The American form of government, and other types of governments

[bart]

Good 10.5 minute basic video covering the basics of government and government types.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

[$#*]

Here is the youtube version without annoying commercials:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DioQooFIcgE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DioQooFIcgE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[marvenger]

who writes the law of the republic?

Answer: oligarchy

What's all this crap about the freedom of romans under rule of law in a republic to keep the fruits of their labour generating their wealth and long lasting empire. The romans got wealthy from conquest and slaves, just like anyone else.

You get wealthy from slaves period. no man can by himself generate massive wealth.

C'mon....be honest.

[LargoWinch]

Good 10.5 minute basic video covering the basics of government and government types.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Amazing and inspiring, thanks for posting bart.

[LargoWinch]

who writes the law of the republic?

Answer: oligarchy

What's all this crap about the freedom of romans under rule of law in a republic to keep the fruits of their labour generating their wealth and long lasting empire. The romans got wealthy from conquest and slaves, just like anyone else.

You get wealthy from slaves period. no man can by himself generate massive wealth.

C'mon....be honest.

I respectfully disagree: not all men are bad. The US Constitution is a modern proof of that.

The difficulty with a true republic is that it requires eternal vigilance of the government by the citizenry.

[marvenger]

Thanks for the respect.

I'd agree that many men have good intentions and that a well functioning
republic is better than an oppressive totalitarian regime.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
However, the republic with its laws created by the privileged few with property and land right etc a remnant of oligarchic and feudal history means that the republic is still prone to corruption.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I think democracies fail because there is still wealth and ownership and therefore a democracy does not exist in this situation and is prone to breakdown corruption and manipulation of an elite to maintain wealth and power.
<o:p> </o:p>
Therefore the only way I think a democracy can exist is if there is equal ownership or no ownership.
<o:p> </o:p>
Idealistic maybe, but at least I think this is honest, I see massive holes in this republic argument.

[yernamehear]

"who writes the law of the republic?

Answer: oligarchy

What's all this crap about the freedom of romans under rule of law in a republic to keep the fruits of their labour generating their wealth and long lasting empire. The romans got wealthy from conquest and slaves, just like anyone else.

You get wealthy from slaves period. no man can by himself generate massive wealth.

C'mon....be honest."

So, the average "middle class" American today enslaved somebody, or even the average middle class anywhere in the first world? Compared to somebody centuries ago they would have "massive wealth".

Free markets and political freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, etc., have created the most wealth for all. Is there inequality of wealth? Yes. Would you rather roll the dice with your chances for a decent life in the modern world's areas with free markets and with political freedoms? Yes.

It's all in the numbers and probabilities. Trust me. You would rather an "average" or even "poor" person today than an average person centuries ago.

Chances are you would really learn what a slave is.

[bart]

A real republic and an oligarchy are mutually exclusive.

[marvenger]

can't agree with that, otherwise this fascism you are worried about would be an impossibility

[bart]

can't agree with that, otherwise this fascism you are worried about would be an impossibility

Your understanding of the two terms - republic and oligarchy - is woefully inadequate.

A true republic and fascism are so far apart that it can hardly be discussed, while fascism is almost literally composed of an oligarchy.

[*T*]

Thanks for the respect.

I'd agree that many men have good intentions and that a well functioning
republic is better than an oppressive totalitarian regime.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
However, the republic with its laws created by the privileged few with property and land right etc a remnant of oligarchic and feudal history means that the republic is still prone to corruption.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I think democracies fail because there is still wealth and ownership and therefore a democracy does not exist in this situation and is prone to breakdown corruption and manipulation of an elite to maintain wealth and power.
<o:p> </o:p>
Therefore the only way I think a democracy can exist is if there is equal ownership or no ownership.
<o:p> </o:p>
Idealistic maybe, but at least I think this is honest, I see massive holes in this republic argument.

Anarchist!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Anarchist.svg/744px-Anarchist.svg.png

[marvenger]

I don't see it so black and white. You've tried to use this incredibly definitive statement that republic and oligarchy are mutually exclusive. I'm pointing out that if that were the case it would be impossible for the oligarchy of fascism to make itself present from within a republic; an event that you have stated you are fearfull of. Therefore I think you are condradicting yourself greatly.

