About the Debate with Peter Joseph and clear/objective language

[FriendlyHacker]

Peter Joseph is not as good of a communicator as he could be, his language can make a simple idea sound way more complex than it should be. Not to mention that being rude creates a huge barrier to understanding. 

This post is my attempt to get the idea across with a practical example.

 

 

The free market perspective:

 

Let's say I have a cell phone factory, I have been suffering increased pressure from the Industry to cut down cost, so I've decided to automate the entire assembly line.

 

Each robot on my assembly line can do the job of 50 people, so for each robot added 50 people are fired.

 

The goal of my business is to make and sell phones for profit. The goal of my employees is to exchange their services for the means to acquire survival. If I don't automate the assembly line the company will fail and everyone will be fired, if I automate it everyone still gets fired but I get to keep the means for my own survival. Therefore profit is more important than empathy, the less empathy I have, more profitable my company will be, if I have the opportunity to dump toxic waste and not suffer the consequences, I will do it, such a thing gives me a huge competitive edge over companies who do proper waste disposal.

 

Now let's see it from the perspective of an assembly line worker. This guy was already working 18 hours a day and is borderline suicidal, the only thing keeping him going is drinking himself to sleep every night. He hates his job and hates himself for working there, he can't enact the anger he feels on his boss, so he beats up his children instead. 

 

Now he has lost his job at the factory and killed himself. His children counted on him for survival but were barely making it while he was around, so in order to survive and enact the anger they feel at the father, they now become violent criminals.

 

 

 

Resource Based Economy, a transition Perspective:

 

I still have a cell phone factory, but I understand that the whole idea behind having a factory is to make cellphones available to people and not to make a profit for myself in the expense of others. I don't sell cellphones, I make them to last and give them away for free, I have no financial incentive in forcing my users to replace their phones every 3 months. I have a proper waste disposal system, don't have a marketing department (advertising related waste). My focus is in getting people what they need while wasting a minimal amount of resources, so when the assembly line gets fully automated and production increases 10 fold, I can tell my employees that they can leave and enjoy the newly available extra resources to assure their survival.

 

For the first time in these peoples lives, they have the time and the resources to do what makes them happy, their family lives are more fulfilled now than ever, they no longer feel the stress of the struggle for survival, the parents are no longer absent mythical figures, and they don't have to worry about criminality. People are not going to steal any cellphone from them, the factory has such a large efficiency rate that cellphones are now abundant. In the same way people today don't go around stealing sunshine and stealing air, there's no incentive for stealing phones.

[ThomasDoubts]

     So in the transitory environment, cell phones will become abundant and proper waste disposal exists, as opposed to today's reality?  You know, the one where the number of cell phones in service outnumber the population.  You know, the one where you couldn't begin to count the businesses whose only function is to recycle cell phones.  I'm distraught that the transition didn't occur twenty years ago, and provide everyone with a single function brick, built to last forever.  What if someone tried to provide me a cell phone that gave me access to the accumulated knowledge of humanity?  Imagine having to waste something built to last for all eternity.  Imagine someone else not having access to the magic phone.  It's unfathomable; obviously, we'd all be better off sticking with the brick.

 

     I jest, but you can't ignore the simple fact that people respond to incentives.  In the fully adopted "post scarcity" society, ONE individual will improve a product and feel like he provided more value than ONE other individual.  How do you reconcile equal outcomes with inequality of inputs?  How do you assure rightfully skeptic people that it would not fall prey to same problems of every centrally planned economy?  To perfectly plan an economy to not waste resources requires perfect information about the present and perfect information about the future for the duration of the planning time horizon.  If the goal is not perfect resource allocation, than surely it is efficient resource allocation?  By all common understanding of "effeciency", how might central planning surpass free markets?  If not centrally planned, and not a free market, then what the heck is it?  If someone desires a profit, and someone desires his product/service, who enforces the idea that such behavior is not allowed?  Would such enforcement be moral or just?

 

    I did ignore all of your Free Market Perspective, but then again, you ignore economics and the premise that individuals respond to incentives.  You also ignore the fact that no company has lasted forever, and eventually they always fire all of their employees, which is a sign that the business sucked at it's job, and someone else was doing it better.  Are we not all beneficiaries of that?  All the businesses could join together under one banner, cooperate, share everything, and still suck at thier job.  It seems we would be left wanting, with no alternatives.  Imagine Eddison and Tesla being forced to work together and provide one solution for powering our homes.  Eddison's D/C is chosen rather than Tesla's A/C.  They spend years/decades building the infastructure of the nation on a subpar idea.  It then takes ages, going back to start from scratch, to convert to A/C.  Hardly seems efficient.  Just imagine the waste of energy and resources...   It boggles the mind.

