Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"...hopefully the logical spread of greater forms of central planning..."
That sounds like communism to me because I've read too much 1984.

No, that sounds like communism to you because you live in the 19th century and you haven't studied systems theory.

Please stop insulting me. I've studied systems theory. The first time in the context of biology and environmental science.
Later in college studying computer science (Ingeniería informática in spanish). Stop trying to discredit me guessing what I have studied and what not.
"You don't get my point because you haven't been properly educated". You can do better than that Wink

I'm not assuming that you haven't studied economics because you blame the free market for all the bad things in our society.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"Arriving at decisions, not making them"

Again, science can't tell you what to do. Not even engineering, because goals are not provided.
You make decisions to attain certain aims.
Ethics is not a science. Hedonism can't be proven right or wrong.

I explain this clearly in the video, but very briefly: once you agree on what is the desired result, you follow a scientific process to arrive at the best decision.

There is no clash whatsoever and no need to confuse ethics and science. You decide what you want to achieve, and then you apply the scientific method to do it.

Quote

"Distribution of energy would be self-evident"
Seriously?

If you apply the scientific method, yes.

Quote

"increase social evolution"
Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?
~~Also isn't uniformity bad for evolution?~~

~~Sure, in fact, we advocate biodiversity and dynamic equilibrium, not uniformity and statism.~~

Quote

"...to achieve peak efficiency of our resources..."
There's no efficiency in resources, the efficiency is in the use of resources to fulfill certain task.

It's obviously "usage of", it was misspoken. Come on, you can be better than that. Wink

I don't think it is misspoken. He really thinks there's an absolute direction to go.
As you said, you have to decide what you want to achieve first. But you assume we all want the same thing, that ethics are absolute or something.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

Also, what happens with population? If the survey of optimal food production can't feed the expected population, how population is going to be controlled?
What women would have access to motherhood?

That is a very difficult issue. The best way to approach it with education, forced measures are unacceptable.

In any case, it's a problem that we will have to face soon in the current infinite growth and wasteful paradigm, but we may never have to face it in a system that is focused on peak efficiency and strategic conservation.

So, applying an RBE will, if anything, greatly reduce a problem. Keeping the current system will result in an inevitable collapse, either of the population or of the environment, or both.

Since this is a movement that advocates peace, we would prefer the former.

So your answer is education would be enough to control population growth. What if not?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"...artificial scarcity..."
But there's no natural scarcity?

Sure, that's why we need strategic conservation, instead of wasteful infinite growth and a throw away society.

Isn't that incompatible with "everybody would have access to the resources"?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"Corruption won't exist without money because there's no reward for it"
What about sociolismo?

Greatly reduced with full transparency and Open Source approach to "governance".

So there would still be corruption and self interest within the RBE.
Self interest probably reduced by education, right?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"Their rewards are the fruits of the society as a whole...self interest becomes integrated with social interest...everything is for the greater good"
This certainly sounds like a religion. Not one that is for diversity.

?
The recognition that your self interest can also be the interest of others is a religion?

No, "everything is for the greater good" sounds like religion.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote from: jtimon on June 29, 2011, 06:15:59 PM

-Competition breeds monopolies/cartels

That's an opinion. You can read, for example, The machinery of freedom to know another one.

No, it's not an opinion. It is the very design of competition, you always end up with an oligopoly or a cartel. The anarcho-capitalist faith is a blind belief in a supernatural force that has no relevance with the physical reality. Like believing in Santa.

Insulting Friedman doesn't prove he is wrong.
Yes, "free market always leads to either monopolies or cartels" is an opinion to be proven.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"the free market leads to planned obsolescence"
It's possible with monopolies and cartels.

I'm saying planned obsolescence would disappear without monopolies and cartels.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Quote

"power is maintained by ignorance"
So we should build more public schools?

Are you playing dumb or is that a real question?

Quote

-Lobbying

Is it a problem of money or of the state?

In a monetary, profit based state, the two are closely interrelated, so it' doesn't make much difference.

Quote

-All laws must be interpreted

And ones are easier to interpret than others. I think the more objectives the laws the better. That's why private property is a good idea.

We are not discussing whether people should have private property or not. Private property is allowed in an RBE, it just becomes meaningless for most things, when you have access to them. It's way more efficient and convenient to have integrated systems that provide services, instead of useless redundancies that produce many negative retroactions.

Quote

Government :
resource management
production management"
and this is not communism?

You assumption is wrong. It's not the "government", each ecosystem find its balance according to its carrying capacity, the outdated ideas of "government" and such do not apply.

Quote

"you won't steal things because you can't sell them"
No thieves in Cuba nor the URSS.

Those places have nothing to do with an RBE. Nothing. It's just in you mind.

I understood that all the production/distribution would be planned by the public sector using the scientific method and an improved form of democracy.
If it's not the public sector and the private sector (free market) will become obsolete, where operates the RBE?
Isn't the access to resources without private property controlled by the state?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Leaving that aside, let me ask you something: given that we already surpassed the carrying capacity of the Earth and that we are effectively destroy the very nature from which we depend on, what do you propose we should do to ensure that we find an equilibrium with nature, so that we can survive as a species without resorting to mass killings?

TZM advocates using the best method available. If you can come up with something better, and you can prove it, we'll advocate that. it's as simple as that. The farthest you can be from a religion, a faith or a cult.

A believer in free market, communism, capitalism, socialism or any other -ism is much more "religious" or "cult-ish" than any of us.

I'm not a believer in free market, just an advocate. Are you an advocate of RBE or it's just self evident?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on June 29, 2011, 10:51:19 PM

Instead, what do you propose to do?
What else do you propose? Free market? That inevitably brings slavery and subjugation of the majority in favour of a small elite.
And, in any case, do you see any other solution?
You have to understand that this is not the perfect system we advocate. We see lots of mistakes and inefficiencies, we try to come up with solution. If a new, better solution comes up, we integrate it. So, instead of keep repeating "this is not perfect", why don't you propose something that works better?

I propose to change the current monetary system in a way that makes the economy compatible with long term thinking and social justice.
I think we need to eliminate interest and get the government out of the issuance of money to achieve that. I think Ripple can make it, maybe freicoin too.
I'm also an advocate of decentralization and permaculture.
I love robots too, but I don't think they're going to end labor. I see many people employed extending arduino in the near future, for example.
I'm an advocate of free culture.
I "believe" in moral relativism, that's why I won't ever agree with the concept of "arriving at decisions".

Profits tend to zero in a free market. But with our current monetary system (and older ones) capital yields do not.
Interest on money prevents capital yields to tend to zero too.
You could blame interest instead of free market for many of the things you say it is responsible for.
Free market it's just about people deciding their own wants and cooperating with each other to achieve their goals in a non coercive way (trade).