How soon will a moneyless society change the way we percieve each other?

[Peacemaker]

Now that's a horse of a different color! Thus far, you've been talking about everybody having everything they want. Not only that, but apparently for the wealthy, nothing would need to change. So which is it? Are those of us who are much wealthier than the majority of the world brought down? Or is the majority of the world brought up to be wealthy?

 

(Dave. I sent you loads of good, logical answers to your last questions and you make no reference to them, either agreeing or otherwise. And yet you jump on a very small piece of text and feel you should try to take me to task about it. Is this your argument strategy Dave? Trying to score minor points to detract from the main subject matter? Please try to read and understand my most recent posts, (my comments are usually in brackets) and I hope you will gain more understanding.)

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker

[Zythryn]

Peacemaker,

If you would do us the favor, your posts would be much easier to read if you would use the end quote tags rather than include your comments in the quoted region. To do this add '(/quote]' (replace the '(' with a square bracket '[') at the end of the quote you are replying to. You can then start the 'quote' again by typing '(quote]' (replace the '(' with a square bracket again.

 

As for your point:

Your assumption of some kind of a 'list' amuses me. is that the only way you can see society working?

Ok, you tell me how this would work. An artist creates 12 of this item each year. He gets 900 requests and begins filling the requests in order, thus creating a 'list'. Do you have another suggestion? Again, if you do, please let us know.

[Moontanman]

I'm really impressed dude, I'm with you 100%, I need a new car really bad, how soon before I can go down to the dealership and pick one out and drive it away?

[Peacemaker]

Peacemaker,

If you would do us the favor, your posts would be much easier to read if you would use the end quote tags rather than include your comments in the quoted region. To do this add '(/quote]' (replace the '(' with a square bracket '[') at the end of the quote you are replying to. You can then start the 'quote' again by typing '(quote]' (replace the '(' with a square bracket again.]

 

[Thanks for that Z. I will endeavour to use this in future.]

 

As for your point:

Ok, you tell me how this would work. An artist creates 12 of this item each year. He gets 900 requests and begins filling the requests in order, thus creating a 'list'. Do you have another suggestion? Again, if you do, please let us know.

 

[surely that would be a decision made by the artist, not me?]

[And I see that you have skilfully avoided the question I put to you about 'easily eliminating corruption'. Perhaps you would address that point in your next post?]

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker.

[Zythryn]

Peacemaker, I am afraid I was not clear and I did not try to avoid your question. I am trying to focus on one question at a time.

I did not say eliminating corruption would be 'easy'. What I said is eliminating corruption would be easier than eliminating greed and fear. I do not know how you would eliminate corruption.

As to your response to my question, you said that a 'list' is not the way to do it. If that is the case, don't you have an alternate suggestion?

Let's pretend you are the artist. Hypothetically speaking lets say that you can create unique art, but only a dozen a year. How would you decide who gets the art work?

How if it you would prevent people from paying, trading or offering favors in order to get in line earlier than they normally would?

[pgrmdave]

Peacemaker, part of your plan is to get the ear of the people, and once you have it, you can explain your plan so that the majority of people in the world will agree with you.

 

However, you have had our ears for a long time. We are a group of intelligent people who, despite what you may think, are trying to understand you. You have not convinced us. Why do you assume that most people will agree with you if you cannot convince us?

[DougF]

:hihi: ;) :hyper: :)

 

Have a cup of Jave on me. :)

[Peacemaker]

I'm really impressed dude, I'm with you 100%, I need a new car really bad, how soon before I can go down to the dealership and pick one out and drive it away?

 

Hi Michael, Thanks for your support. In answer to your question I would suggest that you would get a new car as soon as you need one. I would propose that we replace cars which are the most dangerous, uneconomical, or polluting first.

 

So if your car falls into this category, you would go down to your local garage, have your car assessed and if it fulfilled the criteria, you could choose a new one, or a really good used one! (The worst thing that could happen is that your car would be pronounced still servicable, and we would arrange to have it fully repaired for you. Bummer eh? another win/win situation!

 

The rest of us will already have servicable cars which we would be able to keep fully serviced and repaired free of charge.

 

So the cars we have already made should last us a very long time, and all we have to do is replace them as they come to the end of their lives, recycling the remains.

 

What that means is that the most materially needy will get the first service, and that we begin to protect the most vulnerable of our species in a sensible way.

 

Our turn for help will come as soon as we need it. But not just any old help.

 

The homeless and the poorest would immediately be housed in the best accommodation we can give them. There are millions of hotel rooms, empty properties, and offices all over the world which could immediately be used to help the poorest and most vulnerable. We will increase food production and direct resources to where they are most needed, using the systems of supply which are already in place on this planet.

