Technocracy - bureaucrat,scientist and engineer

[Knight of Cydonia]

can we talk about technocracy in here? coz i'm kinda curious about what is technocracy and how it's work.

and i wanna ask about does technocracy don't need a bureaucrat to run a government or a country, if it does why? and vice versa.

[colonelguppy]

i don't see how it couldn't, any time something is publicly held there needs to be a bueracracy in place to make sure that individuals don't take adavantage of the system. then tecnocrats always say that there is no reason to do this because apparently technology will be so great by that time that scarcity will be eliminated, but thats just honestly retarded.

[C_Rasmussen]

In a link I was given: http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm


Higher standard of living for ALL citizens in terms of income, housing, health care, education, and leisure


Elimination or vast reduction of various social ills, such as poverty, crime, pollution, insecurity, and disease

Which is more than likely due to


Decrease in human labor required to produce these amounts through proper use of automation

Which is good because at least we'd be progressing from doing manual work to learning and using things that can get the said job done better.

[Dimentio]

Technocrats are not bureaucrats in the traditional essence, since they do not administrate the flow of money [since there is no money in a technate]. Instead, they are just administrating technology, infrastructure, production and distribution.

Then, the word "technocracy" have often been applied to non-ideological governments which are neither left or right but often have pursued neoliberal policies. That definition have nothing to do with the technocratic movement, or the society which technocrats wants to establish, at all.

www.technocracyeurope.eu

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:10 am
i don't see how it couldn't, any time something is publicly held there needs to be a bueracracy in place to make sure that individuals don't take adavantage of the system. then tecnocrats always say that there is no reason to do this because apparently technology will be so great by that time that scarcity will be eliminated, but thats just honestly retarded.
It is not about how advanced technology is. We are not Star Trek utopians, and do not think that technology would solve all problems. Rather, we think that the price system is wasteful in an environment marked by the ability to distribute a relative abundance, and we want to replace the price system with energy accounting instead, in order to determine demand, supply and production capacity.

[dannie]

I think energy accounting is a great theory coming from technocracy to adopt and use to modernize leftist theory and at the same time provide for a decent alternative to the more "traditional" leftist theories on what to do with money after a revolution.
Altough at the moment i'm not too fond in the idea of the technate.

[Dimentio]

Hm, I think this article (http://spazz.mine.nu/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=156) might be appropriate. Don't be offended by the epithet "dummies", it is a very simple introduction just. :)

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:48 am
Technocrats are not bureaucrats in the traditional essence, since they do not administrate the flow of money [since there is no money in a technate]. Instead, they are just administrating technology, infrastructure, production and distribution.


Which still requires a bureaucracy to manage.

This is especially the case if an organization in a technocracy is at all "public" in that the public gets a say in how it is operated or it's considered public property, since as another poster astutely observed public organizations require additional staff to implement safeguards against malfeasance.

[Intellectual47]

Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.

[Dimentio]

Yes of course it requires an administrative bureaucratic system. We do have elaborations of how such systems may look like. But the need to have tax collectors or tax distributors would obviously vanish. ^^

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
THat's utter bollocks, for the most part technocrats are libertarian (there is a large anarchist-technocrat subsection) and opposed to surveialance.

Thankfully you have revealed how little you know about technocracy and therfore why I shouldn't bother trying to talk to you. You thick little prick.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)

[Intellectual47]

As I recall "1984" didn't have laws either.

And The inevitable fact is that any technocrat government will fall to Totalitarianism, even if you oppose it. Partially because the people's dependance on the government (or whatever you want to call your administration), your monopoly on technology, and your collectivist tendencies make for a great takeover by a totalitarian state. It's just to eay for someone to do that.
Capitalism doesn't have this problem because people aren't dependant on the government.
This flaw also echoes in Communism. It's not authoritarian but it doesn't take much of a change to make it one. Just give it an evil ruler.


Oh, and Jazzratt, apparently it is easier to call someone an idiot then to prove that they actually are.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:49 pm

Thankfully you have revealed how little you know about technocracy and therfore why I shouldn't bother trying to talk to you. You thick little prick


thanks for the link that you've gave me before serpent :)

oh and jazzratt, who do you mean with that word? is it me? coz if is it me, i know a little thing about technocracy, that why i made this thread :)

[Dimentio]

People are still dependent on technology my friend, whatever system we chose to employ. There is a democratic sector in the society, which is a parallell structure to the technate . This democratic sector handles limits of execution of power [and laws, through an independent legislative body], structures of municipalities and protection of the individuals among other things.

