A country without Money how it's work?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Brainsucker, Dec 13, 2012.

  1. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Ominous because you seem to be connecting this "relevant general education" with the general public accepting this TVP idea. And yes that does sound like you are advocating a form of mass indoctrination. the populace will be told what to think, and what to accept. That being the culture that accompanies (and compliments) TVP.

    The good thing is this likely wouldn't work on more than a small sized population group. People don't like being told what to think and do, especially if it's clearly a overt action on some agencies part. How could you switch over to this "special education" without it being obvious to just about everyone that you're pushing a small group's private agenda?

    If American politicians and the school boards tried this stunt with the schools, they'd be out of office with the next election (or next special election). On the upside for your idea, it might have a measure of success in some of the totalitarian political states. But even there the chances of it working over time is slim.

    Like at Russia under the communists (and I'm not saying you idea is communist), for decades the small controlling group attempted to eliminate religion in Russia. The communist would gather villagers at safe distance and literally dynamited the local churches while the villagers were made to watch. Religious leaders and teachers were sent to labor camps. But it didn't work, no matter how much oppression was applied. Religion went underground, continued to minister to the populace and they waited. In time the communists were gone, and the religion was still there.

    The point isn't specifically about religion, it's about being between hard to impossible to get the majority of people to accept some silly idea that makes little sense.

    This "relevant general education" you advocate, who's going to make the decision to start this?

    *****
    Another one (of the many) problems with what you advocating is that not everyone want to be unemployed, and then be taken care of. And no Deks, it actually is not that they've been schooled to think that.

    You're using that particular cliché way too often.

    People naturally take pleasure and satisfaction in their own labors. People reach fulfillment in their occupations, they expend effort and experience a sense of accomplishment at the finished results. They did that, built that, produced that.

    People obtain tremendous satisfaction and pride from what they do. Just within my own family in America, there are machinists who work for Boeing Aircraft, when a plane flies over, they can identify the type they personally worked on, and feel pride. My family in Brazil has been working the same farm land since the mid nineteenth century, wheat, corn, sugar and forage. Producing thousands of tonnes of food through the years. My uncle now owns three commercial fishing boas, hard work, but he loves working the sea.

    These aren't meaningless hobbies that they undertake because they have too much time on their hands, it's an honest days work.

    *****

    You also seem to have turned a blind eye to the fact that Human Beings are not socially and culturally homogeneous. Our histories and heritages have produced hundred of major, and thousands of minor, ethic groups. All of whom have slightly different views on what composes a well thought out society, community and nation.

    Unless your "education system" is going to eliminate that.

    *****

    The idea of a circular community plan reminds me of the story of the Brazilian city of Goiânia. The plan was for a city with the shape of a circle, multiple concentric radius's with streets in the form of spokes, the seats of the state and municipal government in the center. The design was for about 50,000 people. The planned city was founded in 1933.

    Problem with "planning" is this, the city grew to be 1.3 million people, and "the plan" grew with the city. At a certain point the populace began to disagree with "the plan," and in typical Brazilian fashion began to build however they saw fit. Growth was pure laissez-faire. People purchased the industrial section and put up high rises. People wanted neighborhood clinics, not giant central hospitals. People built houses where they weren't supposed to, so they could walk to work. Public transit is nice, but the city has one of the highest ratios of cars to people in all of Brazil.

    Nothing automatically wrong with a planned community, as long as you can adapt (i.e. junk) the plan for the people who will actually live there.

    [​IMG]



    :)
     
  2. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    The thing with "Relevant General Knowledge"

    with the latest scientific knowledge
    Scientific Methodology
    etc.

    Who gets to determine what falls into that loaded term?
    Jacques Fresco has his ideas.

    I'm sure many educators around the world along with parents have other ideas of what should be taught.
    Including religious folk for propagating religion.

    I'm going to be honest.
    I grew up in a Buddhist family.
    I myself don't believe in any religion.
    As far as I'm concerned, religion is just a tool for mass control of people in terms of behavior / beliefs /etc.
    I believe that logic / facts / scientific methodology / objective reasoning / etc is the key to making humanity better, but that's my PoV.

