You looking like a fool has nothing to do with my opinion. Rather, it has to do with:
There are conditions, reasons, logic behind this. Granted, there may not be in every case, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London remains controversial. Even wrong, in my opinion. However, United States citizens still own land. A few controversial cases does not change this fact.
I will not show you where it is lawful to break he articles of the Constitution, because that is not lawful. I have however, provided evidence to the point that the IRS and Federal Reserve ARE lawful.
Had he presented it in the correct manner and with appropriate detail, it may have helped his case. With that said, ......
The acceptance of logic by reasonable humans as a standard of proof qualifies me.
1). Kellimus, you have made ONE ASSERTION. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO POINTS.
2). Why didn't you reply to the non-attacking material when it was presented without attacks against your brain?
See 1). above.
Yes well, most of what they say is nonsense. Take for example, the two graphs of the Us Money Supply and the U.S. Debt. They're both increasing, right? Well what do they really have to do with each other? Take for example, a graph of the value of a blacksmith's wares vs time. Say he makes 1 set of tools a day. Well every day the total value of his wares is going to increase, isn't it? Day 1 he has 1 set of tools, worth 5 gold, say, and 10 days later he has 10 sets of tools, worth 50 gold. Pretty obvious right? Now add in a 3rd axis for population growth. If we have 2 blacksmiths, and one has a two sets of tools and another doesn't have any, the second guy might borrow a set from the first guy eh? Just to get started in his trade. So now he's in debt, 5 gold worth of tools. Imagine having 100 blacksmiths, and half of them are in debt to the other half, that's 50blacksmiths*5gold = 250!!! gold worth of debt! If you look carefully though, it's the same percentage of debt as the case with 2 blacksmiths, just with a much larger population. 50% of the people are indebted 5 gold in both cases. The case with the larger population just looks scary because 5 gold seems really small compared to 250 gold. Now, if the graphs in the zeitgeist addendum movie had been adjusted for population percentage of debt or something equally as intelligent, doesn't look like they have much of a case, does it? If you want to pick out some more points from the movie for me to respond to, feel free.
Just be careful about which "system" is giving you bullshit: reality or the movie
This post was edited 3 times, last edit by Vrael: Feb 17 2009, 6:15 am.
Interest. I don't know if you and Kellimus covered this (tl;dr), but;
Say I need 1,000,000$, so I loan it from a bank. Now, the bank wants a profit, so they have a 10% interest rate. I borrow 1,000,000$, spend it on what I need to, and, later, give the bank 1,100,000$ to pay off my debt. Now the bank has $1,100,000 with which to loan, enabling it to generate even more money through interest.
But there's only X dollars in circulation, and the bank has (through interest) X+Y dollars. Since there's not enough money to back up the money, we use checks; "I owe X person/organization Y dollars, but since I don't have Y in dollars (due to interest, most money is a theoretical value held by banks), I want you (Z Bank) to transfer the value of Y dollars to X."
Basically, the bank ends up with more money then actually exists.
Or something. Fuck, I don't know, it's 1 AM and my brain hurts.
Indeed he touched on that, but it's not that hard to explain.
Let us call the sum total of all money in the U.S. (we could use the world here, but let's keep i to the U.S. just for ease) = X = 10,000,000
Lets say the bank starts with 5,000,000, you start with 0, and everyone else starts with 5,000,000
Now, the bank loans you 1,000,000, so X = You + (bank-1,000,000) + everyone else. Now, you spend that 1,000,000 on something, so "everyone else" gets +1,000,000, and we're still all evens, namely
10,000,000 = 0 + 4,000,000 + 7,000,000
The next step occurs over time. Today, when you were given the million, there is only so many tangible and untangible things of value in the world. Laptops, cars, hours of peoples time (like a psychiatrist or something). Now some of these things expire, which
detracts from the total value of our sum (like the psychiatrists time, once your hour is up that valueable time is gone). However, some things, like a laptop or a car, don't expire. If the net value of all new things (nonexpired - expired) is positive, than our sum X will no longer = 10,000,000. The above equation becomes invalid, and becomes something more like this: 11,000,000 = 0 +4,000,000 + 7,000,000. (Note: these are simply values meant to show whats going on, and not exact.) Now, when it comes time for you to pay back the bank, where are you going to get that money? You have to work, or play the stock market, or hell, someone gives you a 1.1 million dollar gift. Look what happens to our equation.