The technate is only a [i]service, run by technicians in different fields. These technicians stands under the control of the consumers [and of course they are consumers themselves].

Actually, the technate is less repressive than the current system, since the current system requires taxes to work, and as it requires taxes, it also requires initiation of force in order to make un-willing subjects to pay these taxes. There are no money in a technate, hence no taxes.

And yes, there is always a risk that functionaries would violate their positions for personal or ideological reasons, but we could minimise the effects of that by making the technate decentralised and impossible to manage from one nexus of power. ^^

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:56 pm
As I recall "1984" didn't have laws either.
It had a state.



And The inevitable fact is that any technocrat government will fall to Totalitarianism, even if you oppose it. Partially because the people's dependance on the government (or whatever you want to call your administration), your monopoly on technology, and your collectivist tendencies make for a great takeover by a totalitarian state. It's just to eay for someone to do that.
Capitalism doesn't have this problem because people aren't dependant on the government.
This flaw also echoes in Communism. It's not authoritarian but it doesn't take much of a change to make it one. Just give it an evil ruler. Collectivism isn't given to rulers. Hell, technocracy isn't given to rulers, so where the FLYING FUCK is this mystical evil ruler going to come from and what are they going to rule over?



Oh, and Jazzratt, apparently it is easier to call someone an idiot then to prove that they actually are. It's self evident that you're a complete idiot. Just look at your posts, which contain such brilliant gems as parrelling technocracy to the biggest capitalist bogeyman work of fiction (1984) or your strange instance that the USSR was a nation ruled over by satan (not literally but you clearly know fuck all about the history of the USSR, China, Albania or any other communist nation.).
The problem with idiots like you is that you never recognise that you're idiots and become pissy and insistant that you're fucking geniuses (what a fucking joke) and don't seek to rectify the gaping holes in your intellect.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:56 pm
As I recall "1984" didn't have laws either.

And The inevitable fact is that any technocrat government will fall to Totalitarianism, even if you oppose it. Partially because the people's dependance on the government (or whatever you want to call your administration), your monopoly on technology, and your collectivist tendencies make for a great takeover by a totalitarian state. It's just to eay for someone to do that.
Capitalism doesn't have this problem because people aren't dependant on the government.
This flaw also echoes in Communism. It's not authoritarian but it doesn't take much of a change to make it one. Just give it an evil ruler.


Oh, and Jazzratt, apparently it is easier to call someone an idiot then to prove that they actually are.
This is generally true, and the perception that this is what it could lead to is exactly the case.

Technocracy imagines that a fairy sprinked his magic dust on the planet and everyone got along and behaved the same way, for starters.

Look at Serpent's post: no, no, no, the technocrats aren't there to make decisions, they're only there to "advise".

Well this begs the question, will the expert's advice always be taken? The answer is obvious: no. For whatever reason, expert advise is routinely ignored. Sometimes it's impractical - experts often will tell you the best way to solve a problem is to use about 300 times more resources than you have. Or, an expert will tell you the best way to solve a problem is to do something that maybe 2% of the population would support.

Or, experts will disagree vehemently on the best course of action.

The technocrats on this site have addressed none of these issues. They make vague references to "consensus" which only proves they've never had a job where relatively important decisions were made.

Given that the experts' advice will not always be taken, we arrive at another problem: what happens then? Do the experts overrule the workers or the consumers? Serpent pushes standardization, but what if the consumers don't want the standardized product or the workers don't want to produce it? What if people like, for whatever reason, a product that is not efficient either to use or to produce (the internal-combustion engine being a great example)? Are they overruled in the name of maximizing efficiency and sustainability? If so, is that democratic?

Again, the technocrats have no answer, other than to assume that society will magically evolve and nobody will be selfish or foolish enough to still want the things they currently want. Because, you see, everyone will be enlightened just like them and will do exactly as they say.

It looks good on paper, but then so did this year's version of the Carolina Panthers.

[Intellectual47]

Collectivism isn't given to rulers. Hell, technocracy isn't given to rulers, so where the FLYING FUCK is this mystical evil ruler going to come from and what are they going to rule over?
I'm taking this from History. It's proven that whenever people are too dependant on the government, it will take advantage of them. And by Government I mean the rulers. I agree with t_wolves because that's what they say. They have to be anti-government and at the same time powerful enough to make everyone on the planet dependant on them, listen to them, and obey them. These ideas seem a little contradicting.

your strange instance that the USSR was a nation ruled over by satan (not literally but you clearly know fuck all about the history of the USSR, China, Albania or any other communist nation.).
No I don't believe they were ruled by Satan. Theywere ruled by mass-murderers. And all Historians are on my side.
Oh and a small sidenote, psychologists say that if you use one word too many times, it shows that you have a low intellect because you can't think of something else to say. Think of something else to say besides "fuck". Perhaps you could refute me with logic and facts. It could be worth a shot.

