Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by Buffy

And that's the question! What are the obstacles to changing the perception? How do we make it happen?

Details,
Buffy

'And that's the question! What are the obstacles to changing the perception? How do we make it happen?'
Hi Buffy, good question.
To answer this you have to ask yourself. what are the obstacles to changing MY perception? Think what you have in your life now that you can't have in the world I foresee. Make a list. I guarantee you that everything on that list which you think is good for you and that YOU think would be great for mankind, that involves Love and trust and joy and fun and goodness and sharing will be kept alive and well. Everything that involves the darker sides of our characters will, by general agreement, disappear. As I have said before, it is an evolution in the way we think, from me to we.

Best regards, as always,
Peacemaker.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Everything that involves the darker sides of our characters will, by general agreement, disappear. As I have said before, it is an evolution in the way we think, from me to we.

They will? How?

Why are you unwilling to devise and think about this list yourself? Why do you think that "general agreement" is all that's needed to get rid of desires from our "darker sides"? What's different now than at any time before in human history when people have led movements to change people's perceptions of those desires?

Only the little people concern themselves with details,
Buffy

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by arkain101

How large is say, the united states yearly budget? I know it is so large that if spent properly could end poverty, homelessness, poor education, bla bla...

I wonder how well that system would go over? You work at your job, you get your electronic card or device that records your hours, then you take it down to the national money despenser, your wage, which is decided and controlled by government matters, multiplied by the hours recorded gives you the funds you rightly deserve and then you send them whereever..
Yah how poorly is this thought out, I know.. I digress

Hi there, It is certainly a progression from where we are now, but why hog the middle ground? In a moneyless socety, you wouldn't have the many problems which would still be endemic in such a society. In other words, people will still rob, and steal, and defraud, and mis-count, and invent new scams to 'get rich quick', or have enough money to make others envious. These are 'deadly' sins my friend, Let's go the whole hog and evolve away from them.
As soon as possible.
Best regards,
Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by Buffy

They will? How?

Why are you unwilling to devise and think about this list yourself? Why do you think that "general agreement" is all that's needed to get rid of desires from our "darker sides"? What's different now than at any time before in human history when people have led movements to change people's perceptions of those desires?

Only the little people concern themselves with details,
Buffy

Hi Buffy,
You seem to think I have made no such list, you're wrong. I have spent the last five years and nine months thinking of little more than lists, and scenarios.
I know what is good for me, and what is bad for me.
I have merely extrapolated that to the rest of humanity.
It won't be my call when it happens, but I feel that guidelines such as these are adequate for the task in hand, and far better than the ones we currently abide by.
I have merely come up with the framework, mankind will fill in the rest, hopefully within the spirit of the laws I have suggested.
As to 'general agreement', it's what we all live by now. We all generally obey the laws of whatever society we live within. That means we don't all assault each other in the streets, or enter other people's property to steal their goods. Even though we are sometimes sorely tempted. People generally tend to obey laws that they can immediately see the sense of. That is the general agreement I speak of.

As to ridding us of 'desires from the darker sides', what are you trying to tell me Buffy?
What do you want to do in my world that you feel would not be tolerated?

So long as whatever you do does not involve any violence toward another human being, or cause any harm or distress whatsoever to that person, and is done with mutual consent, respect and love, why not?
So long as it doesn't involve vandalism, or sabotage, and so long as whatever you doesn't involve any threat to our race or our environment why not?

Make your own lists, they will be just as valid as any of mine, so long as you stay within the guidelines.

As to your last line - 'Only the little people concern themselves with details,
Buffy'. It is unworthy of an intelligent woman. I don't mean that as an insult Buffy, merely as an observation.

Best regards,
Peacemaker

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

As to 'general agreement', it's what we all live by now. We all generally obey the laws of whatever society we live within.

(emphasis added by me).
But we don't ALL live by general agreement. Some people break laws, some take advantage of other people, some try to sway opinion of others for their own benifit. If 'general agreement' is "what we all live by now" then I don't see how your new society will be any 'better' than this one.

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

So long as whatever you do does not involve any violence toward another human being, or cause any harm or distress whatsoever to that person, and is done with mutual consent, respect and love, why not?

