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