First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
Decentralization (none / 0)
"If it's anonymized from the government then how will they know to tax the transactions"

It's easy, it doesn't matter, who does the transaction, whenever money is moved 10% (this is a more realistic number) go to the government.

"I have NO problem with identifying yourself with pins and find the fingerprint idea a little cool"

Wow, I really expected fingerprint-paranoia.;-)
This has by the way the advantage, that the bankers wouldn't have to know your name or adress, if you do your business online, they wouldn't even know your race. Discrimination (at least on a subconscious level) has still a lot to do with whether you get a credit or not and other bank related issues. The banks would only have financial informations when it comes to making decissions.

"My problem with the whole idea of government ownership of non-public-interest-areas is to do with the more generalized subject of centralization and decentralization of power..."

Well, let's leave the theoretical field for a short time and look at the current situation. The complete banking power is probably in the hands of less than 1000 people you don't know and can't hold responsible (talking worldwide). To take this power from them and turn it over to the government would indeed decentralize this power. Going back to theory... The people having the power would be controlled by the people, because they decide who the government is. When it comes to deciding who the 1000 most powerful banksters are the main identifier is ruthlessness.

"So in a Capitalistic society where those who control the money have the most power I'm trusting noone who is in charge of the money (government or otherwise)"

But some people are in charge of the money, you just don't know who they are. I really don't want to sound like a conspiracy not, but I'm pretty sure that the whole financial sector is controlled by only a few people when you start really looking at who controlls what.

"I would still prefer an incomebased tax because it taxes at the source"

Well, then I don't see the difference. Whenever you get money 10% are distracted. That would be the only tax. It really just depends on the point of view, whether the person getting the money or the person spending the money gets taxed. Your boss pays you 2000 and you get 1800. You buy a new TV for 1000 and the person selling it get 900. Is that income or spending based? I think that's only a question of PR.

"I have NO problem with environmental taxing but what I put in my body is my bussiness... if I want to poison my body with cigarettes or alchohol or heroin or fat foods or... then fuck off and let me do it... "

Well, it's no longer just your business, when HC is nationalized. If you shoot heroin that causes additional costs for the society. No problem with you poisoning yourself, but then you have to pay the price (quite literally). It is in my opinion also important that wine isn't much cheaper than juice, because that would be a motivation for people to drink wine instead of juice, and I don't mind the doing it, but they should pay a part of the costs they cause by deciding that. Also, imagine heroin being sold for 5$ per gramm. That would have disasterous consequences.

"Now I consider myself a fairly intelligent man but that I don't get... how would it make trade fairer?"

Well, I consider you a very intelligent man (as proven by the amount of things we agree on;-)).
Currently states and banksters can controll the worth of currency.

Example China: They keep the value of their currency artificially low, because that means they can sell cheaper. With one global currency that wouldn't be possible for very much longer.

Problem CDS: They can be used to destroy currencies with "relatively little" financial investment. This makes markets less save, which means less fair conditions for small economies.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/08/2010 05:15:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
It's easy, it doesn't matter, who does the transaction, whenever money is moved 10% (this is a more realistic number) go to the government
Well... like I wrote... if you insisted then you could have your transactiontax and I could live with it :D

Wow, I really expected fingerprint-paranoia :-)
Lol really?... why?
I'm not paranoid because I don't trust people with power... you are only paranoid if you are wrong :D hehe

And just because I don't trust them doesn't mean I can't live with fingerprint-identification. .. it just means I'm keeping an eye on what they use that information for and if they misuse it I'm all over them like a catholic priest on a choirboy... (what to soon?) ok like a evangelical priest on a male prostitute (what still offensive?) ok ok like a muslim on a suicide mission (what what?) ok then I've got nothing :D

