Government food, clothing and shelter

[Blaggard]

Blags,

You got no sense of humor...jeez.

Humour does not play well over the interweb, you will however be assimilated, resistance is futile. Your cultural identity will be added to ours.

[Blaggard]

That all governments, stop the money train. Abolish politics! Instead a "Round Table" of PhD's from every field of study, tops in their fields, are the governing force, such that decisions are based purely upon scientific data, the relative truths of things, as the round table of PhD's vote on all things that are to be our direction. This to me is the only sound means from a global human perspective. Especially in dealing with some mens' excesses, beyond their needs. This, to me, the only means of equilibrium amongst men and the symbiosis that they all so much literally depend upon, the animals ecological biosphere. It just makes the most sense, in this day and age, where some mens' selfishness and greed rules the detriment of all our future livelihood as a species.

I quite agree. Unfortunately the smartest people are not in politics, and until they are we are trapped in the matrix with the morons frotting like mad chimps on acid.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Blags,

You got no sense of humor...jeez.

Blaggard is correct, it's sometimes hard to tell, because there are no inflections in voice, face, posturing, i.e., body language.

I can laugh at myself, can you? I would hope everyone could. But it is sometimes hard for men of, walks of different lives, to sense this in a text only format, and really requires men of very similar walks, to truly get one another, lest they be mistaken, presumptuous, then it's just an illusion; a fools game?

You know I have nothing against you Henry, we are equals, though we concentrate on different concerns, there may be an age gap, I'm honestly 56 or above, how about you? It's a rhetorical question, though you may answer if you want, it's just a point of possible contention, as it pertains to experience.

[The Transvaluator]

The Transvaluator, I think you are forgetting that you are speaking of an extremely boring and meaningless world. Most of the workforce that has been allocated away from farming is now used to create variety in society, make people happy and allow them a life rich in experience and opportunities.

Also, food, clothing and shelter is already provided for in almost every developed country to everyone who doesn't effectively shy away from what they are given, and in the undeveloped countries people simply lack a desire to cooperate sufficiently that the most basic things might be provided for. They are going from the early middle ages and sometimes from the stone age and straight into modernity at rapid speed, and this makes it very difficult to accomplish anything in their lives of the kind that is happening in developed world, where people have the mental and physical tools necessary to accomplish these things.

One, more and more people are realizing, all you need is a computer to keep you entertained. Life + 1 computer is entertaining enough, you don't need millions of gadgets, gizmos, crap and junk. Materialism is boring, many people keep themselves busy with little material, opting for the spiritual, social, intellectual or artistic instead.

Two, you can be a materialist if you want. In a sane economy, where the cost of food and rent is more than halved, perhaps 75-80% less, people can conduce and prosume more, but only if they want to, it'll be optional.

Three, nothing in excess. Most of the excess crap and junk people buy and sell is bad for themselves and the ecosystem, we'd be better off without much of it.

Four, no, the basic necessities aren't provided to everyone, unless you're disabled, which is notoriously difficult to prove, that's why there's homeless people and a lot of property crime in much of the 3rd world. Don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be given a free lunch, I'm talking about making things cheaper. People should still work, but they shouldn't have to work 40+ hours a week to support themselves (and their families), not in our modern world. Our economic system is obsolete, we need an update for the 21st century, one that should've been implemented ages ago.

Five, if we didn't have as much crap, we wouldn't have to rob the 3rd world in order to fuel it. They'd have a chance to develop, and they'd have a smarter example to ape rather than the stupid example we're setting now.

It's win, win, win across the board, the cost of living should be cut in half at the very least.

[The Transvaluator]

The only thing that's holding us back is the elite, and the hold they have over the populace. Labor is going the way of the dinosaur, it's practically obsolete.

I guess what you're saying is that rich people got rich by stealing from other people. I guess they should all be put in jail, huh? Who do you want to start with, Bill Gates? Approximately 250 million people in the U.S. have jobs. I don't think labor will be going the way of the dinosaur any time soon.

