NationStates Jolt Archive


Keeping The Faith

UnhealthyTruthseeker
25-12-2008, 05:12
I don't mean faith in God. How do you, members of NSG, keep faith in government, or in corporations, or in anarcho, (syndicalism, communism, capitalism, primitivism, etc.) or in humanity, for that matter.

I don't trust government, at all. I think that government is run by nothing more than a bunch of sell out whores with no ideology. (at least in a "democracy." Were it a dictatorship, the government would be nothing more than a body of oppressors with big guns) Government, in all its forms, is 100% Machiavellian. In a dictatorship, you are controlled directly by force. In both dictatorships and democracies, you are controlled indirectly by the control of information, although, in democracies, you're lead on to believe that you actually have a real voice (yeah right) by the presentation of two different narrow viewpoints (as if they're the only possible perspectives) and by the presentation of only the information which supports the establishment. (Honestly, how many people like Noam Chomsky are given public forums, yet a myriad of imbeciles like Bill-O, Sean Hannity, Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Scarborough, etc. flood the air.)

On the side of corporations, I don't know what needs to be said. They are organizations whose sole premise is to make money. Thanks to the power of their lobbyists, they've managed to crush a lot of dissent, and get laws which secure more power for them either without any real just cause or at the expense of the people. (think corporate subsidies, RIAA fascism, corporate control of the media, etc.) I have, of course, only scratched the surface of the shityness of corporate power. All you people who believe in limited government but very empowered corporations are just really supporting the trade of one slave master with another.

We're plagued by another horrid idea in this country. Governments and corporations are bad enough when they're separate, but when they work together, all shit breaks loose. This lovely dynamic duo is the cause of the majority of imperialism both today and throughout recent human history.

Then comes the lovely parade of the anarcho's. Anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-feminism, anarcho syndicalism, anarcho-[insert any word in the English language and add ism to the end], each promising hope for the future. I have already covered the essentials of anarcho-capitalism when I talked about corporations. The rest of the cavalcade of anarcho's seems to hinge on humanity managing to exist without any governing body or ruling class. Now, I'm a big anti-authority pro-individual liberty kinda guy, but come on! Humanity is barely more evolved than the rest of the species on this planet. Most people still haven't figured out that the primitive part of the brain should be ignored 99% of the time now that we live in a society. Most people are, I hate to be cliche but you know it's true, hopelessly stupid and ignorant, and are utterly incapable of independent thought or even of conquering the basic primitive xenophobic and pro-collectivist biases hardwired into the brain. They can't handle living without someone telling them what to do or think, much as I wished they could.

Ultimately, I don't even know if having any hope for the future of humanity is a rational position. It seems that basic honest observation and logical thought would advise pessimism. Merry Christmas!:tongue:

I've got one weird idea, but I don't really think it would work. What if we could get the government and the corporations to constantly be fighting against one another, rather than trying to merge into a single entity? We could still keep a basic level of government necessary for the masses to be kept at bay, and both its power and the power of corporations would be greatly diminished from constant struggle. Just a thought.
The Final Five
25-12-2008, 05:14
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0
Neesika
25-12-2008, 05:18
I keep my faith in life through love. And by proving people on the internet wrong, which is a sort of expression of that love.
Ryadn
25-12-2008, 05:21
I teach five-year-olds for a living. As much as they wreck me sometimes, my work with them reaffirms my belief that people are, by and large, inherently good. I believe that I can and do make a difference in the world. I believe there is no ultimate goal or point to existence, that it is what I make it and then is nothing, and I choose to spend it loving every being as best I can.
UnhealthyTruthseeker
25-12-2008, 05:22
I keep my faith in life through love. And by proving people on the internet wrong, which is a sort of expression of that love.

My method of happiness is to completely pull away from society and live in books, thinking, and sometimes video games. I rarely watch tv, it's either depressing corporate-controlled news shows or mostly mind-rot bullshit on the rest of the channels. I'm such a healthy person!:p
Vault 10
25-12-2008, 05:27
How do you, members of NSG, keep faith in government, or in corporations, or in [...] or in humanity, for that matter.
I don't.

