|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
Forever Angel
Pectus Pectoris Memor
 Sustainer
|
     
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 9:50 pm on July 10, 2009
 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:03 pm on July 10, 2009
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 7:43 pm on July 10, 2009
Quote: from Forever Angel at 5:37 pm on July 10, 2009
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 7:31 pm on July 10, 2009
Every question you have for 'who', all I can say is it is societies responsibility.
How does this society control individuals?
Why do people need to be controlled?
Are you assuming that there are no psychopaths, career criminals, etc that will be living in your society? Or do you just let them do as they will?
I've already answered that question.
Those people will be treated as sick patients, as, in essence, that is exactly what they are. We cannot create a perfect world. You cannot eliminate violence from jealousy and mental illnesses. But from the violence we can eliminate, we should. No ones saying a RBE is perfect, it's just a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now.
You didn't answer the question of how you control them... people like this don't just acquiesce to requests... is there a police force in your society? And what of laws? Are they all made of electric fences? You speak so much of the 'good' things and have not (apparently) even considered the bad.
-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking
Bohica
|
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
|
|
earthjunkie
Wealthy Hobo
|
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 4:08 pm on July 10, 2009
Quote: from earthjunkie at 3:37 pm on July 10, 2009
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 7:33 am on July 10, 2009
So, I'd like to hear an argument against this, if anyone will. Incentive: The need for profit provides a person or organization with motivation to work on new ideas and products that might sell in the market. The assumption is that if people were not motivated by their need to obtain money nothing would be invented and little social progress would be achieved. First of all, the most powerful contributions to society did not come from people seeking profit; Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, The Reich Brothers(SP?), Albert Einstein, and Isaac Newton did not make their massive contributions to society because of material self-interest. While it is true useful inventions and methods do come from the motivation for personal gain, the intent behind those creations typically had nothing to do with human or social concerns, and everything to do with detached, self-interest, and blind personal gain. The pursuit of profit almost always comes before human concern. And a simple glance at the cancer causing preservatives in our foods, planned obsolescence in nearly everything manufactured, along with a healthcare industry that charges $300 for a single anti-biotic pill, will indicate that the profit incentive is actually a detriment. Problems in a monetary based society will only have a resolution, if money can be made from solving those problems.
So? A fundamental human right is to be able to work, own, and protect their own possessions. A person's possession is theirs, and they may choose how they wish to use or disperse them among society.
Sure, if you want to have property fine, that's -your- burden, as stated before. It's more convenient and efficient to have things where they are needed readily available.
As for using your inventions and possessions how you want, that's right to. I'm just hoping humanity makes the right choice on what they do with that right. A scientist has the right to make the cure for cancer and never give it out. I'm not going to praise that, I'll find it sad and pathetic. As I do the people who want the world to stay that way. I just think it would be -awesome- if people were a little more selfless, ya' know?
According to Locke, whom I am a believer in, that is where government comes along. By sacrificing certain rights, you gain the support of the governing body, who's ultimate goal is to protect your rights. Unfortunately, sharing possessions is something that you cannot force upon someone. There is hope, did you know the majority of welfare comes from the private sector?
-------
The lights always on here. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forever Angel
Pectus Pectoris Memor
Sustainer
|
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 10:31 am on July 11, 2009
Quote: from Forever Angel at 4:09 am on July 11, 2009
Quote: from Aimforthehead at 10:52 pm on July 10, 2009
=/
Let's try again.
By using technology and the methods I mentioned previously, we can reduce crime to a point where laws and thus governments and money are no longer necessary. Decisions will not be made but arrived at by probability. No police, no laws, no protection. Why? Because there is no need for property. The only reasonable flaw in this concept is if an alien force came down to take over the planet. In other words, no one 'controls' them. Which is pretty much what I said...I think everyone else got that =/
Now I think you've entered fantasy land.
Any valid arguments or just 'that's dumb!'?
Having or not having property is not the only cause of crime. When one person purposely harms another, and there are no police, no laws, no protection, how would that be corrected?
-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking
Bohica
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
501 users online 
225519 members 
You have 1 new message.
Patron