    The scientific method is taught at most schools to my understanding.

    Scientific knowledge is available for all to consume thanks to the internet.

    Whether you choose to learn it and apply the scientific method to your life / thinking is a matter of choice.

    Forcing people to think a certain way has never gone down well in history.

    People never like to be coerced or brain washed into anything.

    Especially with a very cynical society, a person needs to individually analyze and understand your proposals / ideas, then figure out if it's worth it for them as a person to accept your said proposals / ideas.

    Personally I like some aspects of TVP, not all of it.

    I have plenty of complaints that I don't agree with.

    But if TVP & Jacques Fresco can be flexible with his concepts / ideals, then it stands some chance of succeeding, not a large one mind you, but some chance.

    I still think my earlier post about how he can succeed is far more realistic than every group on earth suddenly giving up and revolting against their government.

    But that's me and my opinions.
     
  3. TheGoodNews

    TheGoodNews Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Read this:

    “In most anarchist collectives money was abolished. ‘Here in Fraga,’ the local paper proclaimed in blazing pride, ‘you can throw bank notes into the street and no one will take any notice. Rockefeller, if you were to Fraga with your entire bank account you would not be able to buy a cup of coffee. Money, your God and your servant has been abolished and the people are happy.” The Spanish Civil War by A. Beevor

    “Foreigners who gave a tip had it returned politely with an explanation of why the practice corrupted both the giver and the receiver.” Beevor

    "Doctors, barbers, carpenters and cobblers usually gave their services free and in return were maintained by the community." Beevor

    “Some collectives did in fact abolish money. They had no system of exchange, not even coupons. For example, a resident of Magdalena de Pulpis, when asked, ‘How do you organize without money? Do you use barter, a coupon book, or anything else?,’ replied, ‘Nothing. Everyone works and everyone has the right to what he needs free of charge. He simply goes to the store where provisions and all other necessities are supplied. Everything is distributed free with only a notation of what he took.” The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff

    “Medical care and medicines are free. Even postage stamps are free. There is no rent. Housing, building repairs, water, gas, electricity-all are supplied gratis, not only to the collectivists but also to the ‘individualists.’” Dolgoff

    "Money has been abolished. Neither the standard currency of Spain (the peseta) nor local money is used in transactions within or between any of the collectives of the county or district." Dolgoff

    “Many of the normal motives of civilized life-snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.-had simply ceased to exist.” Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell

    “Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift boy.” Orwell

    “There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine. In the barbers’s shops were Anarchist notices (the barbers were mostly Anarchists) solemnly exclaiming that barbers were no longer slaves. In the streets were coloured posters appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes.” Orwell

    Below is documentary called Living Utopia on Spanish anarchism. Scroll 56min 34seconds into it they begin describing the abolition of money:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

    Another doc where they interview three Spaniards who recall the time the Anarchists abolished money in their town at 21min 45 seconds:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QRd7tBqQdw

    "Enjoy it." Capt. Picard.
     
  4. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    In the streets were coloured posters appealing to prostitutes to stop being prostitutes.

    Everyone else worked for free, why not the whores?

    :)
     
  5. TheGoodNews

    TheGoodNews Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Scoll to about 15:10 on the bottom video. According to the narrator it wasn't easy to change old habits.
     
  6. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    The hi-lighted one, yeah there going to be trouble right there, you just know it.

    :)
     
  7. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Nothing wrong with facts
     
  8. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Yeah, but whose? Yours, mine, someone else, maybe a compilation of some sort?

    Nothing wrong with going with the facts of a disinterested third party.

    :)
     
  9. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012

    All facts, as many as I can get my hands on till I make my own judgement of things.
     
  10. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    And that's the way it should be, a good general education, resulting in a population that decided (for better or for worst) their society's own present and future. Not a special educational program to steer the population towards a future that involve switching over to a economic system that has never been tried on a large scale before, and has never been shown to work over a protracted period of time.

