Discussion in 'Serious' started by tristanperry, 28 Nov 2010.
i think we should ban the internet.
Just to be a pedant but no Prime Minister has ever been elected by the electorate, we simply elect a local constituency MP, nothing more. Prime Ministers are invited by the Queen to form a Government which is normally the leader of the largest elected party in the Commons.
Effectively the House of Commons elects the PM. So Brown became the Prime Minister in the same way as every other one, by having the majority of MPs elected by the electorate supporting him.
I think John Major also became PM in this way when Thatcher resigned?
Personally I think the system is outdated as the system was devised when party politics didn't play as much of a part in parliament as it does now.
It seems to me that we are forgetting we are supposed to be governed by consent. No regime can hope to remain in power too long if a majority of its "subjects" are displeased and willing to show it.
A good first step would be holding the Coalition to its election promise to give the people the power to sack their MP.
Of this I am well aware chap. I'm just using it as an example (it's the only one I could think of...)
It's true, we are supposed to be that way, but there again we also run on a system of "If you don't vote it goes towards those already in power" or something along those lines.
See I dis-agree, look at Korea, or Iran... those 'wonderful' places have existed for a goddamn time and a half and they're oppressive and have some of the most questionable methods of acting (by Western Standards to point that out). They're still here, Heck do you know we don't have taxpayers rights very much anymore because we're all now known as customers? (Something I REFUSE to call Claimants and Tax payers at work.) such is life though I guess...
I'll be quiet happy with the world when we abolish money and always work for the betterment of each other, not for ourselves. But that will never happen in my lifetime.
maybe clicky is the answer to your dreams?
atm though, it sounds more like a cult than a serious movement. still, the ideology seems pretty nice.
Oh, never seen that before. Something similar, but even within systems as 'perfect' as that... nigh on idealist socialism... you will still get people who want that resource... a little bit more than the next person, and as such the system fails... yet again ...because of human greed
agree, hence the "sounds more like a cult". there's always personal gain in everything, every ideology out there is based in some way on personal gain. maybe one day, mankind will become so egotistical that people actually join forces for maximum gain, thus building a foundation for an optimised resource based economy.
... yea, maybe not.
we could probably do so much more if there was no monetary system, holding us back
Every party has done it, made aload of promises to get elected and then forgotten about them when they are in power.
Look what happens when you try to protest...
It is a nice ideology but currently won't work. Economy is basically about incentive: what people want and what they are prepared to do for it. Currently people go to work because they need money, because they need to buy resources and services. Those resources and services are produced by other people going to work because they need money, rinse, repeat (cue Elton John: "It's the ciiircle of liiiife!").
In a resource-based economy people go to work because, well, otherwise there would be no resources to go around. They need to have a sense of civic responsibility: without their contribution the whole thing comes crashing down. Can you see where it goes wrong yet?
Yup. People only have an incentive to work for resources that they themselves use. So I'll only, say, bake bread if I need/want bread, or enjoy making bread. The only incentive for me to continue making bread once I have scratched that itch is if I can swap my bread for something else that I need/want. Hence barter, and sooner or later money comes into it as a bartering tool. But in a resource economy I bake bread out of a sense of duty: because I know there are other people going to work producing stuff (e.g. clothes) that I need and use. They produce clothes out of a similar sense of civic duty: because they know that there are people out there, like bakers, who are producing bread for them and need some clothes. It is kind of like communism (in its true form, not the autocratic dictatorship). Now ask yourself: does everyone have a strong civic duty?
The answer can be found in the observed absences from work due to illness when the world cup is on TV, for instance. And that is people getting paid to work --where there is a very instant connection between work and reward. If people can get away with it, they will throw a sickie. Other examples of civic duty can be found in jury dodging, shoplifting, drunk driving, benefit scrounging...
We are simply not that mature. Resource economies, like communism, fails when it is done on a scale larger than perhaps 100 people, where there is still a strong social monitoring over who appears to take more out of the communal pool than they put in.
In the case of North Korea and Iran, there are various systems in place to skew popular opinion, prevent dissent and discourage people from congregating and openly manifesting their displeasure. We are not yet in such a bad predicament.
As for monetary systems, they are not the problem. The problem is with people who are too stupid, uneducated or otherwise deficient to realise that money is a means not an end and that their greed will only ever serve to make the world a worse place.
Once again, the answer is education.
Nexxo, you might find this RSA video interesting
There is an interesting piece at Salon.com today about Bradley Manning's imprisonment. While all the world's attention is focused on Julian Assange and the Wikileaks-guilt-by-association canard, very few people seem to wonder whatever happened to the guy who actually leaked the information in the first place.