Just as simple as that.
Why would I?
UnhealthyTruthseeker
25-12-2008, 05:29
I don't.

Just as simple as that.
Why would I?

Neither do I, but I'm in my philosophical depression/existential crisis phase that I get every 3 months or so, and I'm looking for some cheering up.
Vault 10
25-12-2008, 05:31
Neither do I, but I'm in my philosophical depression/existential crisis phase that I get every 3 months or so, and I'm looking for some cheering up.
I suggest trying to believe in yourself.

It's the single most unoriginal advice imaginable, but it works.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
25-12-2008, 05:37
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0
I prefer this version. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jpqKA9_ddFk) Less sappy idealism, and a more honest acknowledgment of the danger and brooding menace of revolution.

I believe that all life deserves to die. Whatever terrible things happen, the victim got off easy, and the perpetrator will suffer soon enough anyway. It does require some effort sometimes, and I'm presently drunk and happy enough to admit that I have almost certainly forced the question by sheer exercise of negative energy in my thoughts, at least once.
Neesika
25-12-2008, 05:41
Oh! I forgot the most effective strategy!

Masturbation. Orgasms convince me life can be worth living.
Ashmoria
25-12-2008, 05:53
i dont trust them--government, corporations, politicians, whatever.

but so what? they arent what is important in this life.
greed and death
25-12-2008, 06:00
i find it a waste of time to worry about government instead i worry about myself.
Anti-Social Darwinism
25-12-2008, 06:18
I don't believe in God or Santa Claus. I don't trust politicians. I'm leery of stated good intentions (as Road to Hell, paved in). I have a conditional distrust of the human race. I trust my friends (the few I consider to be real friends)and some of my family. I have faith in the inexorable movement of time and entropy.
Saige Dragon
25-12-2008, 06:25
Faith? Ha, I don't have any. But don't include me in the cynics club either. I think my lack of faith in the system frees me of the burden of having to live up to the rest of societies twistedly square standards.
The Cat-Tribe
25-12-2008, 06:51
*snip*

I have faith in human beings to be human -- which is both wonderful and deeply flawed.
[NS]Kagetora
25-12-2008, 07:56
Neither do I, but I'm in my philosophical depression/existential crisis phase that I get every 3 months or so, and I'm looking for some cheering up.

Thirded. Humanity is materialistic, corrupt, and violent. Nothing we can do about it.
Wipim
25-12-2008, 08:26
The key is to find what you enjoy, whether it be reading, sports, friends, drugs, and everything in between and focus on them. There are too many problems in the world that you can't fix, so don't dote over them. Concentrate on the good things in life.
Grave_n_idle
25-12-2008, 08:52
I'm almost the inverse of a lot of the posters here. I think people CAN be fundamentally good, but often aren't.

I think the message is important... but I think all our current attempts at finding what that message is are either outdated by our maturity (like religion) or deliberately undermined in the name of anti-ideology (like Americans shrivelling in the face of even the mere mention of the word socialism).

I think maybe the message will be perfected, and people will stop being really shitty to each other, and we'll finally have it pretty good for a while.

I also don't think that's going to happen while I'm alive to see it, but I keep plugging away at the groundwork.

Or maybe in a few years a benevolent dictatorship will rise to power and use a combination of mental conditioning and neural engineering to make us a happy and fulfilled collective. One way or the other, I think we've got a tranquil future.
Cameroi
25-12-2008, 08:56
you don't have to "trust" anything to be cognizant of its existence.

for myself, no i don't trust formalized virtical hierarchy,
i simply trust the bussiness of bussiness, among other things, even LESS.

i trust rocks to remain rocks, trees to be trees,
and little furry creatures with big sharp teeth to do and be how they must to survive.

anything that involves humans, watch your back if you can't keep away from entirely.

oh yes, and you can pretty much trust the invisible to wish you no harm,
and otherwise bear very little if any, resemblence to what anyone pretends to know about it.

there is faith, that is good and useful thing, as long as it isn't faith in any kind of fanatacism,
in any kind of what people pretend or claim about it.

it does seem to help some people get along, even as others use it as an excuse not to.

what can you trust? the invisible side of everything that has no visible side
and the invisible side of everything that does not involve human ego.
Cabra West
25-12-2008, 14:54
Oh! I forgot the most effective strategy!

