Technocracy - age and the allocation of purchasing power

[al8]

I was reading this (http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm) document from technocracy inc., -- part 2 Individual Consuming Privileges;


Every adult above 25 years of age will receive as his share of purchasing power an equal part of the total net consumed energy, and from birth to the twenty-fifth year every individual will receive a maintenance allowance.


Technocracy’s mechanics of social control will permit no curtailment or differentiated increases of individual purchasing power.

My question is why would full purchasing power only be given to 25 year and older? Doesn't an age devide constitude a "differentiated increas in individual purchasing power"?

Or does this only refer to those that have gotten to the age of manditory work duty?
If so, would this pure maintainance level purchasing power be awarded to those not serving work duty, such as retirees, tourists, people on sick leave, those handicaped or otherwise unable to work in recognized jobs within the technocratic work system?

[Dimentio]

My answer is that it does'nt need to be, and that Technocracy Inc;s design was made in the 1930;s. Some technocrats, most notably the renegade Skip Sievert, claim that everything to the last letter would follow the TSC from 1934.

That is obviously not very pragmatic.

In NET and in most of Technocracy Inc, we are not fundamentalists, but rather pragmatics. What I see as the core of Technocracy is not the details, but the overall design of energy accounting and the technate.

Hope that answered you questions :)

[Yazman]

Yeah, these are details that can be worked out and we do not necessarily follow Technocracy Inc's plans to the letter, but the overall design and the technate itself is important.. we don't take it as gospel truth basically, just as we shouldn't take Marx and Engels' works as gospel truth. They are excellent designs and frameworks though :)

[Dimentio]

Most development within the modern technocracy movement happens here:

http://en.technocracynet.eu

[Cult of Reason]

Or does this only refer to those that have gotten to the age of manditory work duty?
If so, would this pure maintainance level purchasing power be awarded to those not serving work duty, such as retirees, tourists, people on sick leave, those handicaped or otherwise unable to work in recognized jobs within the technocratic work system?

I think in the original design it was a case of: all adults get full allowance, regardless of whether they are over 45 or unable to work, and "children" get a maintenance allowance, perhaps because of fears that they could do silly pranks or something (i.e. I don't know why).

Personally, I think we should have a scheme somewhat similar, but with the minimum age for a full share being aroung 16, or 18, or something like that.

[al8]

Well I am of course positive towards the general design and framework of technocracy. And I don't think people should take any prelimanary perticular as gospel truth. And I didn't really expect it.

It's good to know that this isn't nescissarily what people general are thinking now, but I would like to hear from those a bit more knowledgable if the know the rational behind this age differential proposal, if they know and if there even is any.

[al8]

Personally, I think we should have a scheme somewhat similar, but with the minimum age for a full share being aroung 16, or 18, or something like that.

Why? Wouldn't it be more conductive to equality and independence of the child if it got full share to begin with?

[Cult of Reason]

I do not think that a six-year-old, for example, would be responsible enough for a full allocation.

Although, there are probably other ways of mitigating any problems that may cause through other means, like age restrictions on certain products, limits on the size of individual orders etc..

[Dimentio]

I think the thing is the continuous rise in population. Today, it will be technically feasible to adapt the EC share after population size instantly, but it would be very confusing for the consumers.

[al8]

Well they can get over it - it's a new system and really no need to keep old flaws as not to 'confuse people'. I don't think we should base the allocation of purchasing power on prejudice towards the young and set some arbitrary age-line.

Besides economically independent kids are, I think, beneficial. They should not have to depend like slaves to some master, where the fullfillment of their economic demand has to be negotiated through or nagged out of parents. They get just as bored with a monotonus and unadventurous diet fx. as adults do; so I see no harm in children having the same purchasing power as adults to remedie the situation themselves. If they go on some candy bindge, fine they'll get over it and know their limits by the test of experience. Their purchases will be no more or less flimsy than adults, and that's ok, it shouldn't really concern us that much. Adults would presumably protest not being able to fullfil their needs as they see them without having to go through some outside abitrary overseer and arbitrator that isn't capable to putting him/herself in the their shoes.

And I also see this as an important part of instilling freedom in the kids at an as early an age as possible in that they are not dependent on anybody they don't wish to associate with. They are not fx. stuck with abusive parants for survival, but have the economic freedom to freely associate with those they choose. Something children are not really capable of in this current paternal and exclusionary system.

[Cult of Reason]

What if a kid orders 10 000 pizzas on a whim, or because they are hungry and have no concept of quantity? This probably does not apply to ten year olds (and is admittedly fantastical), but the point is that below a certain age threshold "child independence" does not really mean much. A toddler cannot be independent no matter how much purchasing power it has.

Also, social services makes the idea of being "stuck with abusive parents" moot, as such services would (theoreticall at least) have the power to remove abusive parents from children.

[al8]

If an order of 10 000 pizzas for a non-special occations would be made, it would obviously be seen as a mistake with the ordering number down at the pizza-parlour. For such large orders usually have to be booked in advance.
But if you are getting that the kid just orders 10 when only needing at most 2... I guess the child will know by the hassle (taking upp fridge space, effort in disposal, social dissaproval) of ordering two much, not to do so again.

