What about my freedom to drive fast? If I would be a good driver and sure that I don't harm anyone. Just because in some individual cases accidents happened shouldn't be a reason to infringe my right
First off freedom is not unlimited... or you could say 'then what about my freedom to kill you'... and nobody want's that :)

There's an old saying that I live by that says 'your freedom to swing your arms wildly stops where my nose begins'... meaning that you have the freedom to do what ever you like as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples freedom... and if it does then your work out a compromise... there are other people in the world and their right to freedom and life and happiness and... is just as important as yours and mine (but that's my ONLY limit on freedom) :)

So let's take your example :)
Personally I think people dying in trafik is a problem and it needs to be fixes... that said the most ineffective solution I could possibly come up with if I tried would be speed limits... I really can't think of a more ineffective way to deal with the problem... why don't you just demand from the car makers to build cars that can't crash??? (maybe build in a sensor that stops the car if speed and distance and direction indicates that you are about to hit something or someone and build the cars so if you do hit something (a person jumping out in front of you etc.) the car catches you and is soft to land on so they don't die from the impact or <come up with their own solution>... this is a technical problem and a technical problem can NOT be effectively solved by legislation)... I'm not saying... I'm just saying...

Speed-limit (limit on freedom) = 37.261 deaths by accidents in the US in 2008
My solution (no limit on freedom) = 0 deaths by accidents in any year

Now you choose...

So my answer is... your freedom to drive as fast as you want stops when you become more likely to injure and kill someone than not by your speed... and with no real solution (like mine) you can't drive as fast as you want because the likelyhood of you injuring or killing someone rises as you drive faster with the technology utilized at this moment...

Technocratism is a nice ideal
Isn't it though :D

but people are too stupid and driven by primitive urges, which makes it impossible to realise
Seriously dude... you must have had a terrible childhood to be this distrustful of you fellow man :)

Sorry... but all kidding aside... you might think that (and even I sometimes looses faith in my fellow man... usually when I watches to much FOX) :D hehe - but everytime I walk outside I'm reaffirmed in my beliefs... you should try watching a few documentaries that show the good sides of humanity just once in a while... just to balance out all the negative sides you see in the news :)

Here's a few surgestions just to get you started:
Us Now (part 1 here)
Slacker Uprising (part 1 here)
Start with those 2 and work your way back to humanity from there :)

I also have the feeling that you want to infringe my freedom to personal ownership
Personal ownership is not a freedom (even though it has been sold as such in Capitalism)...

Freedom is freedom to act and think... so if I want to take a walk I can or if I want to believe in an invisible skygod that listens to me and helps me I can...

Personal ownership is nothing more than saying this is mine so it is not yours... nothing more and nothing less... that's not freedom for you... that's infringing on everybody elses freedom with no freedom benifts for you...

The people on the top of the economic ladder are the producers
Well that used to be the case... but today? seriously???

The people on top today are the bankers and people on wall street and NIETHER produces ANYTHING other than more money for themselves just for the moneys sake... nothing comes out of a bank or wall street that has ANY production value for anybody outside the banks and wall street...

So that's a false argument :)

it's them against the average Joe, the consumer
Ah no that's a strawmans argument... it's not the owners against the consumer... it's the system against the people (I know that corporations only see people as consumers but I'll like to content that we are so much more) :)

Consumers is an artificial construct made by corporations to justify their existens... if people don't want to buy their product then they go out of bussiness... so to stay alive (no matter how asinine and useless their product is) they use advertising to create a consumer in us (an artificial need in people) so they'll buy their product anyway... don't tell me you need a new car every 5 years or a new tv every year or the latest jacket when you have 5 in the closet already... but we want them because it signals the status and lifestyle that those compagnies have artificially instilled in us through adverticing :) - but consumerism is NOT a natural state for humans to be in... it is one forced upon us by the system...

The system is Capitalism in and low/no scarcity world and as I have explained before Capitalism is not equiped to deal with that kinda world... Capitalism needs a high scarcity world to exist...

This is why we destroy the large food surplusses that the US and the EU produces every year instead of feeding the billions of starving people around the world (because if things are in abundance they get cheaper bordering on free so by doing so would drive down market prizes and the farmers couldn't make a living and the system would collaps)... so we create a false scarcity (thereby killing millions of people every year) to save the system...

This is why we burn 2/3 of the diamonds mined instead of using them to build better technologies to better mankind (because if things are in abundance they get cheaper bordering on free and it would be more expencive to mine the diamonds than they can sell them for and the whole system collapses so we would get no diamonds at all)... so we create a false scarcity (thereby depriving everybody of cheap superiour technoligies) to save the system...

