Originally Posted by tommo
It's simply because there is just this extremely microscopically thin veil of control over everyone. At any second they could ruin this entire system.
Instead, even when they learn about how it works (usually when they get fucked over by it) they still persist in the illusion. You mentioned "bums".
We live in a deterministic universe, we are not at a point where we could change the system because most people are still unaware of it and many people want a system. They want safety(which is sort of an unrealistic desire, at least in the way that they want it) and the people who run the government promise this. These people(who run the gov) are basically owned by banks and large corporations.
I really think both are equal at this point. Society was supposed to be better. But....
I don't see much difference between having to work hard for your food, or having to work hard to get money to buy food.
One stresses your body, the other stresses your mind. In most cases anyway, unless you're one of the lucky ones who really enjoys some particular job and has the prerequisites to acquire that job.
How are they equal, they are completely different? Maybe to you, subjectively, you think you could enjoy living either way equally, but they are by no means equal.
It's completely different if you have to forage and hunt vs buying something. It's so much easier to work for a few hours then go to the grocery store. I worked for about 4 hours doing landscaping and bought enough food to last me the whole weekend.
Both ways of living require the use of mind and body. If you are stressing over it it's because you're doing it wrong or you picked some excessively hard work like being a doctor. Work is easy and can be enjoyable. I teach guitar lessons and do odd jobs, and I generally enjoy whatever I'm doing. I can't say I've ever really gotten mentally stressed from work even when I had an office job(actually that was the easiest job in the entire world and I wish I could get it back, ten dollars an hour to basically do jack shit).
Having a good job has nothing to do with luck. Find something you enjoy and find a way to make money doing it. For me it's teaching and playing music. Now I haven't found a way to be self sufficent doing this yet but I'm working on it, and I think I'll be able to in about a year or two. All it takes are planning and a little hard work.
But the thing is, you aren't poor. Someone is poor if they can't get a good paying job and continue to live in this society. Feeding off others.
If one decides to leave and go live in the forest, they are no longer poor. They have as much as anyone else. They have the entire world as theirs.
I kind of see what you're saying, but it's not completely true. Someone with money and knowledge, like Bear Grills, can go live in the woods much more comfortably than I could if I was to just go live in the woods. And they don't have the entire world as theirs. If they try to take my guitar, Imma have to bust a cap. They also have no more access to the natural world, to the woods(I know everything is technically part of the natural world, but you know what I'm trying to say) than I do, so what have they really gained? All they done is found a way to live without paying rent or bills, and they've sacrificed certain comforts and resources for this. You really don't have to go live in the woods to drop of the grid, there are much more practical ways of doing it where you don't have to sacrifice things like the internet, which I find to be an extremely useful resource, one worth the costs.
In Borneo, this is how it is done for land. No one fights over it. You go to this guy and say "Can I have that area of land there?" The guy says yes or no depending on circumstances and whether someone else owns it already. If they do, you just choose another spot.
Science would decide how limit the population. I think the current number is 2 kids for every couple, if we want to maintain our population level.
Well the land part makes sense. If no one is using land it should be available for others to make use of, but that has nothing to do with capitalism, and since people want things other than land and food we still need to trade.
But about population control, what happens if if someone has more than 2 kids? And what about people who sleep around and have all sorts of babies momma's? How do you know who has how many kids? And science can't decide how we do it, it can just set a number. People have to do the actual controlling, and if they aren't controlling themselves I'm generally against it because it's impractical and ineffective.
Yes. That is the only problem with it that I have come across so far. I've been thinking about it on and off for a while.
When you think about it, only one person gets the piece of art now. And it's usually just some rich bastard who wants to make money. So it's no different.
I suppose the artist would just choose who he wants to give it to. Or maybe trade for another piece of craft. And if it is a much sought after piece of art, it can go in a gallery.
What about the guitar example? Luthiers don't just give shit away. It takes a long time and a lot of work, high quality wood and materials. There are plenty of other things like this too. Nice cars, nice houses.
This is a pretty major problem, it concerns just about anything of real value, or maybe high value, it's a vague concept I'm not quite sure how to convey. But people want things, special things, nice things, and you can't just make an infinite amount of them so there will always be scarcity. Therefore the venus project can't really take care of things other than food, energy and water. It could also provide housing and education for the poor, which would be great, but it could never replace capitalism or end trade. People will always trade so there will always be a demand for currency of some kind.
|
|
Bookmarks