A System of Parity

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

A System of Parity

Post #1

Post by William »

Reminder

If you read what I have to say on this forum you would have noticed that I often refer to the overall problem of this world as being its 'Systems of Disparity'.

I have seen this Putting Our Heads Together forum and thought that at some time I would like to use it to expand on my ideas regarding the systems humanity have been using for - perhaps thousands of years - and why I see these systems as the main problem facing humanity and what I think would need to be done in order to change from the old ways to something more aligned with serving humanity in order to bring us from a level zero species to a level one species.

In relation to that, What I would like you to do is watch this youtube video[5:21] by 'Japanese American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science.' Michio Kaku in relation to the 'types' of civilizations which are attainable in regard to this universe.

Specific to the focus, the types of civilization I want to engage you in conversation about in relation to this, are Types 0 and 1 civilizations - type one is explained @ [0:28] and type 0 @ [2:00].

Type 0 populations opposed to type 1 civilization @ [4:08]

Based on the opinion the video content speaks of, we are and always have been a Type Zero Species, which is to say we get by fairly much by surviving as best we can with what we have and this type of lifestyle has basically not changed until fairly recently with the advance in scientific discovery and engineering, although both processes still contribute at present to maintaining the Type Zero Species as status quo.

The habits of thousands of years have basically shaped the way we currently think and thus organize ourselves as communities, and in order to seriously make an attempt at becoming a type one species we will have to radically sort out what aspects of those habits are helping and which ones are hindering.

The common denominator which can be observed in all types of social organization, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, dictatorships, etc et al is that they all share the same structure in relation to disparity. All these systems of social order operate on the principles of disparity - some more than others, but that in itself is besides the point. All have some 'leaven in the bread' as it were, in relation to disparity.

Simply put, where there are 'haves' and 'have-nots' in any social system, that is a system which operates under the regulations of disparity.

I think that as long as this is the case, we will not - at least collectively - attain level one as a species.

In that case, what would be required is to somehow dismantle all such present systems of disparity and replace these with a system of parity.

I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.

This of course is a radical shift from the way things are presently done, where humans are not granted that right and have to earn it from the go-get, due to the present systems and in relation to this, (A) most are born into unfortunate circumstance and most of those remain in those situations for their entire lives.
(B) Some are born into more advantageous situations but it can go either way for them in that regard, and for the very few, (C) they are born into ideal situations where the threat of losing that is non existent.

Those in group (A) are everyone from the destitute, starving of the 3rd world right through to the poor in the first world.

Those in group (B) are what the poor in the 1st world consider to being rich. They range from those with steady jobs and income, paying off mortgages and getting their kids through to university up to those who own lots of property outright, have a lot of money which works for them, lots of leisure time and large banks accounts.

Those in group (C) are they who live in their own secure micro-Utopias where money is no object and where anything possible one wants to do can be done.


Altogether A B and C represent disparity and are made that way through the systems of disparity.

That is the basics. The question is, how would these systems have to change in order for a true system of parity and attaining level one status as a species in a collective manner thus be made achievable?

Not only that, but how to do so with the least amount of disruption to the present systems?

Of course I have some ideas regarding those questions, which I would like to share in subsequent posts. For now I will leave the OP as it is and hopefully some feedback will be forthcoming.

Cheers

William

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 895
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 401 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Post #21

Post by Aetixintro »

IMO,

I support Capitalism under Democracy and Human Rights (UDHR)!

To a condition near-Utopia, I think there will be little disparity and that excesses ebb and flow naturally between people in a more just way than now.

Remember that Capitalism isn't equal to corruption and that the real way forward is to improve the combatting of all forms of crime and improve the "lowest" basic living conditions for all humans everywhere.

To do the best, improving steps right away: the lie detectors, the AVATAR!
Link: http://bgr.com/2016/12/28/lie-detector- ... rt-avatar/

So, to answer: to get to "System of Parity" we work the system we have now. Utopia being also the target. Clearly, everyone should be able to live a life in decency and by laws and regulations under Human Rights. VAT in USA, anyone? Small costs are small costs plus a little and upward for the expensive multi-million dollar Rolls Royce that may add a fat extra 25% to the price tag. Why not? You get a car and a house reasonably easy...! :D :study:
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #22

Post by Divine Insight »

Aetixintro wrote: Remember that Capitalism isn't equal to corruption and that the real way forward is to improve the combatting of all forms of crime and improve the "lowest" basic living conditions for all humans everywhere.
I agree that capitalism in and of itself is not equal to corruption. However, in the real world it encourages corruption. And especially LEGAL corruption.

What do I mean by "legal corruption"? I'm talking about legal but totally unfair capitalistic competition. Take Walmart for example. They aren't doing anything illegal, but their methods are basically cut-throat to small business. The smaller companies simply cannot compete with the high-volume discounts that a company like Walmart can benefit from. So while it is "legal" (i.e. not criminally corrupt), it's still form of corruption in terms of what's best for humanity and society at large.

