Quote from: jtimon on June 30, 2011, 09:26:49 AM

Please stop insulting me. I've studied systems theory.[...]

Fair enough, I apologise.

In return, please don't use false associations with loaded terms such a any-ism, which brought me to believe that you haven't studied.

Quote

Where does directed scientifically evolution goes?

I dont' really understand the question, but I guess the direction we propose is Dynamic equilibrium with the planet.

Quote

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.

We are not discussing all the realm of ethics. Just the basics: do we agree that we want the survival of the species on the planet and that we want to ensure the well being of all the people? That's what we are talking about.

Quote

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

As I said, it's a difficult issue, I don't know what if not, we'll have to discuss it. In any case, why not trying education, first?

And again, what is your proposal?

Quote

Quote

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"?

No, it's the basis for that. As I said a million times, you have to change the values before you change the system. First, people need to understand that their desires need to take into account what's actually possible in the real world, and that wanting a 500-rooms mansion in unsustainable, and that many people will suffer because of that.

Quote

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

Greatly reduced, through education and a change of values. The same way we now consider horrible owning slaves. We evolve our culture.

Quote

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

As opposed to "everything is for the good a a very small elite that can impose its power on the rest of the starving population"?

Quote

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

I addressed the fallacy of Friedman's arguments in the post below, I didn't just pick on him.

Anyway, here's a very clear rebuttal that explains why the free market proponents get it wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw

Quote

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

... and they are a product of the profit-based market system, whether it is free, partly free, or socialist. The underlying mechanism doesn't change. See the video posted above.

Quote

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?

If, by State, you mean the people directly, according to what they really need and what can be scientifically accomplished, yes.

If by State, you mean what we have now, a big and loud no.

Quote

I'm not a believer in free market, just an advocate.

That's good to hear.

Quote

Are you an advocate of RBE or it's just self evident?

I advocate a way for the species to survive, without destroying the planet's resources and without forced slavery for billions of people.

What do you advocate, and how's the "free market" going to solve that?

Quote

I propose to change the current monetary system in a way that makes the economy compatible with long term thinking and social justice.

So, it doesn't matter if we destroy the planet from which the depend in the process? And what is social justice? the richest 1% controlling 40% of resources is social justice? Billions of people starving to death is social justice? How's this "long term thinking" going to prevent that?

Quote

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.

Again, the question is sustainability. How's that addressing the issue?

Quote

I'm also an advocate of decentralization and permaculture.

+1

Quote

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.

+1. When we say that labour will be reduced, we talk about jobs that don't produce anything useful for society. And by having the necessities provided automatically (technically possible, really, if you look into it) the only jobs that remain are the ones that you would like to do, not the ones that you are forced to, otherwise you die.

Quote

I'm an advocate of free culture.

+1.

Quote

I "believe" in moral relativism, that's why I won't ever agree with the concept of "arriving at decisions".

For morality, that's fine. But what you need to survive is not an opinion, it's a scientific fact, and the market system is not designed to provide what's needed for the survival, you have to fight for it at the expenses of others. A cruel game of musical chairs, where the poor and the weak always loose.

Quote

Profits tend to zero in a free market.

W-w-whaaat? o_O

Why?

Quote

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).

Again, that doesn't address the problem of sustainability, which is the number one priority.

We can discuss all day about exchange rates, capital investments, Stste intervention, free market and the like, until we end up in a time where there is no more a planet to host our philosophical discussions.