[QUOTE=Mattk50;27943986]drugs have value? so what are you going to buy drugs with? everyone already has everything they need, nobody owns anything.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
most of this thread is just people who dont understand the concept, or people who understand parts and so insert those parts into modern day without thinking of the big picture. im growing tired of this.[/QUOTE]
And its also full of two people who don't have a concept of basic economy, sociology or psychology. (Mattk and sillypiggy)
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27930232]classic
A small matter of curiosity, what's gonna happen once a practically unlimited amount of heroin and methamphetamine becomes widely available for free?[/QUOTE]
I didnt know the only thing stopping me from using heroin is because its illegal. your arguments are just getting worse. I mean you could at least watch the movie showing what causes most addiction or look up the what happens to countries once they do make drugs legal.
[editline]8th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27944236]And its also full of two people who don't have a concept of basic economy, sociology or psychology. (Mattk and sillypiggy)[/QUOTE]
and people who cant come up with real arguments so they make blanket statements that could be used against anyone.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27930232]classic
A small matter of curiosity, what's gonna happen once a practically unlimited amount of heroin and methamphetamine becomes widely available for free?[/QUOTE]
For those who are addicted, or become so, it turns into a self-correcting problem. Habitual addicts progress to lethal overdose. Once deceased, they no longer consume resources.
Individuals capable of moderating usage for recreational purposes will self-limit and remain relatively functional.
Anyone disinterested won't bother. Thus, two categories: user & non-user. Then, within the user category, several permutations form: functional user, non-functional (addict) and overdose.
There might be benefits in the form of artwork created and sedation of otherwise potentially dangerous individuals. These pros are highly subjective.
Of course, this is one minor segment of the economic picture, so it would be a mistake to extrapolate this example too strongly to the entirety.
An interesting situation might arise if the majority were to become functional users. How would that impact resource allocation? Would opium crops crowd out food resources? If research is still to be done by humans, will they make stronger opiate compounds? If the computers are capable of Turing-level processes, would they reason that humanity could be controlled using drugs or eradicated by excessive administration? If cyborgs are developed, how effective would narcotics be for them?
That was certainly a good point, S7. I think a more targeted question might be whether the ZM/VP will impose restrictions on production, usage and particularly the overdose scenario. Would that effectively outlaw suicide? In that case, doesn't that mean that ZM/VP becomes a governing body, exactly what they proclaim to eschew?
We would not outlaw suicide but if you look at what causes most of it you would understand that there would be a lot less in this system.
also I think the health problems drugs could cause would keep most people off of them. But even if most people did use drugs moderately I wouldn't much mind. sure use weed every now and then and heck even lsd if its not every day.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27945420]We would not outlaw suicide but if you look at what causes most of it you would understand that there would be a lot less in this system.
also I think the health problems drugs could cause would keep most people off of them. But even if most people did use drugs moderately I wouldn't much mind. sure use weed every now and then and heck even lsd if its not every day.[/QUOTE]
Will that be the entire movement's stance or yours? How do you know?
Here's a scenario:
Everyone is provided for and resources are all perfectly utilized at the maximum limits with no room for error. Now, assume a percentage of the population wants a 'retro' experience - life on a farm, perhaps.
That would be highly inefficient production compared to automated methods. Are those wishes to be denied, or will maximally productive resources be sacrificed in order to allow for this segment of the population to farm? Who would make the sacrifice? What would the sacrifice involve?
It wouldn't be hard for people who dont want to live with the movement to do so. Just go find some land and farm. If you want to live your life like it was before the resource based economy was around then do it. But I dont think you will find too many people wanting to.
If they want to create food less effectively then everyone else then no one will stop them. Its there choice and it wont bother me.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27946875]It wouldn't be hard for people who dont want to live with the movement to do so. Just go find some farm land and do so. If you want to live your like like it was before the resource based economy was around then do so. But I dont think you will find too many people wanting to.[/QUOTE]
More assumptions. What if I want 99999 aches of farmland? Who gets to decide how much land I can get? The almighty council?
What exactly about what I said was an assumption? all I said is that I would let them not be with the movement if they didnt want to. Now if they didnt want to be with the movement then they wouldnt be asking for the aches now would they?