The complete banking power is probably in the hands of less than 1000 people you don't know and can't hold responsible (talking worldwide)
True and as I wrote... that is definitely NOT my ideal situation (I think it's a VERY BAD situation just like you do)... but the solution is NOT to go further in the wrong direction and centralize it even more by giving the power to the government (you think that just because you vote for essentially the same people every 4 years that you hold anybody accoutable for anything???)... the solution is to decentralize it even more and give the power of the money to the people by handing ownership over to those who work at the bank and the people who have money in the bank (the customers) because then you know who've done what and can hold them instantly and directly responsible... but maybe that's just my oppinion :D

Whenever you get money 10% are distracted <whole paragraph>
Like I said I can live with it so we are not in disagreement on this point :D

Well, it's no longer just your business, when HC is nationalized. If you shoot heroin that causes additional costs for the society
Yes it it still just my bussiness :P hehe

Who said freedom was free? it isn't...

Here's how it works...
The government have one responsibility... to provide to it's citizens what they need and can't provide for themselves (be it healthcare, security, welfare, etc. etc.) and then collect the money to pay for it from the collective (taxes)... and that's it... this is why I'm for the citizenspay you surgested (because in a society where the government can't guarentee a job/income for everybody then they pay its citizens instead... that's the prize of a monetary system)...

And that's it... and if it costs a little more in healthcare or security or welfare or... then you pay a little more in taxes... that's the prize of freedom...

And prices should be based on productioncosts and nothing else... let me give you an example...

In Denmark we have the highest prizes on cigarettes in the EU so in your logic people should smoke less and the smokers should cost the HC system more... well let's see shall we... we have the second highest percentage of smokers i Europe (only surpassed by Poland) so higher prizes DOES NOT equal less smokers... and we have the fifth lowest percentage of people getting lungcancer and other smokingrelated deceases... so we DO NOT have higher costs overall because of smoking so there is NO need to tax people smoking more to pay for an imaginary extra cost... so your argument doesn't hold water my friend :D - but even if it did (or do on other things)... that's just the prize of freedom :)

And the whole I will not pay for you egocentric attitude pisses me off sometimes... what happened to the christian value of helping thy neighboor :P and that's the whole idea behind NC... that I pay for you now because I know that if I ever need it you'll pay for me later... we HELP each other... that's what humans do... 

Currently states and banksters can controll the worth of currency
Yes and again your sulution for to much centralization (the control is in the hands of the states and a few bankers) is even more centralization (one world currency = one world bank to print and control the money) thereby making the problem even worse :D

The answer to too much centralization is NEVER more centralization... it's ALWAYS less centralization :D

So I'm gonna vote no on a global currency but I hope you woun't reject and denounce me completely on that account :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 06:27:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Only two disagreements left (none / 0)
Soon you will join me in my revolution!;-)

"The government have one responsibility... to provide to it's citizens what they need and can't provide for themselves"

Not really. The government should also be a tool of the people to fight for justice.
On a theoretical level I totally agree with you "it's my business" point of view, but sometimes the government has to play nanny at least a little bit.
The government should set incentives for sensible behaviour and people should be (at least partially) responsible for the costs they cause others.
Your smoking/cancer statistics really surprised me, they seem to indicate that the environment is nearly as much a factor when it comes to lung cancer as smoking. I'm happy to hear that and will enjoy going out to inhale some clean Finnish air very soon.;-)

On this stream of thought you should be against additional taxes for things that destroy the environment. Isn't it just my business how much oil I burn? The state has just to pay for the consequences.
Dterent taxes for environment and health are based on the same reasoning. I don't see how you can be for one and against the other.