11,000,000 = 1,100,000 + 4,000,000 + 5,900,000
Then, wheny you finally pay back the bank,
11,000,000 = 0 + 5,100,000 + 5,900,000.
As long as people continue to do their jobs, invent new things, make ipods and cars and steel and houses, there will not be some money that doesn't exist. Even if the sum WAS fixed, like such:
10,000,000 = 0 + 4,000,000 + 6,000,000
You still get the money to pay back the bank from other people.
10,000,000 = 1,100,000 + 4,000,000 + 4,900,000
10,000,000 = 0 + 5,100,000 + 4,900,000
Another foul point in regards to the movie is its use of logos, pathos and ethos. If you take careful note of the tone of the speaker, his primary attribute is to play on your emotions. He is referencing things that may cause a strong emotional response in the audience: lies, deciet, betrayal, and scapegoating: the familiar government that we all have a bone to pick with due to red tape or social security benefits, or what have you. I think it also evident that he fails to correctly implement logic, skewing his phrases and omitting relevant facts to the situation to forge a compelling drama, rather than reveal the truth of any matter. That's really what the zeitgeist movie is all about: fooling people into thinking they're being fooled by someone else.
Had to remark on this line too... The guy says: "Do we on earth have enough resources and technological understanding to create a society of such abundance that everything we have now could be availabe without a price tag, and without the need for submission through employment? Yes, we do."
2). Back it up with some stats
3). Bullshit again
4). They failed to remark on the high likelihood that with such great abundance, people would become lazy and the society would break down, with no law or restraints to keep itself going
5). What's this "resource based economy" crap? First, it's not an economy if no one gets paid. Second, if no one gets paid, they either have to A). Use some sort of extreme socialization to provide incentives or B). Use guns, to get people to do the jobs that are needed. You can't just eliminate people from the world. You can't convert 100% heat into energy, entropy always increases, and machines break. How would this nonsense system stop some frolicing dumbass from wandering into a power plant and setting it nuclear on the whole city? This movie has earned it's label in my book...
This post was edited 3 times, last edit by Vrael: Feb 17 2009, 10:59 am.
As for the 'resource-based economy crap':
The movie did mention incentives; in theory, if all the production was done by machines, freeing people from monotonous jobs (which is what they were built to do anyway), people as a whole would have more time persuing the arts, science, exploration, etc.
As for having the technology; I think we do. The problem is that the people in power (mega-corporations) are going to take lengths to keep things the way they are (so that they retain their power).
Take nuclear power, for instance. Why do people advocate against nuclear power? Because the press (sponsored in part by...) exaggerates their potential risks; people are led to believe they're dangerous. Why are nuclear plants so dangerous? Outdated technology (largely). Why can't we upgrade the nuclear plants to be less dangerous and more efficient? Because people advocate against them; repeat ad nauseam. And what's the main alternative? Oil and coal, of course.
Another example; Let's say, in a hypothetical situation, someone stumbles upon the cure for cancer; it's fairly easily synthesized out of reasonably common components; something that could effectively end cancer. Now, is this miracle cure ever going to hit the market?
Why? Because people make a shitton of money through complex and expensive procedures, such as chemotherapy. If people just stop having cancer, profit plummets. Thus, fuck the people who have cancer! Some corporation is going to bribe the FDA into labeling the cure as dangerous, and it never sees the light of day. If the inventor realizes he's being bullshitted by the system, he's easy to deal with: If he doesn't have a job, he's easier to discredit, and if he does, he's easier to blackmail, for example.
Technology gets paralyzed by greedy businessmen who don't want the system to change.
This post was edited 1 time, last edit by HailFire: Feb 17 2009, 7:57 pm.
All production cannot be done by machines. While we are on track to developing machines with artificial intelligence, at this point in time it is still necessary for humans to do the jobs which the movie claims don't need to be done. Additionally, I assert that there will never be a complete elimination of human labor from any human society due to the necessity of human interaction with each other (example: marrying, entertainment, sports, ect), due to the natural and inevitable increase in entropy of any given system (things break), and due to the ever increasing need for intelligent design.
