View Single Post


November 22nd, 2012, 13:32
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Why do you think there would be no new developments? People are free to develop and improve technology. That's what the resource distribution is about. Again, two categories: basic needs - and luxuries. But luxuries aren't "candy and a Mercedes" - luxuries are resources you can request and then there will be a weight based on a combined voting/petition system. As in, if the resources are available - they will go to those who request it - if it's not contested.
I think this approach is seriously flawed. When everything is voluntary, two or three smart and dedicated people can perfectly come together to create some great stuff. However, when one wants to reach higher goals, a large group will be required and it is very hard, if not impossible, to reach a common consensus on how the workpackages are distributed and who will take the responsable roles regarding authority and final decision making.

A pre-established structured organisation, regardless of its perceived efffectiveness, will allow large groups to work together so that that far reaching goals can be achieved.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I have no doubt that you have a hard time imagining it. You're living in a world full of conflict - based on resource scarcity and obscene distinction of "human values". What you aren't seeing is what would happen to the human condition if there was no struggle to survive or to live in comfort.
Are you implying that you have this profound insight in human behaviour such that you can extrapolate this knowledge and predict the human condition in a hypothetical situation that none of us have ever witnessed?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Again, I think you misunderstand. It won't be luxury items as we understand them today. That's why I like to call them "superfluous" items. Mostly, it will be resources from which to PRODUCE luxury items - and the assignment of such resources will go to those most likely to produce something that will benefit others - that's why the voting/petition system is there.
I admit, I lost you there. So you make a distinction between finished luxury products and resources to produce those luxury products?

What if someone were to make his/her own homegrown cheese, a luxury item, after receiving the resources to produce it on a regular basis. Would that person be allowed to distribute that cheese as he or she sees fit or would a "centralised authority" decide how that luxury item is distributed?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I don't have much to work with. It was just a guess
True, which is why I found it odd that you would attribute such property to my character. I expected just a simple "yes" or "no" .

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
So, if you denounce religion - how do you also accept it as a valid way of life? You do understand what denounce means, right?
I am indeed not a religious person but denouncing religion myself does not automatically imply that I do not accept that to be a valid way of life for others.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
But it's true that the system requires people to agree with it. That's the voluntary part.
I think this is one of the main flaws. The founders of such society would probably live in harmony but there is absolutely no guarantee that future generations will continue with that philosophy.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You're asked not to harm or kill other beings
What is the deal with vegetarianism? From what I understand, the people's diet should not interfere with the "mechanics" of your society. It seems to me that you are imposing some of your own morality.
Asdraguuhl is offline


Asdraguuhl's Avatar


Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 444