(De-) Centralisation again:
Exchange rates are give power to the financial elite, therefore getting rid of exchange rates doesn't just decentralize this power, but eliminate it. I think eliminating power is even better than decentralizing it.
The people who would be responsible for the nationalized banks would at least be known to everybody. I prefer the devil I know, to the puppetmaster behind the curtain.
Also, you currently have an elite of 1000 people controlling the finance industry. If you would have over 200 national banks that number would significantly increase. There would also still be parts of the financial industry that aren't controlled by the states, but still by the chosen 1000. This means a lot of decentralization. The main control the state would have would be to distract the 10% tax and to make sure that citicens have fair conditions, when it comes to credits.
I wouldn't mind if private companies would offer an alternative, that might make the state banks redundant after a while.
Maybe I should formulate it differently. The state takes care that with every financial transaction the tax is paid and it offers an alternative to private banks. At the moment small customers are treated extremly unfair, when it comes to credit card debts, for example. If the national bank would offer fair alternatives the private sector would have to react. Private companies are usually much more effective, which means that state alternatives can only compete when the private companies are exploiting an oligopoly.
Maybe we could agree on an state run bank as public option. They offer all services, when the privte industry can offer better conditions they will prevail.

So, let's take that as my new official position:
I don't demand that the state nationalizes all banks, I just demand that the state offers a public option to prevent them from exploiting their oligopoly.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/09/2010 07:21:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
Soon you will join me in my revolution!;-)
Oh I'm allready there... the revolution is near :D

Not really. The government should also be a tool of the people to fight for justice
Yes when they can't for themselves... that's why we have the courts and the police and... I think that's covered in the security part of my argument :)

The government should protect the people when they need it and can't defend themselves...

On a theoretical level I totally agree with you "it's my business" point of view, but sometimes the government has to play nanny at least a little bit
Eh no... there we are not in agreement :)
The government does not have a mandate to play nanny (no matter how much it thinks it does)... it can educate all it want and make all the infomation campaigns it want's and let me know how and why something is harmful to me... but they do not have the mandate to legislate what I can and can't do to myself if I want too... period... even if it costs the collective more that's (like I said) is the price of freedom... if you only want freedom that's free then you'll have no freedom left...

And where does it end?
In Denmark we have for the last 10 years or so moved more and more towards a nanny state and it pisses me off... it started with smokers... first they couldn't smoke in the workplace... then they couldn't smoke in bars... then they talked about making it illegal to smoke outside (but that hasn't cleared comity yet but just wait and see)... and now they are even talking about outlawing smoking completely so you can't smoke in your own home anymore... but hey that's just smokers right?... nope it isn't... you see now they are almost done with the smokers they are moving on to other areas...
Here are a few examples:
They are talking about making all fatty foods and food with added sugar illegal...
They are talking about making it illegal for young people under 16 to use tanningbeds...
They are talking about making it illegal for the employees in kindergardens to wear perfume...
They are talking about making it illegal (under penalty of having your child removed) if you eat fatty foods and foods with added sugar and smokes during pregnancy...
They are talking about...

So my question remains... where does it end? and the answer is... if you open that door it NEVER ends...
So let me say again... freedom has a price and if you are not willing to pay it then you'll have NO freedom... so stay out of my bussiness :P hehe

Dterent taxes for environment and health are based on the same reasoning. I don't see how you can be for one and against the other
Eh no they are not... enviromental taxes are not for the people... they are for the corporations that polute... they might infer that cost to the consumers but that's a different discussion... and just to clarify... I know that america believes that corporations are people but they are really not... sorry to be the one to break the bad news to this forum... and whereas corporations behavior can be regulated up the wassu (enviromental taxes) the government have no mandate to regulate my personal behavior (health/behavior taxes)...

Exchange rates are give power to the financial elite, therefore getting rid of exchange rates doesn't just decentralize this power, but eliminate it. I think eliminating power is even better than decentralizing it.
Well if you could ever eliminate power then yes :)
But as long as we depend on money to excange goods there will always be people with money and therefor always be people with power over the money... so eliminating the exchange rates doesn't eliminate the power over money it just moves it somewhere else... the only way to eliminate power over money is to eliminate money... and here and here is how you could do that :)

But as long as we have money let's look at your proposal... global currency...