 

    My impression of the interview was that Peter Joseph should put his vocabulary to better use.  A pig is a pig, whether it wears lipstick or not.  Of course, I've never met the man, and I have no animosity, nor intend any offense.  That being said, while I share many of the sentiments of Zeitgeisters, i have little respect, in all honesty, for it's foundations.  To allocate resources requires information.  At what expense of labor, time, energy, resources, is it worthwhile producing a product?  I'm still waiting on a better solution to that question than the pricing mechanism.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/number-of-cell-phones-exceeds-us-population-ctia-trade-group/2011/10/11/gIQARNcEcL_blog.html

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/03/25/more-people-have-cell-phones-than-toilets-u-n-study-shows/

[aFireInside]

Im listening to the debate and he is very floral with his words.

 

I disagree with him but even if he is right, we would never know becoause of his language.

[JSDev]

That moment when Stef realizes what he was up against

 

 

Stefan mentioned something about making a documentary with what sounded like Sean Lennon ?? Can anyone point me to some info about that? Thanks.

[Mister Mister]

  Yes I don't understand what Peter is talking about 85% of the time - and I think I'm a fairly intelligent and articulate person.  It sounds like he could be talking about something really interesting and meaningful, but I've also known some schizophrenics who were the same way.  I am interested in what he is saying about a gaming mentality which he makes reference to several times but never defines.  I've seen a few of the Zeitgeist movies and there are a lot of interesting ideas but I'm still not quite sure what is the premise, what are the ethics, what it is they think we should be doing to transition to the Robot Luxury City of the Future.

 

  I think the fundamental issue in this debate has to do with psychology.  Peter keeps saying things like "we persist with this system based on scarcity and competition".  Or "we subject people to the market" or "the market has at its core ethic a mindset of gaming".  He seems to think that people are motivated by "capitalist philosophy" and if we can change those ideas (not sure how he proposes doing this), we can change human nature/society.  Listening to this show, and understanding a little about praxeological school of economics has given me a far more realistic/functional understanding of human nature and motivation. 

[Mike Fleming]

 

 

 

Resource Based Economy, a transition Perspective:

 

I still have a cell phone factory, but I understand that the whole idea behind having a factory is to make cellphones available to people and not to make a profit for myself in the expense of others. I don't sell cellphones, I make them to last and give them away for free, 

 

How is selling cellphones making a profit at the expense of others?  I want a cellphone.  The cellphone maker (and employees) want money.  We make the exchange.  Win-win.

 

Why bother going to the effort of making cellphones if you aren't going to get anything from it?  You're spending your capital (or resources) and getting nothing in return.  Would you go to all that effort without getting anything in return?  And if so, can I have a free cellphone?

[FriendlyHacker]

arcturus, why would you feel motivated to contribute in a creative way, if you are working in order to avoid death? You either work or die, isn't that the definition of slavery?

 

How much more motivated and creative you would be, if you were actually doing it in order to help others without asking for anything in return? Isn't that the definition of generosity?

 

You could ask Stefan, if he is doing this show for the money, or because he wants to make a positive difference in our lives? And might find out that the most creative people only manage to be creative because they do something they love, while helping others.

 

How much more creative would Stefan be, if he didn't have to worry so much about money?

[Jeremi]

arcturus, why would you feel motivated to contribute in a creative way, if you are working in order to avoid death? You either work or die, isn't that the definition of slavery?

 

How much more motivated and creative you would be, if you were actually doing it in order to help others without asking for anything in return? Isn't that the definition of generosity?

 

You could ask Stefan, if he is doing this show for the money, or because he wants to make a positive difference in our lives? And might find out that the most creative people only manage to be creative because they do something they love, while helping others.

 

How much more creative would Stefan be, if he didn't have to worry so much about money?

 

No offense but I find your definition of slavery incredibly insulting to an actual definition of slavery which is still to some degree occurring right now in Third World countries. By your reasoning you would go to a primitive tribe removed from the Industrialized world and present the argument like this:

 

"Fools! Don't you see that your hunting and fishing for subsistence is no choice at all, how are you any different than slaves?"