How about aiding another in ending their own life? That causes harm to the person commiting suicide. Of course, not helping them causes them distress. So, who decides??
Remember, every single person on the face of the earth needs to agree completely with the rules that are set up to govern who gets what resources. Which people get the unique items, and which ones get the items where demand is larger than supply.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

You seem to think I have made no such list, you're wrong. I have spent the last five years and nine months thinking of little more than lists, and scenarios.

We've seen a mere handful, and they seem to be somewhat esoteric and punitive. I would hope you would have more to show for this five years and nine months than what you've printed so far here. It would be nice of course if you would expose some of this list in responding to the objections that point out the inadequacy of your plan rather than making vague allusions to how you either "have it all figured out" or that "there are smart people who can come up with that solution"...

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

I know what is good for me, and what is bad for me. I have merely extrapolated that to the rest of humanity.

And this is the biggest fundamental weakness in your "solution:" you have framed the entire scenario around your worldview and have considered no one else's.

That you find it simple to supress your own "dark side" does not mean that simple "general agreement" makes it go away for everyone.

Asking me what "dark side urges" I want to keep is simply a rhetorical mechanism for shaming me into admitting that any I have are bad, but it unfortunately is poor cover for your lack of a solution for how you will eliminate the "dark sides" of everyone, not just people as nice as I am.

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

It won't be my call when it happens, but I feel that guidelines such as these are adequate for the task in hand, and far better than the ones we currently abide by. I have merely come up with the framework, mankind will fill in the rest...

What guidelines? Still waiting...

Saying its "not your call" is equivalent to saying "its not important enough for me to worry about: there are smart people who will deal with the problems I've created by my overly simplistic solution."

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

That means we don't all assault each other in the streets, or enter other people's property to steal their goods. Even though we are sometimes sorely tempted. People generally tend to obey laws that they can immediately see the sense of. That is the general agreement I speak of.

"Generally" certainly is a loaded term, isn't it?

Sure, most people obey the laws, but the point is *many people do not*.

Your thesis is that simply by eliminating "money" all such problems would go away, and it would be nice if you were to explain *why* you think that is the case, beyond "it was obvious to me, and I'm a rational person, so it should be obvious to everyone else."

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

As to your last line - 'Only the little people concern themselves with details, Buffy'. It is unworthy of an intelligent woman. I don't mean that as an insult Buffy, merely as an observation.

Indeed.

If one is going to propose solutions, it is one's responsibility to consider *all* of the ramifications, obstacles, and side-effects for those solutions and address them.

Simply being an "idea guy" is pretty much worthless.

Follow the Id,
Buffy

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

(emphasis added by me).
But we don't ALL live by general agreement. Some people break laws, some take advantage of other people, some try to sway opinion of others for their own benifit. If 'general agreement' is "what we all live by now" then I don't see how your new society will be any 'better' than this one.



How about aiding another in ending their own life? That causes harm to the person commiting suicide. Of course, not helping them causes them distress. So, who decides??
Remember, every single person on the face of the earth needs to agree completely with the rules that are set up to govern who gets what resources. Which people get the unique items, and which ones get the items where demand is larger than supply.

'But we don't ALL live by general agreement. Some people break laws, some take advantage of other people, some try to sway opinion of others for their own benifit. If 'general agreement' is "what we all live by now" then I don't see how your new society will be any 'better' than this one.'
Hi Z,

Thanks for your questions. I have posted another thread on this site, (See peacemaker - threads) which contains a document I have written which should answer any questions you may have about the potential benefits to humanity, and to our environment, of a moneyless society, and how to quickly move to one.

To answer your question specifically though, I used the word 'generally' with some forethought here, because, as you rightly say, some of us DO take advantage of others, and cheat them and rob them and murder them, and some of sway the people to their way of thinking, often with disasterous results.

'What we live by now' is the general agreement of our time, given the current beliefs and circumstances of the world as it is today, the fifteenth of July 2007. Take away money and property ownership from the equation, and suddenly there is no crime you can commit which would net you any profit whatsoever. The only crime you become able to commit is a crime against humanity, like violence, and murder, and any other form of physical or mental abuse you can inflict on another human being...and. having mentally evolved into being a moneyless, classless, loving, cooperational society, working together for all our mutual benefit, the incidence of violent crimes will reduce extremely quickly. Call that a guaranteed prediction, from me, to you, with deepest respect.

