SteveSmith

I'm sorry, you have the answer in my post. Don't reply back to me until you understand my arguments, because this is my last post to you until I see that you made any attempt at understanding my arguments.

Your inability to understand even the basics of my argument is primarily the reason why I'm not interested in discussing things on a point by point basis. It's very unproductive when the person who you are talking to is also rude. Sure you can talk however you want, but your constant use of loaded terms shows just how infantile you are and how you display a low level of respect for the opposing side. Also, please educate yourself on the basics of causal inference. Case in point is your perception that I think that machines are somehow perfect. They're not, they're just better than people at what they're designed to do. This is the basis of all technological progress - constant improvement, not immediate perfection. For the reasons stated above, I will term this discussion in only two points. The Open Access Economy and Capitalism in general. As far as the first point is concerned, efficiency is the goal. More specifically, efficiency of production with respect to the whole society. In order to achieve this, we need a centralized system which would be able to distribute the resources efficiently. My goal is to utilize technology, and not societal conventions to solve problems. To give you an example, have a look at the following chart, which shows ice cream sales by month in year. I think that even a lowly person with mediocre amount of intelligence would be able to derive a general description of what is happening here. We could easily create an equation which would tell us that more ice cream is sold during hot days than cold days. Thus, with respect to production, we could also easily come up with an efficient strategy which would allocate more ice cream to hot days and less to cold days. But, what do you think happens when we have more variables in the production process, as in, when we take into account the whole population in a country and their needs. Then the chart starts looking like this. Now I think it should be obvious that letting any human make decisions on such data is highly inefficient. A much better way of solving problems on such data is by using technology which is good at solving such problems. This is nothing else but a pattern detection problem based on which decisions must be made. Just as you would be able to find the pattern on the first chart and suggest an efficient ice cream allocation strategy, the class of algorithms, known as Machine Learning algorithms would be able to do for the second graph. This is today well known and is utilized in products called Business Intelligence, which are doing nothing other than analyzing patterns and suggesting efficient strategies based on what they found. Now, the reasoning behind the need for this technology is simple, the computational resources available to a human mind is lacking and a single human, even a group, is unable to compute all the possible solutions, and come up with an efficient strategy. But when we use tools, such as mentioned above, the problems are readily solved. So, asking me why I want to remove people from the decision making process, the answer is simple, to remove inefficiencies and to let people do more important things, i.e. those that require creative thought. The same logic applies to making a table. You wouldn't want to make a table by hand. Nailing in nails is a very hard thing to do for a human. But using tools such as a hammer, the job becomes much easier. The same logic applies to other jobs which people need to perform. Seeing as how you show interest in Japan, you should know that principles of Fuzzy Logic have been used to relieve people of decision making in some trains in Japan. Please try to understand that technology is not your enemy. So, now coming back to the problem of distribution of resources. You might be aware that Toyota has developed a system for production called Just-in-Time. It turns out that this is an efficient method for production of goods and is today widely applied not just in manufacturing but in computer engineering as well. These kind of algorithms are what we are looking for and technologists have a way of analyzing such algorithms and understanding which ones should be used where. You can see that from the following science article where the JIT algorithm was analyzed and found to be optimal. This in turn explains who would be in charge of handling these machines. The answer is the same as today - the people with relevant skills. Truck drivers will not be software developers, nor will the business people. In turn, this leads us to the second point. Your proposal to use the free market system to distribute resources. Unfortunately, in order to distribute resources efficiently we need efficient algorithms, this immediately precludes the free market system from being optimal since its goal is local optimum and not global optimum. We know that such algorithms don't necessarily lead to global optimums unless carefully selected. In other words, certain groups, i.e. companies will prosper, while the society on whole will not. This should be obvious since you are optimizing with respect to the profit of companies and not the society at large. Such algorithms are called Greedy Algorithms, and we know how they work. Now, I would like to give an example how its quite obvious that such system does not produce global optimums with respect to products which people have. In other words, people prefer certain things, which they do not buy, yet the companies who profit the most, produce sub-optimal products, and their products sell better. If you now take a look at a list of the best selling cars, you will notice that these are mostly regular cars you see every day on the street. Thus most people have these cars and use them every day. Should you now on the other hand take a glance at a list of the most expensive, and by any standard, better cars than the best selling ones, measured either by design, safety, luxury of interior speed, etc. you will notice that none of these cars are found on the best selling list. This also goes for other goods and services as well, thus my simple conclusion is that the free market system produces an incredible inefficiency where most people have things they don't actually want. Furthermore, with respect to the 2nd point, i.e. capitalism, you asked about enforced monopolies and contrasted them with free exchange of goods and services. You see, you make a mistake in thinking that free exchange doesn't lead to violence. You first mistake of course is a much more fundamental one because you don't understand the concept of change over time. A famous example Stefan likes to give is the example where you have a pen yet someone needs something else, you give him the pen and he gives you something else, then you are both better off. This simplistic view, as Peter Joseph rightly called it, would have you think that if you had a perfect free market system and no government, your world would be a carbon copy of the American Dream and the ideal American family image from the 1960s, where they are all buying from a mom and pops shops and everyone is happy. Such is of course an illusion. This illusion stems directly from your misunderstanding of the fundamental ways algorithms operate. We call this problem the Scalability of the system. This actually can be further explained by computational complexity of algorithms where you compare a linear time running algorithm with a quadratic running time algorithm. I understand that it might be hard for you to understand, but if you assume the red line to be a function which represents your solution to the problem and then contrast it with the green function, you will see something amazing. Assuming that your solution, with respect to utilization of some resources needs to be lower than some limiting value, you will clearly pick the green algorithm as the better one at the start. But as you increase the number of elements you need to handle, the utilization of your algorithm becomes a lot more than is the case of the red algorithm. So much so, that the red algorithm, which grows more slowly, becomes the better solution to the problem, even though it first wasn't. In other words, at some point, your initial solution might fail even though it worked for a very small number of input elements.Now ask yourself, how ell does the pen analogy describe what we have today, with respect to the number of transactions which take place daily? What you stated is only true in the case when this is the only transaction which will happen in all eternity. That obviously is not the case, there are numerous cases of such transactions and they are not equal. As time passes, some people will accumulate more wealth than others. This will happen for multitude of reasons, some are simply better at trading, other reasons are inheritance. The point is, by executing a large number of such small trades, over time a large inequality is created because some people accumulate more wealth than others. This directly leads to my previous point where people buy things which they don't want, but can't help themselves since they don't have the money for better goods and services. Furthermore, this shows us how violence is exerted on regular people by the system. The fact that regular people are being priced out of life is a direct consequence of the market economy. The prices are constantly rising, yet the people are not making that much more money in order to buy what they need, thus in turn on average becoming excluded from goods and services which the society has to offer. But now, they are only offered to the ones who can afford them. Not giving a person high quality food and housing, not giving him medical care when he can't afford it yet forcing him to work for the society is violence and exploitation. The only alternative this person then has is to leave the society and go live in the woods by himself - thus almost certain death sentence for any person raised and who lived in the city his whole life. Just because you see a person working doesn't mean he is doing is voluntarily. It should be obvious that if he doesn't do the first job he can, he will starve to death. This idea of free market you presented is no different than Soviet gulags you are so scared of. Work, should be for the benefit of the society, thus to answer your question, no you don't own your work, unless you live in the woods by yourself. The reason is simple. You created none of the tools you used to perform any of the work you did. Nor did you create the house you live in, nor did you grow your own food, or teach yourself the skills you utilized to do the work you perform. These are all products of a multitude of people working together as a society and then passing them on to the next generation. And yes, if anyone wants to leave such a society, he should be free to leave as far as I'm concerned. A casual glance at the open source community, whether its software, or Wikipedia or any other, will show you how things would work. People would work and their work would be available to anyone who wants to participate without any need for immediate reciprocation.