 

We don't need to re-invent the wheel to do this, we just have to learn to take our proper place in line... according to our needs, in the first instance, until we develop the means to make the best of everything for all of us. (which shouldn't take us too long;))

 

And if people want to circumvent such a system to jump the queue, we will let them. Selfishness in a small percentage of our population shouldn't be a reason not to adopt this philosophy. They will learn, and be ashamed.

 

The same philosophy would be used for housing, clothing and anything else you can think of. It's quite a simple scheme. It really shouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out what I'm talking about should it? I'ts all about suppressing our individual greed and selfishness for the good of all;)

 

Keep the faith, or if you don't have the faith, develop it.

 

Best regards to you and yours,

 

Peacemaker. :phones:

[Zythryn]

So if your car falls into this category, you would go down to your local garage, have your car assessed and if it fulfilled the criteria,

 

Moon, I hear if you give the mechanic a couple of those what-cha-ma-call-its you make (under the table of course) you can get yourself a new car;)

 

Oh wait, that would be BARTER wouldn't it? Paying for services. Neverymind, I didn't say anything....

[Peacemaker]

Peacemaker, part of your plan is to get the ear of the people, and once you have it, you can explain your plan so that the majority of people in the world will agree with you.

 

However, you have had our ears for a long time. We are a group of intelligent people who, despite what you may think, are trying to understand you. You have not convinced us. Why do you assume that most people will agree with you if you cannot convince us?

 

I understand what you are saying Dave, but have no answer. I have tried to present this philosophy as simply as possible.

 

The main problem is that it requires faith, both in the humanity and right thinking of the rest of your species, and in me to make it reality.

 

If it helps, I am totally confident that I know how to do this, and how to do it right. I believe that it is my fate to help humanity to begin to truly fulfull our destiny.

 

That may sound a little 'off the wall' to you, and therein lies the problem.

 

If you dismiss me as a well meaning crank, nothing happens, and you carry on exactly as you are. That would be described as the line of least resistance. You don't have to do anything, and nothing changes. We will all carry on living with poverty, inequality, war, famine, desease and inhumanity.

 

I can change that. You just have to believe that I can, and evolution starts to become a realiity. The future suddenly starts to look a whole lot rosier for our species.

 

It's your choice Dave, and everyone else's on this planet. Our species has put its faith in people with much less potential before and paid the price.

 

I know the price of failure. I see it around me every day. I'd like to stop doing that. Help me now and I'll help you for the rest of your life.

 

Best regards for the future,

Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

Moon, I hear if you give the mechanic a couple of those what-cha-ma-call-its you make (under the table of course) you can get yourself a new car;)

 

Oh wait, that would be BARTER wouldn't it? Paying for services. Neverymind, I didn't say anything....

 

Hi Z, as usual you read to criticise, not to understand.

 

You don't seem to have the wherewithall to see things positively. This isn't a criticism, merely an observation.

 

It is within you to change that Z.

 

Instead of glib sarcasm, why not try really addressing the issues in a logical way and list the plus's and minuses of my philosophy against the current world situation?

 

Or would that be too positive a thing to do for you Z?

 

Best regards,

Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

:hihi: :) :phones:

 

Have a cup of Jave on me. :cup:

 

No cup for me Doug?

 

Ken

[Zythryn]

Peacemaker, believe it or not, I am a very optimistic person.

Especially when it comes right down to humanaties ability to do the right thing (eventually).

And I believe I understand your position completely. The issue I have with you is you don't list how to get from here to there.

If changing the basic human nature is as easy as you say, and you don't feel you can start with only one section of the world, why not start with something else a little easier.

Convince the world to give up corruption. That ought to be easy compared to trying to get humanity to give up the evolved trait of hoarding.

I am not being glib, nor sarcastic. If you feel giving up money is 'simple', start with corruption, it should be easier yet. Then, once you have done that, the ball will be rolling and you can tackle the more difficult stuff.

[Peacemaker]

Peacemaker, believe it or not, I am a very optimistic person.

Especially when it comes right down to humanaties ability to do the right thing (eventually).

And I believe I understand your position completely. The issue I have with you is you don't list how to get from here to there.

If changing the basic human nature is as easy as you say, and you don't feel you can start with only one section of the world, why not start with something else a little easier.

Convince the world to give up corruption. That ought to be easy compared to trying to get humanity to give up the evolved trait of hoarding.

I am not being glib, nor sarcastic. If you feel giving up money is 'simple', start with corruption, it should be easier yet. Then, once you have done that, the ball will be rolling and you can tackle the more difficult stuff.

 

Hi Z,

I don't really know how to make my position clearer. I have explained in great detail what I am going to do, at various points throughout this thread. Again you refer to the removal of corruption from human experience as 'easier' and return to your slowly slowly theory of getting people to give up the use of money in some kind of 'staged' plan.