As to your next question, 'How about aiding another in ending their own life? That causes harm to the person commiting suicide. Of course, not helping them causes them distress. So, who decides??
I would say, a combination of the patient, their relatives, and a panel of doctors and psychiatrists. Why is it that we instinctively know when to put down a suffering animal, but will not offer the same love and humanity to our fellow humans?
Again, in today's society, there are money and property involved in the death of a person, the existence of which can be construed as a prime motive for prematurely ending a person's life. That's why there are the current safeguards in place.
In the world I foresee, every human being becomes an immediate family member, who owns no money or property except for their personal effects. This instantly negates the evil motives and enhances the humanistic response to a loved one suffering. I have to say, that when the time comes for this decision to be made about my further existence, I would prefer it to be made in the second scenario. What do you think?

And finally, 'Remember, every single person on the face of the earth needs to agree completely with the rules that are set up to govern who gets what resources. Which people get the unique items, and which ones get the items where demand is larger than supply.'
The first part of your question is not strictly true, only the majority of all the human beings on earth have to initially agree to it to make it so.
Having said that, I would like to make it clear, that no one would suffer any hardship whatsoever, from day one of the plan's inception. All we have to do is keep working, but don't draw any pay. Keep ordering what you need for today, or for this week, from your suppliers, without paying them. We just begin to produce what we require to improve our planet and our lifestyles, without the constrictions of money and finance telling us what we 'can't afford'.
The only rules that we require to govern resources are; can it be produced to the highest standards possible, for every person on this planet, without inflicting irreparable damage to our ecosystem? If the answer is yes, then we make it, and then we repair the damage. If the answer is no, then we don't make it. Gold and diamonds will become a raw material, to be used to produce the goods and services we need.
As to who gets the unique items, do you mean paintings, statuary, rare books and such? if so, then it would be entirely up to the current owners. Personally, I feel that paintings were painted to be seen, not to hang in dark vaults. Why not just display them in public spaces, protected for all time by whatever methods we use to preserve them?
What I am proposing is a new way of thinking, and a new perception of what is good and bad. What is useful to us and what is not.

I hope you concur.

Best regards to you and yours,
Peacemaker.

[freeztar]

The way I see it, this system could only work if we abandoned all possesions as well. Otherwise, a barter system would take the place of money.

[Peacemaker]

Hi again Buffy, and thanks for your observations. I will try to deal with them one at a time.

‘We've seen a mere handful (Of my ideas and scenarios), and they seem to be somewhat esoteric and punitive’

Can you be more specific on this point please? Everything I have written about is, I believe, in the best interest of humanity. ‘Punitive’ indicates punishment, and I do not in any way, shape or form condone any punishment for any human being. What I say about people who inflict violence on any other person once we have evolved, is that they should be removed from general society so that they can commit no further damage to any other human being, until they are deemed fit to re-enter society as non-violent, non abusive human beings... and while they are kept out of the general population, they should be treated with the same love and kindness that they would get in the general society. Does THAT sound punitive to you? or does it sound like the kindest, most humane action we can undertake in that situation, to protect ALL of us?

‘I would hope you would have more to show for this five years and nine months than what you've printed so far here. It would be nice of course if you would expose some of this list in responding to the objections that point out the inadequacy of your plan rather than making vague allusions to how you either "have it all figured out" or that "there are smart people who can come up with that solution"...’

I have answered this point many times, but I’ll do it again. I hope you can grasp it this time...
In a nutshell I am FOR everything that is good for our bodies and souls. Music, dancing, singing, good food, good working conditions, clean air and water, as much free time as we can afford to pay ourselves, whilst still keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning.
I am FOR pristine wilderness, as much as we can afford
I am FOR bicycles for all who want them.
I am FOR fast, free, modern, safe, fuel efficient public transport to wherever on this planet we need or want to go.
I am FOR providing ourselves with the best housing and civic amenities we can imagine and build.
I am FOR providing the raw materials and expertise to any of us who want to improve our skills in whatever hobbies or interests we may choose, so long as the end product is not harmful to yourself or humanity in general. In other words, for example, I would be AGAINST providing you with a course in producing and administering crack cocaine, or anything of a similar ilk.
What do YOU think you won’t be able to do in my world that you will miss so much?
What is it YOU think is SO useful to humanity that we have to keep war, taxes, starvation, malnutrition, curable diseases, gambling, crime, debt, hatred, fear and torture in existence on this planet as a means to pay for it?