Let's try to stick to one topic at a time please. Of course humans would still be involved. But the point is to minimize their involvement as much as possible. Once we develop algorithms which deal with certain problems well, it is irrelevant who programs the computers, as long as the person knows what he's doing. The result of the calculation is the same, which is all that matters. Do you care who programmed your calculator? Do you need to oversee every step of the calculation which your calculator does when you type in 5+5? Of course not, you take it for granted because you have better things to do. This is what I'm proposing on a grander scale and I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against it. All I've heard is how Soviet Union failed and how great capitalism is. These are not arguments against my position. When I talk about about optimallity its obviously with respect to the society. Resource distribution needs to fit the goals for the society, not few individuals. As long as you are an upstanding member of the society, you should have full access to what the society has to offer. As far as monopolies go, I don't remember anyone asking me whether I agreed with any monopoly that exists today, their business plans or pricing of products. If I were to go and try to break up that monopoly, the police would arrest me. So how is this capitalist version of monopoly not enforced? You are quite mistaken on pretty much all points you mentioned about the US. But let's take some important things into account. After the FED was established, both crime and mortality rates went down. Not that the establishment of FED had anything to do with it, but just so that we're clear on this. Page 30 of the pdf, for your reference. If you care, please provide a casual relationship between FED and any of the things you said were better before. Last but not least, please drop the poetry act. There are lies, cheating and corruption in both public and private sector. Don't try to justify any with poetic language. You justify exploitation of workers by saying that the government is bad, thus the owners of companies are ok to exploit their workers? Sir, you would be the last person I'd like to work for, thank you very much. https://guymcpherson.com/2013/02/memento-mori/