In fact, Manning has yet to actually be convicted of anything. Currently, he is being held in extreme solitary confinement. For at about the past 7 months, he has spent 23 hours per day completely isolated in his cell without so much as a pillow to rest his head. All the while military doctors are administering anti-depressants to keep his mind from completely breaking. All this despite numerous studies by psychiatrists and doctors showing the real physical and emotional harm caused by intensive solitary confinement, and recommendations from governments calling for an end to the practice.
This is how we treat our whistle-blowers now. We don't ask about the value of the information they expose. We simply accuse them of treason and call for their heads, regardless of the information presented.
Now that Obama is finally nominating a new head of the Office of Special Counsel - which, among other things, is tasked with protecting government whistle-blowers - perhaps the White House can come around on some of those promises to change the status quo in Washington. Will Manning finally get his day in court? My patience and faith in this administration is fading.
They're probably trying to get him to testify that Wikileaks instigated the leak so they have a reason to shut them down .
It is, thanks. So if we apply that to a Resource Economy we should have a functioning economy if people have the freedom to pursue any purposeful activity they want to and get good at it --as long as they don't have to worry about money. That all makes sense --if you are dealing with a relatively psychologically balanced population.
Which we are not, unfortunately. As you say, the problem is with people who are too stupid, uneducated or otherwise deficient to realise that money is a means not an end and that their greed will only ever serve to make the world a worse place. But the answer is not education; primarily it is parenting.
I think that they are not even thinking that far. I think they are just making an example of him. They hope to inspire fear into any would-be whistle blower getting any ideas. Instead, they are just upping the stakes. Whistle blowers will match up to become smarter, more devious and more ruthless. They will become vigilantes. Talk about "what we defend against, we create"...
Yeah... dreaming of a perfect global communism, where everyone gives what he's able to and receive everything he needs in return.
Alot of utopics are based on that idea.
Won't happen in our lifetime and probably nerver will. It's safer to assume that mankind will obliterate itself way before that.
Don't give them any ideas
The two are not so different...
It's worth trying to get as close as we can. Even if it is only nanometre by nanometre
i would sincerely hope that carolyn lerner's nomination would be good news for bradley manning and his supporters (thanks for the salon link, btw). like you, i've all but lost my faith with this administration and hope this appointment will at least restore some measure of it. though that npr article posits a weak protections system for federal whistleblowers is what leads them to organizations like wikileaks, which bears appropriate consideration, i think some just realize just how slow this kind of jurisprudence actually is (no matter who is at the helm) and opt for a more expedient method. a whistleblower bill would be excellent as well, but i have my doubts about it passing now. bradley manning's treatment is contemptible and i agree it needs more publicity.
As Nexxo said, it works in small groups. Look at the kibbutz of Isreal. Small agricultural communities where there is strong social pressure to contribute and rewards for doing so. The same concepts can transfer to business. Where you have small groups of people who work together and share the rewards of success this kind of cohesion can be achieved. It's even been done in prisons which arguably contain the people most interested in their own benefit. The key is to align personal gain with social gain or group success.
People need identity and a sense of belonging to function. This is manifest in everything from military units to sports fans to criminal gangs. A lot of the problems arise when people believe they are not part of the community they function in, be it at work or anywhere else. If you can create positive opportunities for belonging and identity then you can go a long ways to changing behavior, even in the most hardened criminal. Remember, these are basic human needs we all have and so there is the potential for positive integration in everyone.
On a completely different topic...
The ONLY thing Bradley Manning has been charged with is releasing the video of an Apache gunning down the Reuters reporters. He's been implicated in the war logs release, but not yet convicted of anything. It's quite possible he had nothing to do with the cablegate release, but once again by focusing attention on him Julian can deflect it from the actual source.
I can't tell if Assange is really clever at protecting his sources and volunteers or if he's just lucky, but I want to believe it's the former.
They are complicit, but parenting is more fundamental. The most important things are learned in the first two years of life: whether you matter or not; whether you can trust other people or not; whether you are capable or helpless, whether the world is a relatively safe, predictable and controllable place or not, whether life is meaningful or not and what gives it meaning.
The rest is fine tuning; an elaboration of these basic ideas into ever more sophisticated models.
In order for Resource Economy to work, people have to learn that they matter (and so do others), you can generally trust people, that they are capable, that the world is generally safe and that you have some control over it, and that what gives life meaning is a spiritual sense of belonging and purpose.
Unfortunately about a third of children grow up below the poverty line, and about the same proportion to inadequate parents. They may learn that they don't matter much (or that they are the only one who matters), that you cannot trust people, that they are helpless/dependent and incapable, that the world is dangerous, unpleasant, random and beyond their control and that life is meaningless. They learn that celebrity makes you matter, that money is power and that these things, together with drugs and sex give life content. The ideas of autonomy, mastery and purpose are alien to them.
Separate names with a comma.