Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by Mods1Blow2Me3Daily at 7:34 am on July 10, 2009 i cant disagree, for i am exactly that. all of that. -- Posted by musicfan3 at 7:35 am on July 10, 2009 Money talks. -- Posted by sixguns at 7:37 am on July 10, 2009 money isnot truely needed it is liked and charished on many diffrent levels but money in the end will be the downfall of america...mostly cause of obama.. just so u know obama has spent more money then bush, clinton, and the guy behind him combined hes fucking us over. impeachment -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 7:37 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from sixguns at 7:37 am on July 10, 2009 money isnot truely needed it is liked and charished on many diffrent levels but money in the end will be the downfall of america...mostly cause of obama.. just so u know obama has spent more money then bush, clinton, and the guy behind him combined hes fucking us over. impeachment Wow. Stick on subject please. -- Posted by Krebons at 7:38 am on July 10, 2009 Sex > Money. However, more more = more sex. So money is the middle man between incentive and sex. -- Posted by musicfan3 at 7:39 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Krebons at 9:38 am on July 10, 2009 Sex > Money. However, more more = more sex. So money is the middle man between incentive and sex. Agreed. Greed could also be one. -- Posted by medjai at 7:45 am on July 10, 2009 Incorrect. In a situation where one did not have to worry about money innovation would arise out of a need or desire for improved daily functionality and personal ambition. When you no longer have any concern for your whether or not you're going to keep your house, pay that electric bill on time, etc, you have more time to be innovative. I do not believe that the greatest inventors were motivated by greed. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 7:46 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from medjai at 7:45 am on July 10, 2009 Incorrect. In a situation where one did not have to worry about money innovation would arise out of a need or desire for improved daily functionality and personal ambition. When you no longer have any concern for your whether or not you're going to keep your house, pay that electric bill on time, etc, you have more time to be innovative. I do not believe that the greatest inventors were motivated by greed. +a billion on my liking you -- Posted by medjai at 7:50 am on July 10, 2009 If anything, a lack of innovation would eliminate excessive greed. Were inventors to stop inventing, were new products to stop being developed, money would have less use, you would need less of it because there'd be less toys to buy. The government would need less of it because they wouldn't be using it for advanced military technology or space exploration or what have you. Invention and innovation propagates a desire for wealth, not the other way around. -- Posted by Elm at 8:09 am 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. The existence of private charities shows that this is not the case. The business of business is business however people have interests they wish to support outside of business pursuits. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 8:12 am on July 10, 2009 Couldn't that be considered to be even more proof however, that money is not necessary? -- Posted by Elm at 8:18 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 8:12 am on July 10, 2009 Couldn't that be considered to be even more proof however, that money is not necessary? I don't see how.  Charity organizations are supported by money which serves the same purpose, its a means of trading productive value.  It makes trade easy and makes comparing cost versus utility easy across the board.  Sure people could start doing charitable things by themselves without money or an organization but the scope and depth of their actions would be limited. Look at one person picking up liter on the side of a street compared to a local charity that does it once a week.  The charity will turn out more people, raise funds for equipment and be able to handle more roadsides. I can't even imagine how one person alone would be able to send aid to Africa without money. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 8:20 am on July 10, 2009 In other words, our possibilities are limited by the amount of money we have. =/ I get what you're saying, I just don't see the money incentive ANYWHERE in that example, all I see is the money barrier. -- Posted by Elm at 8:22 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 8:20 am on July 10, 2009 In other words, our possibilities are limited by the amount of money we have. =/ I get what you're saying, I just don't see the money incentive ANYWHERE in that example, all I see is the money barrier. Money (Ideally - not with the Fed just printing it willy nilly) represents productive value.  Thus our ability is not limited by money but by what it represents.  Anything humans do regardless of system used to make trade simpler is going to be limited by this very same thing. Off to go jog - be back after I return and shower. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 8:26 am on July 10, 2009 I'm against trade of any kind for that reason. Although I'd feel more comfortable if we did not have the fed creating money out of thin air, it really doesn't make a difference if the money is backed or not if we never stop to question, do we need money in the first place? What determined the amount of fighter planes the US produced in WW2. Was it money? Definitely not, we made tens of thousands every year. Was it gold? Nope. What we had, was resources. Our limits should be defined by resources. Not useless trading objects. I'll admit that's not something we can just pick up on, but I think it should be a goal aimed at by humanity. I dunno maybe you're right. Maybe we are so low of a species we can't do things for the better of all, and feel personal gain in a broad sense like that. I'm optimistic, I guess. -- Posted by Elm at 9:13 am on July 10, 2009 Without trade of any kind all human society would collapse. A person does not have the time of day nor the skills to both hunt, farm, make clothing, pottery, tools, and collect salt or dig out larders in order to survive the food shortages of winter. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 9:37 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 9:13 am on July 10, 2009 Without trade of any kind all human society would collapse. A person does not have the time of day nor the skills to both hunt, farm, make clothing, pottery, tools, and collect salt or dig out larders in order to survive the food shortages of winter. lol this again. -- Posted by Elm at 9:41 am on July 10, 2009 Unless when you talking "trade" you don't mean "trade".  