But if you really wanted to have land to yourself then you would just go to some uninhabited place some were and just live there. I mean I bet I could go some were in africa or some island were no one is around and just live there even today. no one would stop me unless I was an illegal immigrant.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27947002]What exactly about what I said was an assumption? all I said is that I would let them not be with the movement if they didnt want to. Now if they didnt want to be with the movement then they wouldnt be asking for the aches now would they?
But if you really wanted to have land to yourself then you would just go to some uninhabited place some were and just live there. I mean I bet I could go some were in africa or some island were no one is around and just live there even today. no one would stop me unless I was an illegal immigrant.[/QUOTE]
Why would there be immigration with no government?
As I mentioned, if all of the planet's resources were being utilized to maximum efficiency, how would it be possible for anyone to leave the project? There wouldn't be any free resources for inefficient farming.
Most farming would be done in the cities themselves using hydroponic farming to save transportation energy and other energy saved when using hydroponics (oh and space). This would leave a lot of fertile land for the farmer.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27948280]Most farming would be done in the cities themselves using hydroponic farming to save transportation energy and other energy saved when using hydroponics (oh and space). This would leave a lot of fertile land for the farmer.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I'll explicitly state that the scenario I offered was hypothetical. Assume that all available air, land and sea comprising the entire planet is being utilized at maximum capacity.
[editline]9th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27946892]More assumptions. What if I want 99999 aches of farmland? Who gets to decide how much land I can get? The almighty council?[/QUOTE]
The robot overlords. They have pitchforks.
Pitchforks arnt very efficient. If they really wanted to take over they would use lazerguns.
So if the whole planet was being used as efficiently as possible then well. The most efficient thing would be to know your limit. If you dont need to use every planet resource then don't. I mean we don't want to destroy the environment we live in (because that would kill us off us if we did). Why gather resources if we already have enough?
so in a way it would be the most efficient even though it wouldnt require a machine on every inch of the world.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27948484]Pitchforks arnt very efficient. If they really wanted to take over they would use lazerguns.
So if the whole planet was being used as efficiently as possible then well. The most efficient thing would be to know your limit. If you dont need to use every planet resource then don't. I mean we don't want to destroy the environment we live in (because that would kill us off us if we did). Why gather resources if we already have enough?[/QUOTE]
Think about this for a moment: why would utilization be at maximum? The human population that the system serves is requesting resources to the limit... therefore, all resources are being utilized and consumed with no margin for error.
If anyone wanted to try a life of natural farming outside of the system, what would that do to the system? Would it wait until a human passed away and use the resources dedicated to that individual? Would it disallow procreation to maintain that limit?
Better yet, if people wanted to have children, but the system is at max utilization, would they be denied?
Well not every inch of the world would have to be covered in order to give people the resources they need. I would say the average person would have even less stuff then they do today. Think about it, what do you really buy? its either food, some form of soft ware/hardware or some toy or something like that. knowing that you can return any toy object once you dont need it and can replace it with a new one would mean that you would not keep the old toys with you. you would just allow them to be recycled. now with soft ware you can now download taking no resources when giving out. hard ware however can be replaced and recycled into new better hardware. This use something and then recycle it method would have a lot of resources. Not every single resource in the world would not have to be mined in order to get people what they want. also Since poor people have on average more kids and since no one is poor and educated I are population size will probably go down. You see this in other countries with less poor. I could see the average of a couple being having about 1 or 2 kids on average. I mean its really only culture and ignorance that has people make 6 babies.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27945157]Of course, this is one minor segment of the economic picture, so it would be a mistake to extrapolate this example too strongly to the entirety.[/QUOTE]
It's just an example of a major underlying issue; making any single object scarce will completely ruin what the project is trying to accomplish.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;27943986]drugs have value? so what are you going to buy drugs with? everyone already has everything they need, nobody owns anything.[/QUOTE]
Let's say you get prescribed oxycontin in ZM's proposed society. Not everyone can get access to it. That means you can give it to people in exchange for something else. That's an economy. Money is a natural product of an economy, not the cause of it. (you'd already know this if you knew a thing about economics)
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27945420]also I think the health problems drugs could cause would keep most people off of them. But even if most people did use drugs moderately I wouldn't much mind. sure use weed every now and then and heck even lsd if its not every day.[/QUOTE]
Not having to work or make money would have a gigantic effect on drug use. You can't say people would do drugs 'just every once and a while' because there are absolutely no restrictions on what they do day in day out - coupled with the fact that they (the drugs) would be free.