Masturbation. Orgasms convince me life can be worth living.

That.

I find people are most easy to believe in when you understand their motivation. Mostly, that's horniness.
Neu Leonstein
25-12-2008, 23:39
I have faith in myself, and most people I meet and actually spend time with. If I don't, I leave them to themselves.

At any rate, there are two different things to have faith in: the motivation of others to do the right thing, and the ability to actually do it. I think the former can be relied on more than the latter, hence why I support a system in which people are free to be independent and don't have to care about society.

And I know I'm being nitpicky here, but making money is not a bad thing. Money is a representation of material wealth, which is what allows us the free time not spent hunting and gathering to enrich our lives in non-material ways, should we feel the need to do so. Doing anything worthwhile involves spending material wealth, either directly or as an opportunity cost. Setting up an organisation that can earn this wealth more efficiently than we could by ourselves is surely not a bad thing.
Kirav
26-12-2008, 00:05
I have no faith in the government. I'm not an Anarchist, for I believe the state to be neccessary in order to keep society functioning.

I have faith in Humanity because I know where to look. It seems everyone has the same complaint: "You look on the news and see nothing but war, poverty, suffering, and evil". We've all heard that at least seventy-times-seven times. But if you look to history, biography, and into the lives of those around you, you see overwheliming proof that in the Individual, Humanity, however flawed, is inherently a positive creation.

I have faith in Humanity, because I see it with my own eyes, rather than MSNBC's or the Internet's.
Grave_n_idle
26-12-2008, 00:09
...making money is not a bad thing. Money is a representation of material wealth, which is what allows us the free time not spent hunting and gathering to enrich our lives in non-material ways, should we feel the need to do so...

No, money is a symbol which we CLAIM gives us free time not spent hunting and gathering, to enrich out lives in non-material ways.

In actuality, since it is not an inherent characteristic, what it becomes is - a symbol of the fact that some people can spend less time hunting and gathering, and more time enriching their lives in non-material ways... while the hunting and gathering burden has to be carried by someone else.

At it's most refined, there is an entire portion of our population that does nothing but enrich their lives in non-material ways, and a far larger proportion that offsets this enrichment by assuming a greater share of the hunting and gathering... and thus gains almost no enrichment for themselves.

So... yes, making money IS a bad thing. Maybe not for 'you', but for 'all of us'.
Neu Leonstein
26-12-2008, 05:45
In actuality, since it is not an inherent characteristic, what it becomes is - a symbol of the fact that some people can spend less time hunting and gathering, and more time enriching their lives in non-material ways... while the hunting and gathering burden has to be carried by someone else.
If the amount of time is really the issue that decides things for you (and I know it isn't), then it will please you to hear that the rich people I've been working with for the past few weeks would rarely do less than 60 hour weeks, fairly regularly more.

At it's most refined, there is an entire portion of our population that does nothing but enrich their lives in non-material ways, and a far larger proportion that offsets this enrichment by assuming a greater share of the hunting and gathering... and thus gains almost no enrichment for themselves.

So... yes, making money IS a bad thing. Maybe not for 'you', but for 'all of us'.
I have yet to meet this mythical capitalist class that does nothing but consume without work. I know it's really important for the way you see the world, but I just haven't seen it.

But that's not the point I was making at any rate. The reality is that money is a medium of exchange and a store and measure of wealth. Were there no money, you'd be left with either bartering (in essence doing precisely the same thing - amassing physical wealth stored in another, somewhat less convenient medium) or without any exchange of physical goods whatsoever. And the latter is the scenario when you really have no time to think about anything other than survival, when you do the hunting and the gathering.

So what I'm saying is that solitary humans will spend basically all their lives without having time for satisfaction beyond the most immediate material needs. By being able to exchange their products with those of others, they save a lot of time and stress. Money is a means of facilitating that exchange, and its usefulness and benefit it provides all of us with is quite independent from any issues of unequal distribution.