The reason being that it ends up that the only jobs that become available are the low-paying jobs of Walmart workers, whilst the owners of Walmart become filthy rich living on undeserved extreme profits.

It's not "illegal" but it's certainly morally corrupt, or at least morally bankrupt.

So I would argue that capitalism certainly encourages social corruption even if we can't point to it as being a "crime".

And of course Walmart is only an example. This is true of just about all large corporations.

Moreover, with today's technologies it becomes impossible to compete with large corporations, and because of the introductions of robots these large corporations no longer need human laborers. So while it's not "illegal", it's certainly not healthy for society.

For example, in the auto industry we end up with cars that cost big bucks. Yet the car manufactures are hiring fewer and fewer human laborers. And no small businesses can even think about competing or even trying to manufacture a car in any profitable manner, unless they get into extremely expensive specialty vehicles that are basically built or restored by hand.

So we end up with large corporations making all the money and fewer people even being able able to buy the expensive cars. It may not be illegal, but it's not beneficial to humanity as a whole.

Also, as the need for laborers continues to drop off due to the advancement of robotics and A.I. it won't be long before human employees won't be needed at all. Then there will be no one left who can afford to buy the cars. So it's heading for disaster anyway.

So while capitalism may not be equal to corruption, it's not necessary friendly to the future economy of human societies. You don't need to break the law in capitalism to damage society. Capitalism can destroy the economy in a perfectly legal manner.

It's legal for big businesses to out-compete the smaller ones that don't have access to the same type of volume discounts or automated manufacturing equipment.

Also everyone knows that when a company has a lot of capital its extremely easy for them to start new ventures. The small business person typically needs to take out a loan and take a big risk just to try to start up.

So while all of this is perfectly legal (and thus not corrupt from a legal perspective) it still has a negative effect on society in general.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Post #23

Post by William »

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]
William,

You are interested in ideas of how we could change society to work toward becoming a type 1 civilization. And you would like to discuss ideas toward that goal. I have no problem with that, and in fact I would like to be part of a serious movement toward that goal.

I have several ideas to offer. My ideas would not solve all problems. Nor should we expect any single person to have all solutions. But I do have many ideas to offer.
If the name you go by has anything to do with this, then I have no doubt that your ideas will be productive and inspiring even.

You are correct that we could not expect any one person to have all the solutions.

In this case, many people would be required to write the story [plan of actions] as well as critique it etc, but it will take many people to make it actually become real.
My proposal (and I personally believe that any effective proposals) to get us to become a type 1 civilization would necessarily need to be a program that is going to span decades. It's not going to happen overnight. Because of this politicians who only have 4 to 8 years to get something done aren't going to be interested in supporting long term projects that won't even be completed until long after they are out of office.

I'm not even convinced that society itself has any interest in working toward goals that are that far off in the future. Even a 20 year goal would not be attractive to most people. Most people want results today!
Then perhaps the best way to approach this is to write it as a fiction which anyone with enough intelligence and common sense should be able to see how easy it would be for human beings to adopt such a system.
Work at it with the intent that it must be possible for human beings to adopt the plan, but not with the intent that they necessarily will.

But keep in mind what it is that presently prevents them from accepting such a notion and yes - regard that as a problem and then see if there might be a solution. Perhaps adopt the idea that ever problem has a solution.

I think that such a thing can be implemented a lot quicker than 20 years, especially with the help of those who currently pull the levers, so again one has to present the plan in a way which attracts those with the power to make it so.

Any type of system is social engineering, and a plan which in focused upon SoP is will be no different in that.
Also, doesn't this entire concept of becoming a type 1 civilization basically require that people at least believe in the truth of scientific knowledge etc.? I mean, currently many people are in denial of things like human-caused climate change. How can you get people on-board with something they are in complete denial of?
You don't. If the science is correct, then the sea levels will rise and the sun will get hotter. The evidence will speak for itself, and in that will force people to look for betters ways of living.
Religion also stands in the way. Many Christians actually believe that "God is ultimately in control". So they aren't even thinking about becoming a type 1 civilization. To the contrary, they often see any human plans for such a long-term future control over the earth as being nothing short of human arrogance. They see this as failing to "Trust in God" and refusing to give ourselves over to God's Will and God's Plan.
You are quite correct. I think that Christianity is a political device which was created by elitists. Perhaps the original intent was well meaning (or not) but the usefulness of Christianity seems to have greatly declined now that the elitists have the positions they desired, for the purposes they craved those positions for.

I think the elitists do want to evolve into a Type One species and I would go so far as to say that they probably believe they have already reached that place. Their problem in that, is they have created a kind of millstone around their necks, a Type Zero species which they have been using all along to get them to the position they are currently occupying and the Type Zeros have become (or are quietly becoming) surplus to requirement, and problematic for that, as the Type Zeros literally number in the billions.