What do you mean how? I explained it in the posts above! Do you have Alzheimer's? And what do you mean people have tried and failed, have you ever heard of Machine Learning algorithms and how they're used for business? They are used today, as we speak to help facilitate business. The agree used to predict what the future demand for goods will be based on past trends. Are you aware that such things exist?

This is patently false. Technology has been utilized since people existed. Every country, tribe or any group in history had a certain level of technological advancement. Whether they used rockets or spears, they utilized technology. Please don't make such patently false arguments like the free markets creating technology. No need to bring the Soviet Union into the discussion. Please drop the emotional arguments.

Again, let's deal with one question at a time. There is no point in asking so many questions all at once, so let's stick to the question of distribution of resources. It's actually not just food that needs to be properly distributed, it's other resources as well. My point rather is that we can determine how to distribute resources, with the help of technology. If you think that can't be done, please explain why.

Whether it's simple or complicated is not so much a question. The question is whether we have the means to solve the problem given our technology. There is no management in the current sense of the word where someone decides that enough is enough. We would solve problems based on systems which have the capability to decide. This is not distant future, this is called an optimization problem and any computer today can solve it. What we would have to solve it with respect to, is the resources at our disposal and the population at hand which needs to work with those resources. If the calculation is solved, there is no waste since the solution is an optimal one. As far as control goes, well yes, there needs to be a control of the people as well. I mean do you not want there to be a policeman to help you when you're being robbed? Just because there is control, doesn't mean it's going to get abused. The point is to have the right person for the right job. If having authority over someone means that abuse follows by definition, then we would see daily how parents are torturing their children. Sorry, this is not what happens. Also, please explain to me how is a pre-FED era considered a paradise? Was there no crime? Was there no poverty? Was there no private sector abuse? And simply pointing out central banks as problems is dead wrong. You can't just pretend that there is no cheating going on in the private sector. What about all the investment banks and mega-corporations? Are you telling me you're not aware of their wrong doings?

I think the answer to your question is quite obvious. Not all things are equally needed all the time, thus we can do without them for a while. But we can't do without food. Thus, priority will be put on thing based on their immediate need. Clearly, that means, we don't wait for food, it needs to be present every day. As for who would overlook the system. Well, the distribution systems would be built based on the information about the local population. Based on that, and their past needs, we can come up with calculations what requires more immediacy and how much resources should be distributed in such products. The people who build the systems are the same ones who build any system that is being built today - those with technical skills to do it right. Now, please don't think I don't want to address your price signal argument. I most certainly did, but I first want to make sure we both agree that what I'm proposing is possible. If you don't think it's possible let's continue discussing it.

Peter actually said many times that he was influenced by Buck. Me personally, I haven't read or seen much of his work.

I actually completely agree with you and as opposed to bubble cities proposed by certain RBE proponents, I want to live in nice homes which have all the features that luxury mansions have today. I see nothing wrong with that, quite contrary I see it as progress. But I also understand that I don't need to own these homes. I only need access to them. Once you realize what that actually means, your whole value system changes. So instead of owning 7 houses around the world, you simply order a house and live in it for as long as you want. Once you want to move somewhere else, you simply order another house. And someone else uses your house. Think of hotels. You don't actually need to own a hotel to use it. Same thing would apply to living space. So, in other words, there is no need for you to order those TVs in the first place, because the housing would already have it.

Nothing of course. But they won't get them. Just as we have today, there are supplies which can and can't be met. When Sony usually announces their new PlayStation model, a lot of people wait in line to get one. Of course, not everyone can get their hands on one because of the initial shortage, so they have to wait for the next supply. Nothing out of the ordinary. Same thing would apply in this case as well, first come first serve basis would be applied. Also, just to make sure everything runs smoothly, there should be some initial restrictions applied where you can't order more than a predefined number of items. Once people get used to such an economic system there will be no need for restrictions at all. You see, people usually work based on the motive principle. They usually have a motive to do things. In a society where you can have access to everything, there would be no motive to order more than you need. I mean, think about it. What would be the motive for someone to order 50.000 TV sets, instead of dozen, which would be enough to furnish his home?