 

Of course, given the anthropological prehistoric and contemporary record of hunter-gatherer tribes demonstrate that leisure time was overwhelmingly greater in their societies than ours, your argument would come across as absurd. If you then try to claim that this "work slavery" only appears on Earth at the moment we industrialize and adapt ourselves to technology, then your redefiniton of slavery is basically pointless. I don't understand this feeling like a slave because you can be in Timbuktu within half a day or surf the internet to look up endless information online that would've required someone in Ancient Europe traveling for weeks to reach the library of Alexandria which even for its time would only have a petty amount of archived information of the era.

 

I think the only reason Zeitgeisters and especially Anarcho Coms (I used to be one) feel that market interactions fundamentally lead to slavery (even when completely voluntary) is because their past and present relationships make them feel like slaves. I certainly experienced this in overwhelming fashion in my interactions in the An-com community 5-6 years ago. I literally did not know a single person who did not feel at that time as if some aspect of their personal lives and families were a form of prison, so the way to resolve this problem was always to find the fault in the voluntary interactions in the market, voluntarism that they never ever had themselves since they were infants.

 

The point about creativity is a total non-sequiter, the reason we have an abundance of art and music now is because of the leisure time created by technology within the free market.

[FriendlyHacker]

If my definition of slavery is insulting to the actual definition of it, then what is the actual definition?

[Guest Niko]

PJ to me sounds like a spirograph

[aFireInside]

That moment when Stef realizes what he was up against

 

Screen Shot 2013-09-24 at 2.18.34 PM.png

 

Screen Shot 2013-09-24 at 1.48.00 PM.png

Stefan mentioned something about making a documentary with what sounded like Sean Lennon ?? Can anyone point me to some info about that? Thanks.

 

 

haha! the first picture with the description made me crack up..

good one !

[Mike Fleming]

arcturus, why would you feel motivated to contribute in a creative way, if you are working in order to avoid death? You either work or die, isn't that the definition of slavery?

 

How much more motivated and creative you would be, if you were actually doing it in order to help others without asking for anything in return? Isn't that the definition of generosity?

 

You could ask Stefan, if he is doing this show for the money, or because he wants to make a positive difference in our lives? And might find out that the most creative people only manage to be creative because they do something they love, while helping others.

 

How much more creative would Stefan be, if he didn't have to worry so much about money?

 

There's no such a thing as a free lunch.  You need food to survive.  You must obtain that food in some way.  If you are not working for it yourself then you have enslaved someone else to do it for you.   The other option is you can trade for it by making goods or providing services to others.   

 

So slavery is you getting someone else to provide the things you need to survive so that you don't have to work yourself, not you working for them yourself.

 

Robots are as yet not as capable as humans.  Just try getting a robot, any robot, to do all the things that a human can do and you'll find it is not capable of doing so.  

 

So at this point in time, there are 2 options work for your food or die.  There is no such thing as a free lunch in this universe.

[MarkIX]

I think I understand some of PJ's points

His  argument against voluntarism is that if defined narrowly it makes perfect sense but the surrounding situation makes the choice involved coerced. The surrounding situation being the culture and established norms. An example of what I think he means might be if a parent gave a child the choice of being beaten with a strap or an open hand. If you focus on whether the child has a choice you are missing the point and PJ would argue that voluntarism does just that.

His argument against the free market is I believe that the State is a product of the free market. That given inevitability of some achieving riches and the inevitability of their decay in capability and increase in competition they will deduce the only way to continue being wealthy is to ensure one or the other of those factors is significantly reduced. Being that decreased capability is inevitable the only factor that can be effected is competition and the only way to control that is through force, the State is merely a framework for justifying this use of force, but other non state frameworks are possible, in fact some framework is inevitable.

 

Another thought I had whilst listening was that Stef's home life was wretched and despicable but could be logically foreseen to have an ending when he grew big enough to make the physical attacks he suffered dangerous to perform. It makes me wonder what PJ's home life was like.

[Mike Fleming]

I don't agree that the state came out of the free market at all.    Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me.   Only childhood indoctrination can make people obey the state and how would you achieve that in a free and open, educated society?   Military force could subdue people initially but it never works in the long run.  And doing so would be so expensive with so little likelihood of payoff, even if it was successful, that I don't even think that is likely.