And this inequality in turn is just a result of the value one's actions contribute to those of others, and the scarcity of someone performing them. If only I know how to make shiny jewellery out of sea shells, it doesn't matter whether we trade in money or barter, I'll be able to amass a greater amount of wealth than someone who can collect berries (which everyone else can do too).

The problem you have is with my ability to do so, which is a question of desert, of being able to stake a moral claim on my abilities and the physical product of them and then defend it against the claims of others. But whatever argument you can mount against this, it's ultimately independent of the question of whether or not "making money" is a bad thing. Every productive human being makes money on at least some part of their day, and if we accept that this is a necessary and even commendable (because enabling) part of life, then a better means of making money can't suddenly be bad.

Or to bring it to a point: your problem isn't with making money as such, it's with the ways some people make money. And indeed, I am of the same opinion. We just differ on the particulars of those ways.
Grave_n_idle
26-12-2008, 06:25
If the amount of time is really the issue that decides things for you (and I know it isn't), then it will please you to hear that the rich people I've been working with for the past few weeks would rarely do less than 60 hour weeks, fairly regularly more.

I have yet to meet this mythical capitalist class that does nothing but consume without work. I know it's really important for the way you see the world, but I just haven't seen it.


Accountant? Banker? Investment broker?

There's an entire parasite industry.


But that's not the point I was making at any rate. The reality is that money is a medium of exchange and a store and measure of wealth. Were there no money, you'd be left with either bartering (in essence doing precisely the same thing - amassing physical wealth stored in another, somewhat less convenient medium) or without any exchange of physical goods whatsoever.


There are, of course, other options. For example, communal property, allocated according to any number of mechanisms.


And the latter is the scenario when you really have no time to think about anything other than survival, when you do the hunting and the gathering.

So what I'm saying is that solitary humans will spend basically all their lives without having time for satisfaction beyond the most immediate material needs.


Which patently isn't true.


By being able to exchange their products with those of others, they save a lot of time and stress. Money is a means of facilitating that exchange, and its usefulness and benefit it provides all of us with is quite independent from any issues of unequal distribution.

And this inequality in turn is just a result of the value one's actions contribute to those of others, and the scarcity of someone performing them. If only I know how to make shiny jewellery out of sea shells, it doesn't matter whether we trade in money or barter, I'll be able to amass a greater amount of wealth than someone who can collect berries (which everyone else can do too).


Why does the rarity of your skill justify greater means to enjoy the enriching results, without participating even equally in the hunting and gathering?


The problem you have is with my ability to do so, which is a question of desert, of being able to stake a moral claim on my abilities and the physical product of them and then defend it against the claims of others. But whatever argument you can mount against this, it's ultimately independent of the question of whether or not "making money" is a bad thing. Every productive human being makes money on at least some part of their day, and if we accept that this is a necessary and even commendable (because enabling) part of life, then a better means of making money can't suddenly be bad.

Or to bring it to a point: your problem isn't with making money as such, it's with the ways some people make money. And indeed, I am of the same opinion. We just differ on the particulars of those ways.

No, my problem IS with 'making money as such'. It's ineffective, and it's unfair. Two very good reasons why it is an anachronism with no place in a civilsed culture.
New Limacon
26-12-2008, 06:28
I'm almost the inverse of a lot of the posters here. I think people CAN be fundamentally good, but often aren't.
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but what do you base this belief on?


Or maybe in a few years a benevolent dictatorship will rise to power and use a combination of mental conditioning and neural engineering to make us a happy and fulfilled collective. One way or the other, I think we've got a tranquil future.
This reminds me a little of Beyond Freedom and Dignity with some of the science updated.
Grave_n_idle
26-12-2008, 07:10
I don't necessarily disagree with that, but what do you base this belief on?


Every so often I see a 'human interest' story on tv. Just recently, I caught half of a news article about - as far as I could tell, a homeless girl who volunteers to help those less fortunate than herself.

It's a sweet story, which had the usual 'we're on local news' schmaltzy feelgood ending, where some local group 'spontaneously' decided to provide housing for Christmas, or something... but everyone appreciated what she was doing.

