About the Debate with Peter Joseph and clear/objective language

[Wesley]

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

 

They are some of the many advantages that money brings over resource-based systems.

 

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.

 

So buy from the company that gives you a warranty, or has high longevity reputation, or stood the test in a consumer report for "longest lasting ___".

 

If you make your product incompatible with everything else, you make money by selling your exclusive cables and software.

 

So support companies that use open source and universal cabling.

 

If you are hiding technology advancements from competing business, you have trashed the greatest thing about science: cooperation.

 

If you get rid of IP, people could easily re-engineer most things and this would be nowhere near the problem it is currently with patent trolling.

 

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.

 

This is more of an issue with parenting/psychology which we attempt to improve. However, in the surface level if someone becomes happy having 50 shoes, then why would that matter? It was her decision to watch the ads and her decision to buy the shoes, and her decision to have friends/ family around that encouraged large shoe consumption.

 

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.

 

The thing that makes war profitable is the state, namely that you can have private profits and socialized costs (through taxation, inflation and debt). This could still be achieved in a resource based economy by taking a small number of resources from all people, and then giving the resources to a few people/ blowing them up. This is a state problem, not a money system problem.

[FriendlyHacker]

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.

 

How does mentioning the word "worker" makes any difference? I could have said "assembly line coconut tree", slavery is an action, the words used to express it are not nearly as important as if we agree upon the actions, and that is what I've asked, are those actions not slavery?

[Jeremi]

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."

It's really disappointing that you completely ignored my point and are just reiterating the same thing over again.

 

I'd like to know if you think the "work or death = slavery" line applies to a non-industrialized primitive culture? Again, by an overwhelming majority most of them had a tremendous amount of leisure time compared to industrialized society. If you accept that it is the height of absurdity to try to convince an Inuit tribesman he is a slave to his subsistence work, then you must recognize that your propagandistic redefinition of slavery in the modern world arises from a higher threshold of choices. What it sounds like to me is that you are really saying that you feel like a slave to an abundance of preferences. That your "slavery feeling" arises when the possibilities of modern society make primitive subsistence no longer preferible. It's exactly this overabudance of preferences that constantly accumulates into each subsequent generation that makes a resource based economy completely impossible.

 

Does this society claim to attempt to develop an understanding of what a general preferred form of healthcare should be? I personally resent that implication because I would be dead right now had I not pursued alternative forms of nutrition/medicine on my own.

 

Can this society claim to have any understanding of what is universally preferible in terms of goods and services? Then you can proceed to abandon atheism as you've created a new omnipotent god and religion.

[FriendlyHacker]

 

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

 

They are some of the many advantages that money brings over resource-based systems.

 

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.

 

So buy from the company that gives you a warranty, or has high longevity reputation, or stood the test in a consumer report for "longest lasting ___".

 

If you make your product incompatible with everything else, you make money by selling your exclusive cables and software.

 

So support companies that use open source and universal cabling.

 

If you are hiding technology advancements from competing business, you have trashed the greatest thing about science: cooperation.

 

If you get rid of IP, people could easily re-engineer most things and this would be nowhere near the problem it is currently with patent trolling.

 

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.

 

This is more of an issue with parenting/psychology which we attempt to improve. However, in the surface level if someone becomes happy having 50 shoes, then why would that matter? It was her decision to watch the ads and her decision to buy the shoes, and her decision to have friends/ family around that encouraged large shoe consumption.

 

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.

 

The thing that makes war profitable is the state, namely that you can have private profits and socialized costs (through taxation, inflation and debt). This could still be achieved in a resource based economy by taking a small number of resources from all people, and then giving the resources to a few people/ blowing them up. This is a state problem, not a money system problem.

 

 

I really don't understand where you are coming from, so is hard to reply to it.

Number 3

 

It's really hard having a conversation with you, sorry but I'd rather not reply to you anymore. You keep making assumptions and accusing me of things, I see that as ad hominem and unrelated to the conversation.

[Wesley]

I did a point-by-point refutation with my response with each response after the relevant quoted text. Maybe you can tell me which section is confusing and then I (or someone else) can reply to that part.