If you have a global currency then you need somewhere you can print new money as needed and destoy old money that comes out of the system... a world central bank... and since a world central bank can't be operated by any single single (or any limited number of countries) it will have to be private (unless you are advocating for a one world government while you're at it)...

If private:
That would give the power over all the money in the world to not a few 1000 bankers but to a handfull (more centralized)... and do you think you get to elect the board of directors in that scenario?

If one world government:
You might get to vote for that government but let's do a little simple math... in Denmatk we are 5.5 mill people so my vote counts 1/5.5 mill... in the world we are 6.8 bill people so my (and your) vote will count 1/6.8 bill...

So you want me to belive that the people will have more influence over money in a one world central bank run by a private corporation or by a one world government?... you want me to belive that it will eliminate the power over money?... you want me to believe that your surgestion is not more centralization than we have now?... sorry not buying it :D - I'm afraid I'll have to vote no on a global currency :)

I just demand that the state offers a public option to prevent them from exploiting their oligopoly
Like we discussed before... the central bank should be government owned and nothing else (unless you can convince me that banks is something we as a society today needs and not just wants) :D

But we agree that the private banks need to be stopped exploiting their oligopoly but the way to do that is by (sorry to sound like a broken record) decentralizing and giving that power to the people by giving ownership to the people and NOT to the government or a central world bank :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 10:00:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nanny (none / 0)
You are right, those nanny legislations go much too far. Still, I wasn't proposing to outlaw those things, quite the opposite: I proposed to legalize all drugs. This freedom however has a price: Taxes. Why should others have to pay for your freedoms, when there is a simple way to pay for yourself.

Environmental taxes also "punish" individuals, what do you think why fuel is so expensive?
I think that is a good thing, because otherwise people would waste much more fuel. Wouldn't that to you be also sticking the governments nose in your business?

Imagine a society where people with 10Euro could go to a shop and buy 20 l of wine or 40 packs of cigaretts or 5 g of heroin or one book/newspaper.
I think I know what most people would spend their money on and I probably wouldn't want to live in that society.

Global currency:
I already got rid of cash, so no money would have to be printed, but you are right this is the most unrealistic of my proposals. And that says a lot.;-)

Banking:
How could you decentralize the banks? It sounds like a good idea to give the people ownership, but how will you manage that?

Do you really think our society could keep on existing without banks? This would mean no internet trade, no credits, no invoices...
When you think about it for a while I think you might agree that banks are nowadays a needs.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/09/2010 02:33:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
You are right, those nanny legislations go much too far
Thank you for at least agreeing with that :)

Why should others have to pay for your freedoms, when there is a simple way to pay for yourself
Because science changes all the time... that's it's strengh... it's not dogmatic but evolve as new information presents itself... that's why I love science...

But that's also why it's notoriously bad to base legislation on... because legislation is much more final and dificult to change than science...

A few examples:
Fat:
First all fat were dangereous...
Then only satuated fats were dangerous and unsatuated fats were healthy...
Now science have found out in a 2010 study from the UK (the largest of it's size so far) that no satuated fat is more dangerous than too much satuated fat and the right amount is healthy (along still with the unsatuated fats)... (so we have to eat fat both satuated and unsatuated to be healthy... as long as it's in moderation)...
And who knows what comes next...

Sugar:
First sugar was healthy and you couldn't get enough...
Then all sugar was bad and you should stay away from it...
In 2008 again in the UK they found out that no sugar was more dangerous than to much sugar and the right amount was healthy... (so we have to eat sugar to be healthy... as long as it's in moderation)...
And who knows what comes next...

Vitamins:
First you couldn't get to much vitamins...
Then some vitamins could cause problems while others you could eat as much as you like...
And in 2010 (now in the US and after people have run amok in vitaminpills and omega-3 and...) they have found that (as always) you can have to much of all vitamins... and 99% of ALL people get to much vitamins when they eat vitaminspills and... etc. because they get their daily needed intake through their normal food intake... and the only people who should ever eat vitaminpills were people with deficiency illnesses like scurvy and others... so now you shouldn't eat any vitamins (in pillform)...
And who knows what comes next...