Back it up then. Show that there are currently machines capable of doing every human task, that there are sufficient resources to create the necessary number of machines to produce the necessary output, and that these machines will be self-sustaining. It is a daunting task, HailFire. There are 6 billion people in the world, and as far as I know, no machine can be a mathmatician, tie my shoelaces, or develop its own system for inter-library-book-codes (just a few random tasks out of the millions).
Well, that's why, for starters. As for making it safer, I agree that it can be made safer, but it will never be fool-proof. Things break, systems fail, humans make errors, and the effects of a nuclear meltdown are devastating. That's why people campaign against them.
Yes, it will. The individual or company with the pattent for it knows just how big such a cure would be, and they will do everything they can to sell it and make money off it. Profit for chemotherapy industries might plummet, but the corporation with rights to the miracle cure isn't going to care much about that. Maybe the FDA get bribed, maybe it doesn't. Eventually though, a cure of such astounding proportions would make its way onto the market.
Yet it is also greedy businessmen who WANT the system to change that spurs on the advance of technology. The following is only opinion, but I much prefer a system in which there is reward for those who work for it to a system where you have no choice but to work and you gain nothing for your efforts.
Post #67 ClansAreForGays Feb 17 2009, 9:35 pm
The movie says 'most' jobs will be phased out. Working for a little while in fast food you definitely ask your self why people are even required, when a machine can do everything you do to make the order. eliminating joyless unrewarding jobs like these alone would be a great success. I can see a possible utopia where work does not consume even 1/8 of your day, the only work would be performing small daily maintenance(which you point of we need) on the machines that are flipping the burgers we would otherwise be doing ourselves.
I also thought you were going to list some jobs (in your counter to hailfire) that couldn't be replaced by a machine, sadly you didn't.
Then list some for me. Here are a few exampes, nevertheless:
Mechanical Engineers that make the machines that are supposed to do our work for us.
Carpenters (I'd like to see the machine that can build a whole house)
Post #69 ClansAreForGays Feb 17 2009, 11:44 pm
Civil Engineers - The rare exception. Still, everything will be Open Source so odds are there will be previous schematics that they will just be selecting.
Business Management - useless and not required in a utopian society.
Psychologists - will still exist in a university. if you mean in the terms of therapy, in a society with the almost complete elimination of stress behavioral disorders will be in decline.
Software Engineer - See above. Jobs like these will stop being jobs, as much as they will be hobbies.
Mechanical Engineers that make the machines that are supposed to do our work for us - See civil engineers.
Carpenters (I'd like to see the machine that can build a whole house) - Tough one. Maybe if a family feels like they need that extra house they should be willing to build it.
Environmental Analysts - what? It's already a very green community. I suppose there would be people who still wanted to study their environment further.
Cops - not required.(I know I'm going to hear about this one)
Judges - not required
Lawyers - definitely not required. Lawyers exist because our laws are too complex for the average person to understand and debate over.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the hardest point, which is who is going to be telling everyone what to do?
Still required, and if society hopes to progress and make cool new things, they won't just be using old schematics.
Who's going to keep track of what resources are going to what place? Allocating resources is still a "business" even if there's no "profit"
If Philadelphia needs a shipment of steel, they still need some way to ship it in from Pittsburgh or whatever steel mill has it, and maybe the vehicles will be able to
drive themselves or something, but someone needs to request the materials, someone needs to know where it is, ect.
Decline, not be eliminated.
Someone needs to write the software for the machine to do their jobs, they don't have minds of their own.
What if someone designs a new product that needs a new machine? How will society progress and become more efficient if all we use is old outdated schematics?
What happened to the society that uses machines to do all our work for us so that people don't have to? So now the society is saying "do it yourself"?
Say this culture wants to construct a new building. If they're really very green, they will require an analysis of the ecosystem in the project design phase so as to create minmal impact on such delicate balances.
If there really is no law in this great society, what shall prevent whackos from acting however they please? Socialization and indoctrination? What about cases where socialization doesn't work? What kind of society is this that prescribes a persons life out for them anyway? And if it doesn't use some sort of socialization, how does it prevent these crimes? Surely they will be decreased, but not eliminated. The following is opinion, but I much prefer a society in which there are consequences for your actions, and not a prescription for a way of life.