[bart]

I don't see it so black and white. You've tried to use this incredibly definitive statement that republic and oligarchy are mutually exclusive. I'm pointing out that if that were the case it would be impossible for the oligarchy of fascism to make itself present from within a republic; an event that you have stated you are fearfull of. Therefore I think you are condradicting yourself greatly.

Fair enough, but the apparent assumption about what it takes to move from a republic to an oligarchy/fascism is far more complex than you seem to assert I believe, and also does not address that a republic and oligarchy are indeed mutually exclusive - literally by definition.

[marvenger]

I don't think you actually think its simple, give me some credit, If you gave me some credit you might realise I was was saying you were oversimplifying to support your argument.

The definitions may be one thing, but the laws enacted in practice are another all together.

[bart]

I don't think you actually think its simple, give me some credit, If you gave me some credit you might realise I was was saying you were oversimplifying to support your argument.

The definitions may be one thing, but the laws enacted in practice are another all together.

With something as complex as types of government and politics, its virtually impossible not to simplify.

I'm not trying to argue about oligarchy and republic - the dictionary already shows who is correct.

[marvenger]

fair enough if you live by dictionary definitions. I'm saying that the nature of ownership and the accumulation of wealth and power under capitalism blurs the definitions. I think thats a reality and should be taken into account. And if you want a world perfectly reflected by dictionary definitions then you haven't got one. Again I actually think you believe this but self delusion knows no bounds when you're trying to make yourself feel secure and find something to cling to.

I think your a good guy Bart for what its worth, just how I feel on this one.

[bart]

fair enough if you live by dictionary definitions. I'm saying that the nature of ownership and the accumulation of wealth and power under capitalism blurs the definitions. I think thats a reality and should be taken into account. And if you want a world perfectly reflected by dictionary definitions then you haven't got one. Again I actually think you believe this but self delusion knows no bounds when you're trying to make yourself feel secure and find something to cling to.

I think your a good guy Bart for what its worth, just how I feel on this one.

I submit that not using the actual definitions of words in a dictionary not only literally prevents real communication but also makes issues much easier to blur or redefine - and not in a good way.

The video is not about capitalism but rather forms of government and an attempt to clarify the related areas, and doesn't address wealth disparities and power etc. They are valid subjects however and I encourage you or anyone to start a new thread in the area.

[orion]

Good 10.5 minute basic video covering the basics of government and government types.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Bart, Thanks for an absolutely fantastic post. The Founding Fathers and their writings are rich with discussions about their decisions and the pitfalls they saw as they worked on the constitution. A perfect system, no. Anything involving humans is headed for problems. And just like anything in life requires attention, care, and understanding.

Also a nice tribute as we reach the 258th birthday of James Madison (March 16, 1751).

http://www.itulip.com/i/sq/3star.gif http://www.itulip.com/i/sq/ThumbsUp.gif http://www.itulip.com/i/sq/ThumbsDwn.gif“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation (http://www.itulip.com/quotation/since_the_general_civilization_of_mankind-i/161684.html)”

[Chris Coles]

A most profound video; very well constructed argument for a free republic. But the question becomes.... how the devil do we vote for a republic rather than a democracy, while in an oligarchy?

Makes a lot of sense to all those poor peoples that have so often lately demeaned the idea of an imposed democracy.

So not only does iTulip lead the change in our outlook towards finance, now we are also on the new road to the new republic; Wonderful!

[orion]

A most profound video; very well constructed argument for a free republic. But the question becomes.... how the devil do we vote for a republic rather than a democracy, while in an oligarchy?


Chris, I hate to see this but unfortunately I think there should be a second video that morphs the republic to oligarchy. Bottom line maybe all roads lead to oligarchy :(.

To me a republic tries to filter the democracy idea thru an elected body that is assumed to be altruistic but restrained by respect for liberty and suspect of government power. Unfortunately this elected body either falls victim to pure democracy powers (for me the bread and circus routine) or powerful interests that help them stay elected. The answer I think may be in term limits. I am against limiting campaign contributions because I view that as a freedom of speech issue. One answer to this may be to prevent government from being too powerful to affect businesses and our lives so we don't feel we need to contribute to their campaigns.