But one person exchanging a good or a service with another is trade. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 10:33 am on July 10, 2009 Yep, and that's what I'm against as it is not needed. Which was kind of what this post was about but you didn't really offer anything, you just said "no that's wrong". -- Posted by Elm at 12:00 pm on July 10, 2009 Ok you right now cannot trade money or anything you own or can do for anything else. Tell me how you plan on surviving. -- Posted by medjai at 12:13 pm on July 10, 2009 If we eliminated trade the problem would be some guy would come to my door wanting something and I'd be like "Dude that's totally cool by any chance do you have this (something I want), I've been looking everywhere for that shit." And then a trade just occurred by accident. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 12:55 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from medjai at 12:13 pm on July 10, 2009 If we eliminated trade the problem would be some guy would come to my door wanting something and I'd be like "Dude that's totally cool by any chance do you have this (something I want), I've been looking everywhere for that shit." And then a trade just occurred by accident. Why would you need to trade things that are universally (everywhere) free? You don't have to store shit in your house, if you want to play golf you go to the golf field grab a club and start playing, when you're done you leave it there. If you want to take it home, -fine- that's your burden. It's important to understand personal ownership is a HUGE burden, why keep objects, maintain them, keep track of where they are, etc. when you can have them readily available where they are needed? That's why trade isn't necessary. Not because we're trying to avoid it, but because it's very impractical to trade in a RBE. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 12:57 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Elm at 12:00 pm on July 10, 2009 Ok you right now cannot trade money or anything you own or can do for anything else.   Tell me how you plan on surviving. lol "We trade now, why not stick to this forever!?" Unfortunately, this is a step for humanity as a whole. I cannot decide I don't want to trade, and would rather open resources for all. It would be a collective change. -- Posted by Moridin at 1:12 pm on July 10, 2009 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. Maybe not monetary profit per say, but surely they did it for intellectual profit. The pragmatically verified premise is that have some kind of profit (not necessarily monetary) is vastly superior than none at all for when it comes to social progress. 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. Yes, go ahead and blame the free market for the evils of the state. The reason that the price of medicine is so high is because of government interventions, not because of the internal workings of the free market. If you have statist assaults on the free market such as health care programs or subsidization, then you are going to get a sky rocket increase in prices because private companies cannot complete with public companies since the state is artificially reducing the cost of care. If I start handing out free bread, bread which costs other companies big money to produce, do you think that these companies will make a profit selling their products? No. What changes do they need to do to survive? Raise prices of course. Problems in a monetary based society will only have a resolution, if money can be made from solving those problems. What is a non-monetary society? If you remove money, people will just use other products as payments like they did before the introduction of coins and bills. You would have to enforce a brutal authoritarianism beyond anything we have seen so far in the history of humanity to eliminate voluntary trade. -- Posted by Moridin at 1:15 pm on July 10, 2009 Aimforthehead, do you believe in property rights? Do you believe in self-ownership? If you believe in self-ownership (you do, otherwise you could not use your vocal cords to talk back to me, or in this case, your fingers to type a response), then you must believe that I have the right to the fruits of my labor too, that is, property rights? Do you believe in the principle of non-aggression? That I have the right to not have my body violated by others? If so, how can you not believe in property rights? They are two sides of the same coin. If non-aggression is valid, then i own my body and vice versa. -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by Forever Angel at 4:00 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 2:55 pm on July 10, 2009 You don't have to store shit in your house...   Wait a second, whose house? Don't you just move in and out depending on where you are? And why would there be houses? In your utopia, wouldn't it just be some kind of shelter, shared with everyone else who wanted to get out of the rain? -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 4:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:15 pm on July 10, 2009 Aimforthehead, do you believe in property rights? Do you believe in self-ownership? If you believe in self-ownership (you do, otherwise you could not use your vocal cords to talk back to me, or in this case, your fingers to type a response), then you must believe that I have the right to the fruits of my labor too, that is, property rights? Do you believe in the principle of non-aggression? That I have the right to not have my body violated by others? If so, how can you not believe in property rights? They are two sides of the same coin. If non-aggression is valid, then i own my body and vice versa. I'm simply widening the definition of 'the self'. From the mind and body, to the universe. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 4:05 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 4:00 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 2:55 pm on July 10, 2009 You don't have to store shit in your house... Wait a second, whose house? Don't you just move in and out depending on where you are? And why would there be houses? In your utopia, wouldn't it just be some kind of shelter, shared with everyone else who wanted to get out of the rain? It's by definition not a utopia. And the plan is to have several houses much in a suburban fashion as well as spaced out apartments which are easily detached and thus can be reorganized. You can go where ever you want. You can move in and out depending where you are or want to go, unless you want to stay where you are sure. Pages: 1 2 3  Next