Some of them should, yes, the ones that broke the law, absolutely. Bill Gates? Who said anything about the likes of him? What I'm talking about is, not the redistribution of more wealth, but government fixing the prices of essential goods like food and housing, so they're cheaper and more affordable, so we don't to waste our lives making so much crap. Many jobs are little more than an excuse to give people a salary. Our economy wastes so much, in fact, it is dependent on waste. Furthermore, unemployment is steadily rising in the west. Technological efficiency is now outpacing the number of stupid things capitalists are inventing for people to waste their lives doing.

[The Transvaluator]

That would mean less money for the state, the state is greedy, the cost of these new apartments would be sky high, and wouldn't be feaseable to build.

In order to build affordable housing, the state could just print the money ex nihilo.

However, it might be better to takeover existing housing and make it more affordable.

[The Transvaluator]

"hick"

HA!

So: someone who self-relies is a 'hick'.

By that logic: someone who is fed, clothed, sheltered by another is a 'sophisticate'.

Thank god I'm a country boy with my shotgun and dirty bare feet.

Lord, save me from the caterwauling (and parasitical agendas) of the incapable sophisticates!

You misunderstood.

I didn't mean to insult anyone using the word hick, I was merely, cutting to the chase, as it were. In fact, I admire self-sufficiency and rugged individualism, it's serfdom and slavery I have a problem with. For those of us dependent on mega-corporations for a salary, your attitude and philosophy aren't as applicable as you think. You don't have a dog in this fight, I don't think, my gripe is with bankers, who're inflating currencies, industrial farmers and landlords. Some food and housing should be communized, but not all. The prices of these essential goods should be lowered, and/or they should be taken over by government. I haven't thought about the details of such a proposal, so feel free to point out any potential drawbacks.

[henry quirk]

"a "Round Table" of PhD's from every field of study, tops in their fields, are the governing force"

How would the directives of such a body be enforced?

##

"Humour does not play well over the interweb"

Point taken.

##

"I have nothing against you Henry"

No offense, SoB, but I have everything against you...you promote (as I see it) utopian ideals that can only work if a person is willing to subsume him- or her-self to the 'community'...I can't do that...I won't do that.

And: I'm 51

##

"You misunderstood."

No, I understood and made a (poor) joke...*shrug*

#

"your attitude and philosophy aren't as applicable as you think"

I know this.

Thing is: just because the majority can't or won't doesn't mean I can't or won't.

I got a big problem with those who can't or won't expectin' me to walk down the chute to the abattoir with them.

It's the equivalent of a room fulla blind folks demanding I be their Seeing Eye dog because I have sight and they don't ('so unfair, Henry, that you can see and we can't!)...worse: it's like that room of blind folks demanding I put out my eyes so I'm just like them ('so unfair that you can see, Henry, and we can't!)

#

"it's serfdom and slavery I have a problem with"

I get that...I'm with you on that...we have different ways of contending with that, is all.

#

"You don't have a dog in this fight, I don't think"

Sure I do: my 'self'...my self-determination...my autonomy.

I can't save the world (and think it's dumb to try) but I can save 'me'.

*shrug*

#

"potential drawbacks"

Too many to go into (I ain't writin' a dissertation).

I think -- as time permits -- I'll open a thread with some suggestions on how to restore some balance...unlike you, though, my suggestions involve reducing government's role, not enhancing it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"a "Round Table" of PhD's from every field of study, tops in their fields, are the governing force"

How would the directives of such a body be enforced?
Never said I had a "system, complete." Just recognize that which would be the smartest option, especially in this day and age. I have no problem with "Checks and Balances," rather the knowledge and agendas of those currently, supposedly, doing so, and truly believe that PhD's would be less apt to have self supporting agendas.
##

"Humour does not play well over the interweb"

Point taken.