Part of that problem is that the many Type Zeros do not appear to want to change, Are ignorant of any reason they need to change, or are sufficiently distracted by surviving that such thoughts don;t even enter into their minds.

But it is also about access to vast wealth, which itself is primarily gained through the SoD and it is the wealth which presently allows for the elite to live in their utopias as -
at least - the best potential example of human beings who are evolving into Type One, while doing so off the backs of the majority who are forced to exist outside of that utopia and can only dream of a Type One species, if they even care about such a thing at all.

And as you say, many of these are religious people and their dream of being part of a Type One utopia is focused upon the return of a savior who will make this possible for them by removing the elitists from their positions so that the true salt of the earth people can get about building their heaven on earth - their system of parity in peace and harmony without the interference of those elitists once a barrier, thus removed.

The idea that the elite would actually help them to achieve this dream is something many Christians would see as some kind of blasphemy to even think should replace Jesus.

Then again other Christians would argue that they are involved in this process now, under the present SoD and that they support the present systems as something they believe Jesus would/does endorse anyway.

Then again still other Christians see the present SoD as corrupt and might think that a good plan of action in creating a Type One species environment would be something worthwhile supporting even if that meant that they are caught in the act should Jesus return, then at least they are caught doing something positive.
In any case, what I'm suggesting here is that religions like Christianity and Islam, etc, are actually quite detrimental to the very idea of becoming a type 1 civilization. There is nothing in these religions that suggest that mankind should ever be so arrogant as to think that we humans could or should ever take our future into our own hands.
This is a very relevant point and can be seen to be the case in member bluethreads arguments, which appear to be that everything is fine the way things presently are and the SoD are the best way for humanity to be governed by and these futurist ideas of 'type anything' species are poppycock and - most essentially - that Adonai WANTS humans to exist within the present Systems of Disparity, because this shows Adonai exactly which humans deserve what they do through examining what they have. The way the elitists come into possession of what they have shows their dedication to Adonai's agenda, and is acceptable in that LORDS eyes.

(This attitude is reminiscent of the same type of attitude which comes through from the data of those infamous protocols.)

It is a very real and disturbing aspect of some forms of elitism and this attitude does leak through to present itself in that way, from time to time, and perhaps even in recent years, more often than not.
We are supposed to "Trust in God" remember? The Christians even went as far as having this printed on all our currency.


Yes. But was it the Christians or the Federal Reserve? We can see by that how easy it is to create the idea that GOD and money are essentially the same thing. Trusting in GOD = Trusting in money = supporting the systems of disparity as being ordained by 'God Himself'.
Last edited by William on Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #24

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote:
In any case, what I'm suggesting here is that religions like Christianity and Islam, etc, are actually quite detrimental to the very idea of becoming a type 1 civilization. There is nothing in these religions that suggest that mankind should ever be so arrogant as to think that we humans could or should ever take our future into our own hands.
This is a very relevant point and can be seen to be the case in member bluethreads arguments, which appear to be that everything is fine the way things presently are and the SoD are the best way for humanity to be governed by and these futurist ideas of 'type anything' species are poppycock and - most essentially - that Adonai WANTS humans to exist within the present Systems of Disparity, because this shows Adonai exactly which humans deserve what they do through examining what they have. The way the elitists come into possession of what they have shows their dedication to Adonai's agenda, and is acceptable in that LORDS eyes.

(This attitude is reminiscent of the same type of attitude which comes through from the data of those infamous protocols.)

It is a very real and disturbing aspect of some forms of elitism and this attitude does leak through to present itself in that way, from time to time, and perhaps even in recent years, more often than not.
This is an extremely huge problem because many religious people feel precisely this same way. Not only Christians, but Muslims as well.

The scary thing here in America is that our political system is heading in that direction far more than most atheists realize.

Consider the following:

Betsy Devoss is working very hard to do away with the public school system and encourage people to use government-funded vouchers to send their children to private religious schools. Schools that will teach the next generation of children that evolution is a lie created by Satan and that Creationism is the truth of reality.

Also, while climate change it true, science is not the answer. The climate is getting bad because the USA is embracing homosexuality, and too many people are becoming atheists. Once we turn that around God will bless us with good weather again.

Look at Roy Moore! A gun-toting Christian who wants to bring religion into the Senate and put all the gays in jail. He would also like to do away with all Muslims as well. Only gun-toting Christians will do. Preferably white gun-toting Christians.

It's scary to think that someone like Roy Moore could even become a legitimate senator in our government in this 21st century.

See, you're concerned with how we might become a type 1 civilization. And that's GREAT! I'm all for that.

But with the way things currently are I'm more concerned with how we can prevent our America from deteriorating into medieval barbarism. We are back-sliding at a phenomenal rate.