 

It only worked the first time because people were so poor and uneducated back in Earth's ancient past and became a tradition.  Once a bad tradition is purged, people don't go back en masse to it.

[PatrickC]

If my definition of slavery is insulting to the actual definition of it, then what is the actual definition?

 

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will.

 

I too dislike the way the 'left' constantly widens the net with this definition for hyperbole.

[MarkIX]

I don't agree that the state came out of the free market at all.    Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me.   Only childhood indoctrination can make people obey the state and how would you achieve that in a free and open, educated society?   Military force could subdue people initially but it never works in the long run.  And doing so would be so expensive with so little likelihood of payoff, even if it was successful, that I don't even think that is likely.

 

It only worked the first time because people were so poor and uneducated back in Earth's ancient past and became a tradition.  Once a bad tradition is purged, people don't go back en masse to it.

"Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me."

I believe the conjecture is that people currently rich have the ability to spend enough to ensure they can maintain their fortune. The alternative is believing that people who have striven to become rich are going to fail to strive to continue to be rich. Taken the current situation of 4% sociopaths do you think that a "private army" couldn't be established?. The only reason it is unnecessary for anyone to develop a "private army" is that the State is cheaper.

 

" Only childhood indoctrination can make people obey the state and how would you achieve that in a free and open, educated society?"

Sure but these two are arguing about how to achieve such a society, not what problems such a society would have.[EDIT] or more precisely why the other guys plan won't work.

 

"Military force could subdue people initially but it never works in the long run.  And doing so would be so expensive with so little likelihood of payoff, even if it was successful, that I don't even think that is likely."

Except what you are describing must have been the start of the State. Unless everybody voluntarily accepted it.

[JohnH.]

"Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me."

I believe the conjecture is that people currently rich have the ability to spend enough to ensure they can maintain their fortune. The alternative is believing that people who have striven to become rich are going to fail to strive to continue to be rich. Taken the current situation of 4% sociopaths do you think that a "private army" couldn't be established?. The only reason it is unnecessary for anyone to develop a "private army" is that the State is cheaper.

 

If this is a problem for a free-market wouldn't it be a much larger problem for a centrally planned "supercomputer" economy where the sociopaths need only be a bit computer savvy to get the resources to form their private armies?

[MarkIX]

If this is a problem for a free-market wouldn't it be a much larger problem for a centrally planned "supercomputer" economy where the sociopaths need only be a bit computer savvy to get the resources to form their private armies?

I'm pretty sure PJ's contention would be that the "Supercomputer" would be beyond human interference and probably understanding. To overcome the price determination problem it would obviously have to be. How is this achieved with merely human resources? I don't know, I don't foresee that it is. but my desire is not to promote supercomputers but to discuss interesting observations that may reveal a gap in my understanding. I see my interpretation of PJ's arguments as having some validity, as being flaws in the An-Cap system. This leaves a couple of conclusions, one being that my understanding of An-Cap is flawed another that my understanding of a free society is.

[Mike Fleming]

"Stef's contention that building a state would be too expensive in a free, competitive market makes more sense to me."

I believe the conjecture is that people currently rich have the ability to spend enough to ensure they can maintain their fortune. The alternative is believing that people who have striven to become rich are going to fail to strive to continue to be rich. Taken the current situation of 4% sociopaths do you think that a "private army" couldn't be established?. The only reason it is unnecessary for anyone to develop a "private army" is that the State is cheaper.

 

" Only childhood indoctrination can make people obey the state and how would you achieve that in a free and open, educated society?"

Sure but these two are arguing about how to achieve such a society, not what problems such a society would have.[EDIT] or more precisely why the other guys plan won't work.

 

"Military force could subdue people initially but it never works in the long run.  And doing so would be so expensive with so little likelihood of payoff, even if it was successful, that I don't even think that is likely."

Except what you are describing must have been the start of the State. Unless everybody voluntarily accepted it.

 

Yes, they could develop their own private security or army if you will, but so what?  To what end?  It is just throwing money down the drain when you go beyond your own security needs.   You can't militarily hold people down over the long term.  This has been self-evident so many times over the centuries and you've even seen it regularly over the last century.  Only the widespread belief in government enables the group calling themselves government to get away with what they do.   That comes from centuries of tradition and indoctrination. 