This is why we... <substitute everything you can think of)... so we create false scarcities to save the system... and all to the detriment of true progress, the common good and the people...

What noone seem to surgest is why don't we change the system instead of hurting people with false scarcities and false wants? why do we keep this unsustainable system alive when it hurts everybody but the very few at the top???

I'm not saying... I'm just saying... :D

And a wise man once said... it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society :D

Sure sustainability is important
Yes it's the only important thing in the equation... period... now I know the profitmotive is being hailed as the only important thing today... but it really isn't and we will ALL realize this when we have to pay the prize of the unsustainability of the current system when ALL the economic systems crashes later this year (if the propaganda maschine that is PR doesn't sell it to us (and we buy their pitch) as a failure of a few bad apples but instead tell the truth... that it's the failure of the system as a whole)...

So the first step would be to help consumers and profit from the trickle up effect.
Not the consumers (see above) but the people... but yes :)

Sure, but those companies require that the people are more motivated by idealism than by profit. Some can pull that off, but never the society as a whole
I disagree :)

When you live in a system that promotes and hailes egocentrism and greed and profit above all at every turn you are off course going to get most people being mainly egocentric and greedy and out to make a profit... how is this a surprise for anyone...

That doesn't mean that it's the only way people will ever behave... it just mean that this is the only way people will ever behave in that system...

So the question is how do we get people to be altruistic and help each other and coorperate for the commen good of everybody incl themselves?

You change the system so it promotes those natural things in human nature and remove the need for the other things in human nature...

As I have written many times now... human nature is comprised of 2 desires -protection of self (egocentrism) and protection of others (altruism)...

So since we live in a world of false scarcity thereby actually having abundance if we wanted... everything becomes free (or close to) so you have NO incentive to be egocentric... there is no need to protect yourself if you are not in danger... and that leaves altruism and helping everybody else... and in that system this discussion would not even be possible :)

My idea of that society is Technocratism but feel free in offering up your own solutions... as long as we agree that it's the system that needs changing and the problem that needs solving is to minimize egocentrism and further altruism...

It also seriously sounds like you want to take away my personal freedom to own something. That has never worked well
First off... owning something has nothing to do with freedom (see above)...

Second off... the only reason it never worked is because if you have high scarcity (not enough to go around... false or otherwise) then you need to protect yourself by making sure that what you have gotten for yourself you get to keep so you can live a happy and fruitful life...

If there's not enough for everybody then it becomes a game of musical chairs and when everybody have grapped enough for themselves (the music stops) then somebody haven't got any (is left without a chair) and die... so if any of the have nots come and take some of the things you need from you and there is nothing else to go around then you become a have not and die... so you need to protect what's yours to protect yourself... so you need to make laws that says that what you have you own so noone can take it from you... that's why we need ownership in a high scarcity world...

But if you suddenly find yourself in a world of abundance where if someone takes you things you just get new ones because there is plenty then you don't need to own anything... there is nothing to protect...

Example:
Let's say someone comes into your house and opens the tap and drinks some water... do you call the police and get them arested for stealing?
No that would be stupid (and the police would laugh in your face) because water is in abundance and therefor close to free and even though he took some of your water (your property) if you are thirsty you just open the tap again and drink some yourself... so since water is in abundance you don't feel you own water because there's plenty to go around... (no feeling of ownership)...

So why would that be different for anything else if everything you needed and wanted were as abundant as water?
And the answer is... it wouldn't be any different... and you wouldn't need to own anything...

What's your problem with my bank solution? The power would be extremly decentralized and regulated by the people
I'll agree with you that it's a better solution than the state owning them... :D

More decentralization of power = always better solution (always = I can't think of a single instance where that's not the case... not to say that they don't exist but I just can't think of one) :D

Which makes my solution even better since it's even more decentralization :D

But even though that your solution would solve many of the problems I described and if you could garanty that it would never reverse to state owned banks I could live with it...

The problem is that the local governance is subject to the state rule... so what's to stop the state (in your solution) from changing their mind at a later date and say we now own the banks (if they don't like how the local governance run them or they just feel like it)?
And what's to stop the local governance from censoring themselves in how they run the banks to the wants of the state so the state doesn't do that thereby running the banks as the state would have done anyway?

Answer those and we'll have a discussion on your solution :D

On a local level people can really vote against the people who make bad descissions
Not if everybody they can vote on want to run the bank as the state would have anyway (see above) or the state takes back the banks (see above)... then they don't have a real choice (kinda like the vote for the american presidency) :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/12/2010 11:42:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]