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

[DougF]

OK I'll start off by saying this sounds good on paper, and I agree with you if this could be implemented It would be great. :)

 

BUT, I see some small problems and being a long document I won't list them all at once, where shall we start. well I think I'll leave stuff like "sending the nuclear waste on a collision course with the sun" to those better then me to answer these questions. I'll try to be a little more practical.

 

All it takes is time' date=' planning, resource and the guts and determination to take the decision, make a start and see it through

<-->

In order to enact the First Law, we have to [b']immediately, peacefully [/b]and by popular agreement, cease the production and usage of money and never return to it as long as our race exists.

We also have to end private and commercial ownership of every resource on this planet[/Quote]

Guts and resource not a problem we can do.

Q: how do you plan to get the world to stop using money (at the same time)?

and turn over all these resources to whom (are going to start a world bank)

 

We import trained medical professionals from poorer countries where their skills are most needed. They come because (through our many and varied forms of taxation)' date=' we can pay them more than their own people can. How fair and equitable is that?[/Quote']

I don't agree with this statement most of the "medical professionals from poorer countries" come to this country for schooling and they spend the 4 year intern here then go back as fully trained doctors to help in the country they came from. ( this is IMHO from doctors I've meet.)

 

There will be millions of intelligent' date=' capable people immediately out of work as a result of this plan.[/Quote']

NOW this could be a very big problem, Q: what are going to do with the masses.

Temporarily displaced members of our new society will want to acquire new skills quickly in whatever parts of the manufacturing' date=' service and supply chain they feel able to contribute.[/Quote']

are these people just wandering around looking for jobs? And just how Meany people are going to lose there jobs?

By choosing to evolve' date=' a further necessary part of the process will be to instantly dissolve all National and International borders[/Quote']

And how are you going to do this?:warped:

 

I'll be back with more Questions.

[Peacemaker]

Thanks for your input FS. Thanks also for your promising first line:)

 

'Okay, Peacemaker, it's not like I don't agree with you that if you could get everybody to agree on your 'Ten Simple Rules for Paradise' life would be good'.

 

I wish you had just stopped there my friend.

 

That's all I am asking for.

 

This statement tells me that you have understood the basic common sense of this plan and that you are beginning to understand that this would be a very good step to take for our species.

 

The only arguments mankind can make against this plan are illogical.

 

Now that you have begun to evolve, mentally, you will very soon realise that when EVERYONE ON THE PLANET is aware of this simple system, we will have to argue for the benefits of war over peace, because if you keep money you keep war.

THAT'S the choice you're going to have to make very soon.

You will also come to realise, very quickly, that it is because, and solely because of the existence of money ,that the following crimes against humanity exist on this planet. (Please excuse the list, but unfortunately it IS necessary) Crime, and famine, and drought, and murder for profit, and kidnap, and embezzlement, and taxes, prostitution, burglary, shoplifting, mugging.

 

I wonder what YOUR imagination could add to this list?

 

All I have to do is get this message out to the population of the world, and if they can just make the same statement as you just did, the way we view the world, and each other will take a slight shift, and then we wil begin to create Heaven on Earth.

 

That's all it takes.

 

You just have to change your mind...

 

...and we can find sensible answers to every single question raised. We just begin to organise ourselves peacefully and positively from day one.

 

I suppose the real answer to all the doubts and negativity that are levelled at this theory is - just agree that it is a good idea, and then do your best to make it happen, for the rest of your life.

 

Best regards,

 

Peacemaker.

[Peacemaker]

Hi Buffy, I hope you read, and understood my last post. You didn't say whether you thought my ideas are ultimately good for humanity or bad. When I get the answer to THAT question I will answer your previous questions. In other words, if you are happy that the plan is useful and ultimately beneficial to the human species, then your previous questions will become superfluous, because you will begin to understand that we are all going to benefit.

 

In every way imaginable.

 

If, on the other hand you have TRULY read this document, and you still support and argue for the 'greater' benefits of the current system, then I despair. If an intelligent girl like you can't work this one out, then we are lost, we can all look forward to terminator world.

 

Say it aint so!

Peacemaker

[Peacemaker]

Thank you Buffy,

 

XXX

[TheFaithfulStone]

I wish you had just stopped there my friend.

 

That's all I am asking for.

 

This statement tells me that you have understood the basic common sense of this plan and that you are beginning to understand that this would be a very good step to take for our species.

 

The only arguments mankind can make against this plan are illogical.

 

See, now you're being condescending. Can't even live by your own rules.....

 

Life is HARD, that's why it sucks sometimes.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

Peacemaker, I don't think anyone would argue that your 'paper' is bad for humanity. And very few would say it isn't most excellent.

However, you have left a lot out of your paper (or I missed it).

How will this society deal with those that wish to take advantage of the structure? Perhaps someone decides that since everything is provided, they need not provide for others?

What about the protection for society from those that would commit crimes? I understand your stance that many crimes would disappear, but what of those that don't? Crimes of passion, of personal power (rape for example), of just plain meanness (from serial murder to beating homeless for kicks)?