If only our professional politicians would share George Washington's comment;

[T]he great Searcher of human hearts is my witness, that I have no wish, which aspires beyond the humble and happy lot of living and dying a private citizen on my own farm.

[orion]

I looked a little harder and found George Washington also commented on this thread (American form of Government);

1796 - Farewell Address

The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (521)

[LargoWinch]

Orion, I think George Washington as well as Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the citizens that the price of maintaining a Republic is eternal vigilance.

I am affraid that this has not been followed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bqr5DVx3dw

[orion]

LargoWinch,

Maybe Obama's exit speech will be to watch out for those FIRE guys! :rolleyes:

[LargoWinch]

LargoWinch,

Maybe Obama's exit speech will be to watch out for those FIRE guys! :rolleyes:

...or maybe they won't be any Obama exit speech :eek:.

[orion]

...or maybe they won't be any Obama exit speech :eek:.

LOL, that's the OLama-garchy step right?

[marvenger]

before I get called called an anarchist or a stalinist or something, just logically and leaving ideologies aside, doesn't capitalism promote this love of power.

[bart]

before I get called called an anarchist or a stalinist or something, just logically and leaving ideologies aside, doesn't capitalism promote this love of power.

I don't believe so, and think it's "human" nature. I use quotes around human since most recognize the bit about power being corrupting, etc.

[orion]

before I get called called an anarchist or a stalinist or something, just logically and leaving ideologies aside, doesn't capitalism promote this love of power.

Yep, Joseph Stalin, Mao, how much more capitalistic can you get ??

[cjppjc]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by marvenger http://itulip.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=83162#post83162)
before I get called called an anarchist or a stalinist or something, just logically and leaving ideologies aside, doesn't capitalism promote this love of power.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>





I don't believe so, and think it's "human" nature. I use quotes around human since most recognize the bit about power being corrupting, etc.



Absolutely. Forms change but humans do not. I think that the illusion of human change or "growth" or "enlightment" is confusing to many. Man is what he is. What he was. And probably will be.

[marvenger]

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
I think that power corrupting being a part of human nature is only true to the extent that the potentiality for it is there. There’s been a lot of research recently into the plasticity of the brain and how changing the environment, external stimuli and internal thought process actually physically change the anatomy of the brain even in adults. So I think capitalism does invite the potentiality by creating an environment conducive to it. So for a republic to work with capitalism as the economic system I think you need all sorts of regulation and laws to create a just environment, but I think if we’re all be honest here you’re never going to create such a just society with capitalism and maybe with no system, it maybe a case of choosing your poison and a republic is right up there.
<o:p> </o:p>
It just seems to me there is this obvious massive contradiction between capitalism and the justice that society demands that very few try to talk about honestly.
<o:p> </o:p>
Society and capitalism has built up over thousands of years with social, economic, power relation changes happening all the time and piling on top of each other and overlapping and creating even more inconsistencies and contradictions.
<o:p> </o:p>
Rather than just pick your poison I’d like to try and think we can come up with a new system, or different groups can have different systems, taking all we’ve learned and try to come up with a system that’s internally consistent and just and keep working on trying to try and improve that. I think Jacque Fresco of the Venus project has already done an amazing attempt at this, I’ve found him inspiring. If ownership and accumulation of wealth are the sources of all power corruption then using technology and automation to create abundance and remove the need for the accumulation of wealth, and money, has vast merit to me.
<o:p> </o:p>
The bushmen of southern <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">africa</st1:place> had a society totally free of ownership and the concept of it. It’s not something hardwired into our brains.

[orion]

ffice:office" /><o>:p></o>:p>
If ownership and accumulation of wealth are the sources of all power corruption then using technology and automation to create abundance and remove the need for the accumulation of wealth, and money, has vast merit to me. <o>
</o>

Marvenger, I think the answer is capitalism with morality. Yes morality is another can of worms when we get into details but I think most of us here know what that means. i don't care if you have them from religion or just because men should treat one another justly, either works. Also i think we need to remember there are two sides;



Greedy pigs
Lazy bums

So far we have disparaged the greedy guys. We have forgotten about the Jamestown type scenario where not enough people want to work they just want to take.