We all have the capacity to feel good about helping people... and to help. And yet, most of us spend most of our time getting a little warm fuzzy over a christmas story, rather than helping.

We can be fundamentally 'good'... but for the most part... we don't.


This reminds me a little of Beyond Freedom and Dignity with some of the science updated.

Had to look that up, not read it. Based on what I see... I think I want to read it.
Cameroi
26-12-2008, 08:57
there is, i do believe, a spark of positiveness hidden deep within the soul of everyone. statistically what everyone does and prefers, added up together, has more to do with their effect on the kind of world we all end up having to live in though. that's why i keep harping on that being something we all need to pay attention to. atleast if we really give a dam about our surroundings, other then to keep them screwed up so we can bitch about it.
Lunatic Goofballs
26-12-2008, 09:14
As long as there are tacos, there is hope. :)
Neu Leonstein
26-12-2008, 09:16
Accountant? Banker? Investment broker?

There's an entire parasite industry.
According to...yes, the latest fad of the day. But beyond that, they provide a service that people are willing to pay money for because it saves them time they would rather spend on different things. Just as we said it works.

There are, of course, other options. For example, communal property, allocated according to any number of mechanisms.
But communal property is just a different kind of exchange. I can make my sea shell necklace, and someone else can have it according to whatever mechanism there is. But in return (and that being the vital phrase here indicating that there still is a trade going on) I get access to the communal property (that in effect being the individual products of the people in the community) according to that same mechanism.

Now, it may be that the "currency" of sorts is just communal goodwill. Nonetheless, in order to survive you still have to "make" it because you don't want to be by yourself and starve. In effect, that generally means doing precisely the same things you'd be doing in our society to earn money - you perform things you're good at for the benefit of others in the community. And the further you take this society as far as size and complexity is concerned, the more it ends up looking like a money-based society anyways, like in the Pacific Islands, where you get some individuals with wealth, power and influence (in whatever medium you measure it) and inequality of some sort exists even in a supposedly less material way of life.

And quite unrelated but still fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moka_exchange

Which patently isn't true.
Of course it is. People without society have to perform everything they need for survival by themselves. That takes time and doesn't allow for much specialisation. Even the most primitive humans lived in groups for precisely that reason.

The only people I think you might be thinking of are lonesome monks somewhere, but those usually get food and stuff delivered to them from nearby villagers.

Why does the rarity of your skill justify greater means to enjoy the enriching results, without participating even equally in the hunting and gathering?
Because you have more people to serve. If there are 20 of us, and 10 of us can each pick berries equally well, then we should end up picking berries for two people each (ourselves and one other person), barring some sort of further specialisation. But if only I can make the necklaces, then there are 20 people who I am doing it for. Even assuming there is no such thing as competition or differing valuations of stuff and everything has the same exchange value (material, spiritual or any other way), I should get 10 times as much as the berry pickers because I do more trades. I may of course also be working harder because I have to make more necklaces than you have to pick berries, though that's not important for the train of thought.

If you then add competition between berry pickers seeking to increase the number of trades they do each, or people valuing necklaces more highly than berries, the difference widens further because I get more each trade than the berry pickers.

Why should this be so? Well, as I said, that's a question of desert: Do I have a moral right to the skills I have and the things I make with them? You may say "yes, but not a right to greater rewards", but I don't see that as a valid answer. If "yes" is the answer, then the rest is a natural consequence as a result of human interaction when constrained by this moral right - if I wasn't entitled to earn as much as I can from the exercise of my skills, then my right to them is clearly constrained and therefore no right at all. But if "no" were the answer, then slavery, theft and indeed just about anything would not be morally wrong.