So, If Johnny B takes Susie Q's weekly allotment of Oranges, there are no consequences?
If the law in this society is quite simple, you have a point then.
The largest flaw I see with this society is that it fails to acknowledge that humans are imperfect. It does not take into account things like crime, and certain necessities of work. Our societies, like the U.S. or Germany or Britian or China, or whichever you prefer, while they may be imperfect, at least they acknowledge that factor of randomness and that injustice may be done. They do not prescribe for us how we should be, but rather we come together and say "we shall say these things are wrong and shall not be tolerated: murder, theft, ect, and we acknowledge that they may happen, and we shall deal with them in an appropriate manner"
This post was edited 1 time, last edit by Vrael: Feb 18 2009, 12:40 am.
Post #71 ClansAreForGays Feb 18 2009, 12:51 am
I need to watch it again, it made alot of sense when they explained it
At the very least, it's a good idea to phase out the mundane and zero creative freedom minimum wage type jobs that can be done by machine.
Perhaps, but even that has consequences. What about all the unskilled or young (16-18) year old workers in our workforce? They can't just get any job, and even those minimum wage jobs help people like that to get a start. Some income is better than no income, and better than paying them welfare.
If/When you watch the movie again, watch out for errors in logic. They make a lot of points that sound justified but aren't. They tell you the moon is made of cheese (metaphorically) without showing you a moon rock. You can't go to the moon yourself, so who are you to think any differently? Omission of key information is another big tactic I noticed, like in the example of money supply vs. debt. Remember when they say that 1/100 of the sun's energy is enough to power the planet for 4000 years or something like that? That might be true, IF we captured that energy only a few million miles away from the surface of the sun. Planting solar panels on the surface of the EARTH, however, leads to a drastically different result. And who the heck are those two "witnessess" the keep putting on the show? Some old hack and some lady, they don't show any non-partisan opinions as far as I remember. They mention some U.S. statistics a few times, but it's clearly nothing that won't support their cause.
The system they propose is obviously not perfect, and they even acknowledge this when they state that, in an emergent universe, nothing is perfect.
How much of society will be automated? What, if not money, will get people out of bed in the morning? What will prevent John. Q. Chucklefuck from killing people for the lulz? If/When the Venus Project gains momentum, these are questions that they will eventually have to answer, should they (and similar questions) not already be sufficiently answered.
The main question here is: Is what the Venus Project proposes better than the current monetary-based system? There are a few grey spots that need cleared up, but I feel that, on the whole, the answer is yes.
Also, of course entropy's going to happen. That's what it does, and there's fuck all we can do about it right now. Still, Geo and Solar beats the shit out of Coal and Oil.
Why is it that you feel this system is better than the current monetary system?
Look at some of the things that the Venus Project proposes (and the consequences):
1). No Law.
Perhaps for some, this may be an ideal state, but I at least have always regarded the creation of law (if perhaps not always the enforcement) as one of man's achievements. Law, when reasonable, is the agreement that says "we shall agree to abide by certain rules of conduct so that we all may benefit, and have some standard of equality among us, extended by this agreement." Should there be no Law, murder is as righteous as giving birth, theft the same as charity, corruption and evil are nonexistent, due to the fact there is no standard by which to call them evil. (Omitting here the standard provided by certain religions, but that can be equated to law in its own way). And this is only the conceptual part. With no Law, whose responsibility is it to stop serial murderers who maybe, are just killing for fun?
2). No money
Money itself, is an object. As I have called it many times throughout the length of this topic, a standard of value. Money itself is neutral; not evil; it is rather those who wield it as a weapon or shield against law that are evil. In its purest sense, money is our compensation for the value within us. I work 8 hours a day at some job, and the company hires me at $8/hour, so if I agree to be hired then I value my time and ability to do that job at 8$/hour (or less, in which case I'm getting overpaid, or possibly more, but I settle for 8$/hour through necessity or some other factor). When I get my 64 dollars at the end of my day, that is my employer saying "you have produced 64 dollars worth of useful 'stuff'" (of course they don't actually say it, this is in the purest case).