 

As for the last part where you are saying it was the start of the state.  Life was very different back then (1000's of years ago).  These were a primitive and superstitious people that knew very little about the world and were very, very poor.  Establishing a tradition whereby a few "enlightened" would look after them would have been a lot easier to foist upon them.  And at a lot less cost.

[JohnH.]

I think Stefan may have mentioned this before: moving past the moral justifications for the State would probably be similar to how we moved past the moral justifications for slavery.  If you were to go up to a random person on the street and try to argue for the morality of slavery they would look at you as crazy and most likely want nothing to do with you; if you attempted to enslave people, many would come to their defense.  Once people recognize the immorality of an institution it becomes incredibly difficult to get them to accept it in their lives once again.

[MarkIX]

Yes, they could develop their own private security or army if you will, but so what?  To what end?  It is just throwing money down the drain when you go beyond your own security needs.   You can't militarily hold people down over the long term.  This has been self-evident so many times over the centuries and you've even seen it regularly over the last century.  Only the widespread belief in government enables the group calling themselves government to get away with what they do.   That comes from centuries of tradition and indoctrination. 

 

As for the last part where you are saying it was the start of the state.  Life was very different back then (1000's of years ago).  These were a primitive and superstitious people that knew very little about the world and were very, very poor.  Establishing a tradition whereby a few "enlightened" would look after them would have been a lot easier to foist upon them.  And at a lot less cost.

I'm sorry as evidenced previously I don't know how to break a quote up into the components I wish to address as I could with the last system.

"You can't militarily hold people down over the long term."

 If you define the State as "The right and obligation of a select group to use force in a given geographical area" then to claim that Military force can't be used to suppress people you would have to ignore thousands of years of history. It's what States do.

 

"Only the widespread belief in government enables the group calling themselves government to get away with what they do.   That comes from centuries of tradition and indoctrination. "

So without centuries of tradition and indoctrination there would be no State?. This means that States have always existed because otherwise there would have been a time when there was not centuries of tradition and indoctrination, in which case there would seem little need for tradition and indoctrination. The other posibility is that the factors you specify are not the only ones that apply.

 

" Establishing a tradition whereby a few "enlightened" would look after them would have been a lot easier to foist upon them.  And at a lot less cost."

It could also be said that the people of times previous were a lot more independent and had a greater understanding of the desirability of their own property as they were surely more involved in acquiring it. It could therefore be argued that getting them to part with their hard won resources would have involved greater difficulty. Especially if the individual(s) attempting to do so were in command of less sophisticated arguments, which would seem to be a given.

[FriendlyHacker]

One thing I would like to point out: it's counter productive to attack someone's point of view, simply because you don't agree with it, in that sense people act like they are competing to see who "wins" the argument. I have no such notion of winning and won't become upset or attack anyone with a different point of view, because I see we are here to help each other and not to compete.

[Mike Fleming]

I'm sorry as evidenced previously I don't know how to break a quote up into the components I wish to address as I could with the last system.

"You can't militarily hold people down over the long term."

 If you define the State as "The right and obligation of a select group to use force in a given geographical area" then to claim that Military force can't be used to suppress people you would have to ignore thousands of years of history. It's what States do.

 

"Only the widespread belief in government enables the group calling themselves government to get away with what they do.   That comes from centuries of tradition and indoctrination. "

So without centuries of tradition and indoctrination there would be no State?. This means that States have always existed because otherwise there would have been a time when there was not centuries of tradition and indoctrination, in which case there would seem little need for tradition and indoctrination. The other posibility is that the factors you specify are not the only ones that apply.

 

" Establishing a tradition whereby a few "enlightened" would look after them would have been a lot easier to foist upon them.  And at a lot less cost."

It could also be said that the people of times previous were a lot more independent and had a greater understanding of the desirability of their own property as they were surely more involved in acquiring it. It could therefore be argued that getting them to part with their hard won resources would have involved greater difficulty. Especially if the individual(s) attempting to do so were in command of less sophisticated arguments, which would seem to be a given.

 

I'm having trouble with the breaking up quotes too.

 

Yes, the state is defined the way you say but think about it really.  States can only be competitive in the world if people "believe" they are free.  Otherwise, the economy grinds to a halt and you can't build an effective force on top of a dead economy.  As many people as possible will flee to "free" nations.  Which as we know are relatively free, not actually free, but anyway, that's what happens.