[FriendlyHacker]

I did a point-by-point refutation with my response with each response after the relevant quoted text. Maybe you can tell me which section is confusing and then I (or someone else) can reply to that part.

 

What I tried to say, is that I could not understand the refutations. Sorry about that.

[Jeremi]

I really don't understand where you are coming from, so is hard to reply to it.

Number 3

 

It's really hard having a conversation with you, sorry but I'd rather not reply to you anymore. You keep making assumptions and accusing me of things, I see that as ad hominem and unrelated to the conversation.

What conversation? You didn't contest any points I made. Where is the ad-hominem? Why are you so resistant to answering the question?

[PatrickC]

How does mentioning the word "worker" makes any difference? I could have said "assembly line coconut tree", slavery is an action, the words used to express it are not nearly as important as if we agree upon the actions, and that is what I've asked, are those actions not slavery?

 

No words and there meanings are very important. Attempting to stretch them is hyperbole at best.

 

"The beginning of philosophy, is to call things by their proper name."

[FriendlyHacker]

What conversation? You didn't contest any points I made. Where is the ad-hominem? Why are you so resistant to answering the question?

 

You've committed many ad-hominems, I can go back to the first sentence you've replied, and you can try figuring out the rest:

 

"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."

 

First you said "no offense" then you proceed to cause offense. Then you say that the definition of a word is insulting to a word, I was not aware that words could be insulted. Then you proceed to make your actual accusation, by saying I have character flaw that makes me unable to see suffering in others.

 

Are you are a regular Freedomain Radio Listener? Because Stefan does a pretty good job on educating people about ad-hominem.

[Wesley]

Then you proceed to make your actual accusation, by saying I have character flaw that makes me unable to see suffering in others.

Maybe I missed this part, but where did he say this? To me it seems like you may have inferred it unjustly, but feel free to correct me.

[Jeremi]

You've committed many ad-hominems, I can go back to the first sentence you've replied, and you can try figuring out the rest:

 

"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."

 

First you said "no offense" then you proceed to cause offense. Then you proceed to say that the definition of a word is insulting to a word, I was not aware that words could be insulted. Then you proceed to make your actual accusation, by saying I have character flaw that makes me unable to see suffering in others.

 

Are you are a regular Freedomain Radio Listener? Because Stefan does a pretty good job on educating people about ad-hominem.

 

 

I don't say this to disparage you in any way, but I get the impression you don't know what ad-hominem is. Ad-hominem involves deconstructing someone's argument by attacking their person or character, I am not sure where you see that I in any way did that to you? I was merely expressing my irritation with what I saw as an unwarranted redefiniton of slavery. Perhaps I had an emotional reaction to the claim given the incredible harm real slavery has done and still does today, but an accusation of ad-hominem does not follow.

 

It's also false that I said you had a character flaw, I was simply conjecturing upon a larger trend based upon personal experience amongst groups that advocate non-monetary societies where this feeling of "slavery to abundance" might arise form. By the way, have you have listened to many podcasts Stef makes on the subject of why people become collectivists/ancoms/etc.? Because he makes the same conjecture.

 

If I'm wrong that your view of slavery does not arise from an abundance of choices then you should make your own argument, not try to claim my conjecture is an ad-hominem.

[FriendlyHacker]

Maybe I missed this part, but where did he say this? To me it seems like you may have inferred it unjustly, but feel free to correct me.

 

By saying that I don't understand what slavery is, even though it still happens in third world countries. As far as I know, it still happens in  a lot of places, but as someone who lives in a "third world country", I should be able to know.

 

I didn't want to reply again because, as I said, this is not part of the conversation. So I will refrain from posting about it.

[Jeremi]

By saying that I don't understand what slavery is, even though it still happens in third world countries. As far as I know, it still happens in  a lot of places, but as someone who lives in a "third world country", I should be able to know.

 

I didn't want to reply again because, as I said, this is not part of the conversation. So I will refrain from posting about it.

This is what convinces me you're just trying to avoid confronting my questions. I never said you didn't understand what slavery was. I am quite confident you know what slavery is in the "classical" definition of the word otherwise I'd scarcely expect you to be able to tie your shoes, much less participate in this forum, the problem is you extending that definition where it does not apply.