Many people may not have liked Obama, but at least he acted like an intelligent educated human being. The Trump Administration is acting more like a bunch of barbaric orangutans from the Planet of the Apes. Talking about a type 1 civilization is the furthest thing from their agenda. They want to take us back into the Dark Ages where religious bigotry rules.

This is why so many atheists are so deeply concerned with all this religious nonsense. It breeds ignorance like wildfire.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Post #25

Post by William »

[Replying to post 24 by Divine Insight]

I am still waiting for you to share your ideas in relation to what you regard as a better alternative. You are still focused upon the problem.

Are your solutions really no answer to the problems? Are we doomed then to being caught up within the currents of religious/political mind-sets and the inevitable conclusion of where that stream will end up?

The way I see it, even participating in showing how potentially easy it would be to change that flow, is showing also that I can see where the religious argument is at fault, and whether or not this has any effect on the outcome is besides the point.

If we are truly doomed - as certainly your posts seem to be strongly implying - at least I can go out thinking I did my small insignificant part to try and encourage folk to look at things differently. Also of course, I have certain beliefs regarding what this life is about and that there is more to come in 'afterlife' so the impulse I have comes from supporting the notion of the rehabilitation process, so in that perhaps it can be seen why you and I differ in relation to our approach re this OP subject...I am keen to look at solutions and you are keen to offer the problems without serious thought that the solutions to the problems are even remotely workable.
is that it?

I do not see religious dogmatism to be a barrier which cannot be overcome. You appear to see it as such.

But in that, if your arguments do in fact show the problem is bigger than any solution and are correct arguments for that, then they align more with bluethreads and your cousin's arguments and indeed, it signifies that while the majority won't make it due to their inability to place their dogma to one side and work together for the good of one another, then at least the elitists will be able to do so, as they are already working together as a cooperative rather than in competition, in relation to that goal.

And in that Adonai the LORD is correct, as too are the infamous protocols.

All humans deserve only what they wish for, support and give their energy towards etc.

Either way, 'I'm okay' and will continue to support the potential of human beings to rise altogether in status, even while they are actively prevented from actually doing so, through various means which encourage a sustained forced ignorance by those in controlling positions pulling their levers and creating that history.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Post #26

Post by William »

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Bluethread - I am in the process of answering your post.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #27

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: I am still waiting for you to share your ideas in relation to what you regard as a better alternative. You are still focused upon the problem.
My ideas are too complex to easily share in a few posts. It requires a total re-thinking of everything we currently know and take for granted. It may not even be possible in a practical sense precisely because it is so unorthodox. For this reason it will be extremely difficult to get large numbers of people on board with it. So my ideas may actually be "impossible" in our current real world situation simply because it would require to drastic of a change in our entire lifestyle including our infrastructure.
William wrote: Are your solutions really no answer to the problems? Are we doomed then to being caught up within the currents of religious/political mind-sets and the inevitable conclusion of where that stream will end up?
If my solutions are too far beyond what people are willing to accept then yes, they really are not solution to the problem because solutions that are never implemented are no solutions at all.

And yes, I do see the human race being incapable of recognizing the potential for my solutions. They already deny climate change. They are already in denial that we are overpopulating the earth. If they can't even be convinced of these obvious problems where is there any hope of expecting them to embrace solutions to problems that they may not even agree with at all.

As you point out, other people are already arguing that the world is just the way God wants it. How are you going to argue with those people? :-k
William wrote: The way I see it, even participating in showing how potentially easy it would be to change that flow, is showing also that I can see where the religious argument is at fault, and whether or not this has any effect on the outcome is besides the point.
I never suggested that my solution would be "easy". And that's another problem. Are people really interested in any solutions that might actually require work or a change of lifestyle in a direction they may not even want to go?
William wrote: If we are truly doomed - as certainly your posts seem to be strongly implying - at least I can go out thinking I did my small insignificant part to try and encourage folk to look at things differently.
I don't feel a need to save humanity. I didn't create humanity, so it's not my job to save it. Why should I worry about whether or not I did anything to try to save humanity. I'm willing to participate in saving humanity if the opportunity arises. But it's certainly not my job to try to make that happen from scratch.
William wrote: Also of course, I have certain beliefs regarding what this life is about and that there is more to come in 'afterlife' so the impulse I have comes from supporting the notion of the rehabilitation process, so in that perhaps it can be seen why you and I differ in relation to our approach re this OP subject...I am keen to look at solutions and you are keen to offer the problems without serious thought that the solutions to the problems are even remotely workable.
is that it?
Actually I too tend to believe in an afterlife. However my beliefs which are very closely related to the beliefs of some Buddhists, do not require that I try to "save" this particular incarnation of humanity anyway. If this incarnation of humanity dies off and become extinct it's no big deal. If you truly believe in a magical afterlife, then why be concerned with the fate of any temporary physical incarnation? What's the difference is everyone who dies here is just going to move on to some other afterlife anyway?