 

My contention is that, like with many traditions, the state could only be established in times that were less enlightened.  Then, like with many traditions, it is very difficult to get rid of, which is why you still see it in modern times.  If we were to break the tradition, it is extremely unlikely, given past experience with bad traditions that were purged from society (eg. slavery) that it would return.  And we can see that in a competitive free market system, it would be very difficult to divert resources to such a task (creating a government) when you are trying to make a profit and keep your company on an even keel. 

[MarkIX]

One thing I would like to point out: it's counter productive to attack someone's point of view, simply because you don't agree with it, in that sense people act like they are competing to see who "wins" the argument. I have no such notion of winning and won't become upset or attack anyone with a different point of view, because I see we are here to help each other and not to compete.

Are you refering to the "debate" or to the thread.

I'm having trouble with the breaking up quotes too.

 

Yes, the state is defined the way you say but think about it really.  States can only be competitive in the world if people "believe" they are free.  Otherwise, the economy grinds to a halt and you can't build an effective force on top of a dead economy.  As many people as possible will flee to "free" nations.  Which as we know are relatively free, not actually free, but anyway, that's what happens.

 

My contention is that, like with many traditions, the state could only be established in times that were less enlightened.  Then, like with many traditions, it is very difficult to get rid of, which is why you still see it in modern times.  If we were to break the tradition, it is extremely unlikely, given past experience with bad traditions that were purged from society (eg. slavery) that it would return.  And we can see that in a competitive free market system, it would be very difficult to divert resources to such a task (creating a government) when you are trying to make a profit and keep your company on an even keel. 

 

I would say that the state can only be competitive in a world where the "subjects" believe they can get something from it whether this is a lack of threat from the state and other violent entities or an ability to profit from the structures of the State. The State is an obvious attraction to the rich as their capabilities decline, it would also be attractive to Sociopaths who would have a socially acceptable outlet for their more violent impulses while the "subjects" would benefit from the control placed on said Sociopaths in a violent world the lack of threat would be a boon. 

 

It could be said that as time has passed andf the world has gotten less violent (see Steven Pinker) the State has less to offer and so is less attractive to "subjects" perhaps that is the reason people are turning away from it. I think that a "Company" in a free society will in no way resemble anything called a "company" now, that being said if there is a situation where people are capable and willing to accumulate extreme wealth then there will be among that group a subset who will be willing to use extreme techniques to ensure that wealth remains with them. Since their capabilities will inevitably decline their positions will become dependent on the lack of competition. The obvious temptation is to develop a framework that excludes competition. 

[FriendlyHacker]

Are you refering to the "debate" or to the thread.

 

Both.

There's no such a thing as a free lunch.  You need food to survive.  You must obtain that food in some way.  If you are not working for it yourself then you have enslaved someone else to do it for you.   The other option is you can trade for it by making goods or providing services to others.   

 

So slavery is you getting someone else to provide the things you need to survive so that you don't have to work yourself, not you working for them yourself.

 

Robots are as yet not as capable as humans.  Just try getting a robot, any robot, to do all the things that a human can do and you'll find it is not capable of doing so.  

 

So at this point in time, there are 2 options work for your food or die.  There is no such thing as a free lunch in this universe.

 

There's no such thing such as free lunch:

 

How much did you pay for the Universe? Do you pay to Tesla for using electricity? How much you pay Einstein for being able to use your computer? Have you ever received any kind of heritage from a family member? Isn't the place you live in an heritage by itself?

 

How much you pay to be born? How much you pay the Sun for it to shine? Can you pay to be loved and respected, or is that something you earn based on virtuous actions?

[Mike Fleming]

 

How much did you pay for the Universe? Do you pay to Tesla for using electricity? How much you pay Einstein for being able to use your computer? Have you ever received any kind of heritage from a family member? Isn't the place you live in an heritage by itself?

 

How much you pay to be born? How much you pay the Sun for it to shine? Can you pay to be loved and respected, or is that something you earn based on virtuous actions?

 

"How much did you pay for the Universe?"

Nothing.   And don't get anything from it unless I get off my butt (or someone gives me something that they or someone else worked for).

 

"Do you pay to Tesla for using electricity?"

No.  I pay the electric company.

 

"How much you pay Einstein for being able to use your computer?"

Nothing.  I bought it from Dell.  I pay the electric company to power it.  I pay the internet service provider for my internet connection to it.

 

"Have you ever received any kind of heritage from a family member?" 