Sweet, the new Zeitgeist movie is out.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;27948963]Sweet, the new Zeitgeist movie is out.[/QUOTE]
Rage.
[QUOTE=Jookia;27866053]Ugh. The Venus Project is a fictional idea. It won't happen, and even if it did, it'd fail for a simple reason: Computers are dumb. Letting them make major decisions is suicide.[/QUOTE]
What and humans are so intelligent? The amount of mistakes computers make pales in comparison to that which a person can make, and like the guy said those machines would be voluntarily supervised, and because the society is built around technology it isn't going to be like machines today, it would be extremely efficient because so much focus has gone into it.
I mean seriously machines at a technical level can't fail unless there is a problem in the way the machine was built or programmed which if you were clever enough to understand is yet again the result of human mistakes.
[editline]9th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27948945]It's just an example of a major underlying issue; making any single object scarce will completely ruin what the project is trying to accomplish.
Let's say you get prescribed oxycontin in ZM's proposed society. Not everyone can get access to it. That means you can give it to people in exchange for something else. That's an economy. Money is a natural product of an economy, not the cause of it. (you'd already know this if you knew a thing about economics)
Not having to work or make money would have a gigantic effect on drug use. You can't say people would do drugs 'just every once and a while' because there are absolutely no restrictions on what they do day in day out - coupled with the fact that they (the drugs) would be free.[/QUOTE]
The problem in my opinion with the monetary system is that it itself has become a product, i.e you can buy stocks etc with no relation to productivity like the video shows. Money is simply printed off from the money supply, unlike before where the system actually worked and the money was relative to the goods produced.
So IMO the monetary system fundamently isn't broken, money is simply the exchange of value in a trade however if it's not relative to productivity it has no value only what the economy aserts it has. Sadly the system today is broken, it needs to be fixed and fast, however the Venus Project is so much more realistic, it shows how stupid the human race is financing things like wars and conflict which could easily provide so much more for humanity.
Also your issues appears to be on drug usage, clearly there could easily be a regulatory system of such a system and a semi-govermental power, it would only be a minor intervention and nothing like we have today. Also the issue of what goods may become scarce would be scrutinized and monitored, however where drugs are concerned without the stresses of today's society I think the need for health care would face a huge decline and the need to take drugs would also hugely decline, not to mention you forget new technologies, with a society focuses on innovation we could easily create new methods of health care, education etc I mean teaching people on the dangers of drugs in such a society which is centred around scientific improvement itself, would be a cake walk, because we assume society as a whole would become much more educated.
[QUOTE=Drax-Quin;27951122]What and humans are so intelligent? The amount of mistakes computers make pales in comparison to that which a person can make, and like the guy said those machines would be voluntarily supervised, and because the society is built around technology it isn't going to be like machines today, it would be extremely efficient because so much focus has gone into it.
I mean seriously machines at a technical level can't fail unless there is a problem in the way the machine was built or programmed which if you were clever enough to understand is yet again the result of human mistakes.[/QUOTE]
We're not there yet and there are many issues, both intrinsic and extrinsic, surrounding an overseeing AI that could easily manifest as counter-intuitive to what we'd expect to happen. The potential is a nice idea, but the reality could be devastating to humanity in its current state. Blind allegiance to the computer is a fool's gambit.
[QUOTE]
[editline]9th February 2011[/editline]
The problem in my opinion with the monetary system is that it itself has become a product, i.e you can buy stocks etc with no relation to productivity like the video shows. Money is simply printed off from the money supply, unlike before where the system actually worked and the money was relative to the goods produced.
So IMO the monetary system fundamently isn't broken, money is simply the exchange of value in a trade however if it's not relative to productivity it has no value only what the economy aserts it has. Sadly the system today is broken, it needs to be fixed and fast, however the Venus Project is so much more realistic, it shows how stupid the human race is financing things like wars and conflict which could easily provide so much more for humanity.[/QUOTE]
You're on the right track. It's not quite that there's no relation, it's that many financial instruments are so far removed that it's exceedingly difficult to appropriately determine their value. The problem of money being printed out of thin air is certainly the central issue recently and going forward.
