Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote from: jtimon on July 04, 2011, 11:17:45 AM

Physical health is relatively easy to define. Defining mental health is more dangerous. Defining objectively happiness and prosperity is impossible.
You can't optimize happiness because is relative.

We could debate about that, but it's not the matter of discussion.

Physical and mental well being can be scientifically evaluated.

There is much scientific research on this, the emotional well being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_well-being), the Human Development Index, the Physical Quality of Life Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Quality_of_Life_Index), the Happy Planet Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index), the Gross national happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness) and many others. None of them are complete, but you don't just dismiss the whole thing outright because of that.

In the same way, we have no universal unequivocal definition of life, but I guess you don't say "oh, you can't define life, therefore you can never know when something is alive" or any of that nonsense.

So, you can tackle this issue, and evaluate scientifically. The RBE approach gives you a blueprint for that. The free market doesn't care if people are well fed, emotionally and physically well, and that's exactly why there is so much unnecessary suffering on this world.

A support for the profit-based market is a silent acceptance and reinforcement of all this violence and suffering.

I'm not talking about an unequivocal definition, I'm talking about morals. No matter how many research they make on human happiness, spiritual health and the like: I will still want to measure and seek my own happiness myself.
I just don't care what the experts say is good, because I don't believe in good. Talking about experts on happiness and quality of life reminds me the Inquisition and its moral experts.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and his mental health was enforced.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

Ok. I like beer but I don't need it to survive. The RBE won't give me beer because it's not necessary for my health (although it is for my happiness) so I will get it in the free market.

It's pretty simple:
- the degree of freedom will be decided by what the planet can provide, or in one word, sustainability
- within that, anything is acceptable, according to the people's values

the big difference from the current system is that we don't put any limit of what can be produced/consumed, which is nonsensical if you realise that the planet from which we depend has a very finite carrying capacity.

Quote

Also what about arts?
If a reincarnation of Jim Morrison appears, will he gets the Watts he deserve?

You mean the MEGA-FUCKING Watts he clearly deserves? Grin

The degree of freedom will be decided? That doesn't sound like letting the free market be.
The free market doesn't put any limit of what can be produced/consumed beyond the limits of nature and the imagination of the producers.
In the RBE, some form of government (again, I don't care how efficient and democratic your new system will theoretically be, if is not the private sector the one that feeds the world through trade and charity, then is the public sector, period) will set the limits.
Some expert determined needs will be satisfied at the expense of some individual wants, that is an attack against freedom.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

That's what I deny, that capitalism and free market go hand in hand.

Then please explain.

Any proft-based system is fundamentally corrupt because:
- it doesn't care about being sustainable
- it has to adhere to the price-efficiency mechanism, which makes you create crappy, useless and obscolecent products

regardless of whether you call it socialism, capitalism, or free market. it's still the same shit.

As I said before, programmed obsolescence has the prerequisite of a monopoly/cartel. In a competitive market, if people demand durable products, they're the ones that will be produced.
Also, the short-term thinking that interest imposes us makes people care less about durability.
Without interest and capital yields, maybe the term capitalism is not very accurate.
Ripple and freicoin would disable interest within a free-market.
That's why I think programmed obsolescence is not a problem caused by the free market.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

Corporations may seek just monetary profits, but our society is not just for monetary profit. When a self-sufficient permaculture farmer grows his own food, he makes it in a sustainable way and for his own profit, but not for monetary profit.
You seem to demonize profit.

Very circumstantial example, 95% of production and pollution is made by 100 megacorporations seeking profits. They are the ones who will make the planet inhabitable, so yes, I'm fucking demonising profit, it's effectively destroying the only planet I have to live in.

Just a counter-example that proves your point wrong. A man working on sustainability for profit. Just like solar panels producers, permaculture advocates...
Are private profits compatible with an economic and social sustainable development?
For more private initiatives on sustainability, I recommend you the youtube channel "peak moment".

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

States are coerced by corporations and then states coerce any other corporation/individual that tries to compete. What I claim is that private property and free market is not enough for monopolies to appear. Coercion is needed.

Play it as you like, it's because of profit that all this happens. Try to take you hands off your keyboard, stop thinking, close your eyes, pause, then think again.

You might get it.

That's your answer? No coercion is needed, is all because of profit?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

Unless the producer of the good/service you need/want wants to give it to you as charity, you either have to coerce him or give him something he wants/needs in exchange.
Money's just a proxy.

You haven't been reading the material.

No, I just watched (in addition to the 3 zeitgeist films) the couple of videos you posted (2 hours) and tried to Peter's answer to an austrian, but I must admit I can't watch the whole video due to its fallacies.
Have you been reading Gesell's book? Anything about austrian economics? Anything about economics at all?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Who owns the sidewalk on the street?

The state does.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

We get free sidewalks, why can't we have automated hydroponics facilities to produce food and distribute it for free? It's technically possible, and quite simple, too.