Getting too depended on anything is a bad idea. I just want to make it clear that treating nations as non-existing entities is not practical or particularly useful. If we agree on that, then we can continue with criticisms of nations, or any other group for that matter, versus individualism.

Well I'd put it another way. Price is one of the signals. It's quite possible to have, actually just like we have today, a pre-order system where people would order products and such and such amount would be produced on demand. Don't you think that's possible?

Quite right, the whole is more than the sum of its parts in this case. Groups of people can do more than each individual can, thus groups are important. That's probably why you see people forming companies in the first place. Once we do that, a very important thing becomes possible and that is - division of labor. You can't do everything by yourself that you need, but a group can, if work its divided appropriately. Now, I understand why some people might hold grudges against groups. Fundamentalism and blind obedience come to mind because they are often associated with group thinking. But the fact of the matter is, nothing is perfect, everything has its good and is bad sides so choose appropriately what and how you want to proceed.

I agree with you, especially on the part that this diffusion about existence of nations is rather pointless. If we are to take Tyler's logic further, we could basically say that nothing that is composed of parts exists, so neither does him, since he is composed of organs, which is meaningless. On the other hand, should Tyler claim that only things that can decide exist, then his definition is basically equal to definition of living beings, which is rather irrelevant since we have that definition and we use it for something else. What we are then interested in is how to tell things which are present in the real world and which are not. His definition would only included living beings, but clearly, we notice the presence of many other entities, so it's a completely impractical definition. I propose that we drop this discussion altogether and focus on why Tyler has a problem with nations. I believe that he thinks that nations shouldn't have any claims or rights of their own. Thus, if that is the case, I think Tyler should pick up the discussion from there.

Well, you certainly have a point against a barter based system. But I was thinking more in line of an open access economic system. This would mean that there is no exchange and no markets. People simply produce and consume based on their needs. This is clearly even simpler than a monetary system. As far as abuse goes, well we can all agree that monetary system is rife with it. So cheating with money is actually easier than cheating with physical resources.

Actually, we can discuss about who is doing all those things later. I would like to nail down what existence is at this point. If we take your approach, then only entities that act upon something exist. This it follows that cars and material property doesn't exist in general. So how can people act on something that doesn't exist? Did you think that at this point we should discard your definition of existence and move on to something more practical?

Hey buddy! I agree with you that concepts don't exist in the real world. Like I said previously. The concept of number 5 doesn't exist in the real world. But 5 apples do. So, yes The concept of family doesn't exist in the real world, but a family does, that is, an instance of a family. If we define a family comprising of people, where some are descended of others. Again, same thing with a car. Individual parts exist. And a sum of those parts is what makes an instance of a car. Now, the concept of a car again doesn't exist physically, but it's instance does. Same thing goes for nations.

Hey friends! I was just wondering recently about the idea of performing actual work and letting everyone benefit from it, as opposed to having to work and then selling that work to others. Why do you think its not a good idea to simply have an open access economy like Peter Joseph proposed?

Hey, you too buddy!

Thanks, hope to talk to you soon!

No, I'm sorry, but from my experience, branching forum debates lead to a mess which leads nowhere.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with it, but still don't think your definition is useful. Numbers shouldn't be confused with physical things. Number 5 doesn't exist physically, only conceptually, but 5 apples exist both conceptually and physically. Same goes for a family, company or a nation. As far as the letter T goes, yes we could say it's a T but it has more to do with semantics of the language. When we say that's a T we mean it represents a concept of a letter T. A concept of a letter T doesn't exist in the physical world, but it's representation in the form of two stick shaped like it, does.

I'll try to keep it as simple as possible and stick to the main points. What I don't address now, we can go over later because I don't want to move into too many directions at once. I don't see it as a circular argument because international flights are a part of aviation, i.e. flying. On the other hand, you can have progress without free markets and capitalism. So in the first case one is impossible without the other, while in the other case two could coexist, but are not the same nor is one necessary for the other to exist. Meaning, you don't need capitalism to have progress. On the other hand, you do need aviation to have international flights.

Hey guy! Well, it would seem to me that we have a different definition of existence then. I'm not sure how useful yours is because based on your definition, almost nothing exists. Neither families, nor companies. How useful do you think such a definition is? And if a flock of birds doesn't exist, why do we see them? Also, could you tell me what does exist in your opinion?