The only way the ZM/VP are more viable is in the notion of self-sustainability. However, this is a practice that is already implemented in any business that intends to stay open for the long-term.
Also keep in mind that the source of funding for wars comes from governments. Individuals' productivity is taxed (forcibly removed from possession) and applied toward goals that are rarely inline with a populace's desires. Relinquishing responsibility and authority to a government is akin to giving a fully automatic assault rifle and a tank to a violently aggressive teenager. People are easily influenced, but in general do not strive for physical conflict.
[QUOTE]Also your issues appears to be on drug usage, clearly there could easily be a regulatory system of such a system and a semi-govermental power, it would only be a minor intervention and nothing like we have today. Also the issue of what goods may become scarce would be scrutinized and monitored, however where drugs are concerned without the stresses of today's society I think the need for health care would face a huge decline and the need to take drugs would also hugely decline, not to mention you forget new technologies, with a society focuses on innovation we could easily create new methods of health care, education etc I mean teaching people on the dangers of drugs in such a society which is centred around scientific improvement itself, would be a cake walk, because we assume society as a whole would become much more educated.[/QUOTE]
Introduction of a regulatory system is an initial implementation of a government, which is exactly what the ZM/VP deem to do away with (while hypocritically creating a global resource governing entity). Every 'minor intervention' instituted by a governing body becomes a progressively larger consumer of resources. A computer maintaining such a system might maintain bloat better, but there are still issues and complications that would invariably amplify the size of such an endeavor.
The narcotics scenario was used as an example. In regard to health care, what's to say there won't be increasing numbers of drug-resistant bacteria? Any other catastrophic ailment could force great expenditure of resources on biological healthcare.
What is the guarantee of an educated populace? What new technologies? What improvement? As pontificated earlier, it seems reasonable to suspect that a population without any immediate driver for advancement would largely delve into hedonistic activities to the exclusion of productivity outside of artistic aspirations. With a decreasing percentage of the population steadily contributing toward scientific research, the species would stagnate.
If you disagree with these points, what is your reasoning and are there historical precedents?
Problem is its impossible to have a free society. Its human nature to want to own things.
Just look at prehistoric man. I'm sure they fought over things and there wasn't even a government then.
To have a total free society where everyone on the planet would be willing to share everything, then you would need a different type of being that cares nothing about possessing. Human beings brains just can't always think that way forever.
Just finished watching this. I strongly agree with everything said and have joined there mailing list. I personally think that people should just get off there asses and start a fucking riot.
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;27958283]Just finished watching this. I strongly agree with everything said and have joined there mailing list. I personally think that people should just get off there asses and start a fucking riot.[/QUOTE]
that is 100% the purpose of the video.
ZM is pure propaganda. It uses stark imagery, mood and bias to influence the viewer without presenting a balanced argument. If you've been keeping up with the thread (can't blame you if you haven't) a dozen different major problems have been outlined with the movement itself.
[QUOTE=Ajhah;27955326]Problem is its impossible to have a free society. Its human nature to want to own things.
Just look at prehistoric man. I'm sure they fought over things and there wasn't even a government then.
To have a total free society where everyone on the planet would be willing to share everything, then you would need a different type of being that cares nothing about possessing. Human beings brains just can't always think that way forever.[/QUOTE]
I think a common definition of 'free society' should be agreed upon before going further - it seems that ours are diametrically opposed, as I consider a free society one based on individual freedom which includes self-responsibility and private property ownership.
My views are probably most closely described as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism]agorism[/url]. Perhaps the distinction could be described as free capitalist society vs. free communist/socialist society.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27959543]that is 100% the purpose of the video.
ZM is pure propaganda. It uses stark imagery, mood and bias to influence the viewer without presenting a balanced argument. If you've been keeping up with the thread (can't blame you if you haven't) a dozen different major problems have been outlined with the movement itself.[/QUOTE]
Just want to add that, while getting people up off their asses is good, doing the wrong thing (especially repeating past mistakes) can actually be worse than doing nothing.
Is this thread almost 10 pages long already?? Damn intellectuals...