Or, are we going to force this system of beliefs upon those that don't subscribe to it? Even if 99% of people love it and take it up, that 1% that don't represents 60 Million people.

And how, oh how are we going to produce a porsche roadster for every man experiencing a midlife crisis in the entire world (all material wants are provided, right?)?

[Buffy]

This statement tells me that you have understood the basic common sense of this plan and that you are beginning to understand that this would be a very good step to take for our species.

 

The only arguments mankind can make against this plan are illogical.

Well two questions pop up here:

• Who defines "good"? Is it what is good for me or what is good for "mankind"? How are you going to get people to care about "mankind" when they all hate each other so much? Even if they don't hate each other, how are you going to get those of us who do so well by controlling the assets and means of production to give it up? I like being rich!
  
• Who defines "logical"? It seems that its logical only if you hold the concept of all people get the same thing, and if we do this there will be more than anyone wants so we'll all be happy. That's a big assumption and not many people agree with it. Do you have any data that might back this assumption up?

 

Honestly, there are people with different opinions, and not only is it not obvious, the problem is in the implementation: its not "simple":

All I have to do is get this message out to the population of the world, and if they can just make the same statement as you just did, the way we view the world, and each other will take a slight shift, and then we wil begin to create Heaven on Earth.

 

That's all it takes.

 

You just have to change your mind...

 

So my up front skepticism--that this is just another "if everyone just thinks like me the world will be beautiful" scheme--is basically validated.

 

Can you tell me how your plan is different than any other similar plan that has been thought of going back to *pre-history*?

 

I suppose the real answer to all the doubts and negativity that are levelled at this theory is - just agree that it is a good idea, and then do your best to make it happen, for the rest of your life.

 

Cool! I work towards the "goal" of world peace and harmony and so forth every day, but it does not involve "eliminating money" or getting everyone to give up everything they have in order for it to happen.

 

Yet you persist in this Estian/Scientologisty "you're just being negative and the only problem is YOU getting over your negativism." I'd love it if you came back with some practical answers for the practical obstacles to getting to where you want us all to be.

 

We agree on the goals, but your objectives, strategy and tactics fly right in the face of reality, and human history is littered with folks who tried to promote *exactly* the same ideas, foolishly assuming that it was "obviously" the best solution and ignoring the details.

 

The Donald sez, "You're Fired."

 

If you stand in the rain, you get wet, whether you understand water or not,

Buffy

[Peacemaker]

 

This is the document as I wrote it. When reading it, imagine it is being read to you in Ringo Starr's voice. Apparently I sound very like him. This document is my brain, and voice, speaking directly to you, reader. Please take this as a personal reading, and a plea, from all the rest of us on this planet, that you can take this idea to your heart, and help me MAKE it happen. For all our benefit,

 

Love to all,

Peacemaker.

[Zythryn]

...You will also come to realise, very quickly, that it is because, and solely because of the existence of money ,that the following crimes against humanity exist on this planet. (Please excuse the list, but unfortunately it IS necessary) Crime, and famine, and drought, and murder for profit, and kidnap, and embezzlement, and taxes, prostitution, burglary, shoplifting, mugging.

 

Your premise is faulty. Your position will be accepted by many more people if it is logical and consistent.

You stated that Crime, famine, draught, murder for profit, kidnapping, embezzlement, taxes, prostitution, burglary, shoplifting and muggng are all SOLEY a result of the existence of money.

 

Not all crime is a function of money. Much crime has nothing to do with money. What about the woman who kills another woman to get her husband?

Many shoplifters have no need for the items. Just last year there was some 'star' that got caught shoplifting. She had plenty of money, it was just an 'urge' she got.

It is also not uncommon to here a story on the news about a woman that kidnaps another woman's child because she wants a baby. The one I heard this spring was right out of a hospital. As I recall, the woman was unable to have her own child, so she dressed up like a nurse and took one.

 

Don't get me wrong. I like your idea, and I would love it if everyone would live this way. However, I don't think you have thought this through to its logical conclusion.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, when there's no property, there's no property crime, because there's no property.

 

Handy little tautologies,

TFS

[Peacemaker]

Hi all,

 

Unfortunately I have to sign off now, a relation of mine has just been taken ill and I have to go to the hospital. While I am away, please re-read the rules, and see if they answer the questions they pose. I have excellent answers for all of your questions, and I will answer all of them, in full, to your complete satisfaction as soon as I can. X

[DougF]

I hope nothing serious,

we will be here upon your return.

[InfiniteNow]

I hope nothing serious,

we will be here upon your return.

 

Ditto that. Health and peace to those with whom you share love and friendship, peacemaker.

 

To Buffy's point, I must agree. You offer some wonderfully acceptable premises and abstractions. The struggle is the agreement across populations on how to define those abstractions.

 

Good and bad? Those concepts are so gray that you could spend a lifetime of study and still have no clear definition. Further, it might be pretty tough for people who are too busy struggling to find food or a place to stay for the night to focus much attention on absracting about being nice to each other.

 

 

Maslow wasn't from Egypt, but he built a solid pyramid.