[FriendlyHacker]

     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/

I have taken into consideration every point you mentioned, and tried to explain it in other posts, if I don't manage to respond, it's because this is a huge subject and I would have a hard time to do it in a few paragraphs over a message board.But if you want to know how a cellphone would look like in a resource based economy, I think that this is a good example:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAw7vW7H0c

[FriendlyHacker]

 

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

 

They are some of the many advantages that money brings over resource-based systems.

 

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.

 

So buy from the company that gives you a warranty, or has high longevity reputation, or stood the test in a consumer report for "longest lasting ___".

 

If you make your product incompatible with everything else, you make money by selling your exclusive cables and software.

 

So support companies that use open source and universal cabling.

 

If you are hiding technology advancements from competing business, you have trashed the greatest thing about science: cooperation.

 

If you get rid of IP, people could easily re-engineer most things and this would be nowhere near the problem it is currently with patent trolling.

 

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.

 

This is more of an issue with parenting/psychology which we attempt to improve. However, in the surface level if someone becomes happy having 50 shoes, then why would that matter? It was her decision to watch the ads and her decision to buy the shoes, and her decision to have friends/ family around that encouraged large shoe consumption.

 

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.

 

The thing that makes war profitable is the state, namely that you can have private profits and socialized costs (through taxation, inflation and debt). This could still be achieved in a resource based economy by taking a small number of resources from all people, and then giving the resources to a few people/ blowing them up. This is a state problem, not a money system problem.

 

 

"They are some of the many advantages that money brings over resource-based systems."

I've failed to see the advantages.

 

"So buy from the company that gives you a warranty, or has high longevity reputation, or stood the test in a consumer report for "longest lasting ___"."

If it's not in the financial interest to provide such things, they can use aggressive pricing/marking to drive out the competition from business. Which has effectively happened when we talk about phones. Refer back to my previous post if you want to see how a phone designed to last looks like.

 

"So support companies that use open source and universal cabling."

See above reply.

 

"If you get rid of IP, people could easily re-engineer most things and this would be nowhere near the problem it is currently with patent trolling."

I don't understand how that follows from what I wrote.

 

"This is more of an issue with parenting/psychology which we attempt to improve. However, in the surface level if someone becomes happy having 50 shoes, then why would that matter? It was her decision to watch the ads and her decision to buy the shoes, and her decision to have friends/ family around that encouraged large shoe consumption."

Is it also her decision to suffer from bulimia and become suicidal as result of aggressive marketing? If it's profitable to make people feel miserable, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the concept of profit?

 

The thing that makes war profitable is the state, namely that you can have private profits and socialized costs (through taxation, inflation and debt). This could still be achieved in a resource based economy by taking a small number of resources from all people, and then giving the resources to a few people/ blowing them up. This is a state problem, not a money system problem.

It does not makes sense to blow up resources, when your whole economy is based on the principle of saving resources.

[Wesley]

"They are some of the many advantages that money brings over resource-based systems."

I've failed to see the advantages.

 

That is why I listed some of them for you.

 

"So buy from the company that gives you a warranty, or has high longevity reputation, or stood the test in a consumer report for "longest lasting ___"."

If it's not in the financial interest to provide such things, they can use aggressive pricing/marking to drive out the competition from business. Which has effectively happened when we talk about phones. Refer back to my previous post if you want to see how a phone designed to last looks like.

 

Phone technology advances by the second. I would not dream of wanting a phone that "lasts".

 

"So support companies that use open source and universal cabling."

See above reply.

 

"If you get rid of IP, people could easily re-engineer most things and this would be nowhere near the problem it is currently with patent trolling."

I don't understand how that follows from what I wrote.

 

It makes hiding much less available, as most of it is not hiding, but threatening with IP.

 

"This is more of an issue with parenting/psychology which we attempt to improve. However, in the surface level if someone becomes happy having 50 shoes, then why would that matter? It was her decision to watch the ads and her decision to buy the shoes, and her decision to have friends/ family around that encouraged large shoe consumption."