I mean, if you're going to embrace a spiritual philosophy of reality why not embrace it fully? Whether humans on earth become a type 1 civilization or go extinct tomorrow would be totally irrelevant. Only secular materialists should be concerned about the physical survival of the human species.
William wrote: I do not see religious dogmatism to be a barrier which cannot be overcome. You appear to see it as such.
Well, if you can show me any signs of progress toward getting the masses of humans on planet earth to give up their religious beliefs I'll consider the possibility that these things can be overcome. In our current situation (not just in the USA, but globally) I don't see where religious beliefs are going anywhere anytime soon. So yes, I'm not very optimistic that we'll be seeing any improvements in that realm anytime soon.
William wrote: But in that, if your arguments do in fact show the problem is bigger than any solution and are correct arguments for that, then they align more with bluethreads and your cousin's arguments and indeed, it signifies that while the majority won't make it due to their inability to place their dogma to one side and work together for the good of one another, then at least the elitists will be able to do so, as they are already working together as a cooperative rather than in competition, in relation to that goal.
What "elitists" are you talking about? :-k

William wrote: And in that Adonai the LORD is correct, as too are the infamous protocols.

All humans deserve only what they wish for, support and give their energy towards etc.
I make no statements or judgments about what anyone might "deserve". In fact, if the secular materialists are right then the entire concept of "deserving" anything is moot.

Also, I accept he following wisdom on this issue:

Grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference

I do tackle the things I believe I can change.

I see no point in wasting time trying to change the fate of all humanity. Even the great civil rights activists who have dedicated their entire lives to trying to change civil rights to the better have only made a very small dent, and that currently appears to be reversing direction as we speak.

But I do have great respect for those who have tried to change humanity for the better. I just haven't chosen to make that my life's goal. I'll be glad to offer wisdom when I can, but I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall when I don't see it giving way much at all. I have more productive things to do.
William wrote: Either way, 'I'm okay' and will continue to support the potential of human beings to rise altogether in status, even while they are actively prevented from actually doing so, through various means which encourage a sustained forced ignorance by those in controlling positions pulling their levers and creating that history.
I'm more than willing to offer my support and contribute in any way I can to the betterment of humanity. But at the same time I see no point in banging my head against the wall trying to get my ideas accepted when the most likely response is going to be rejection and arguments against my ideas.

In fact, I've watched great TED talks, and other presentations and books by people who have offered a better way forward. Are their ideas taking root? Perhaps here and there in small bits and pieces. But they've been proposing these ideas for years and what is the actual result?

Face it, the actual result is that we are moving BACKWARDS, especially in the USA. But it appears that things are moving backwards in many other parts of the world as well.

That's just a fact.

In fact, the religious zealots will just point to this fact and say, "See! Humanity is deteriorating just as the Bible predicted and we're in the end times. REPENT now before it's too late".

That's what you're up against.

The number of intellectuals who will actually agree with your hopes and dreams of aiming for humanity to become an intelligent scientific type 1 civilization are far and few between.

Even our best scientists are being attacked by religious zealots. Our scientists themselves are recognizing that the world is moving away from rational and scientific thinking.

If you think you can turn that around more power to you. I wish you the best of luck.

Also, speaking of suggestions for moving forward, where are yours? What exactly is your proposal for a solution to the problem of a humanity that's currently heading back toward the Dark Ages?

I haven't heard your ideas yet other than the suggestion that we should move from systems of disparity to a system of parity. But what in the world does that mean? You'll need to be far more specific than that.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Post #28

Post by William »

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]
Sure all humans would probably line up to receive, but which humans are going to give and how much?
In the initial bridging stages, given the plan would have been approved and supported, most who are presently occupied in supporting the present SoD will continue to give. They likely won't have to give as much of their time as they presently do. Those currently unemployed will be able to contribute as well, sharing the workload.
Because, I would rather do palates and play video games.
There will be more time available for you to do so than you presently have in the current SoD
If you are saying that you would rather be selfish and not contribute to SoP, this would be because of why?

I would imagine it shouldn't be hard to convince you that supporting a SoP is worthy of your time,effort and overall support. But yes, it does depend on your attitude and how hard you want work at keeping that.
Ok, so I agree to entertain people with my palates and video game skills and some one else can volunteer to clean out the sewers and pick up the garbage. Is that how it works?
Yes and no. Cities may have to be dismantled or abandoned due to the sea levels rising - if the science is correct.
A System of Parity would likely involve numerous villages spread out within walking distance of each other and the villages by and large would be more self sufficient than not. Communities with surplus will give to their neighbors.

So sewers would be manageable and likely handled in a much different way than they have been under SoD.

What you are able to contribute will depend on your skills and you will be free to learn a number of skills over your lifetime rather than having to rely on only the one.

