The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

So then is the forced relocation of people justified when they break the law or violate a contract?

Justified how? Legally? Morally? Socially? Politically?

[Girlbot]

Justified how? Legally? Morally? Socially? Politically?

Is this a trick question? I would say the operative words used were "break the law"

[aretood2]

Is this a trick question? I would say the operative words used were "break the law"

In Nazi Germany it was illegal to be Jewish, but it is hardly immoral to be Jewish. Law in general sense is a human thing (unless you're talking about The Law, Torah) and thus imperfect and potentially immoral in and of itself. Just ask first century Christians. After all, it is human laws that cause so much strife in the world. Which in turn causes lawlessness which in turn causes more strife.

[Col.Foley]

Justified how? Legally? Morally? Socially? Politically?

I would say legally and socially.

Mind you here to your other comment you do raise a good point about people making things legal which are immoral. But I guess this conversation brings to mind, not talking about illegal aliens, that when and if someone commits a murder and is charaged for it he is thereby forcebly relocated to prison. If someone violates a contract and fails to pay a charge then they are often evicted from their property.

[aretood2]

I would say legally and socially.

Mind you here to your other comment you do raise a good point about people making things legal which are immoral. But I guess this conversation brings to mind, not talking about illegal aliens, that when and if someone commits a murder and is charaged for it he is thereby forcebly relocated to prison. If someone violates a contract and fails to pay a charge then they are often evicted from their property.

Absent of any higher law, anything can be justified. Humanity, even if it claims to believe in a higher law, has largely behaved as if said law does not exist throughout history. So yeah, laws can and at many times are immoral. As for murderers and contract defaults, it really is a cultural convention. I'm not advocating ignoring things, but it is subjective in that human laws used to justify it are based on abstract social concepts. There's nothing concrete behind them.

Today people applaud yesterday's criminals and condemn tomorrow's heroes. That's why my post was irrespective of whether or not the proposed forced relocations of certain populations was "right." It was about the fact that such relocations or the desire to make such relocations exist. To another culture, such ideas may be foreign or even alien (especially if we throw E.T. into the mix).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this or that. I just pointing out a pattern of human behavior and refusing to differentiate between the motives of that behavior.

[Coco Pops]

Today's terrorist is tomorrow's folk hero

[Col.Foley]

Absent of any higher law, anything can be justified. Humanity, even if it claims to believe in a higher law, has largely behaved as if said law does not exist throughout history. So yeah, laws can and at many times are immoral. As for murderers and contract defaults, it really is a cultural convention. I'm not advocating ignoring things, but it is subjective in that human laws used to justify it are based on abstract social concepts. There's nothing concrete behind them.

Today people applaud yesterday's criminals and condemn tomorrow's heroes. That's why my post was irrespective of whether or not the proposed forced relocations of certain populations was "right." It was about the fact that such relocations or the desire to make such relocations exist. To another culture, such ideas may be foreign or even alien (especially if we throw E.T. into the mix).

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do this or that. I just pointing out a pattern of human behavior and refusing to differentiate between the motives of that behavior.

Well good ffor you then. I guess iff it gets one to get off ones high horse about such things because usually when I think of forced relocation I thin Star Trek Inserection. But that can also apply to any individual or any reason who is forced to leave his house for X reason, as you have pointed out. See this is why I have these conversations sometimes, to be proved wrong.

[Gatefan1976]

So what incentive does an individual have to sacrifice anything if he cannot be rewarded for it?

How are they not rewarded?
Food- check
Healthcare - check
Transport - check
Entertainment - check
Education - check
Housing - check
Ability for self improvement - check

How is this "no reward"??

[Col.Foley]

How are they not rewarded?
Food- check
Healthcare - check
Transport - check
Entertainment - check
Education - check
Housing - check
Ability for self improvement - check

How is this "no reward"??

But, if I am understanding the system correctly, there would be no way to accumlate anything more. Sure you might have the ability to get entertained but it will be perscribed to you. You cannot go about and own it, or buy it, or get it all on your own it will simply be given to you carte blanche just like anything else. And sure this might be ok in the short run but inovation is driven through compeititon, if I have the same amount of things that you have there will be no need for me to do anything.

[The Flyattractor]

The Party that promotes Self Responsibililty will never be more popular then the party that preaches Selishness.

[Col.Foley]

The Party that promotes Self Responsibililty will never be more popular then the party that preaches Selishness.

Selishness? Are we going to be selling sea shells by the sea shore

[The Flyattractor]

yeshhh... Da Conch Shell makes a good Rum Holder.

[Gatefan1976]

But, if I am understanding the system correctly, there would be no way to accumlate anything more.

Why would you *need* to accumulate more?

Sure you might have the ability to get entertained but it will be perscribed to you. You cannot go about and own it, or buy it, or get it all on your own it will simply be given to you carte blanche just like anything else. And sure this might be ok in the short run but inovation is driven through compeititon,

No, that is the current paradigm, this system seeks to change that. Innovation by having a need to fill instead of self aggrandizement.

if I have the same amount of things that you have there will be no need for me to do anything.