Is it also her decision to suffer from bulimia and become suicidal as result of aggressive marketing? If it's profitable to make people feel miserable, isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the concept of profit?

 

I do not think any company wants to make anyone feel miserable. If the sight of a company's ad made me feel miserable, then no one would buy from them and they wouldn't be in business.

 

The thing that makes war profitable is the state, namely that you can have private profits and socialized costs (through taxation, inflation and debt). This could still be achieved in a resource based economy by taking a small number of resources from all people, and then giving the resources to a few people/ blowing them up. This is a state problem, not a money system problem.

It does not makes sense to blow up resources, when your whole economy is based on the principle of saving resources.

 

Only in a state system does it ever make sense to blow up resources.

[FriendlyHacker]

"I do not think any company wants to make anyone feel miserable. If the sight of a company's ad made me feel miserable, then no one would buy from them and they wouldn't be in business."

That is not how marketing works, the way it works is having an unreachable "model" of what beauty is, and use your knowledge about the human need to feel accepted to sell shit nobody really needs. First you have to crush someone's self-esteem, first you have to crush someone's sense of social acceptance, and then you will be able to sell a product that will increase the person's social acceptance.

 

I say it's an unreachable model of beauty, because it can only be reached by using makeup, plastic surgery and Photoshop (beauty magazines). When the girl sees the anorexic photoshopped model being praised, because she is holding fashionable bags. wearing high reels and using heavy makeup, she wants to become that person, then she turns the page and sees a McDonald's ad, and realizes that she will never be beautiful. Such a thing is highly profitable, it's called the fashion industry.

[JohnH.]

That is not how marketing works, the way it works is having an unreachable "model" of what beauty is, and use your knowledge about the human need to feel accepted to sell shit nobody really needs. First you have to crush someone's self-esteem, first you have to crush someone's sense of social acceptance, and then you will be able to sell a product that will increase the person's social acceptance.

 

I say it's an unreachable model of beauty, because it can only be reached by using makeup, plastic surgery and Photoshop (beauty magazines). When the girl sees the anorexic photoshopped model being praised, because she is holding fashionable bags. wearing high reels and using heavy makeup, she wants to become that person, then she turns the page and sees a McDonald's ad, and realizes that she will never be beautiful. Such a thing is highly profitable, it's called the fashion industry.

 

I don't think the problem here is the advertising industry.  The real problem is the lack of emotional security and personal knowledge that creates a susceptibility to the advertising input.  Treat the underlying issue and the advertising industry will be "forced" to adapt to the new paradigm.

[ThomasDoubts]

I have taken into consideration every point you mentioned, and tried to explain it in other posts, if I don't manage to respond, it's because this is a huge subject and I would have a hard time to do it in a few paragraphs over a message board.But if you want to know how a cellphone would look like in a resource based economy, I think that this is a good example:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAw7vW7H0c

 

     If you don't manage to respond, you've done nothing to incline me to see your cell phone idea.  I'm asking fundamental questions about effecient resource allocation, not for a futurist concept of a cell phone.  I don't mean to be rude but you essentially said  "I considered your points, I'm not going to respond or refute them, look over here."   Forgive my skepticism.

[FriendlyHacker]

     If you don't manage to respond, you've done nothing to incline me to see your cell phone idea.  I'm asking fundamental questions about effecient resource allocation, not for a futurist concept of a cell phone.  I don't mean to be rude but you essentially said  "I considered your points, I'm not going to respond or refute them, look over here."   Forgive my skepticism.

 

What I actually said and I quote "took note every point you mentioned, and tried to explain it in other posts". But do as you wish, I'm not here to convince you of anything and if you are not interested, not sure why we are having this conversation.

[cicero]

 

 

 

Every time after Peter spoke I was expecting him to do what Will Ferrell did at 1.27min

[JohnH.]

But if you want to know how a cellphone would look like in a resource based economy, I think that this is a good example:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAw7vW7H0c

 

There's something I've been noticing when talking to people that advocate a TZM RBE.  When I asked a few people (on Facebook and YouTube) about the status of the program that will be used to allocate resources I was told that "third parties" and NASA "might" be working on one.  This video that you posted talks about how we can create a modular cell phone.  Who is expected to create it?  "Third parties".  This makes me wonder if in a TZM RBE it's the "other people" that will be expected to do all of the innovation.