Actually no.  But let's say I had.  That is a gift.  At some point somebody had to work for it and then it was gifted. 

 

"How much you pay to be born?"

Nothing.  But my parents sure payed a lot.

 

"How much you pay the Sun for it to shine?"

Nothing.  But I don't get anywhere near enough from it directly to survive.  And all the indirect stuff (like food and water) requires work.

 

"Can you pay to be loved and respected, or is that something you earn based on virtuous actions?"

I can't pay someone to love and respect me, no.  At least not real love and respect.  But that isn't something tangible.

 

Is it just free stuff that you want?

 

(Incidentally, I am arcturus for anyone confused in this thread, I've changed to my real name).

[Wesley]

Not to mention opportunity costs. Like going outside to get sunshine for an hour costs you nothing in the accounting sense, but in the economics sense it costs you everything that you could have done otherwise with that hour, which could be something small (enjoyment on watching a YouTube video) or something quite large (missing an important job interview for your dream career).

[FriendlyHacker]

Saying you need to pay for things that were around before the invention of money, does not make much sense to me. If money is necessary for survival, how come we are the only animals who use it?

 

The question is not if we have the money to house and feed everyone, the question is: Do we have the resources? And if we do have the resources, is there any reason for people to starve?

 

Why people would rather let food rot than give it someone who needs it? Things only have a monetary value when they are scarce, so it makes sense to let food Rot, you can't make money by being a good Samaritan.

[Wesley]

There is a distinction between paying for something and something's cost. Animals have costs all the time, namely in energy expenditure in order to achieve something else.

[FriendlyHacker]

Do you need money in order to fill up your car with gas? Or you only need the resource (gasoline)?

 

If the cost is  accounted by the resource being used, why involve money in it? We can deal with the cost in resources without making fake paper. That's why it's called a Resource Based Economy.

[Wesley]

However, that suffers from the "lack of coincidence of wants" problem. As well as all of the other benefits of good money including store of value, fungibility, durability, divisibility, etc. all of which are not present in a purely resource based economy.

 

However costs can be measured in resource costs, capital costs, labor costs, and opportunity costs. They all are different, but still costs.

[FriendlyHacker]

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will.

 

Would you define the example of the Assembly line worker along those lines?Remember that the definition I used was: "You either work or die."

[Kevin Beal]

How much more creative would Stefan be, if he didn't have to worry so much about money?

Stef mentions on a regular basis how important the donation model is to him with regard to ensuring quality. He would completely disagree with the implication here.

[FriendlyHacker]

However, that suffers from the "lack of coincidence of wants" problem. As well as all of the other benefits of good money including store of value, fungibility, durability, divisibility, etc. all of which are not present in a purely resource based economy.

 

I don't understand, why are you mentioning the use money along with fungibility, durability, divisibility?

 

I hoped that my examples would show that the monetary system is purposefully wasteful. By making something that will break, you can earn money by selling costumer support or even selling a new version of the product. If you make your product incompatible with everything else, you make money by selling your exclusive cables and software. If you are hiding technology advancements from competing business, you have trashed the greatest thing about science: cooperation.

 

If you can convince a woman that she will only be happy by having 50 shoes, you can create a whole industry based on making people feel insecure about appearances, and then advertise your product as the solution.

 

If you can make money by selling weapons, the War becomes a lucrative business. Where on a Resource Based Economy that is viewed as the biggest waste of resources imaginable.

Stef mentions on a regular basis how important the donation model is to him with regard to ensuring quality. He would completely disagree with the implication here.

 

The time spent talking about donations on his videos, or to build a whole business structure behind donations, is time that would be better spent writing or with his family.

[PatrickC]

Would you define the example of the Assembly line worker along those lines?Remember that the definition I used was: "You either work or die."

 

I wasn't defining workers, I was defining slaves. Two very different words.. If you choose to expand on the definition of slavery beyond it's actual meaning and particularly the one I see you heading for. Then you are going to have to prove how any provision we make for ourselves does not involve our labour.

 

Even going to the supermarket to pick up our food involves our labour.

 

What's fascinating about this debate, is how it's been the free market since for well over 150 years that has consistently increased workers wages and reduced their hours of work. You only need do a cursory examination of the industrial revolution to understand that.

 

Assembly workers are not slaves, they are voluntarily engaged in a past time that rewards them for it.