This hower this raises the question of how to deal with rediculous orders by mistake, prank, insanity or sabotage by anybody (adults included). Would there have to be a system in place where the purchasing power of an unwise spender would be temporarily suspended, reduced or locked in respect to some particular item?

[Cult of Reason]

I had an argument with a cappie about this. We got to the ridiculous point where we were postulating a person who, due to an abundance of socks, would wear new pairs each day and throw them out afterwards. I proposed that this would be against the law and, punishment fitting the crime, the offender would be barred from buying any socks for a period.

[al8]

That would obviously make sense. But how could one institute a system or principle where this would be applied appropriatly? Fx. couldn't this power of determaning the validity of others demand lead to accidental artificial scarity.

Let's for example say that the porn sequence did not think people need toe fetish porn, how would people with a toe-fetish be able to communicate discrete but real need/want/craving that is nonetheless hard and maybe too straining to publicly defend.

What criteria do we use to determine when enough is enough?

[Dimentio]

I do not think the technate should operate through punishments. That would be a sign of failure. What I rather will like to build in is limitations. Like, you cannot use two vehicles at the same time for your personal use. You cannot order more food than you could deplete during a certain amount of time. Like you cannot give a person more than a rep per post.

I have also had discussions with cappies who, frustrated with the obvious logic of technocracy, has resorted to say that they will hoard resources in order to create scarcity again because they "will hate the system".

Then I have won by default.

[al8]

That would certainly be a better feature. And having deviants trying to subvert the system through hoarding might actually strengthen the system by exposing it's loopholes. And by that indicate how to impose limitations which would frustrate that kind of activity while not impeding on regular demand. This is obviously a matter of calibrations and adjustment, but can we maybe thrash out more examples of this principle at work for clarification?

[Dimentio]

That would certainly be a better feature. And having deviants trying to subvert the system through hoarding might actually strengthen the system by exposing it's loopholes. And by that indicate how to impose limitations which would frustrate that kind of activity while not impeding on regular demand. This is obviously a matter of calibrations and adjustment, but can we thrash out more examples of this principle at work?

The thing in a technate is that you own a part of the total production capacity, but you don't own any peculiar items or machines. You just have the right to use them. There is an article named "Ownership and usership" which defines these terms.

[Cult of Reason]

That would obviously make sense. But how could one institute a system or principle where this would be applied appropriatly? Fx. couldn't this power of determaning the validity of others demand lead to accidental artificial scarity.

Let's for example say that the porn sequence did not think people need toe fetish porn, how would people with a toe-fetish be able to communicate discrete but real need/want/craving that is nonetheless hard and maybe too straining to publicly defend.

What criteria do we use to determine when enough is enough?

Well, the porn example is not very good since it would be so easy for people to make their own (perhaps so easy that there would not need to be a porn-producing part of the technate).

The thing is, if it is seen that someone has ordered over 200 sock pairss in a year then there is obviously a problem. I think that there should be some sort of guideline where, in this example, there could be, ooh, a limit of 70 sock pairs a year? More than the average person would ever want but probably low enough to prevent the type of ridiculousness in the example I gave.

[Dimentio]

Well, the porn example is not very good since it would be so easy for people to make their own (perhaps so easy that there would not need to be a porn-producing part of the technate).

The thing is, if it is seen that someone has ordered over 200 sock pairss in a year then there is obviously a problem. I think that there should be some sort of guideline where, in this example, there could be, ooh, a limit of 70 sock pairs a year? More than the average person would ever want but probably low enough to prevent the type of ridiculousness in the example I gave.

Or looking whether or not socks are faulty?

[Cult of Reason]

This assumes decent socks. To give a real life equivalent, there are people who buy new clothes and wear them just once, even though there is nothing wrong with them.

[al8]

But so, if we have these reasonable caps on purchases, doesn't that make it safe for the young to have full purchasing power? No pranks can hurt the system and incompitence or mistakes are curbed form any real effect.

[Cult of Reason]

Probably. I cannot think of any reason why not, at the moment.

[Technocrat]

I think if we made clothes out of recycled materials, which would be likely in a Technate, than someone could buy a new outfit every day if they wanted. Or we just ramp up cotton production to meet the demand. It may even be possible to provide someone with enough new outfits everyday that they could spend the entire day changing clothes. It is unlikely that anything besides an insignificant percentage of the population would engage in behavior like this, making the overall effect on the Technate negligible.

I think another answer to your questions can be found in the fact that there is no ownership in a Technate, and therefore hoarding is impossible. There is personal property in a Technate, but no private property. This means that you have exclusive rights to use the things that you are currently using, but you cannot have a bunch of things just lying around unused. For example you could have a vacation home but it would be more like a time-share, or you could have a car but you would be a member of a car sharing club so that the car was in use 50% of the time instead of just 5% of the time. I think that this concept would have to also carry over to clothes, so that there may very well be limits on the number of clothing purchases you can make, but this limit would be like the limit on your energy account - so high that it would be virtually impossible to reach.

As far as the age at which full purchasing privileges are granted, this is not an essential design characteristic but rather a detail which would have to be determined at the time of implementation.