 

This kind of brings me to a second trend I've seen.  I constantly hear TZM talking about "needs" versus superfluous wants.  For example, in the debate Peter constantly mentions how people are needlessly starving because people are satisfying their "wants" with complete disregard for other people's needs.  If this were something that he is genuinely committed to I would expect him, a leader of sorts among the movement, to be setting an example for others to follow.  Just as Stefan is committed to peaceful parenting and the NAP, I would expect Peter to be committed to not wasting resources on his wants when other's needs are going unsatisfied.  

 

This isn't to say that I think these people are liars or something, but I have this nagging feeling that their sincerity is only in words.  Because of these things, I often have to urge to just come out and say, "It's time to put your resources where your mouth is."

[ThomasDoubts]

What I actually said and I quote "took note every point you mentioned, and tried to explain it in other posts". But do as you wish, I'm not here to convince you of anything and if you are not interested, not sure why we are having this conversation.

 

     It wasn't a conversation until you replied.  In doing so, you let me know you tried to address my issues in other posts.  I have yet to see an argument making the case that cell phone technology would be what it is today, had a RBE been adopted 20 years ago.  I have yet to see a direct response/rebuttle demonstrating a RBE allocating resources more efficiently than a free market.  I've yet to see anything that explains how value could be measured or compared.  I've yet to see a refutation of the inherent (shout out to PJ) risks and waste associated with centralized decision making as I demonstrated in the Edison/Tesla example.  I've also yet to see a moral argument that justifies enforcing the idea that individuals cannot work for profit.  If individuals have the opportunity to work for profit, for whom would it be advantageous to abstain? 

 

     You made posts.  You did not address the issues I raised.  You gave me a link to a conceptual cell phone.

[FriendlyHacker]

There's something I've been noticing when talking to people that advocate a TZM RBE.  When I asked a few people (on Facebook and YouTube) about the status of the program that will be used to allocate resources I was told that "third parties" and NASA "might" be working on one. 

 

I'm one of the people who actually develop this technology, and that is the main difference between TZM and TVP. TZM is about pointing out the shortcomings of society, TVP is about coming up with solutions. I'm not in any way affiliated to TZM.

 

If you are going to ask about technology development, make sure you ask the right people.

 

 

The status: We are building the base API and coming up with ways to automatically feed the software with freely available data.

[JoshF]

As others have pointed out - Peter Joseph was difficult to understand. He obviously was well read and had important things to say, but it really just sounded like a jumble of big words and the arguments didn't really make sense. There's likely some sort of framework he's working from that we don't know about. Like if I just walked up to someone on the street and told them that taxes are theft it would be very jarring, maybe even offensive because that statement doesn't fit in with the framework of society that they learned growing up.

 

For Peter Joseph the ideas of the non-aggression principle probably seems too simplistic compared to the web of thoughts he's woven around his ideal society. To get his idea across he needs to lay the framework in layman's terms and if Stefan had any problems with it they could go through it and talk about it one at a time.

[shirgall]

 

 

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

 

This popular view of creative destruction doesn't accurately describe the situation. Jobs come and go all the time and people's needs and desires for products and services change. For example, the worker doing rote labor on the assembly line is encouraged to find better things to do, such as make or repair assembly line robots (he knows an awful lot about how assembly lines work) which is a great deal more interesting and rewarding. This is hardly the worker's only option.

 

The relentless goal of increased productivity improves the overall standard of living and the overall work, and workplace. Employers are encouraged to improve their workers and their productivity by competition.

 

In the resource model, I don't understand what would drive creative destruction, let alone improving standards of living, or working.

[FriendlyHacker]

This 40 minute documentary will probably give you a different perspective in technological unemployment.

http://www.paradiseoroblivion.com/watch.html

[LovePrevails]

I have to cringe at Peter Joseph, his first argument that self-interest is the running factor in a market economy is just rhetoric

since you have to have self-inerest that people want to PAY YOU for

 

if you look around everyone is afraid of being labelled selfish all the time

 

then in the lead up to 30 minutes when he's like "well non-free market institution are a result f the free market"

cringe cringe cringe cringe cringe. PROOF PLEASE????