And I could go on for hours...

So in the 80'ies you would have to pay taxes on all fats... not on sugar... and not on vitamins...

Then in the late 80'ies you would have to remove taxes on unsatuated fat but keep it on satuated fats... and have a tax on sugar... and on some vitamins...

Then in the last couple of years after these taxes have become a LARGE revenue stream for the government it would sudenly be no taxes on fat and sugar but taxes on vitaminpills... you think that'll be done quickly? and when they are finally ready to do it what will the science then say?

So on science alone it's a BAD idea...

But on the more theoretical front when it comes to freedom...

Why should others have to pay for your freedoms, when there is a simple way to pay for yourself
Because freedom is for EVERYBODY or it's for NOONE...
You can't pick and choose who gets freedoms and who don't because then it's not freedom...

The same argument could be made for HC... why should I pay for your medical bills when I'm not sick when there is an easy way to pay for it yourself (private insurrence or out of pocket)?

And the answer is the same for both... because we are humans and we help each other and because the freedom that you help provide for me you too get when you need it and the HC that you help provide for me you too get when you need it... and if we don't help each other then only the rich will get healthcare and freedom...

Environmental taxes also "punish" individuals, what do you think why fuel is so expensive
Fuel is so expensive because the government taxes the compagny that makes the gasoline...
Now they might have inferred that cost to the consumer so the consumer ends up paying for it... but like I said that's a completely different discussion :D

But it's something I think should be fixed :)

Imagine a society where people with 10Euro could go to a shop and buy 20 l of wine or 40 packs of cigaretts or 5 g of heroin or one book/newspaper.
I think I know what most people would spend their money on and I probably wouldn't want to live in that society
I'm imagining... ahhh I'm in heaven :D

But let's take me as an example...
I hate wine and I would NEVER use heroin and I don't get my news from the newspapers generally... so I would buy 40 packs of cigarettes one month (which would last me at least 2 month if not more) and then the next month I would by the book (if it's any good) and maybe the next month another book (if it's any good) and the next month I would buy 40 packs of cigarettes again... and then... :D

Now this is a ludicrous example because the production costs of 20l of wine is more than 10 Euro and the same goes for the 40 packs of cigarettes so they would NEVER be that cheap... but the other things is roughly the price right now for 5g of heroin on the street (might actually be cheaper) and for books... do you think that means that ordinary people thinks... uh I can buy 5g of heroin so sorry I'm not gonna buy this book after all and then go out and get high? seriously?

90% of all people want to live healthy and they do (not because fatty foods or foods with added sugar or... is more expencive... but because they want to... and by all means they should have that right... do you seriously think that if all the unhealthy stuff became the same prize as the healthy stuff did they would switch? do you really have that low an expectation of your fellow man? :D

Let's take me as an example:
I eat as healthy as I can... when available only ecology... and lots of fruits and vegetables... and lean meat...
I play badminton once a week and walk to and from work (5 miles roundtrip) mon-fri...
My only vice is that I smoke cigarettes...

And in my lifetime I have cost the HCsystem one hospital visit for meningitis when I was 12 (not related to smoking I can assure you) and since I was 25 I have visited my practitioner once a year to get my yearly checkup (which I would have gotten smoking or not smoking because preventive care is the best way to take good care of yourself)... and I have had a handfull of sore throats in my lifetime and I got a lot of shots every time I traveled to places like Egypt and Cambodja and... but that's it...

So let me ask you... why should I pay more for smoking because of some imagined extra cost to the HCsystem that isn't there?

And with the risk of repeating myself... we are humans and we help each other and because the freedom that you help provide for me you too get when you need it... and if we don't help each other then only the rich will get freedom (see above)...

