which of course comes off as abrasive. oh boy, I don't think i need to quote any more from hobbes cliffnotes.

you should put a teaser excerpt of a few sentences.marketing trick.