No, my problem IS with 'making money as such'. It's ineffective, and it's unfair. Two very good reasons why it is an anachronism with no place in a civilsed culture.
You haven't outlined those reasons or made that argument at all. "Making money" means generating some benefit for someone else. It's just the capitalist term for the same thing people do in all societies. As such the only way a human could spend time without making any money is either by being completely alone or by being completely unproductive and being unable to provide any benefit beyond some existence value. Were we to accept that both of these are unacceptable states of being for any great length of time, making money, being a means for leaving these states behind, can't be bad.
Cameroi
26-12-2008, 09:20
Just as we said it works

only as long as you don't count what it motivates and the results of its doing so!
Neu Leonstein
26-12-2008, 22:15
only as long as you don't count what it motivates and the results of its doing so!
And the result of people hiring engineers to design bridges for them is that from time to time bridges collapse. That doesn't make the existence of engineers, or the concept of hiring someone to do something you don't have the time, nerve or skill for any less valid. And besides, we had financial crises before we had banks, accountants or capitalism.
Ifreann
26-12-2008, 22:26
Quite simply, because the people in government are exactly that. People. The government isn't some kind of hivemind entity that's trying to control our lives. It's just people, running the country. Businesses aren't evil money-vampires, trying to drain us and leave us for dead. They're just people trying to make money.

Oh! I forgot the most effective strategy!

Masturbation. Orgasms convince me life can be worth living.

Actually, forget what that. Masturbation > all.
Dumb Ideologies
26-12-2008, 22:27
No-one is perfect. Governments are made up of people and ideologies are created by people. If you place faith in the creations of imperfect individuals you are going to be disappointed.

Which is why I place my faith only in non-human creations such as NSG, which was created and is inhabited by cyberpixies made of binary.
Ifreann
26-12-2008, 22:31
No-one is perfect. Governments are made up of people and ideologies are created by people. If you place faith in the creations of imperfect individuals you are going to be disappointed.

Which is why I place my faith only in non-human creations such as NSG, which was created and is inhabited by cyberpixies made of binary.

A one and a zero fell in love and made babies, and those babies had more babies, and those babies had more babies, and eventually the babies were hi-res pornos and emails from Nigerian princes.
The Black Forrest
26-12-2008, 22:34
\

And I know I'm being nitpicky here, but making money is not a bad thing. Money is a representation of material wealth, which is what allows us the free time not spent hunting and gathering to enrich our lives in non-material ways,


Eh? Making money is about acquiring material things.

You can enrich your life without money. Some of the dumbest people I have known come from money. Some of the smartest didn't have much.


should we feel the need to do so. Doing anything worthwhile involves spending material wealth, either directly or as an opportunity cost. Setting up an organisation that can earn this wealth more efficiently than we could by ourselves is surely not a bad thing.

They ways they increase their wealth usually involves bad things. They just tend to justify their actions.

Libertarian?
Skallvia
26-12-2008, 22:35
Im a Cynical Bastard...

So, I can keep the faith that, no matter who, what, or when it is....Itll be fucked up....


even thatll probly fuck up...
The Black Forrest
26-12-2008, 22:39
According to...yes, the latest fad of the day. But beyond that, they provide a service that people are willing to pay money for because it saves them time they would rather spend on different things. Just as we said it works.



Ahh and there is that justification I mentioned.
JuNii
26-12-2008, 22:42
I have faith in human beings to be human -- which is both wonderful and deeply flawed.

^ this ^

we are all individuals. some strive to find the compromise, others tend to be stubborn and hard headed. some rely on their hearts, while others on their heads.

where do I get my faith in Government and corporations? on these forums. where everyone's viewpoints (for better or worse) are sometimes discussed seriously by many and sometimes ridiculed (again for better or worse.)
Dumb Ideologies
26-12-2008, 22:43
A one and a zero fell in love and made babies, and those babies had more babies, and those babies had more babies, and eventually the babies were hi-res pornos and emails from Nigerian princes.

There's porn on the Internet? Why hasn't it been deleted? :eek2:
The Black Forrest
26-12-2008, 22:55
As long as there are tacos, there is hope. :)

What about pie?
Ifreann
26-12-2008, 22:58
There's porn on the Internet? Why hasn't it been deleted? :eek2:

Jewish lizardmen are using it to weaken the rest of us, so we can be harvested and fed to their spawn.
Lunatic Goofballs
26-12-2008, 23:08
What about pie?

Pie is the icing on the cake.