I will look up the Venus Project. Sounds like Star trek to me (not derogatory but that is my take from Roddenberry and the show where technology does away with supply constraints) and I unfortunately think this world will never give us unlimited anything just like perpetual motion is a no go.

[marvenger]

cheers orion

I started a new thread with the latest zeitgeist video which has close association with venus project.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261

I find the concepts awe inspiring and very uplifting, hope others get the same kick.

[bpr]

Thanks, Bart, a good reminder of basic civics. Really driven home with Chris' quote:

Makes a lot of sense to all those poor peoples that have so often lately demeaned the idea of an imposed democracy.

It is cler that the Founding fathers saw democracy as an inefficient and unsustainable form of government, which calls into question the motives for "Democracy building."

It just seems to me there is this obvious massive contradiction between capitalism and the justice that society demands that very few try to talk about honestly.

Society and capitalism has built up over thousands of years with social, economic, power relation changes happening all the time and piling on top of each other and overlapping and creating even more inconsistencies and contradictions.

I concur. Dictionary definitions aside, governments in practice are constantly being morphed into various conglomerations of these basic forms. With human corruption, whether by nature or by demon, all tend to fall into oligarchy. One would not argue that the USSR was a pure form of Marxist Communism; nor would one argue that the United States exemplifies Jeffersonian democracy (or even a democratic republic). Definitions, by nature, fall short when talking about such dynamic entities as political systems.

I would also argue that the road from Republic to Oligarchy is not at all complicated. Republic is simply the rule of law. If the laws are written and enforced by the oligarchs, then you have a fascist republic.

Time to re-read the Federalist Papers (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp).

[marvenger]

I agree, i'm just trying to point out that I think the common factor in this susceptibility to oligarchy is systemised ownership and accumulaton of wealth. Just trying to state it explicity becasue I think its a reality and should be said and few say it. Once you state it and understand it you may be able to do more to fix it, at least keep it more in the consciousness to so prevent its insipid effects; something neoclassical economists and milton freedman have succeeded greatly in reducing prominence in consciousness by reducing the value of everything to is price and institutionalising education and society around this.

[marvenger]

I probably need to explain myself better. The classical economists, smith ricardo etc thought the invisible hand of competitive capitalism as a way for progressive progress but they were also concerned greatly with social responsibility and fair price or distribution of wealth, this contradiction lead to divergent theories, marxism and neoclassicalism. taking aside the fact classical scholars came from privileged backgrounds supported by the capitalist system they thought that capitalism and social stratification was natural but needed to be within reasonable bounds and were worried about capitalist tendencies for the stratification to get out of hand. Marx sided with worry about stratification and neoclassicals said who gives a shit. Point is if your going to have capitalism, i'd prefer resource economy zeitgeist style, I think its prudent to keep wealth distribution issues in your mind as the classicists did despite all the contradictions.

[Mango]

Without getting into dictionary definitions of republic and democracy, I was disappointed by the video. First it postulates a two-polar, single dimension political world, which is too oversimplified.
<O:p
I find the two AXIS chart (four poles in two dimensions) that was floating around the internet prior to the election to be a much better model, albeit still quite simple. http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2 (http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2) Perhaps those who want to debate the issue should test themselves and post their charts.<O:p></O:p>

And it isn't hard to imagine a three dimensional chart of political affiliations, although it's kind of hard to represent on two-dimensional paper or screens.

Furthermore, the difference I understand or always supposed between republics and democracies is a matter of the election of representatives versus full citizen participation--electing a congress versus passing all laws by referendum, for instance. Therefore a real democracy can't exist much beyond the tribal level of organization because logistics prevent it.

The whole matter of rule of law, or limitations on the rulers, as a defining difference between republics and democracies needn't enter the picture at all. There are such things as constitutional monarchies. A democracy could be constrained by a constitution as well, unless your definition of democracy is so pure that it cannot include a bill of rights and is always and everywhere subject to the immediate vote of the citizenry

[orion]

ffice:office" /><o>:p></o>:p>
I think that power corrupting being a part of human nature is only true to the extent that the potentiality for it is there.