Also you will not have to live in the same village all your life, but will be free to move around in the world and settle for as long as you like in a village which appeals to you and which requires your particular skill-sets.
People trade there goods, services and currency for thing that they value regardless of how they gain access to those goods, services and currency. So, transferring goods, services and currency by law doesn't change that. It only shows a social preference for what some people value and distain for what other people value.
People do this because they are educated to think in this way.
Just because people are educated to think this way does not meant that thinking this way is a great and worthwhile thing. You can change your thinking any time you like in that regard.

The idea of a SoP is that things are not valued. People are valued, and people are not 'goods' which can be traded for other goods, and 'goods' are not valued as a form of currency and are not created for that purpose, or to be thrown away at landfill because their popularity has waned and people have gone on to the next fad sold to them through that type of education.

Scientists and engineers currently paid to create products with built in planned obsolescence will be able to help create things which are not only very useful but which will last far longer.
Removing currency does not change it's purpose and an economy without currency will just, for the purpose of convenience, use various goods as currency. A baker may want a steak, but the butcher doesn't want bread, he wants a knife. So, the butcher takes the bread as currency and trades it with the smith, who wants coal, for a knife. The smith then trades the bread with the miner . . . . In that way, even barter societies eventually migrate to establishing a standard currency.
Barter is part of the SoD. The SoP is not about barter. It is about providing the smith and the baker and the butcher and everyone else with free FCSH and in that way, they no longer have to add that into the inflated price of their service.

They can provide a free service through this exchange. Everyone provides a free service through this exchange and that is exactly what creates the free service.
No people are controlled by the need for goods and services that the currency represents. The commodity industries are bailed out all of the time, not that I favor that either. In those cases, a government enforces a mandatory exchange rate. It is generally that is delineated in currency, again for convenience sake, but it does not necessarily have to be. Also, barter does not stop taxation. The IRS code and other taxing agencies require one to value the bartered items, again for convenience sake, and remit the tax.
People are controlled through their natural need. Again - the value is the human beings, not the goods. The human beings are not a commodity owned by any individual LORD, government, organisation, corporation etc. No one owns anyone, no need to create great money pits where taxpayers wealth is thrown into large holes in governmental attempts to continue to fix the SoD. No money - no crime, including taxing those who barter, based upon what the SoD valuation (in terms of currency/monetary value) decide.

Forget barter, forget money.
Within the SoP, the exchange of FCSH for the support of the system and doing away with any form of money (barter or otherwise) means that criminal activity will die. This is because the one thing that allows the criminal to do what he does is money.
So, are you saying that I would have to eat that loaf of rye bread that I am given or throw it away, even if I do not like rye bread. It would be illegal for me to trade it with my neighbor for cleaning out my gutters?
No I am saying that you can eat what you want, as long as it is available of course. I am saying that if you want someone to clean out the gutters of the dwelling you are free live in (but not free to own), then there will be someone who can do this for you gladly because that someone is doing so as part of his/her exchange. That someone is receiving free FCSH for doing such things.

They are effectively not cleaning out YOUR gutters of YOUR house. It is simple a place you dwell in for as long as you need to, and when you move on, the dwelling is open to someone else to live in if they want to.

This is not to say that the expectation won't be that you treat the dwelling as a place to be respected and looked after while you are living there.

Would it be a crime for you to treat such disrespectfully? No, It would just be a case of your needing to be educated as to what your responsibility is in relation to the SoP.
Eventually - after the initial bridgework has come and gone, such things won't present as problems because people will naturally enough contribute without any thought of disrespecting the way things are done. It simply wouldn't occur to them and education will play a major part in this being the case.
In this utopia of yours are you also going to outlaw grocery stores?
Stores for storage. There would be such places in the communities. You require food, you go there and get your food. You might even have a garden where you grow food as well.
Well, it has been said that needs are merely wants with varying degrees of urgency. Providing people with certain basic necessities of life at no direct cost does not stop them from committing crime in order to get even more. In fact, it could be argued that receiving basic necessities at no direct cost trains people to expect to get things at no direct cost and, therefore, encourages criminal activity.
If nothing is owned, how is it theft? I understand that this is how things are in the present SoD but with needs taken care of, why would you want to have excess? What excess are you speaking of which you would steal?
What is interesting is that he had a similar suggestion, but for a different reason. He did not say that we should not have currency, but that it should be illegal to have more than $500 cash on one's person. That is to force most significant transactions to have audit trails. So, it is not currency that is the problem, but the lack readily available evidence of transactions, that makes crime easier.
As I said, currency of any sort creates the need for government and thus creates the need for taxation, et al (no need to repeat myself in detail here).

Crime is one of the biggest reasons why government convinces the people there is great need for government (middlemen).

(It is also a profitable business for private enterprise and corporations in relation to prisons and contracts and anything which threatens profits will be counted as something to scorn.)