:)

:confused:

:)
Neu Leonstein
26-12-2008, 23:49
Eh? Making money is about acquiring material things.

You can enrich your life without money. Some of the dumbest people I have known come from money. Some of the smartest didn't have much.
They had enough material things in some way, shape or form to allow them to survive and spend time on enriching activities, didn't they? As much as people like to extol the virtues of the immaterial, we are ultimately physical beings made up of physical cells that need physical nutrients to function. Whatever virtuous things we do in our spare time, it is only made possible through the acquisition of material wealth, ie "making money".

Ahh and there is that justification I mentioned.
I didn't justify anything. The problem is that you seem unwilling to make the distinction between bankers existing and doing their job, and bankers doing the wrong thing.
Dakini
26-12-2008, 23:53
I have faith in my friends and family. I also try to have faith in humanity and in my more optimistic moments, I do, but generally I feel like it's a lost cause, yet I enjoy my life anyways.
Grave_n_idle
27-12-2008, 00:16
They had enough material things in some way, shape or form to allow them to survive and spend time on enriching activities, didn't they? As much as people like to extol the virtues of the immaterial, we are ultimately physical beings made up of physical cells that need physical nutrients to function. Whatever virtuous things we do in our spare time, it is only made possible through the acquisition of material wealth, ie "making money".


There is no connection there. You say 'i.e. making money'... but there's no 'i.e.' inherent in the concept.

We need food, shelter, health... you could argue we need a few other things like comfort or company.

Education, charitable works, recreation... all of that and more, relies on our basic needs being met, but money is not only unnecessary for that, it is often counterproductive. I believe you, yourself, argued earlier that you know wealthy people who spend 60 hours a week pursuing something that ultimately serves no intrinsic purpose except - according to your argument - allowing them to enrich themselves non-materially... which they are avoiding doing, in order to make more of that thing... etc.

If everyone had enough food, shelter and helalthcare, and we're hoping for enough comfort and company, too, everyone could participate in the 'hunting and gathering' concepts according to their skills and the needs of society, and everyone could participate in the non-material enrichment you talked about.

'Money' wouldn't change that model.


I didn't justify anything. The problem is that you seem unwilling to make the distinction between bankers existing and doing their job, and bankers doing the wrong thing.

No - this isn't about the current crisis, although the curent crisis HAS focused a lot of people's attention on something that should be blindingly obvious.

Bankers, accountants, etc are a parasite industry because they serve no purpose OTHER than manipulating a concept that you've already claimed is (in simplest terms) a mechanism for balancing 'hunting and gathering' with 'non-material enrichment'.

Money has no intrinsic value. It is purely symbolic. Someone who functions solely in the medium of money, is adding nothing of intrinsic value to the pot, and is claiming the benefits (our 'non-material enrichment') without doing ANY of the 'hunting and gathering'.

That's why I refer to it as a parasite industry. It is entirely self-serving, and has no ultimate value. All it does is allow a proportion of the population to claim the benefits of someone else's labour.
New Limacon
27-12-2008, 03:01
Had to look that up, not read it. Based on what I see... I think I want to read it.

It's interesting. I don't agree with it completely, and some of his science is just wrong (not through a fault of Skinner's necessarily, but just the nature of science progressing). But in our society human freedom and dignity are accepted as goals by nearly everyone, and so to read a argument against values those entrenched...like I said, it's interesting.
Grave_n_idle
27-12-2008, 03:19
It's interesting. I don't agree with it completely, and some of his science is just wrong (not through a fault of Skinner's necessarily, but just the nature of science progressing). But in our society human freedom and dignity are accepted as goals by nearly everyone, and so to read a argument against values those entrenched...like I said, it's interesting.

More interesting to me than most, maybe... since those seem to be very similar arguments to some I've made.
Neu Leonstein
27-12-2008, 05:54
There is no connection there. You say 'i.e. making money'... but there's no 'i.e.' inherent in the concept.

We need food, shelter, health... you could argue we need a few other things like comfort or company.