I've been thinking more about your power comment. When I get into heated political discussions with family members that are die hard liberals and hate conservatives, who they group with large greedy corporations (The old Dick Cheney shot), I like to ask about what difference is there between big government and big corporations?

First I am a liberty and individual rights person so I have no love for big corporations. Second I feel that the problem with corruption and power abuse comes with size. Bigger is much less personal.

Have you ever talked to your congressman? When I did I felt like I was talking to a wall and lost some of my faith in the system. We need to keep things small, I wish the States had more power.

[marvenger]

I absolutely agree. large concentrations of power cause extremely strong social pressures to conform, or should I say economic pressure not to starve.

[cjppjc]

cheers orion

I started a new thread with the latest zeitgeist video which has close association with venus project.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261

I find the concepts awe inspiring and very uplifting, hope others get the same kick.


You know I started to watch that video and had to turn it off. When it got to the part about the interest on $1,000,000, and implied that the depositor did nothing to earn that money. Well that's rather specious. You know the business and saving class is not your enemy.

[marvenger]

thats a small part of it, they're talking about rent extraction and the exponential nature of debt accumulation outpacing economic growth; a problem michael hudson has pointed out has been around for thousands of years. Anyway, i think the resource economy and application of technology and science are the most relevant bits. using science to figure out available resources and a sustainable economy is the only option and something the monetary system cannot handle.

[Chris Coles]

thats a small part of it, they're talking about rent extraction and the exponential nature of debt accumulation outpacing economic growth; a problem michael hudson has pointed out has been around for thousands of years. Anyway, i think the resource economy and application of technology and science are the most relevant bits. using science to figure out available resources and a sustainable economy is the only option and something the monetary system cannot handle.

And that was why someone, a long time ago, came up with the wonderful idea of an equity share owning society. Equity gives no income unless there is a corresponding profit. Does not cause inflation. Does not extract "rent" from the unprofitable.

They called it Capitalism. Absolutely not what we have today.

[marvenger]

I agree and have added the odd comment in support of your ideas Chris. I still think that the power obtained buy wealth accumulation means the best intentions of a pure dictionary derived capitalism will give way to manipulation, rent extraction, cronyism and corruption; just like the dictionary version of republic gives way to oligarchy.

If this effect of wealth accumulation was given more public airtime it might be better controlled, oh but yeah the chicago school of economics and the media were bought by the wealth accumulators, so can't put much faith in that.

I don't think that capitalism can allow for the environmental needs of the planet either.

[Rajiv]

Marvenger,

You might like to read this - "Bubbles, Bailouts and Real Security"
(http://www.uujec.org/vol2.issue1.pdf)

And also the adjunct web site (http://www.uujec.org/)

[marvenger]

Cheers Rajiv

I agree with most of what was said, I just don't see how these values fit in with a capitalist system long term. Karl Polanyi is pretty well known for his work on how the capitalist system encourages this individualism and greed because this is what is initially rewarded the most. However the system eventually becomes parasitic and unfunctional and as Polanyi describes it, society starts to fight back, and we start to get a society and an economic system with proper rules and regulations as described in the article, although this may be wishful thinking. The problem is the process is doomed to repeat itself and in all likelihood will significantly stuff the planet in the process.

I'm really interested in the venus projects interest in technology and the scientific method. We are far from achieving the dreams envisaged, but these are the dreams I want to have, and want to help work towards if I can. Surely they are right that eventually we will have cities where resource availability, usage and production are monitored and performed automatically and sustainably. these types of things are already happening on a smaller scale with less focus on sustainability and while they are great technological improvements they are also dangerous to our current economic system with a reduction in wages and hence demand for the overall economy, despite the profitability for the small segment. Keynes was also particularly worried about this aspect of innovation. So why not realise what the end point is now, automated sustainable production with limited labour, and try to get there as soon as possible. Under this system there is no need for capitalism. Problems aren't solved by politicians, problems are solved by technology.

[$#*]

Under this system there is no need for capitalism. Problems aren't solved by politicians, problems are solved by technology.
Marvenger, please take the time to read those links I've provided at education an resources. The Zeitgest 1 was a good movie. Since Zeitgeist 2 (Addendum) things are are getting diverted in a very deceptive way towards an Utopian techno-socialism, which is just a neo-luddite deception.