Should there be no money, what am I to be compensated for my work? Maybe I am a good person and I need no compensation except the admiration of my peers for being a hard/good/smart worker. However, there are many types of people in the world, and the ones that do not follow this trend will fail to produce useful and mutually beneficial 'stuff' Perhaps the Venus Project has an answer to this, which brings me to my next point.
3). Indoctrination and Prescription
If we are indoctrinated with certain beliefs nowadays, as some may argue, it is nothing to what the scale of the Venus Project would have to accomplish to succeed as a society. Without a reward-based-incentive, there must be some other incentive to get people to do the necessary work for the maintenance of the society. How is this accomplished without reward? Well, the next most effective way would be through fear. (If you ask Machiavelli, fear might actually supercede reward). This 'fear' even exists within our own society to some extent, but to a lesser degree. It is the fear that if we do not accomplish useful things, we will be ostracized by our peers. The fear that a person may have to not 'fit in' Perhaps this might not be enough. Many folks might be pressured by this into being good citizens, but many might not also. What is the next degree of incentive? Taking away things. Maybe someone doesn't get their daily machine-delivered shipment of food if they haven't clocked in their hour of work. It is ludicrus to believe work will be eliminated completely in this society, so naturally the society must draw upon its human resources. If those resources are unresponsive, the society will fail.
In this manner, it follows that the society must instill in its citizens some natural tendency to do the required social activities (wrk, or whatever they'll call it to make it sound better). This would be nothing but a Prescription for their life. Let me show the difference between this proposition and our modern one:
Modern Day: "You may do as you please. You will succeed or fail based on your merits, and the consequences of your actions are owned by you."
Venus Project: "We have a society that we must perpetuate. You must do your part in it because it is necessary for the perpetuation of the society."
The current way leaves us a choice, the venus project delivers an ultimatum.
There's just way too much grey area and bad stuff in there for me to answer that question "yes" I much prefer our standards of value and morals.
Damn straight they do.
Well since my post that is a valid question to bring to the argument was deleted by Moose, I'm going to ask it again in hopes that someone will answer it this time without the admin trying to push their views in SD:
Okay, then how is it your $8 an hour when at the top of 'your money' it states "Federal Reserve Note"??
Something interesting I just read, Kellimus: http://www.staredit.net/?faq=1
I think the reason that your post was deleted was due to the fact that it doesn't address nearly enough of what I have provided to be called substantiative.
However, I will address it.
This post was edited 1 time, last edit by Vrael: Feb 21 2009, 5:36 am.
If logitech recalls the mouse you aren't obligated to turn it in, for one thing. Secondly, logitech does not own the mouse, so long as you have purchased it. I woud agree that his analogy was not precise enough, due to the nature of the dollar and the complexity of its use, but much of his analogy between the logitech mouse and the dollar holds true. In both cases, they cannot be taken from the owner without something known as due process [of law]. This is a slightly vague term that comes up in Supreme Court cases a lot, as it is subject to interpretation, but what it means is there must be some reasonable process established by law to take something from a person. The Federal Reserve cannot simply waltz in and take your house, (the reason the IRS might be able to is because they have been established as a lawful institution, and even then they need to go through certain processes before they can take anything), and you could spit on President Obama's feet if he told you that you had to hand him your wallet. A policeman can't walk up to you and take your wallet either (unless perhaps he spotted you committing a felony, I'm not 100% sure about that). You might be curious as to how it is we own these federal reserve notes. When the government purchases something, or enacts fiscal policy to increase the money supply, transactions occur in which we gain ownership of dollar bills. At that point, do what you want with them. Give them away,
I wonder though, how much more discussion will it take to show you that money is real and valid? Is there anything I could say to you, some point that I could prove, that would in turn prove the larger aspect to you?
This post was edited 1 time, last edit by Vrael: Feb 28 2009, 10:17 pm.
0 members in this topic (italic members are currently writing a reply): None
Raitaki -- wat
lil-Inferno -- "Raitaki -- HOLY F" Gtfo stupid fundie
Raitaki -- lol
Wing Zero -- Monitor psu exploded
Wing Zero -- I hijacked the living room tv
Wing Zero -- I still dont have a monitor though
Raitaki -- IT LIVES!?