Because when you choose to keep using money and property ownership of any kind as the true worth of a human being, you get to keep all of the above. Automatically.

We have them all now, so it must be true mustn’t it?

Can I BE any clearer on this?

Perhaps you can guide me to anywhere my answers appear ‘esoteric’, they just seem like basic common sense to me.
So if this question occurs to you again, please read and understand my comments above, and I am sure you will instinctively KNOW my answer. It won’t change.
There will always be some ‘grey areas’ as to what to keep as a society, and what to dispense with. These can be dealt with very quickly after the event, on a case by case basis. Using common sense, logic and all available information.

I promise you, I am not hiding anything sinister. There will be no death camps, or midnight shootings or hangings. Just a liberal sprinkling of good old horse sense as to what we consider to be good and bad for humanity.

If you want my opinion of specific cases, please ask, specifically, and I will answer, specifically, as I did for Zythryn. However, I should reiterate, the answers I give are entirely my personal opinion.
There may be areas where humanity in general comes up with surprising validations for many types of equipment and activities which may currently be construed as ‘dangerous’ or ‘life enhancing’.
The decisions made will be made by panels of experts in each field, therefore any guidance I give can only be regarded as general guidance at this time. I specifically DON’T say that we have to do this or that, because those would be the actions of a narrow minded dictator. I am open minded enough to recognise that mankind will surprise me with the suggestions and ideals you come up with. It will be YOUR world for a lot longer than it will be mine, which is why coming generations will take decisions over matters I cannot foresee. If I lay down absolute rules now, I will remove the flexibility required for future decision making.
The only recommendations I can, and have made, are in the general rules we have to abide by to make this evolution possible.

‘
Originally Posted by Peacemaker
I know what is good for me, and what is bad for me. I have merely extrapolated that to the rest of humanity.
‘And this is the biggest fundamental weakness in your "solution:" you have framed the entire scenario around your worldview and have considered no one else's. ‘

Perhaps you can guide me to any work that has considered the immediate and long term requirements of more of our whole species than I have. You could try reading this document to learn about the realities of the world as it is today, and their hopes for some of their proposals to come about at some time during this century.

“United Nations Reform: measures and proposals — A Millennium Assembly, the United Nations system (Special Commission) and a Millennium Forum”

Where the Secretary-General of the UN expressed the view that if the United Nations were to continue to play a vital role in the century ahead it would be imperative that it benefit from the imagination and engage the support of the world’s people. In this connection, he proposed that non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors organize a Millennium Forum in connection with the Millennium Assembly.

It’s on the net. Here’s the shortcut: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm

Try reading THAT, Buffy, and see, perhaps, that it’s not just me that is speaking the truth about the world as it currently is. Than document was formulated and ratified by ‘the 1,350 representatives of over 1,000 non-governmental organizations and other civil society organizations from more than 100 countries’.

I hope you read this, and then go back and read what I have written so far on this subject. I don’t believe it will be a waste of your time.

’That you find it simple to suppress your own "dark side" does not mean that simple "general agreement" makes it go away for everyone.’

No, but it WILL make it go away for billions more of us than our current strategies do, so on that fact alone, it MUST be worth it.

’Asking me what "dark side urges" I want to keep is simply a rhetorical mechanism for shaming me into admitting that any I have are bad, but it unfortunately is poor cover for your lack of a solution for how you will eliminate the "dark sides" of everyone, not just people as nice as I am.’

No Buffy, it’s just a simple question. I wanted you to be specific here. I’ll ask it again. What dark side urges are you specifically referring to? Because, as I have said again and again, if you don’t physically or mentally hurt yourself, or any other member of society, or our environment, then my view is to do ‘whatever floats your boat’.

The fact that you construed my question as ‘simply a rhetorical mechanism for shaming me into admitting that any I have are bad’ is simply an incorrect assumption on your part.

‘but it unfortunately is poor cover for your lack of a solution for how you will eliminate the "dark sides" of everyone, not just people as nice as I am.’

This statement indicates to me that you have taken absolutely nothing of what I have written on board. If you consider, for example, ending poverty, ending war, ending crime, ending starvation, ending malnutrition and dramatically reducing world child mortality over a matter of weeks a ‘lack of a solution’ on the road to eliminating the ‘dark sides’ of humanity, then come up with better ones, or at least take the time to fully understand the scope of those which you argue against.