The answer to crony capitalism is not a socialist flavor utopia. Technology cannot solve human problems. Technology can be used by responsible and honest politicians to solve human problems.

Saying that technology can solve human problems is like saying that the heat released by oxidation reaction can cook our food. The question is that such a disconnected utopian belief is always put forward by the stove masters.

[marvenger]

Technology that they are talking about is a holistic concept where all actions and reactions are taken into account to devise a system that meets our goals that can be achieved sustainably. Surely this is smart and thinking long term, the exact opposite to your oxidation example which is far more likely to occur under capitalism for a quick buck for a small group's benefit at the expense of a large group.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There doesn't have to be one system either, there can be many, as long as they're sustainable and they're meeting goals. As long as there is abundance there is no need for ownership and therefore no accumulation of power which is what has made large scale socialist endeavors unpalatable for most. If there is a group of people more involved in decision making, and it will mostly be of a technical nature under known rules of science and they reckon that computers will be better to process these decisions eventually, the system will still provide equal access to all. That has to be the central tenant.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I can understand people with wealth being worried about such ideas because if it fails then they’ll lose everything, but people seem to be opposed to the ideas when presented as its working which I don’t understand.
<o:p> </o:p>
Those fears aside I still think it’s a very worthy proposal and well worth donating a bit to so that any assets accumulated initially are done so properly under the capitalism system currently in place. Violent revolution is the last thing these guys want, they hope once it gets going more will start joining voluntarily, so its all about hopefully letting the integrity of the system speak for itself.
<o:p> </o:p>
I’ll check out your links, I’m pressed for time at the moment.

[Chris Coles]

Marvenger, please take the time to read those links I've provided at education an resources. The Zeitgest 1 was a good movie. Since Zeitgeist 2 (Addendum) things are are getting diverted in a very deceptive way towards an Utopian techno-socialism, which is just a neo-luddite deception.

The answer to crony capitalism is not a socialist flavor utopia. Technology cannot solve human problems. Technology can be used by responsible and honest politicians to solve human problems.

Saying that technology can solve human problems is like saying that the heat released by oxidation reaction can cook our food. The question is that such a disconnected utopian belief is always put forward by the stove masters.

A have to agree. It was not technology that started the creation of the words written on paper that became the United States, it was the thoughts of prescient individuals that came up with some basic rules for individuals to live by. What has gone wrong recently is that events have shown the need to revise the rules.

Trying to take away the freedom of the individual to think and replace that with technology is the most abhorrent future imaginable.

[marvenger]

the thinking computers do is all based on scientific laws humans have discovered, computers can just do it quicker. Like using a very sophisticated calculator.

[Chris Coles]

the thinking computers do is all based on scientific laws humans have discovered, computers can just do it quicker. Like using a very sophisticated calculator.

With the very greatest of respects, they were saying exactly that when the idea of trading in CDO's started. Somehow, I have the feeling that that argument has, what? Crashed?

Computers are, daily, subverted and used for every disagreeable purpose imaginable. Anyone with the nous and intent can and does subvert the purpose of a free society every day. Or have you not noticed the "Malicious Software Removal Tool" that Microsoft has to keep a team working night and day so they can TRY and keep on top, week by week. Or the anti-virus teams that will check your computer every day and upgrade the system every four hours.

Try and imagine working with any individual that you could not entirely rely on for more than, say, two hours; without someone else getting inside their brain and making them say what they want when they want.

The proposal you suggest is so fundamentally flawed, it brings into question the motives of anyone espousing it. With the greatest of respect, utter rubbish!

[Chris Coles]

And yet, in the same breath, I turn up this report on Techdirt.
You Can't Wait For The Perfect Business Model

from the what-comes-next:-everything-and-everyone dept

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090315/1934144122.shtml

which in turn recommends we read this by Clay Shirky which I have to say is a very thought provoking article, not about law or finance or government, but the future of newspapers. The parallels are remarkable.
"Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen.