 

Here's a truism. AS LONG AS MONEY AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP EXIST THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CORRUPTION. IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. The only way to remove it from human experience is to remove the source. There are thousands of lawyers out there, and judges and politicians who have been concocting laws for centuries, trying to make the use of money 'fair'. The problem is that there are thousands and thousands more lawyers, judges and politicians who make huge sums of money from their clients for telling them how to circumvent those laws. Then there are the criminal fraternity who are not so articulate, and so just grab a gun and take what they want by force.

 

We have been 'firefighting' the consequences of the existence of money and property ownership for hundreds,and possibly thousands of years. Laws have been enacted, defined, re-defined, changed and repealed in order to make human beings do the right thing... and we are still jailing people for embezzlement, theft, tax evasion, kidnap, blackmail and the whole gamut of money based crimes.

 

Can't you see that the system is fundamentally flawed? Here we are in the 21st century and we are no nearer to solving these problems under the present system. Crime is just different now. Bankers brought in the 'chip and pin' system to protect credit and debit card holders from theft. It didn't work. A small minority of the people who invented the system sold the ways around it to the criminal fraternity, and within days of it hitting the high streets, credit card fraud re-comenced, and will soon be as endemic as ever. There are innumerable laws governing the traders on Wall Street. The pick up their million dollar bonuses and take risks with our money to make more money for themselves. they are mega rich, and yet they still stoop to insider dealing and short selling to make more. Enough is never enough for these people.

 

America spends 2 BILLION dollars per stealth bomber and whilst the cold war was in existence, had orders for over 130 of them in place. Then suddenly the cold war ended and the orders were stopped. So the American arms industry had to find another implacable enemy, and there, waiting in the wings werre Al Quaeda, Iraq and the war against drugs in Afghanistan. So, almost seamlessly, the American arms industry carried on producing, and making huge profits for their shareholders. It is in the interest of these people to promote and create war situations around the world. Billions of dollars have been wasted on the 'war on terror'. If the American government had used a fraction of these funds to improve the lives of the Iraqi peoples there would be peace in that area now, instead of a war which the American military judge as 'unwinnable'. Like Vietnam. Problem is, limited unwinnable wars keep the financial pot boiling for the arms manufacturers and dealers, and if a few thousand young Americans have to die as part of that process, they consider it a 'small price to pay'

 

Did you hear about the huge party that was held after the latest Iraqi invasion, where politicians and the oil industry carved up 75% of the profits from Iraqi oil for the foreseeable future?

 

You can't fight that kind of crap with money still in place. The people who control the wealth would absolutely ensure you ended up with egg on your face, by taking their money out of the system and creating a recession, or worse, a depression and genially explaining to the peoples of the world that 'communism' just doesn't make sense does it?

 

Does this aid understanding Z?

 

Oh, and the artist with the 900 paintings to distribute thing. If you go back to the source document, you will find a series of natural laws which I feel would be essential in bringing this plan to fruition. Try looking at those to find one that fits this scenario. I think the 'sharing' one should do it. If the painter was painting as his job, and taking all the benefits of the system in return for doing so, don't you think it would be incumbent on him to offer them for placement in public areas so that the maximum amount of our species could benefit from them? and if he does them in his spare time as a hobby, he would absolutely be entitled to give them to anyone he wanted to.

 

Best regards,

 

Ken

[Peacemaker]

Has the cat got all your tongues? or is the penny finally dropping that I just may have something here?

 

The silence is deafening... and do I get that cup of coffee yet Doug?

 

Best regards to all.

 

Peacemaker.

[Zythryn]

No peacemaker, I still don't believe you have anything here other than good intentions.

I haven't responded because you keep saying 'look at the great level of detail I have given' yet you have provided no such detail.

Your 65 page diatribe is simply says 'wouldn't it be great if everyone stopped depending upon money' but gives no details as to the mechanics of how you actually propose to move goods and services from producer to consumer.

So instead of continuing this conversation:

 

Me: You don't tell us how your propose doing this

You: Yes I went into great detail

Me: No, you didn't

You: Yes I did

Me: No, you didn't

You: Yes I did

 

I decided to cut my losses.

Now, if you do intead have any details, I am still interested in hearing about them. If you wish to continue saying "I provided great details" without actually doing so, please feel free to pretend I keep responding with "No, you haven't"

[Zythryn]

...if he does them in his spare time as a hobby, he would absolutely be entitled to give them to anyone he wanted to.

 

This is as close as you have come, lets see if we can follow this one example.

Lets say Bob the artist does this work as a hobby. His work is outstanding, unique even and is shown in a number of museums.

Many people want samples of his work for their private spaces and Bob gets requests for 150 of his peices. He can make 36 each year. He knows none of the people that have made requests.

He randomly picks names and starts filling requests.

Phil, finds out he is 127th on the list. He happens to know Mike is 3rd on the list.

Phil approaches Mike and offers to help him on his Farm for free for a week if Mike will give him his spot in line.

 

Does this sound unreasonable to you?