##

"I have nothing against you Henry"

No offense, SoB, but I have everything against you...you promote (as I see it) utopian ideals that can only work if a person is willing to subsume him- or her-self to the 'community'...I can't do that...I won't do that.
Not at all, under my vision you could still lurk in the shadows, but I seriously doubt you'd want too. Not really utopian, just a more advanced human. Until education was equally and freely offered to everyone, there would still be bumps in the road. But I doubt they would persist once advanced education was widespread.


And: I'm 51
So we're somewhat contemporaries. I don't have that much more time on you. We've just chosen "different" paths. Yet to speak of them in terms of inequality/equality is arbitrary, conditional, a matter of perspective of, thousands of potential angles.


##

"You misunderstood."

No, I understood and made a (poor) joke...*shrug*
Effective communication in this format is tough, I've learned, and jokes not so apparent.


#

"your attitude and philosophy aren't as applicable as you think"

I know this.

Thing is: just because the majority can't or won't doesn't mean I can't or won't.

I got a big problem with those who can't or won't expectin' me to walk down the chute to the abattoir with them.

It's the equivalent of a room fulla blind folks demanding I be their Seeing Eye dog because I have sight and they don't ('so unfair, Henry, that you can see and we can't!)...worse: it's like that room of blind folks demanding I put out my eyes so I'm just like them ('so unfair that you can see, Henry, and we can't!)
Well, again that's just a matter of your perspective, which isn't necessarily truthful, universally. But I understand that you probably couldn't think of a way to state such a point, without demeaning those that don't see things your way. Which is what I try to do, it's hard sometimes! I would usually just add, "it would sometimes seem..." so as not to unnecessarily offend, or place myself above. I try to be more diplomatic in my approach, as I know it has no necessary bearing on a universal.


#

"it's serfdom and slavery I have a problem with"

I get that...I'm with you on that...we have different ways of contending with that, is all.

Here, here to that problem, I agree!

#

"You don't have a dog in this fight, I don't think"

Sure I do: my 'self'...my self-determination...my autonomy.

I can't save the world (and think it's dumb to try) but I can save 'me'.

Not dumb at all, in my book, possibly futile, but one never knows to what extent an idea can travel via word of mouth, to affect a mindset; change!

*shrug*

#

"potential drawbacks"

Too many to go into (I ain't writin' a dissertation).

I think -- as time permits -- I'll open a thread with some suggestions on how to restore some balance...unlike you, though, my suggestions involve reducing government's role, not enhancing it.

Somewhere between control and anarchy, that specifically, "you" are comfortable with, not to be mean, mind you. But the increased governmental control I'm for, is aimed at that 1 percent and corporations/industry.

[henry quirk]

"you could still lurk in the shadows"

HA!

[Blaggard]

That would mean less money for the state, the state is greedy, the cost of these new apartments would be sky high, and wouldn't be feaseable to build.

In order to build affordable housing, the state could just print the money ex nihilo.

However, it might be better to takeover existing housing and make it more affordable.

Printing money is fine but the value of currency depends on the nations actual assets, ie how much precious metals or valuable materials it holds such as gems etc, how much disposable income it can look to, how many bonds. People are probably not aware that a countries currency is actually based on real things. If you start printing billions out when you don't have the assets all that happens is that currency is deflated to the point it is worthless, this happened after the second world war in Germany where they flooded Deutschmarks into the economy on the fly to try to prevent economic collapse: it failed, and all those who owned them in any amount went from rich man to pauper overnight. There are photographs of Germans wheeling wheel barrows filled with Deutschmarks around that were worth perhaps as we would see it a few pounds or dollars. A modern equivalent is Zimbabwe where currently its currency has a 10000% or so inflation rate, because literally they have almost nothing asset wise. Currency is a promise to the bearer that it is worth its face value it is not hence able to be devalued forever, it must ultimately represent an actual value be it gold or bonds and stocks or, 10000000 diamonds.

[SpheresOfBalance]

That would mean less money for the state, the state is greedy, the cost of these new apartments would be sky high, and wouldn't be feaseable to build.

In order to build affordable housing, the state could just print the money ex nihilo.

However, it might be better to takeover existing housing and make it more affordable.