How could you decentralize the banks? It sounds like a good idea to give the people ownership, but how will you manage that?
Damn now you are asking me to implement my idea too? - damn :D

Well the 'easy' way would be through legislation making everyone who works anywhere part owner of the compagny by law... and I say easy with strong reservations because to convince the politicians of that would be anything but easy...

The 'hard' way would be for each compagny or corporation to make the change individually where the current owners simply hand the ownership over to the workers... but good luck on convincing the owners to do just that :D

Another way would be through revolution and the workers simply take control of the compagny no matter what the current owners think about it... but I'm not sure how I feel about that solution :)

And the final way would be just to sit back and wait for the money-bubble to burst and when the compagny you work at goes bankrupt you just silently take it over and keep production up... I like that better :D

But this is not an easy question... but when we discuss what the perfect scenario would be... what we should drive towards even if we don't get it right away then that's my solution :D

Do you really think our society could keep on existing without banks
Yes I do... it might make things a hell of a lot harder than they are now... and I get internet trades and credits... but why would there be no invoices? :)

You have to remember there were NO internet trades until the late 90'ies and we survived up till then :P hehe
But you would just have to go to the store to buy things instead...
And as for credits... well you would have to save your money before buying things (I know a world where you can't buy things with money that isn't yours... insane I know <insert sarcasm>) :D
And you would have to be payed in cash and keep it in a safe at home...

I'll agree that it's more inconvenient but society wouldn't come to a halt because we had no banks... so we don't need banks...

But I'll agree that banks make life easier and when you have your money in the bank they are insured if they are stolen and the bank have more security so it doesn't get stolen so easily... so we might want banks but that's not enough to warrant a government takeover or even a public option :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 04:10:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sadly (none / 0)
I have a very bad opinion of my fellow humans, because I know how bad I am. Ok, I want to live healthy, but it's damn hard to do.
I'm extremly pleasure driven and that's a hard thing to overcome. I know that should eat healthier, but it's much more work and more expensive. Same goes for sports. My company is as far from my home as yours, but I'm so lazy that I don't even walk, but take the bike.

I amit that the opinion about what is unhealthy changes, but so can laws. There are some thinks that are pretty much obvious. Most additives in food are not healthy, yet since I don't earn very much I can't usually afford eco-food. I also want to eat fast when I come home and the only food that is fast and cheap is rubbish.

Heroin is bad for your health, I'm pretty convinced that there will never be a study to show the opposite. It also is rumoured to influence the amount of work you can do during one day.;-)
I'm pretty sure if you could legally and cheaply buy heroin and crack in shops much more people would try it. The consequences of that are not really positive. The only way I would agree to legalizing all drugs is when they are heavily taxed, otherwise they would go out of control.

"You can't pick and choose who gets freedoms and who don't because then it's not freedom..."

Some people have opportunities that others don't, and some freedoms have to be paid for. Example: Basicly I'm free to travel to most places of the world, but since the flightsare not free I can't do that.
With finacial sucess come boons, you will have to wait a very long time for that to change and technocracy (was that the correct term?) to start. I personally think that will never happen, because people will always find new rare commodities they can fight over. That's part of human nature.

Decentralisation:
"Well the 'easy' way would be through legislation making everyone who works anywhere part owner of the compagny by law"
You have my support for that law, but I have a vague feeling that we might still be in the minority.:-(
I also can think of no way to formulate a general law that would take into consideration the size of companies (the amount one worker owns would have to be different for a company with 10 or 10,000 employees) and the age of companies (when you give regularily part of the ownership to the employees after a few decades there is probably nothing to give away anymore). You could of course give for example 10% of the after tax income in equal shares to all employees, but that would not really effect ownership.

"But you would just have to go to the store to buy things instead..."