Sure, you could choose to do nothing if you wished, but in such an environment, it would be an even more hollow pursuit than it is today.

[Seastallion]

Despite having some problems with your wordage generally I agree. Greed seems to be one of those things when taken too far, well there are few things more destructive when it, but when it is properly managed by the individual then it is one of the most powerul tools for good economy. Without enlightened self interest we would not have any insentive to go out and do anything with our lives.

So what incentive does an individual have to sacrifice anything if he cannot be rewarded for it?

You basically answered your own question. "Enlightened Self Interest". RBE isn't JUST about the economic side of things, it is, as was said, also about cultivating attitudes for a sustainable society. Greed wouldn't play as much of a factor because you have access to almost anything you wanted. You want to take a yacht out for a cruise? No problem. Just check it out, like you would a book. You want to travel the world? No problem, just go where you want.

Nikola Tesla could've been the world's richest man, but he chose the betterment of mankind over his personal wealth, because he truly only cared about his work and what it could do to elevate humanity. People would be driven to invent because they WANT to improve their own condition, and that of their fellow humans. Things like starships could be truly be built by those that WANTED to do it, so they could explore space. People could DO virtually anything they wanted without 'costs' being a hindrance. There would BE no money. If someone, anyone, wanted to live on a yacht for a year, they COULD. No need to steal from a bank or something. Just go check one out, and go. Not everyone will WANT to do that, or do it all the time.

If someone wanted to live on the Sea, Ocean borne cities could be built, both above and below the waves. People could live wherever they wanted, whether in the city or in the country. RBE is about Resource MANAGEMENT in a sustainable way. That would very likely include gathering resources from the Solar system as well. Most manual labor would be done by machines, and material goods would be available as resources can sustain. No, not everyone would be able to live in a huge mansion, but everyone could have a decent sized middle class type home.

You wouldn't need to worry about buying 4-Wheelers, dirt bikes, Jet Skis, or things like that. You could check them out anytime you wanted to use them. Why would you need to store them at your house when you aren't even using them? I suppose someone living on a farm in the country could keep them, but it wouldn't be that big of an issue. Most people would probably prefer living in cities, so they could take advantage of the social opportunities. Also things being in a community pool, you wouldn't have to worry about maintenance either, as that would be attended to. You don't have to keep things at your house to have ACCESS to them. That is the key. Why be greedy for something you can have any time you want to use it? You just give it back to the community when your done. Big deal.

[aretood2]

The problem with Roddenberry and his Star Trek writers is that they are not by any stretch of the imagination economists and as far as I know, none of them have specialized knowledge in any related field. They can't even get a proper culture set up. Look, I'm a fan of Star Trek as much as the next guy...but I have to turn of parts of my brain sometimes. Sure, they got the sci fi down right....mostly...but some of the other stuff...don't think about it.

Human cultures are based on holistic interactions between individuals. There has to be a societal goal, and end. The more complex cultures are the result of an evolution brought on by demographic, geographic, technological and political factors over time. But in its core, all cultures (theoretically) have common threads.

We live in a highly complex culture which thus needs a complex method of distributing and utilizing resources in the most efficient manner. This "paradgim" is the result of trial and error. You can theorize anything, I mean anything. A Star Trek economy or a communist paradise. The problem is getting there. How do you get from here to there. How do you convince high schoolers that being popular (social capital which translates into greed later on) is not important?

There's this idea that somehow if we through enough education and awareness everyone would just flip the "off" switch in their DNA and stop being greedy for fame and fortune (social capital). The thing is that in every culture social capital is expressed in a certain way. Some use printed money, others use mates and stories and prowess, others use precious metals and objects, some use religious tokens and power (as in power to affect spiritual realms and objects.)

The idea of ridding money needs an alternative for social capital. What are people striving for? Insular satisfaction won't work...it never has. On an individual level, it might. But on a societal level...well...we are social creatures. Part of our identity is formed on having social capital. Everything that is done in each culture is to acquire material benefit for self and family. That is the core essence of human nature, that is where greed comes from. The desire to be number one is based on the insecurity of not having enough for self or family.

It's easy to undervalue just how important it is for us as humans to interact with others. We have to interact, we have to set up personal identities, and our identities have to have some sort of value. We have to specialize in complex societies to better manage resources...and to prevent someone from hugging up all of the resources (intentionally or unintentionally) we have to have a system that is self regulatory. So far the great human experiment has only developed one system. The money system.

Credits, IMO, is a money system. A credit is a share of resources you earn from inputting to society's productivity. If I teach ten engineers, they will move to build better machines and technologies to use to develop more resources for all. Thus I "earned" an allotment of those resources for myself. Maybe I'll build myself a nice house by the river.

Today, if I teach ten engineers, I get paid X dollars. I can then spend X dollars towards building a nice house by the river.

Some people have turned the Star Trek economy into a credit system. It doesn't work exactly the same as our dollar system, but it is still a monetary system. You put in the effort, get the right to use certain amount of resources, and you move on.