Printing money is fine but the value of currency depends on the nations actual assets, ie how much precious metals or valuable materials it holds such as gems etc, how much disposable income it can look to, how many bonds. People are probably not aware that a countries currency is actually based on real things. If you start printing billions out when you don't have the assets all that happens is that currency is deflated to the point it is worthless, this happened after the second world war in Germany where they flooded Deutschmarks into the economy on the fly to try to prevent economic collapse: it failed, and all those who owned them in any amount went from rich man to pauper overnight. There are photographs of Germans wheeling wheel barrows filled with Deutschmarks around that were worth perhaps as we would see it a few pounds or dollars. A modern equivalent is Zimbabwe where currently its currency has a 10000% or so inflation rate, because literally they have almost nothing asset wise. Currency is a promise to the bearer that it is worth its face value it is not hence able to be devalued forever, it must ultimately represent an actual value be it gold or bonds and stocks or, 10000000 diamonds.

Just for an alternate view:

At first man used to only see those things as bobbles. Today we finally see their worth with respect to technologies, as tools, but that's a pretty new idea. Why can't printed paper be seen just as valuable, much like a Rembrandt, Michelangelo, or da Vinci painting and/or sculpture, miniature works of art. It's all the same thing, really! Value is really only to be found in the desire of they that would want it. No one has to agree that any particular money is valuable. How valuable is a chunk of gold to a farmer, he would probably prefer a better plow, while the contact manufacturer definitely prefers the gold. These elements and crystals are actually only valuable in terms of the tools they can afford to make.

The point??? The values of mans riches are subjective, arbitrary and relative to begin with, they only have such because the multitudes agree they do, remove the agreement, and it all collapses. No one can have more than another, if everyone only has, what all others, do not want. So money is all about "WANT & DESIRE;" to covet that which another has, that another doesn't!

[henry quirk]

Apart from Blaggard's point about a precious metal-backed currency (and when exactly is the last time any Super Power operated with anything other than fiat scrip [instead of a more appealing representative scrip]?), money serves as transactual shorthand, a consensual reservoir of value...it's a conveyance (and convenience) for that value, one no industrialized nation will give up just to indulge in the 'purer' but far more cumbersome act of bartering.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My commentary was not meant as a means to ensure I could get something from someone, to appease my want, like some people seem to be, all to focused upon, selfishness at the forefront of their understanding; of the world, their existence. As a philosopher my aim is to reduce the human condition down to it's most fundamental parts, exposing those most antiquated, so as to cause evaluation by those understanding\caring enough, so as to hopefully see a more thinking version of human, as our future demands it. Money and value should be part of a bygone era by now, as it serves no other purpose but destruction, at the promise of power, in order to dictate, coasting upon the backs of serfs, so as to drink fine wines, affording the lap of luxury at others expense; oh, how there has to be an expense, of others. The very notion of money/value, nothing more than a weapon, as the serfs cry for more, the unwitting participants of their serfdom, as they clamor to place the upper most blocks atop the pyramid. Blinded by desire/want/money/value many can't see the truth of the machines end, but throughout history many have. It's not some dream, or a god touching someone, it's just common sense, as one views the machine, (matrix), from the outside, with all the human constituents crying for more, it obviously can only end one way, in a ball of flames, as more and more is taken, not given, due to some insane vision of coasting through life. Human minds are mostly oblivious, not able to see the machine while they're participating in it's manufacture, to close to the problem, their vision becomes blurred. My outward cry hopes to catch the ear of those that are capable of standing back, tired of the machine, finally seeing it, for what it truly is, a Trojan Horse, built and occupied by the hands that shall be trampled by it.

And so this goes out to only those learned enough, that can look at themselves, their history, objectively, as unfortunately, for all others, this shall fall upon deaf ears.

[henry quirk]

"Money and value should be part of a bygone era by now"

Yes, all men (and women too!) will (one day!) be livin' in a big kumbaya world, holdin' hands and sharin' with one another freely and whatnot.

If I'm lucky: I'll be long dead before that horror show comes to pass.