What??? NO!!! NEVER!!!
Joking aside:
With invoice I probably haven't used the right term. I did mean that you can't wire money anymore. Every transaction would have to be done in cash.
That would be extremly unpractical. Take taxes as an example. Everybody would have to go somewhere to deposite the cash and that would have to be transported to the place where the government keeps it from where it has to be transported to the places and people the government spends it on. That would cause an extrem amount of hassle. I don't think our global economy could survive that hassle.

It would also raise extrem security issues. Imagine a big company (2000 employees) at the end of each month a car with all their wages would have to come. When they earn 3000 each that would be a car with 6 million every month and people would find out when it comes. A great target for criminals.
Let's assume the transport arrives savely, because the company could afford enough security then it would have to be handled to each employee. Do you have any idea how long that would take?
Then they would have to go home with all their money from one month's work, and their collegues know that. I'm pretty sure a lot of workers would disguise themselves and rob their collegues when they would know that. There's a German saying: Gelegenheit macht Diebe. (Opportunity creates thieves) There is some truth to that.
Those are just two examples of the top of my head, If you want to I can come up with new ones by the dozen.
Banks are as vital to our security as police. And much more vital to a working economy.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/09/2010 05:13:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
I have a very bad opinion of my fellow humans, because I know how bad I am
Well maybe I made myself holyer than I am... I also looooove candy and chokolade... and if I think about it I might find more vices if I try :)

But that's really not the point... the point is freedom and why we should all pay collectivly for it :)

I'm pretty sure if you could legally and cheaply buy heroin and crack in shops much more people would try it
Well that just goes against ALL the rescearch available at the moment... trust me if I had wnated to try heroin I could have done so many times over a fairly cheaply... all through highschool and college and between and if I wnated to try it today all I had to would be to go to the nearest bar on a thursday friday or saturday and it would be available cheaply... and that goes for everybody I know... so in your analogy most of my friends (me included) would all be shooting or smoking heroin right now...

Well we are not... so why is that... because we choose not to... NOT because we can't get it cheaply...

And to use a previous analogy... we have the highest prices for cigarettes in the EU so we should have to lowest number of smokers...

Well we do not... we have the second highest number of smokers in the EU... so why is that... because when people start smoking they are teenagers (VERY few people start smoking when they are 30) and as a teenager being cool and social acceptance is MUCH more important than what something costs so if the attitude is... if you smoke you are cool... then teenagers are going to start smoking no matter the prize of cigarettes... and once they are hooked prize isn't that important because you are... well hooked :D

So prizing on cigarettes have 0% effect on how many smokes in a country :) - the only affect that increasing prizes have had on smoking is that more and more people go to Germany to buy cigarettes and when they are they they buy other things they need to so Denmark looses a lot of revenue instead... so prizing and taxes on behaviour doesn't work to lower the people that use or buy the unhealthy stuff...

Heroin is bad for your health, I'm pretty convinced that there will never be a study to show the opposite. It also is rumoured to influence the amount of work you can do during one day
No question it is unhealthy and so is smoking and so is to much fat and so is to much <take your pick>...

But as to the amount of work you can do in a day... are you kidding me?
You might not want to operate heavy machinery but there is a reason that heroin was one of the first performance inhancement drugs used in sports... you get a hell of a lot of energy and need no sleep or breaks and can be focused for lot longer on heroin... so that's just not true :)

The only way I would agree to legalizing all drugs is when they are heavily taxed, otherwise they would go out of control
Well as I said above prizing (taxing) woun't work to deter people from using it and they are cheap and available (although illegal) right now but things are not out of control so.... your argument doesn't hold water on that one :)

some freedoms have to be paid for
ALL freedoms have to be payed for :)
I thought I mentioned that... freedom is NOT free :D

Basicly I'm free to travel to most places of the world, but since the flightsare not free I can't do that.
Bad example :)
Sure if you want to travel you can and under Technocratism you would be totally free to do so because it would be free... but in the society we have now... if I want to smoke then I'm willing to pay the prize of a pack of cigarettes... and if I can't afford it I can't smoke... that's fine... what I'm against is having to pay more than nesseccary just because the government want to decide for me whether I can smoke or not... as long as prizing is according to production costs I have NO problem with it... and that goes for travel to :)