Point being, where there is money, there is crime and there is religious/political corruption and lack of parity. Remove currency and one removes those things. One removes the charging of interest/usury, creating debt, controlling populations through the corruption, class segregation, et al.

However, it is clear that in building the bridge between the two systems, that both the criminal world and the ruling class will be the most opposed to changes. But lets face it, they make up the minority and both are somewhat dependent on capturing the individuals support through various means of persuasion, and if those individuals saw an out to their predicament they are more likely than not to take that out and support the SoP initiative. Depending of course, where exactly in the rank and file they are positioned.
That is nothing more than class based conspiracy theory.
I am open to your explanation as to what is really going on then. Perhaps it is Adonai's blessing which creates the wealth and Adonai's will that the gap between rich and poor is maintained? You don't say. You simply play the 'that's just class-based conspiracy theory' card, as a way of avoiding having to give any alternate righteous explanation as to what is really going on. You certainly appear to be supportive of the present SoD + you uphold the virtues of belief in the LORD, as he is referred to.

Are you able to just come out and say clearly that Adonai does not desire humans become Type One Species through changing their attitudes? You teach Adonai as a virtue yet also support systems of disparity as a virtue?
Changing the system does not hinder those who work the system. They just adapt to the new system. The best solution, IMO, is to make working the system part of the system, and that is what a market based economy does.
It depends upon what those changes are. If everyone has FCSH then what could they be persuaded to want, by those who would attempt to corrupt them? How can a SoP be 'worked' by either criminals/middlemen?

The present market based economy is hurting the earth.
How specifically does one do this convincing? Regarding your premise. I side with Ernest Hemmingway, who, when told by F. Scott Fitzgerald, "You know, the rich are different from you and me." replied, "Yes. They've got more money." It is not the amount of money that is the problem, but the tendency to horde it, which the wealth do not do, and the poor are more likely to do.
How blind do you think we are? It is obvious wealth is horded by the rich in the form of clear display of what they own and what they are doing with what they own.
Sure, 'the elitists' can be said to be anyone who has more than someone else, and this works in poor neighborhoods as well as rich, so it is an attitude.
Which is why the argument for replacing currency based SoD with a System of Parity. SoP seeks to show that if the props which encourage such SoD attitudes are repalced by SoP, then the attitude will change.
No, it is in recognizing human nature and integrating that into the economic model, which is what a market based economy does.
It is doing no such thing. The SoD currently works on education humans a certain way which brings out that particular nature more often than not. But there is another aspect of human nature which can equally be encouraged to be the dominant one, and can be, through SoP. "It is better to give than to take" could just as easily motivate 'human nature'.
You are simply stating that 'it is dog nature' for a dog to growl and bite when caged and poked constantly with a sharp stick. Change the nature of the environment and the nature of the beast will change as well.
Well, that might apply to those who have no love, regard or respect for themselves. However, those who do are the one's who are most likely to put out the extra effort, not those who wait to receive a stipend.
When all are treated with respect for being human and given FCSH, that will count as positive confirmation you are regarded as worthwhile. This in turn would more likely produce love, regard and respect of yourself and for others.
So, you are making the Luddite argument that specialization and economies of scale are a con-job?
Of course it is a con-Job. I don;t know what the Luddite argument is. Does Adonai condone that specialization and economies of scale as legitimate righteousness?
My view of this whole Type One species thing is just futurist idealism. First, by calling globalism Type One, one is making the current economic structure look substandard, and sets the conclusion as the starting point. Second, centralized economies tend to collapse of their own weight. I therefore, think that localism is a mush better solution than globalism.
Is this because Adonai also thinks that?

You don't like futuristic idealism? Is your vision of the future one of doom and gloom? We live together on a 'globe' and so globalism is the realistic way to view things. Scientists who declare we are - as a world - facing catastrophe if we do not come together and radically change things are wrong in your opinion?

I think my argument for a system of Parity is the best option we all have in relation to making real becoming a Type One Species and all economic structures are substandard as devices which can help us achieve this, because they are based on us competing for resource, wasting resources and creating class distinctions.

Localism is part of the necessary process, in relation to what I have said regarding SoP in this post. As the saying goes - Think Globally and Act Locally.

The bridging process would involve countries who agree to the plan and agree to commence with the plan at a predetermined date. Trade of goods will still happen between countries, but without the need for money or barter being involved. If one area of the whole (the 'area' being formally a country and the whole now being regarded as the 'country') - countries will no longer be regarded as independently governed. No flags. No need for passports and boarders etc. All are citizens of the combined countries (the whole) who chose to support the SoP.
Again, "the commons" does not refer to commoners, but the society holding all things in common.
Good. Then the commons in the case of SoP can be used to refer to The Whole (see above).
Such an approach leads to tragedy.
Rubbish. Past efforts to involve common property, either under the name of socialism or communism or whatever 'ism' have always involved currency and government and thus criminals/middlemen. THAT is why they have lead to tragedy. That is why all Systems of Disparity eventually lead to tragedy.
As long as the society recognizes property rights and the markets allow the free exchange of goods and services, the productive will rise and the nonproductive will fall, thus assuring continued survival.
Good luck with that belief.