And for all those who marginalize 'conspiracy theories' as fringe psycho-babble, reviewing historical precedent provides a means to gauge future actions:
[url]http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/governments-have-admitted-that-they.html[/url]
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1054211-ZEITGEIST-Moving-Forward/members/359049-miscreanity"][B][SIZE=2][COLOR=#114477]miscreanity[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/URL]: While at first I thought you sounded nothing more than a Reagan clone with the "government is the problem" I've come to the conclusion that you are right. Government in itself is a power structure which leads ressources away from what is needed. I have long thought (and I long supported) that the right of the political spectrum wanted the smaller goverment, due to no restriction on money making, as in communism the state is seen as the protector of the transition to the communist utopia. Either one still keeps the government in one form or another, either one being equally wrong.
Although I don't quite understand what you want. As I understand, you don't want this system. As to say that it would be better without government. I don't know about you, but the MMO EVE online is set in a system where there isn't any government to control anything. Only corperations, battling eachother for ressources on planets to produce more ships (warefare) to get all the system possible. Yet the game still goes around with ISK (artifical in-game money), which creates interests as well for the in-game banks. I have yet to understand how a full government-less capitalistic society would work as anything other than small groups living together, instead of one big mess of metropolitian cities as New York.
[QUOTE=Beafman;27969320][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1054211-ZEITGEIST-Moving-Forward/members/359049-miscreanity"][B][SIZE=2][COLOR=#114477]miscreanity[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/URL]: While at first I thought you sounded nothing more than a Reagan clone with the "government is the problem" I've come to the conclusion that you are right. Government in itself is a power structure which leads ressources away from what is needed. I have long thought (and I long supported) that the right of the political spectrum wanted the smaller goverment, due to no restriction on money making, as in communism the state is seen as the protector of the transition to the communist utopia. Either one still keeps the government in one form or another, either one being equally wrong.
Although I don't quite understand what you want. As I understand, you don't want this system. As to say that it would be better without government. I don't know about you, but the MMO EVE online is set in a system where there isn't any government to control anything. Only corperations, battling eachother for ressources on planets to produce more ships (warefare) to get all the system possible. Yet the game still goes around with ISK (artifical in-game money), which creates interests as well for the in-game banks. I have yet to understand how a full government-less capitalistic society would work as anything other than small groups living together, instead of one big mess of metropolitian cities as New York.[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
I want individuals making their own choices based on their own resources.
You're exactly right when concluding that such a system would gravitate toward smaller groups. That isn't to say that sizable cities couldn't exist - they actually develop and expand largely on principles that react to this kind of social expansion. When heavy central planning designs urban environments, there are often areas that could be termed 'void spaces'. There are some spots where individuals gravitate toward and spots where other individuals become trapped. This is usually because of artificially created wealth disparities. In naturally-occurring urban environments, the dichotomy forms gradually and is self-limiting, especially when geography isn't a restrictive factor.
Individuals (both human and abstract entities such as corporations) will act in their own interest, taking responsibility for themselves sooner through understanding or later by external forces. Government is trying to manage a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Span_of_control]span of control[/url] that is far too large. A family might be a monarchy or dictatorship, but that doesn't work with larger populations. A democracy might do well for a city-scale population, but it seems to have met its absolute limits lately. Self-governance and self-responsibility in a decentralized system will be the most realistic next stage.
The founders of the United States fully understood the danger of banks. However, they were still mired in an environment geared toward centralized government. Had they developed their concept of checks and balances beyond the concentration of power and been able to permeate the idea, things might've be very different than they are now. For better or for worse is hard to say, but in retrospect, we can see the manner in which financial institutions were able to utilize central authority to overwhelm opposition.
That isn't to say it would be a perfect system - it could still conceivably wind up under totalitarian rule. The difficulty in persuading a critical mass would probably be an exponentially more difficult task than it is now, making the barrier to such massive domination that much greater.
Even if some of the population were to surrender their own power of choice, it seems unlikely that enough would do so to cause a pervasive problem. The very nature of an independent mind is not conducive to long-term coercion or control.
Either way, starting from a basic structure and allowing growth to occur naturally instead of defining and establishing an entire system regardless of the level of control necessary to maintain it. This easily leads to some level of redundancy, but that's more of a protective measure than a negative. It also promotes increased efficiency and accelerates growth and innovation while at the same time self-limiting excess when resources are consumed faster than produced.