Education, charitable works, recreation... all of that and more, relies on our basic needs being met, but money is not only unnecessary for that, it is often counterproductive.
How can it be? Money is a store of material wealth, and material wealth is required to meet our basic needs and many wishes beyond that. If I hunt and store all the food I caught somewhere so I don't have to go hunting again tomorrow, does that food suddenly become counterproductive to my happiness? Of course not.

Money is just a way of storing food that lasts indefinitely. I could hunt, sell the extra food and use the money later to buy food from someone else. Things don't suddenly change because I change the medium in which I measure my ability to enjoy material things.

I believe you, yourself, argued earlier that you know wealthy people who spend 60 hours a week pursuing something that ultimately serves no intrinsic purpose except - according to your argument - allowing them to enrich themselves non-materially... which they are avoiding doing, in order to make more of that thing... etc.
You can make arguments about the character of these people (I myself get the impression that they're usually happy to spend that time in the office). But that's really beside the point - nobody forces them to do it, it's a matter of your own personal choice of what amount of your time you think should be spent pursuing material goals. Some hunters might be happy to spend weeks away from home to get that one big score they really want, others will be satisfied with going home and just having berries. It's not the concept of money that makes different people make different choices on these issues.

If everyone had enough food, shelter and helalthcare, and we're hoping for enough comfort and company, too, everyone could participate in the 'hunting and gathering' concepts according to their skills and the needs of society, and everyone could participate in the non-material enrichment you talked about.
Everyone doesn't have enough of all these things. That's why scarcity exists and prices are greater than zero. And besides, even if making money were completely unnecessary because we have replicators, I still wouldn't see how it would be bad for some people to choose to do it anyways if they want to.

If you contrast the real world with utopia, of course many things that appear in the former but not the latter will seem unnecessary, and bad (to yourself). But the fact of the matter is that, constrained by reality as we are, engaging in the pursuit of material wealth is something that makes our lives better.

'Money' wouldn't change that model.
Money would be pointless in that model, since there'd be no need for exchange. "Enough" is not something that is determined by biology. It may be in a textbook, but in reality people have never stopped improving their material livelihoods, even when they were quite safe from rain and starvation. Ancient Egyptians had it much better than cavemen, medieval peasants had it better than them still. Today's very poor don't have to fear starvation or lions, unless they're homeless they can expect to live well into old age without ever adding to their material wealth.

But people are never actually satisfied. If they see a point at which they're happy with their wealth and wouldn't feel the need to add a cent, it's not determined by their stomach, but by their environment and the possibility of what is attainable to them. It might be an experiment to generate complete material equality in every way such as to eliminate the knowledge of something better being possible, but even then I think there will be people who don't just get their cues from what their neighbour has, but from what they'd like to have even if it doesn't exist yet.

Bankers, accountants, etc are a parasite industry because they serve no purpose OTHER than manipulating a concept that you've already claimed is (in simplest terms) a mechanism for balancing 'hunting and gathering' with 'non-material enrichment'.
What about a guy with a cool cave who stores and guards what other people hunted and gathered for them? In such a pre-money society, the store of wealth might still need managing if it's physical, and there'll be people who specialise in doing just that. Ultimately it's not like anyone ever has to talk to a banker if he or she doesn't want to. It'll be difficult, but if you can get paid in cash, you can just store your wealth under your mattress. But it's a hassle, it takes extra time and effort that people would rather be spending on something else. Hence they go to someone who offers convenience and safety, who in effect sells them the opportunity to make a better use of their own time on earth. That's not parasitic, it's symbiotic, as all trades are.

Money has no intrinsic value. It is purely symbolic. Someone who functions solely in the medium of money, is adding nothing of intrinsic value to the pot, and is claiming the benefits (our 'non-material enrichment') without doing ANY of the 'hunting and gathering'.

That's why I refer to it as a parasite industry. It is entirely self-serving, and has no ultimate value. All it does is allow a proportion of the population to claim the benefits of someone else's labour.
Why aren't they adding? As I said above, the management of the pot (symbolic or not) is something that takes time and effort, which can be saved through specialisation. If they weren't adding anything, just why would anyone give them any of their own product? There's no force involved here, the system is based on voluntary cooperation.