 

Michael Albert would do a better job - please debate him instead!

[JohnH.]

The status: We are building the base API and coming up with ways to automatically feed the software with freely available data.

 

Where can I go to read up on the software?  I can't find anything on http://www.thevenusproject.com.

[FriendlyHacker]

Where can I go to read up on the software?  I can't find anything on http://www.thevenusproject.com.

 

Not available to public until it's stable.

[masonman]

So considering how many people are talking about how difficult Peter Joseph's points were to clearly understand, I've decided to make a complete transcript of the debate, I'm halfway done now but I also need to study, I'll try to finish and post it by Saturday. Figure it might be helpful to have a searchable text of the debate.

[Kevin Beal]

Google's mission statement is to gather and disseminate all the world's data. They also have billions of dollars at their disposal. Their approach is to have lots and lots of different API's (hundreds maybe) and a set of conventions / standards that govern how different API's are developed (which is evolving).

 

They work with dozens of programming languages because there is no single programming language that could exist to cover that broad a scope, much less one API.

 

And the Venus Project is an even bigger endeavor than that.

 

All an API really is is the most elegant way of reading / writing information within the context of a single application, an abstraction from the actual database interaction.

 

I'm not any kind of brilliant programmer or anything, but it's hard to imagine what a "base API" would even mean concerning the allocating and monitoring of all the world's resources.

 

Could you elaborate?

[FriendlyHacker]

Google's mission statement is to gather and disseminate all the world's data. They also have billions of dollars at their disposal. Their approach is to have lots and lots of different API's (hundreds maybe) and a set of conventions / standards that govern how different API's are developed (which is evolving).

 

They work with dozens of programming languages because there is no single programming language that could exist to cover that broad a scope, much less one API.

 

And the Venus Project is an even bigger endeavor than that.

 

All an API really is is the most elegant way of reading / writing information within the context of a single application, an abstraction from the actual database interaction.

 

I'm not any kind of brilliant programmer or anything, but it's hard to imagine what a "base API" would even mean concerning the allocating and monitoring of all the world's resources.

 

Could you elaborate?

I don't really see things that way, if you look at the sites I've helped develop, you would think it was done a by some large coorporation with millions of dollars, when it's basically two completelly broke people working in their spare time for free.

 

The internet allows a developer to do the job of thousands of people, every tool I use has been created in collaboration, including Google API"s, there is no such a thing as making things from scratch.

 

Monitoring all the resources, obviouslly that is done incrementally and not in a single step, so far we are gathering data already available online, but it's not much at all compared to the Planet.

[Kevin Beal]

So then, you're not going to elaborate?

 

A talented developer can make some impressive looking stuff, but that's very different than building software to manage the kinds of things you are talking about. It's not about overcoming all of the problems there are with achieving your design goals, it's the design goals themselves that are the issue.

 

I'm glad that you are able to create so much value with just two guys, but Google wont even attempt to centrally plan their design goals because their (incredibly successful) development model is to separate concerns as much as possible, because that's what works for larger endeavors such as theirs.

 

How you are going about your software design goals is what is of interest to me. It seems on the face of it totally absurd, but you may know something that I don't (which is why I'm asking).

[FriendlyHacker]

So then, you're not going to elaborate?

 

A talented developer can make some impressive looking stuff, but that's very different than building software to manage the kinds of things you are talking about. It's not about overcoming all of the problems there are with achieving your design goals, it's the design goals themselves that are the issue.

 

I'm glad that you are able to create so much value with just two guys, but Google wont even attempt to centrally plan their design goals because their (incredibly successful) development model is to separate concerns as much as possible, because that's what works for larger endeavors such as theirs.

 

How you are going about your software design goals is what is of interest to me. It seems on the face of it totally absurd, but you may know something that I don't (which is why I'm asking).

 

I do a lot of absurd things that should never work, they only work because I've tried enough times. In fact, I am yet to see a problem I could not solve, design/progamming wise.