Search the Community

We all have heard the catch-phrase that "salary is slavery". What do you think: is it true in your understanding ? Does the "middle class" is actually the occidental slave caste, like was the Zealots for Sparta ? What is a salary for ? What does it rewards objectively ? I've read this morning a really interesting thread in the "self-knowledge" section, in which we're taught that any "reward system" is, against the common perception of it - a threat, a misleading, a blocker for a proper learning and cognitive development. At a psycho-sexual level, the reward system is what differentiate the human sexuality from the animalistic one: most animals doesn't have (or, more accurately, cannot process what we call: "sex for pleasure") the possibility to enjoy sexual intercourse only for the sake of it, which means: they literally cannot "choose" voluntarily to have sexe, since they're biochemically drove by their hormones at distincts periods of the year (the rut). Pleasurable sex is then strongly linked to the cortex, the memory, the ability to manage and organize perception, etc. - en résumé, all the premises allowing for a "reward system". So what is concretely rewarded here ? As I see it - the notion or "reward" clash big time with objectivity: the pleasure can only be felt at a psychological level, as an emotion; a reward is then a evolutionary mechanism whose purpose is too reinforce some (possibly any) behaviour who make an individual felt "good" (here the concept of "goodness" remaining concretely undefined in most case - since the journey to virtue is, as we know, terribly painful, even if ultimately releasing). The fact is that a reward, intended or not, psycho-somatic (reflex) or purposeful (given by an other person) - have always the outcome to consolidate some of your behaviour. Now, just keep all these various information consciously present. The question I wanted to ask you is: Imagine that every of our basic needs (necessities of life: clean water & air, shelter, food, clothes, etc.) - are permanently satisfied through automation and mechanization ? For sure, I'm taking into account that people will limits their objective needs to the minimum: there's no serious place for inflation, greed, aesthetics in general - in the field of human needs: these are the volatile, intermittents goals of H wants. For example, there wouldn't be sort of "free pass" for obese nor that it would be luxuries for limited individuals. The key to understand what I'm saying is this: H needs are essentially objective, finite, defined, quantifiable, etc. What everybody needs at an objective level is a shelter, not a mansion; warm clothes, not a complete fashionable wardrobe. It's like in the late interview with AR when she were dressed in a red dress, talking about the fact that if you want to accede you imperatively need to use your reason - and then the camera shows us a young, pretty coquette lady rolling her eyes with a disgusted face: that Lolita hadn't understood the difference being involved here. Because that every of her H needs were automatically satisfied since her birth by daddy's money and that consequently she had never experienced any form or real deficiency - for her, the existence of some "means of production", the very philosophical notion of "work" was a conceptual fantasy, some "rude stuff" invented by vulgar people to mock the aristocrats to which she belonged by "birth right". Oops, I'm digressing again ! Don't worry - I'm not falling in any sort of marxist ideation: the struggle nowadays is no more "cultural", or in Marx's terms: "dialectical" - now it must be seen as a scientific problem, the solutions being absolutely technicals. So I'm not talking about the suppression of the right to the "pursuit of happiness" - I'm rather talking about the very means to make it possible, which are: the automation of the means of production regarding the H needs. In an techno-efficient economy in which all (remember that they are only a few, and finite) of your H needs would be assumed and assured by a global, automatized production - would you accept a salary to "reward" a job involving mainly creativity, arts, speculation, etc. ? Surely, the value/role of money is larger and more complex - and cannot be reduce to the phenomenon of the salary. People would trade concerning H wants until the end of the world: no problem with that. The only objective way to trade non-objective objets and/or values is effectively by using a common, standard medium of exchange - who serves then as an insurance policy, a malleable but tangible tool to regulate or manifest the subjective value of all the luxuries, dreams, fantaisies, etc., that H wants can generate punctually. But my thesis is simply that the use of money to "trade" necessary values and de facto needs - is inefficient, counter-productive and completely absurd. I simply cannot conceptualize a practicable "free market" without any universal automation of objective needs. The brain (and reason) cannot work is they aren't feed. Individuals would have to identify and measure their context/specific needs and reasonable life's requirements: we need only very few things to live well on a physiological level - all that outgrowth that is no more objective in the sense of necessity: it is playful, contingent. The only viable, logical salary for creativity and any work of the Mind should be the necessities of life. What do you think ?

http://conspirituality.org/peter-joseph/ I hope I've posted this on the right board. Thanks Charlotte Ward

TZM is offering a 1000 word or less essay challenge of a Resource Based Economy. The authors will be invited onto their radio talk show for discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gagFoqkepRs

Steph mentioned it on his most recent YouTube upload. When is it? Tomorrow? Live? This is a long overdue debate. So excited!

I was having a discussion around individual & social responsibility, and got this message from a Zeitgeist advocate. Is deflection, word-salad, and copping out common place for the Zeitgeist movement? That came after sharing repeated signs of interest in Zeitgeist, and admitting my lack of understanding about it. I'm also finding it difficult to discuss with them, without being painted as some sort of "Fox News Social-Darwinist" character. I definitely do not watch Fox, am not a Republican, and do not support the current social structure that we live with. Full discussion here: http://duncantrussell.com/forum/discussion/10621/can-the-99-create-a-sustainable-zeitgeist-world

Peter Joseph on Stefan Molyneux: "The Art of Nonsense" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnuRRWZxSE Warning: fanaticism included Hey guys, this is my first topic. I really didn't want it to be about this but I think people should see. (So the more important topics come later ) Peter Joseph has let his Ego show in a pretty horrendous response to Stefan's review of the debate. This looks to be the start of a nice big flame war and the comment section is hot with abuse. Just a warning for people it contains obscene language if that's the kind of thing you like the avoid. You will get a clear picture of how the video continues purely from the first 120 seconds. I just want to know what did you think of: - The "debate" - Stephan's review - Peter Joseph's responses - Should Stefan reply to this, if so why/Why not? Or is it just the start of a useless flame war? Personally I don't like to see anybody going at it over anything, so I will not pressure anyone especially Stefan to reply to something like this. I don't think there's much to gain from it, as you pretty much can't use reason and logic with this type of emotional flaming. Take care all I hope to have some productive discussions soon. Cheers. PS. If this topic isn't permitted due to the whole flame war thing, I will gladly delete it.

I took my liberty to point out what ideas do I get during my plentiful listenings to Stefan's radio show. I think Stefan's great with psychological and philosophical themes, but when it comes to the economic system itself, I can see there's a work for me. I can't improve what is perfect, but I can show a mirror to what I think is flawed - but fun! I did my best to keep the comic strips tasteful and intelligent and maybe even funny. However, be sure I'll post them on many occasions when I need to illustrate a point, literally. I'll add more when I get any other ideas. 10 in the first day is good enough. Please mods, if you like the topic, make it sticky To all the offended parties I profusely apologize.

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.

Build a complex program that will solve the worlds problems without an incentive to make money! Look at the Obama care website!