    And certainly not a education system (where's this thing supposed to come from?) that indoctrinates the populace to surrender many of their personal possession, because "The Plan" dictates that they shouldn't want them. To leave their homes for a newly built city where the building are the same, there are no cars (too much individuality), they'll never be paid for their efforts.

    Oh, and they'll have no say in their government, because "The Plan" will eventually take that away too. Can't have the People making decisions can we? they might choose to take another path, and anyone who doesn't agree with "The Plan" is stupid and has been educated to be stupid. Otherwise they would all agree with "the Plan."

    The small group who controls the computers will be making the "correct" decisions for them.

    *****

    People might occassionly make bad choices, but those choices are their's to make. The market economy we have today is just as imperfect as we are, but it works under a wide variety of situations, in bad times never has completely collapsed, has always recovered in time, and has worked for centuries.

    *****

    :)
     
  11. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    (Responding to OP not reading rest of thread first)

    Sounds to me you don't accept the basic premise of the show. Yes, whenever they tried to abolish money and private property in the real world people got lazy and things went to crap. But in the future, nobody is lazy and everybody wants to improve themselves. Realistic? Maybe not, but that's the premise of the show.

    I do think having no economy makes a little more sense in a world of abundance where scarcity of resources has been eliminated due to replicators. On Earth in Star Trek there is literally enough so that everybody can have everything they need.
     
  12. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Jake and Nog discuss this in In the Cards:

    [LEFT]NOG It's my money, Jake. If you want to bid at this
    auction, use your own money.

    JAKE I'm Human, I don't have any money.

    NOG It's not my fault that your species decided to
    abandon currency-based economics in favor
    of some philosophy of self-enhancement.

    JAKE (defensive) Hey, watch it. There's nothing wrong with our philosophy.
    (with pride) We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

    NOG (confused) What does that mean exactly?

    JAKE It means... (reaching) ... it means we don't need money.

    NOG Well if you don't need money, then you certainly don't need mine.
    [/LEFT]
     
  13. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    It is necessary once and a while to put back and remember that Star Trek exists in a fictional future. One that is more fantasy, than reality.


    And in the episode Progress, Jake, Nog and a trader named Ch'ano have this discussion ...

    JAKE: He doesn't have any latinum. Let's exchange for something.
    NOG: I don't want something. I want latinum.
    CH'ANO: I can't hear you. Can I interest you in a piece of land?
    JAKE: Land is good.
    NOG: For what? It's nothing but dirt.
    JAKE: How much land?
    CH'ANO: I can let you have seven tessipates.
    JAKE: Seven sounds good.
    NOG: First yamok sauce, then stem bolts, now tessipates, and still no profit.
    JAKE: We're getting closer. I can feel it.
    NOG: You can?
    JAKE: I think so.
    CH'ANO: Do we have a deal?
    JAKE: We'd have to see proof that you own the land.

    Jake's denouncement of money, and his avocation of "I don't need money," is paper thin. Jake has obtained money in the past when it suited his needs. And even in the episode In The Cards, Jake was trying to lay his hands on gold-pressed latinum, even through he had supposedly adopted a no money philosophy.

    So is Jake that much different than Riker when Riker said "we don't eat meat," but later we see him cooking real eggs for his friends?

    :)
     
  14. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    I also think that more minds have been changed for the better just by exposing them to people from different backgrounds and allowing them to pursue education on their own than ever have by trying to reeducate people by force.

    In Star Trek's mythology, people simply realized that we'd have more success working together and taking care of each other than we would trying to kill each other, due to the third World War. Endless pursuit of money was considered to be one of the causes of that war, and it is true post-war that trying to take more for one's self would have raised the odds of the human race being wiped out by nuclear fallout. So it makes sense to me that Earth would have come out of that with a moral edict against money.

    In reality, once Earth got back on its feet they probably would have gone right back to capitalism of course, only being more careful about the obviously destructive side of it. Maybe the discovery of other planets with wealth far greater than their own might have encouraged to keep moving in the direction of globalization (A view that greater wealth for the planet means greater wealth for everyone on the planet), as Vulcan probably was only interested in dealing with one unified planet.