[DougF]

InfiniteNow

Originally Posted by DougF

I hope nothing serious' date='

we will be here upon your return. [/Quote']

 

Ditto that. Health and peace to those with whom you share love and friendship, peacemaker.

 

To Buffy's point, I must agree. You offer some wonderfully acceptable premises and abstractions. The struggle is the agreement across populations on how to define those abstractions.

 

Good and bad? Those concepts are so gray that you could spend a lifetime of study and still have no clear definition. Further, it might be pretty tough for people who are too busy struggling to find food or a place to stay for the night to focus much attention on absracting about being nice to each other.

 

 

Maslow wasn't from Egypt, but he built a solid pyramid. [/Quote]

Nicely said I concur. :shrug:

 

 

It is said that for money you can have everything, but you cannot. You can buy food, but not appetite; medicine, but not health; knowledge but not wisdom; glitter, but not beauty; fun, but not joy; acquaintances, but not friends; servants, but not faithfulness; leisure, but not peace. You can have the husk of everything for money, but not the kernel.

 

-Arne Garborg

 

 

The money you have gives you freedom; the money you pursue enslaves you.

 

-Jean Jacques Rousseau

.

.

.

[CraigD]

Thank you for your book, Peacemaker. I enjoyed it, and would have replied earlier, except that I followed its instruction to wait 24 hours between its two parts.

 

It’s full of factual flaws, which bothers very little, as I don’t see it as a scientific, technical paper. A few flaws, however, call out to me to address, as I believe they have the potential to cause harm:

 

You appear to recommend, Peacemaker, that people with the HIV/AIDS should be sterilized, or otherwise not have children, because their HIV infection would be inherited by their children. However, with no treatment whatever, the rate of transmission of HIV from an infected mother to a child is only about 25%. With the best available treatment, the transmission rate is less than 1%.

 

To suggest other than these well-understood and validated scientific facts can play into already serious discrimination against people suffering from HIV/AIDS, and worse, against their children, who are already at great risk due to discrimination and lack of support.

 

You state the Kyoto protocols “didn’t happen”. However, even without being ratified by such important signers as the US and Australia, the protocols have produced verified reduction in greenhouse gas releases, and promise to achieve or nearly achieve their 2010 and 2012 goals. To suggest otherwise plays into already damaging anti-environmental propaganda that seeks to discredit the protocols and similar pro-environmental agreements.

 

I’ve a few other, less specific, but more profound disquiets about the book.

 

First, you propose that people who commit violence should be “shut away from society for the rest of their days”. However, many people commit acts of criminal violence. If all of them were so shunned, they would constitute a “separate nation” more populous than all but a few present day nations.

 

I’ve had a lot of experience with handling violent people in pacifistic societies – an old Shanti Sena, for those who know the reference. It’s difficult, and not amenable to simple solutions, but in the dogma of my family, and according to my personal experience and intuition, violence, and many other disturbing personal ills, are best controlled not by ostracizing those who commit them, but by embracing them.

 

Last, you seem to be implying that the “zero hour” you hope for will occur all at once, at some time in the future. For many people, however, zero hour occurred decades ago, and the world you describe is here now. Unless you’ve spent your life - which has been six years longer than mine – in far different society than I have, you likely know many such folk, and, if you don’t already, might do well to seek their counsel.

[Peacemaker]

 

 

Hi folks, I have been busying myself with attempting to satisfactorily answer the bulk of the questions raised by my document so far. I see there are some new ones, to which I shall reply as soon as I have recovered from this lot.

 

The only new thought I would leave with you at this stage, is that I am just one man - with a plan. I don't have the answers to the minutiae of everything that will happen once we evolve, I am merely recommending a general course of action which I am convinced will change our personal and shared experience on this planet for the rest of our existence. The world is full of able individuals who will put forward their suggestions as to how the remaining problems are dealt with, as and when they arise after Evolution begins. Please try to concentrate on understanding the broad scope of this plan, see if you can agree with its broad aims, and we'll take it forward from there. All potential problems are surmountable, we just have to apply common sense and logic, along with the rules.

 

Best regards to all, and thanks for your sentiments

[TheFaithfulStone]

Let's not reply in word documents anymore, okay?

 

Well TFS, in order to get everybody to actually ‘do it’; this knowledge has to become universally accepted as the simple truth.

 

That's also a tautology. It will be accepted and done when it is done and accepted?

 

It's not going to happen. Let me quote you "Stones Law," because it is a scientific law, meaning that it can't really be proven, but it has never been observed to be false.

1) There is no idea so obviously stupid that you cannot find at least one person who will disagree on it's obvious stupidity.

And it's corollary -

2) There is no ideas so obviously good that you cannot find at least one person who will disagree on it's obvious goodness.

 

These aren't "provable" because they're not "theories." They're like the the 80-20 rule, or Moore's law, or the Second Law of thermodynamics. They have never been observed to be untrue.

 

So your good idea which is effectively - "Don't be a dick," will have at least one person who WANTS to be a dick. And then where does that leave us?

 

I mean, you can argue that that's not the way the world works, but... I disagree with your obviously good idea, so doesn't that kinda shoot it down right there.

 

Unlike genius, stupidity has no limits,

TFS