It is an arrogant understanding you have as to what constitutes 'productive and non productive' citizens and the fault of this learned ability to determine 'who is who' rests entirely on the shoulders of the Systems of Disparity in the first instance.

A System of Parity would have no such distinctions in relation to its citizens because ALL will be productive because they WANT to be productive because the System of Parity naturally and logically encourages such productivity.

See? Citizens who are no longer under the yoke of having to pay for their existence (as if they were owned by some LORD of Disparity, and governed by His faithful) will not have to wonder where they will shelter or where their next meal will come from or how they will clothe themselves or keep themselves healthy. They will not have to take out loans where they are charged interest/usury. They will not have to deal with falling further into the despair of debt while those who have the money continue to make more and more money from that debt.
All this, they will no longer have to endure. So why would you believe that such citizens would NOT be fully productive in giving their whole lives to support a System of Parity and would do so because they know that it is the very system which guarantees they no longer have to be slaves to disparity?
All of this has been examined in "The Tale of Two Cities." The commoners can work to support the enforcement of everyone's property rights and open markets as happened in England and these United States, or one can support a Bastille moment where those who have are beheaded and their goods distributed by self proclaimed populists, as happened in France. It's your choice. I prefer the former.

I prefer neither. Neither are SoP and both are SoD and all SoD will ultimately lead to disaster.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Re: A System of Parity

Post #29

Post by William »

[Replying to post 20 by JP Cusick]
In this case then I can not even imagine such a scenario where there is no disparity of any kind.
Disparity = discrepancy, inconsistency, imbalance, inequality, incongruity, unevenness, disproportion.

In relation to human governing systems, 'the haves and the don't haves.' as per the subject 'Putting our heads together' as per the idea;

The purpose of this subforum is try to find a solution (or several solutions) to problems that affect society. In a sense, it is opposite to debating since we are trying to find commonality, rather than pointing out differences. ~otseng
Even the Kingdom of God has a King and a "King of Kings" and a hierarchy, and there is nothing wrong with having disparity so long as it is benevolent and righteous.
Since the idea presented above could be said to have derived from Roman/Jewish Elitism where the idea of a representative of GOD is enthroned, it presents imagery which may not be factual in the first place.

Even so, what you say has what relevance to the concept of a system of Parity in the sense that you seem to be arguing?

To the exact point, there are those within Christendom who support the notion of Jesus returning as the 'King of Kings' and setting himself up as the leader of an authority which will force human beings presently occupied in administering systems of disparity out of their positions of authority and replace himself as the overall authority and create a system of parity. If this is a powerful benevolence in righteous action then what I have been saying about how humans would be better off living, should agree with that.

Therefore, why did you mention it as somehow contrary to what I have been advocating?

Not all Christians think as you do. I think that there are 3 particularly different beliefs within the hundreds of sectors of Christendom.

1: Those who have the same beliefs about the present systems of disparity as bluethread argues in support of and see these systems as ordained by the LORD. Jewish sects also argue for this.

2: Those who believe Jesus preached parity and wish us all to get along and help each other without cost or using currency, such as what I have been speaking about.

3: Those who believe that heaven or a 'new earth' is the promise to focus upon and that the earth is not important enough to concern oneself with in relation to finding solution to the problems or replacing systems of disparity with parity.

But really - what does it matter what Christians, Jews or Atheists think in regard to this OP? The OP isn't about debating such things. It isn't an invitation for agnostics to bemoan Christians, or Jews to imply SoD as valid and righteous in the LORDS eyes.

Not that it isn't a good thing to have these opinions posted as opposition to anything good and worthy, because therein the opinions can be shown for what they are and in that, one can see the clear difference between truth and fallacy and one can use that as an opportunity to uplift truth by exposing the fallacy.

But I think there has been amply of that now. Perhaps such a topic shows the one place where atheists and theists can and do agree with each other. They sleep in the same bed and are lovers in this regard.

That the systems of disparity are acceptable to both camps. The 'problem' is not the systems of disparity but 'atheism' or 'theism'.

The SoD would function well if only atheism didn't exist, so say the theists.

The SoD would function well if only theism didn't exist, so say the atheists.

Go figure! :D

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10543
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1147 times
Contact:

Economics is a Form of Brain Damage

Post #30

Post by William »

An interesting commentary on the systems of disparity.

Geneticist and climate activist David Suzuki explains how conventional economics are a form of brain damage in this clip from the 2011 documentary "Surviving Progress."



Youtube video 2:23

Post Reply