With finacial sucess come boons, you will have to wait a very long time for that to change and technocracy (was that the correct term?) to start
No I just have to wait till the money-bubble bursts and when all the worlds economies have collapsed and we have to start over maybe people will be ready to try something new (or maybe I'm just naive) :D - but we'll see hehe

I personally think that will never happen, because people will always find new rare commodities they can fight over. That's part of human nature
I disagree but you'll have to see here for my discussion on why I believe you are wrong :)

You have my support for that law, but I have a vague feeling that we might still be in the minority
Thank you and you are right that's why easy should be taken with a grain of salt :D

I also can think of no way to formulate a general law that would take into consideration the size of companies
I don't have a final law in my head and we would have to discuss that... but how is the easy part... the hard part is convincing the government to make a law :D

That would be extremly unpractical
I didn't say that life ain't a hell of a lot easier with banks... I would definitely prefer a world with banks... but they are still a want and not a need :D

I don't think our global economy could survive that hassle
Well it survived for millinia so it will again... but like I said I prefer a world with banks... but private worker/customer owned banks would do just fine :D

It would also raise extrem security issues
Again the world would survive... but it's definitely better with banks :)

Banks are as vital to our security as police
Eh no not really :D - banks don't protect you from getting mugged or have your car stolen or...

And much more vital to a working economy
Not vital... but preferable :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 07:05:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry the answer took me a while;-) (none / 0)
Performance enhancing heroin?
That's totally new to me, and I assume you confuse it with cocain. Even opium could become in a way performance enhancing, because it can help you to reach a state of trance in which you can keep doing the same thing for a very long time without realizing it.
Heroin on the other hand just shuts you down. You don't eat or drink or fuck or do anything except being stoned.

I'm also sure, if cocain would be cheaper (I think you confuse the costs of other drugs with the costs of dope) and legal I would have started using it.
In the depressive phases I had years ago I might even have started to shoot heroin, just because I wouldn't have seen a reason, why not. The way it was my capability for reason was enhanced by the depression induced lazyness.
Hell, if you could buy dope and acid at a little over the price it costs to produce I'm pretty sure that I personally would ruin my life. Seems like you don't have to much experience with drugs and therefore don't know the way they influence weak people like me.

Human nature:
I remembered this discussion and still think that you point of view was a little naive (no offense intended, I wish I was less cynical). One part of the reproduction aspect of human nature is the competition for the best partners. Men in general are very competetive. They usually find areas where they can compete with others. You will never get rid of that. Impossible. So they will always find something to fight over to impress females and the females will always go for the alpha-males. Sorry, that is very chauvinistic and oversimplified, but it would be a totally different discussion, which it already was, but we could restart it some time in the future.:-)

"I don't have a final law in my head and we would have to discuss that... but how is the easy part... "

Let's start that discussion. Your shot first.:-)
BTW: I am sure you have seen the thread about consumer driven economy. That would be a nice place to discuss unconditional basic income. It seems all the Americans on this forum have never heared of it, don't know what the liberal position on that should be and don't bother with my posts on it, because many consider me a troll. It would be great if you raise awareness for that concept by posting something about it, so I can reply. Maybe somebody else could become interested in the concept before Cenk explains that it is brilliant.;-)

Banks:
First of all they do protect us from being mugged, because of banks we don't have to go home with our wages in our pockets.
You say to all the things I mentioned that they make life more complicated, but we still could do without. I would agree if it would only be one or two of the issues, but if you combine them all they show that banks have become a needs. Our society would collapse without them.
Of course mankind could survive without banks, but mankind could also survive without police, without healthcare, without education...

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/10/2010 03:06:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See below... (none / 0)
See below for my respons...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/10/2010 07:37:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]

First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)