It woulnd't be for free. That's impossible. Some resources would be used, even if they're not traded for money.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

It's because it would destroy the fucking market, that's why. People won't have to enslave themselves, and will have time to read some books, think for themselves and realise that this system is fucked up.

That's why.

If it were for free, you'd do it immediately despite the "fucking market".

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

So called intellectual property is not private property. I'm against intellectual property.
We need private property to manage scarce resources, but information can be replicated at no cost.

Alright! You are halfway there, just a little further and you'll see that the need for private property in a system of universal access is greatly reduced.

Maybe not eliminated, I don't really care, to be honest. But reduced for sure.

Sure. In a system of universal access and infinite resources private property would be nonsense.
I just don't believe such a system is possible. If you mean universal access only to food, we still need private property for the rest.
Also the taxes (or expropriations) needed for this universal access to food constitutes a form of coercion.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

Sacrificing free trade is sacrificing freedom.

And you don't have to.

Look, I'm not against free trade. You wanna do it? Fine, nobody's gonna stop you.

As I said, the limit is the carrying capacity of the Earth. Within that, do whatever you like the most.

We can't do anything beyond the carrying capacity of the earth just because it's physically impossible. You mean without reducing the future carrying capacity. You mean thinking in the long term.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

The green revolution (science powered, with the noble aim of feeding the world) has destroyed our soils, but oil derived fertilizers keep us in the illusion that our land is fertile.

Errrr, politics oriented. If it was up to science, we would have made aquaponics, hydroponics, aeroponics, or even synthesised directly the enzymes needed for the production of food, without destroying any field, and without the need of any pesticide.

Mmmm. I don't think synthesizing enzymes was an available solution back then. Artificial fertilizers, mechanization and chemical plague control was the technical and scientific solution back then.
Science can tell us a lot more about soil destruction today, but that technical attempt to end starvation has only lead us to an increased population size and to soil destruction.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

All these illusions are coming to an end. There will be free market after the oil era, but without an exponential monetary system.

How will that be? o_O

Profit requires growth, otherwise you'll go steady state, which is good for us, but bad for profit.

Profit does not require growth. Not even monetary profit.
You can make profit, for example, by producing the same good in a more efficient way. By downsizing your company.
And the free market doesn't need monetary profit at all. Just needs private property and free trade.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

The demand for energy will decline with its supply. Energy won't be a non scarce resource in the near future, neither food.

Ahhh, and so will people, who will starve to death, readjusting the prices, right?

I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to preserve the profit-religion? Fuck that.

Many people will starve to death during the coming energy crises (unless we make a disruptive discovery or invention, like economic nuclear fusion).
If we don't have a pricing mechanism, many more people will starve.
I can't accept that. Billions of deaths just to prove (again) that central planning doesn't work? Fuck that.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:43:31 PM

Quote

Quote

No necessarily, I see a period of transition where it might be useful. I just see the inevitable consequence of the shift in culture.

And that's your belief.

No, that's the projection I make, based on the available evidence.

But again, I don't care.

If we manage to make our living here sustainable without killing billions of people, I'll be happy.

But to replace the exponential monetary system you don't want any monetary system at all.
What qualities should have a monetary system for the transition period?

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:56:51 PM

Quote from: jtimon on July 04, 2011, 11:44:13 AM

What I mean is that free market cannot give us anything different that what we want. There's no mechanism in the free market that takes us to the "good" path.

And the RBE can, it's its very basis.

So far, RBE 1, profit-based market 0.

Can RBE lead us the "good" path? You've already agreed with me that there's no such thing as good.
If you understood well being when I said "good", then free market can lead us to well being.
Better, without the need of a single definition for well being and without the need for coercion.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:56:51 PM

Quote

People don't need to work to survive, just food. Build your automated hydroponic farm, plug it to some solar panels and you're done.

Excellent! Then why don't we do it and let people starve instead?

Fucking profit, that's why.

Many people is doing it. See peak moment.
Most people rely on food that depends on oil just because they don't know "they eat oil".
On the subject of feeding the people of the third world , I would prefer to give them the rod rather than the fish.
Also stop abusing them instead of "trying to help" them.
Africa was pretty well fed before our governments (and then our macro-corporations) went there to coerce its peoples.

Quote from: 4v4l0n42 on July 04, 2011, 10:56:51 PM

Quote

You believe that sustainability and social justice cannot be achieved within a free market. But that's not a scientific fact.

Oh, really?

Then, against all available evidence that shows exactly what i am saying, tell me how that could be possible.

Please, illuminate me.

"We're in a free market and we have plenty of problems. Therefore, free market causes a lot of problems."

That's not a logical reasoning even if it seems to you.
Furthermore, the premise is false. We're not in a free market, there's more regulations than have ever been.
You've not provided any evidences that prove the free market is incompatible with economic and social sustainability, just examples of non sustainable actions and industries.