    Then when replicators came out I can't imagine anyone still working a job they don't love.
     
  15. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    That would depend on how much it cost to operate your replicator. The water that comes out of my kitchen faucet might seem to be free, but I do pay for it once a month.

    :)
     
  16. JES

    JES Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Location:
    Ocoee, Florida
    Okay, here is my thoughts thus far:

    Merry Christmas hit a point that I have to agree with (the post I am referring to is I believe 5 posts up), and that is for any sort of communist (by any other name)/Venus Project-Type economic system to gain popularity, people will have to feel that they are not sacrificing anything important to them. If people are told to give up their property, even if it is for the common good, they will resist, perhaps even violently, if they think this is a part of Big Brother's or the New World Order's plan to drag them to the work camps. So instead, they should be allowed to keep their property, unless it is to an unfair extent (slavery must absolutely be exempt from this consideration of course). I think this would help things go over much easier for the wealthy/"elite", if they were allowed to keep their fancy cars, their mansions, etc. One of the thorniest parts of a United Earth will be getting all of the countries to join such a world government, because if I remember right, I read something on the Venus Project website that said in order for this to work effectively, all countries will have to pitch in, otherwise we might fall short on the amount of resources available to distribute. If the dis-proportionment of resources didn't do Soviet Russia in, then it was probably not having enough resources to fairly sustain the entire population that did Soviet Russia in. People don't like to feel like they are being forced to do anything; if they are under the impression that it was their idea in the first place, or if they get to do things under their own terms, they will be much more prone to cooperating, and hopefully, everyone will end up happy.

    These are my thoughts so far. I think I should read the other 4 pages first for any more insight before continuing any further.
     
  17. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    That was alot of arguing back and forth.

    Deks hasn't bothered to return to continue the arguing either.
     
  18. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    There would have to be a compelling reason to unite under a single government, other than simply just to do it. Today nations can enter into multiple international organizations, trading blocks, defense agreements, etc. they don't have to become one government to receive those benefits.

    Fifty years ago there were 163 sovereign nation on Earth, today there are (debatably) 195. The current move is toward more nations, not towards a single worldwide state.

    To me it kind of sounds like they (TVP) don't want there to be a "competing" system running side by side with theirs. Something that could be used to comparison test their system, and it's performance.

    It would be something like with the peoples in eastern Europe during the cold war. They were situated between two competing economic systems (and forced to live under one), when they were finally able to choose which system to live under, the choice was an easy one. They picked the one shown to actually work in the real world, and not the one that worked in theory.

    :)
     
  19. Brainsucker

    Brainsucker Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Ah thank you for coming.
    Yes, I didn't agree with the basic premise of the show, honestly. Because it's too idealistic and won't work for me with my logic (even when it's only a fiction)

    Yes, it is. That's why I thought that maybe the people in Trek's Earth is paid by the energy allocation.
    For example, I work as Closet Cleaner and I get 20 energy allocation, the other work as Starfleet Admiral and get 1000 energy allocation to use in replicator.
    But someone here said that everything is free and they are all free loader. That's why I confused with how would the government control their civilization and make them responsible with their action? Everything need limit. Even with the use of Replicator, they need limitation, or else the energy distribution won't be enough.


    Look at these two people.

    One work as Closet Cleaner, the other as a doctor. Looking at these two, we would know that a Doctor is more important for the society than the closet cleaner (hell, who can prevent somebody from working as closet cleaner? if it is his / her choice? At least, closet cleaner is better than a vagabond). Then, the Closet Cleaner uses the energy allocation for a lot of useless things.

    What prevent the doctor to think :
    1. Hell, I'm cleverer than him (the closet cleaner), I worked hard with my study to become a doctor. And why would I got the same reward as that useless closet cleaner and the free loader? Shouldn't I just to become the free loader myself?
    2. This is crazy. Why everyone are lazy? Why won't they become responsible like me? Look at me, a doctor. Work for the society. Why won't they work? Why The Government doesn't whip these useless Freeloader and make them more useful for the society? Yes, I have received appreciation. People rewards me with praise. But everyone can praise everyone else. and they gave me medal. Oh hell medal. I have a collection of them, but still, why I'm the only one who work here?