Imagine, in 1996, asking some net-savvy soul to expound on the potential of craigslist, then a year old and not yet incorporated. The answer you’d almost certainly have gotten would be extrapolation: “Mailing lists can be powerful tools”, “Social effects are intertwining with digital networks”, blah blah blah. What no one would have told you, could have told you, was what actually happened: craiglist became a critical piece of infrastructure. Not the idea of craigslist, or the business model, or even the software driving it. Craigslist itself spread to cover hundreds of cities and has become a part of public consciousness about what is now possible. Experiments are only revealed in retrospect to be turning points.

In craigslist’s gradual shift from ‘interesting if minor’ to ‘essential and transformative’, there is one possible answer to the question “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” The answer is: Nothing will work, but everything might. Now is the time for experiments, lots and lots of experiments, each of which will seem as minor at launch as craigslist did, as Wikipedia did, as octavo volumes did."
Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/

[marvenger]

I understand your concerns about computers, I've watched Terminator and am scared too.

What gives me faith is that in the resource based economy proposed, technology is a tool to create abundance and erradicate the need for money. Money is the mechanism to allocate scarce resources, but what if the resources weren't scarce, or enough could be produced with automation so that the population agreed to get rid of money and therefore the power it can buy. cost of production is what gives a product value and without labour costs you could argue that nothing will have value particularly if as is proposed alternatives to scarce resources can be found such as manufacturing a new product as a substitute for a scarce resource such as oils in genetically modified algae being grown in vast quantities to replace a plastic that can't be produced because of peak oil.

I think in such a society there would not be the need for manipulation etc and many of the neuroses generated by the monetary system would disappear. Computers would merely be programmed to process vast amounts of information such as all resources available, the programable process to turn those resources into the products society demands(every workers brain is applying processes and concepts that can be programed) and monitoring it all. Computers in cars already detect problems and alert drivers and mechanics to them, they could also be programmed with the ability to fix the problem.

The mechanical process that workers normally grow to dislike can be replaced by a machine that can do it much better without getting tired or making mistakes and the worker can do more creative things that they want to do. Machines are already replacing workers its just that in the capitalist system the workers now have no purchasing power and starve and it'll bring down the capitalist system anyway becasue as many have already shown in volumous efforts capitalism is full of contradictions.

Although Rajiv is worried that the resources of the planet cannot sustain the current population it is argued with the proper application of technology this in not so. Projections can then be made of what a sustainable population is and its up to humans not to exceed this or otherwise they're going to have to come up with a system to distribute scarce resources and it likely wont be pretty.

[Chris Coles]

Marvenger, Truth is, you actually have not ever worked in a real production environment have you? For example, making things like this?

http://www.ultratech-decolletage.com/graphix/page01.jpg

Where your working environment is about 130 Decibels of continuous noise, with cutting oil sprayed from head to foot, having to think as fast as the machine which in turn is creating new components at, say, a 4.8 second cycle time with red hot drills and swarf coming off so hot that if the oil coolant pump stops the machine will instantly go up in flames. Where you regularly manhandle, say, several tons of bar a 12 hour shift with half hour for break and just to add to the excitement, you regularly get bad cuts on your hands due to always working with tooling that is razor sharp inside machines that are so cramped, you many times cannot see what you are doing as you set them as you can only work by feel.

Where when an operator says this or that machine has stopped, you have to walk up, make an instant evaluation as to why and fix it. No time to think, the next machine has also gone down. Many machines with sometimes twenty or more operations all going on at the same time, every one with a different tool, sometimes every tool smashed and the machine looking like a wreck. But at one and the same time, what a wonderful challenge to face, day after day. Night after night.

Welcome to the world of mass production where, if you are to be believed, you will find people prepared to do that for no pay, and, say, (as with one company I worked for), machine a million tons of steel every year, producing over a million machined components a month, every month, year in year out.

You are living, with the greatest of respects, in an intellectual fantasy.

[marvenger]

I appreciate the respect and the genuine attempt to explain your point of view without getting too rude when its something that means a lot to you, which I know can be a hard thing to do.

But, the things you are talking about, having to make split decisions about various possibilities for what could be wrong and how to fix it, if you talked to a talented programmer I think they would suggest that all the possibilities in your mind could be programed and performed more effeciently than a human.