‘What guidelines? Still waiting...’

Did you actually read the document I wrote? You know, the one with all the ‘guidelines’ in it?


’Saying its "not your call" is equivalent to saying "its not important enough for me to worry about: there are smart people who will deal with the problems I've created by my overly simplistic solution."’

I think I covered this earlier in this answer.

‘Generally" certainly is a loaded term, isn't it?
Sure, most people obey the laws, but the point is *many people do not*.
Your thesis is that simply by eliminating "money" all such problems would go away, and it would be nice if you were to explain *why* you think that is the case, beyond "it was obvious to me, and I'm a rational person, so it should be obvious to everyone else."’

Generally, means the same as ‘most’, which you used in the next line, where you agreed with me. ‘Sure, most people obey the laws...’.
I used the word ‘generally’ to indicate my acknowledgement of the common and obvious fact that there are, indeed, some who do not obey the laws at present.
My immediate goal is to absolutely minimise the numbers of these people who are still able to commit most crimes. This will happen by a process called ‘criminal disablement’, whereby, once my plan is enacted, thieves, burglars, muggers and bank robbers will have nothing of value to steal. So they will just stop. Unless they are criminally insane, and then medical professionals would step in to organise humane treatment to help them ‘evolve’.

...unless you can come up with a better plan?

‘If one is going to propose solutions, it is one's responsibility to consider *all* of the ramifications, obstacles, and side-effects for those solutions and address them’.

I have.

...and I still stand by my original assertion that I don’t have to come up with all the answers to bring this into being. Humanity has all the talent and commonsense it requires to come up with the best workable solutions to the problems which may befall us in the future. My task is to guide us to a more evolved way of thinking about problems, and endeavouring to cure them at source, and not continue ‘firefighting’ the consequences of maintaining an essentially corrupt system.




’Simply being an "idea guy" is pretty much worthless’.

Thanks for that Buffy, so on the same scale, what would that make a clueless, selfish, small minded ‘marketeer’ worth?

Follow the Id yourself. It appears to be more your style than mine. (;-)

Best regards, as always,
Peacemaker.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

In a nutshell I am FOR everything that is good for our bodies and souls. Music, dancing, singing, good food, good working conditions, clean air and water, as much free time as we can afford to pay ourselves, whilst still keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning.

It’s this last clause wherein lies what seems to me, and, I think, many others, to be the flaw in your plan, Peacemaker. As presently technologically embodied, how easy is it to “keeping the wheels of production, care and service turning”? and how much free time will the people who chose to do so actually have?

Taking just one example

I am FOR bicycles for all who want them.

The issues seems to me less who wants bicycles, than who wants to build them.

Assembling a bicycle is, for a fair fraction of folk who like to ride them, enjoyable. Folk who like brazing tend to enjoy building frames. I’ve never met anyone, however, with much affection for mining and refining or recycling metal, rolling and casting machine parts, or making ball bearings, so find it difficult to imagine that many people would chose to do these critical activities, were they not compelled to.

Currently, this compulsion has a financial character. In my part of the world, nobody is actually compelled by a lash or the point of a gun to work. A person without preexisting wealth can chose not to, if he is willing to accept a life of poverty, in which many of the good things you mention are inaccessible*.

Under your plan, Peacemaker, what will compel people to do unpleasant but necessary jobs? More importantly, will these compulsions be as readily refusable as those under which we live now?

If the answer to this last question is no, I find present conditions preferable to those you envision. Not having what you want is a bad thing, but being irrefusable compelled to do what you do not want to is, IMHO, far worse.

In my vision of a moneyless society, the need for human beings to do unpleasant labor is eliminated by a continuation of the technological trend that has already reduced the amount of such labor that is presently required. Absent a need, the means of the compulsion becomes, I believe, irrelevant, and the compulsion, nonexistent.
__________________________________________
* Interestingly, in my experience, bicycles are a thing of which even the utterly destitute are not deprived – so many are thrown out as they are discarded by families with children shunning them in favor of automobiles that there are more than enough for any houseless person who wants one. A way to gain immediate high status among the houseless is to specialize in salvaging, distributing, and maintaining bikes.