[i][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty]The Market for Liberty[/url][/i] by Linda and Morris Tannehill enumerates many of the arguments that suggest a society without government can't exist, and also provides very reasonable rebuttals. If it has to be defined and labelled, my own views are most closely reflected in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism]agorism[/url].
Your example of EVE Online as a socio-economic structure, from my limited experience with it, is excellent. It certainly seems that there isn't any central authority to inflate it away (aside from the game developers, but they'd have no real incentive to do anything like that - although the studies have been interesting). The only real limitations are that scientific research and development are limited by the game world in comparison to our reality. Great, now I kind of want to play it again...
Earlier in the thread, I'd mentioned that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia]Somalia[/url] is an interesting example of such a decentralized environment. If you only think of Somali pirates, which are back in the news again, they arose in response to sheer market forces. Not only that, but they're amazingly effective at what they do - [url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-international-us-omatre7182q2-20110209,0,5949948.story]a US$200mm oil shipment was recently captured[/url].
In the past, they have promptly released hostages and cargo upon receipt of ransom payment. It would be bad for their line of work to go against their word or demand ransom that was too great. This is simply becoming a cost of doing business in that region and the pirates will continue to do what they do until there is greater incentive for them not to.
In this article, you can see the simple forces behind their rise:
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8298095/Spirit-of-Adventure-Behind-the-rise-of-the-Somali-pirates.html[/url]
You could equate current shipping lane status to Microsoft's Windows XP - full of security holes and assumptions based on myopic perspectives of a broader ecosystem. The response has been similar to Microsoft's late 90s and early 2000s legal, strong-arm business tactics and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt]FUD[/url] efforts against alternatives. Finally, to a certain extent with Vista and more so with Windows 7, Microsoft has been dealing with the root problem (code complexity and security) rather than trying to put out fires that were being perpetually fed by its own mistakes.
Nice - I can turn almost any question into a 5-page dissertation...
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;27958283]Just finished watching this. I strongly agree with everything said and have joined there mailing list. I personally think that people should just get off there asses and start a fucking riot.[/QUOTE]
I personally believe that people who can watch a propaganda video then say "I strongly agree with everything said" can't think for themselves. This applies to anyone who can look at a list of views and then say "I believe everything stated here".
It's sad to know people like you vote.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27978308]I personally believe that people who can watch a propaganda video then say "I strongly agree with everything said" can't think for themselves. This applies to anyone who can look at a list of views and then say "I believe everything stated here".
It's sad to know people like you vote.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't help it...
[url]http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayCwc.php?id=79[/url]
I have been gone for a while. Oh and I see miscreaty is a libertarian (I think)
[editline]10th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27948945]Not having to work or make money would have a gigantic effect on drug use. You can't say people would do drugs 'just every once and a while' because there are absolutely no restrictions on what they do day in day out - coupled with the fact that they (the drugs) would be free.[/QUOTE] Yea your right. it would take out stress and environmental factors causing people to use drugs. I dont think everyone will use drugs and people arnt going to just try LSD because they dont have to work. Also if you watched the movie it shows how addiction starts and all that junk. The reason why people wont want to use crack every say of the week is because they like there health and not wanting there body to need it. Kind of like today. I dont think the reason why people dont use drugs is because they dont want to get fired. sure that could be a reason but thats not the main reason. I mean most people dont use cigarette because its bad for your health and no one likes needing something.
[editline]10th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ajhah;27955326]Problem is its impossible to have a free society. Its human nature to want to own things.
Just look at prehistoric man. I'm sure they fought over things and there wasn't even a government then.
To have a total free society where everyone on the planet would be willing to share everything, then you would need a different type of being that cares nothing about possessing. Human beings brains just can't always think that way forever.[/QUOTE]
You can keep things but you dont see people wanting to keep the bus they ride to work on or the traffic light that is used for driving to work. SUre people will want there tv and computer but no one will want to take home a bowling ball when you have perfectly good ones there that will stay there. This could be the same for golf clubs. Why waste time taking it home if you could just leave it there? The human nature argument doesnt really make sense when you realize that we humans first started evolving on a planet were the only real things you own is the food in your hand and your child. Everything else was just something they used when need be and didnt when they didnt need it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