Your right the only real production environment I've worked in is a pizza shop, and I understand how peoples identities are caught up in their work and its a terrible thing to lose that; but I also think that the nature of technological and economic change means that most will have to make these changes anyway and I think it would be preferable to develop a secure production system for everyone and people can develop their identities outside this. They can still produce things for themselves and others to enjoy, probably more in an artistic sense, but the repetitive mass production is all done by machines and an integrated IT sytem monitoring everything in relation to the production system itself and the outside environment to ensure sustainability; thus acting just like the nervous system in a living organism.

[marvenger]

Also the waste generated in the capitalist system, planned obslolescence etc, is massive and would not be necessary in a resource economy where continual consumption is not required to keep the system going. So this another reason that abundance is possible. Things can be made to last.

[cjppjc]

I appreciate the respect and the genuine attempt to explain your point of view without getting too rude when its something that means a lot to you, which I know can be a hard thing to do.

But, the things you are talking about, having to make split decisions about various possibilities for what could be wrong and how to fix it, if you talked to a talented programmer I think they would suggest that all the possibilities in your mind could be programed and performed more effeciently than a human.

Your right the only real production environment I've worked in is a pizza shop, and I understand how peoples identities are caught up in their work and its a terrible thing to lose that; but I also think that the nature of technological and economic change means that most will have to make these changes anyway and I think it would be preferable to develop a secure production system for everyone and people can develop their identities outside this. They can still produce things for themselves and others to enjoy, probably more in an artistic sense, but the repetitive mass production is all done by machines and an integrated IT sytem monitoring everything in relation to the production system itself and the outside environment to ensure sustainability; thus acting just like the nervous system in a living organism.


With the all due respect. I think if YOU talked to a talanted programmer they would tell you all the possibilities of the human mind aren't known. So to duplicate them is impossible. As it stands now computers can beat humans at chess. And that is because of the huge number crunching advantage, not because it thinks.

[marvenger]

mate are you listening to what I'm saying, the computer can beat us at chess becasue all the known moves and strategies are programed into it and by looking at the moves of its opponents it can best guess as to what the opponent is trying to do. So all the kown information from the smartest chess player in the world has can't beat the computer. The same is true for a mechanic the computer can store more information and process it better to solve problems better thant he mechanic.

Humans can invent new games and find new scientific laws and decide they want new products and this can then all be codified into computers and the information can be processed and implemented better by computers than by humans. The human had to invent the chess moves to put into the computer.

[marvenger]

Actually that chess example was a really good one to prove the point. Thanks!

[cjppjc]

Actually that chess example was a really good one to prove the point. Thanks!


Glad I could help:)

[Prazak]

I absolutely agree. large concentrations of power cause extremely strong social pressures to conform, or should I say economic pressure not to starve.

What was it Vonnegut wrote? "Any country bigger than Denmark is bullshit". I think it was in Jailbird, but hard to remember as the 80s hurtle ever backward.

[Prazak]

And, come to think of it, this whole discussion of capitalism and its acidic effect on the republic reminds me of Vonnegut's black-humorous references to the Ramjack Corporation throughout Jailbird.

Might be a good time to re-read that, just as it might be a good time to go back and revisit The Federalist Papers.

[Diarmuid]

I've been thinking more about your power comment. When I get into heated political discussions with family members that are die hard liberals and hate conservatives, who they group with large greedy corporations (The old Dick Cheney shot), I like to ask about what difference is there between big government and big corporations?

First I am a liberty and individual rights person so I have no love for big corporations. Second I feel that the problem with corruption and power abuse comes with size. Bigger is much less personal.

Have you ever talked to your congressman? When I did I felt like I was talking to a wall and lost some of my faith in the system. We need to keep things small, I wish the States had more power.

I think your reasoning is synonymous to what Lord Acton was thinking when he made the famous quote

The US constitution was I believe an attempt by the founders to limit consolidation and centralisation of power, to prevent exactly what we see today in the US. This attempt is best characterised by the second and tenth amendments - so imo the constitution failed. That being said I still believe the constitution of the US is the greatest political document ever written and has been circumvented and perverted to the point where it is now, as George Bush so eloquently put it just "a f**king peice of paper", with no real relevance to politics or law making in the US.

Here's Actons full quote: (which you wont hear too often)

"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."