    Because people have envy. They want equality, but everyone have their own capacity and work ethic. So how the Trek Earth give these useful doctor reward for their willingness to work hard and study for the society? A medal? A praise? or what? In today world, there is social status. A doctor would be have better social status than a beggar. But what about the Trek Earth?

    Now there are two officers in the same ship

    Officer A is very diligent, he is very dedicated and vigilant in his work. Nobody on the ship could work more than him. While Officer B is lazy. He's prefer to be in a holodeck more than in his work. Or maybe he work, but only because his commanding officer scold him periodically. Now, in our timeline, we could handle this matter by giving reward and punishment. We could give the diligent worker with bonus, wage raise, etc. In the end, the diligent worker would have better house, car, and other luxury that the world can provide, while the lazy one will never get anything.

    But in the future? (in Trek world?)

    The lazy one will think about this : Ah, the diligent get medal again. Well yes, congratulation for him. Cheer! Now, let me make a beer from the replicator for him. Well, I can give him whatever I want as it's free for both of us. So, when will I receive a medal like him? Ah go to hell. As long as I can masturbate in the holodeck I don't need anything else.

    A medal? Common, just look at your surrounding school. Could you motivate the lazy students with only a medal? Yes, you can motivate the diligent one with medal, but you won't be able to whip the lazy people with only a medal.

    and what about the punishment the lazy one? To be fired from the Starfleet? Common, there is no difference for him to being having a job or not. So no body would actually be afraid to be fired from the job.

    Court Martial him? Well, it's work. But... are you sure that you'll be court martial ed by your superior just because you are lazy?

    Now, please tell me how to handle this situation. And don't tell me the same "People in the future are diligent. Nobody are lazy, etc, etc, etc, again.

    Or Genetic Engineered them by removing the lazy genes and putting the diligent one? Brainwash them with telepathic technology? Well, it's work. But you are no longer a whole human anymore if they are doing that to you.

    One thing more :

    Why limitation is important?

    1. There is always limit for everybody energy reserve. The citizen should understand that their energy ration won't disturb the distribution of energy to the entire planet. Now let me ask you. what happen to you if I take your right of being able to use the replicator? If I use too much energy reserve in the world, there is a chance that I would taking the other people's energy for my own purpose.

    2. To reward diligent people and person who contribute the society
    2.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2012
  20. Xhiandra

    Xhiandra Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Is it me or is the OP just engrigh McCarthyism101, replete with false dichotomies and oversimplifications?


    Look, Brainsucker. I know modern society bashes into our skulls from a very young age that laziness is the ultimate crime (sadly, intellectual laziness isn't frowned upon, though) but have you ever examined that belief?
    I used to think like you, when I was a teenager: ultra-capitalism "just made sense": it was a beautiful, self-regulated system with no discernible theoretical exploitable flaws (the past 4 years sure have proven the theory wrong on that aspect); but then I matured and discovered the meaning of "empathy": any system that leaves so many on its fringes, in dismal poverty, cannot be very good; any system where one man has to live in the streets so that another can live in decadent luxury cannot be very good.
    Nobody deserves the former man's fate; nobody needs the latter man's riches, diligence or lack thereof be damned*.

    *Clarification: I am not implying the poor are lazy; just pointing out that even if that was the case, their fate is undeserved.


    Truth is, not only is "diligent vs lazy" a false dichotomy, it's not even true.
    Nobody is "lazy" or "diligent", people are differently motivated to do different things; we might label those motivated to do X lazy and those motivated to do Y diligent, but those labels simply rely on the evaluated productivity of the action.
    Nobody likes "doing nothing", over time boredom even leads to depression and eventually death (by suicide).

    Maybe in the 23rd/24th century, the contemplative philosopher will be valued as much as (or even more than) the field labourer: he might not contribute to the community's material wealth, but his ponderings validate us all as a species; regardless of outcome.
     

Share This Page