[Dimentio]

I guess that if technocracy were ever to be implemented, it would be a 50/50 split, and a lot of conflicts. But nations could endure political conflicts.

The disagreements between the technicians inside the technate are not settled by ideology, but by science.

I am quite tired of people putting words into my mouth.

[t_wolves_fan]

I guess that if technocracy were ever to be implemented, it would be a 50/50 split, and a lot of conflicts. But nations could endure political conflicts.

The disagreements between the technicians inside the technate are not settled by ideology, but by science.

Deciding how much of something to produce or how many energy credits to ration to people will be a political decision, in which science will only be a factor. You're dealing with people's livelihoods here - scientific fact simply will not be their major consideration.




I am quite tired of people putting words into my mouth.

I do not mean to give offense, but your theory rests on societal conditions and individual decision-making processes that simply do not exist.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Soo, is there (or could there be) such thing as totalitarian or authoritarian technocracy? As a political belief/theory.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:49 pm

I guess that if technocracy were ever to be implemented, it would be a 50/50 split, and a lot of conflicts. But nations could endure political conflicts.

The disagreements between the technicians inside the technate are not settled by ideology, but by science.

Deciding how much of something to produce or how many energy credits to ration to people will be a political decision, in which science will only be a factor. You're dealing with people's livelihoods here - scientific fact simply will not be their major consideration.




I am quite tired of people putting words into my mouth.

I do not mean to give offense, but your theory rests on societal conditions and individual decision-making processes that simply do not exist.
No, because the amount of energy credits distributed to each individual is always a function of production capacity and energy efficiency. ^^

The technocratic theories have a weak-spot on sociology, I admit that. They are to a large extent based on behaviorism, and we must update those parts of our theory dealing with human behavior if we should be better to satisfy the needs of people. :)

[t_wolves_fan]

No, because the amount of energy credits distributed to each individual is always a function of production capacity and energy efficiency. ^^

So a computer or a group of experts is going to determine how much people may consume over the course of a year.

And you imagine that politics will not play a role in that rather important decision at some point?

This is why I refer to fairy dust.


The technocratic theories have a weak-spot on sociology, I admit that. They are to a large extent based on behaviorism, and we must update those parts of our theory dealing with human behavior if we should be better to satisfy the needs of people. :)

You realize that behavioral studies have shown us to be highly irrational, right?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:51 pm
Soo, is there (or could there be) such thing as totalitarian or authoritarian technocracy? As a political belief/theory.
Yes, of course. All theories, especially theories regarding how the infrastructure should be managed, could theoretically be misused. But that does of course not discourage technocracy as an alternative, since technocracy could exist in various different forms and shapes.

The technocracy which NET advocates is a libertarian form of technocracy, based on empirical science and experiments. Just visit the website and have a look :)

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 05:08 pm

No, because the amount of energy credits distributed to each individual is always a function of production capacity and energy efficiency. ^^

So a computer or a group of experts is going to determine how much people may consume over the course of a year.

And you imagine that politics will not play a role in that rather important decision at some point?

This is why I refer to fairy dust.


The technocratic theories have a weak-spot on sociology, I admit that. They are to a large extent based on behaviorism, and we must update those parts of our theory dealing with human behavior if we should be better to satisfy the needs of people. :)

You realize that behavioral studies have shown us to be highly irrational, right?
Yes, the physical limits of consumption are going to be determined by experts working on computerised networks. And yes, politics could indeed be involved, especially in regard to what is going to be produced. I could easily think that for example animal rights activists would protest and try to create opinions against fur farms and the use of animals in agriculture. I could also think of some environmentalist wanting to decrease consumption limits further for the whole population.

These are political issues, and should be dealt with in an open, transparent debate. :)

Technocracy is not perfect. There is nothing such thing as perfect. But at least it will be more sustainable than the current world order.

[Intellectual47]

I am partially confused here. How is the technocracy going to make all these changes if they abhore the idea of a leader?

[Dimentio]

We have a coordinating Board for the technocratic organisation in question, while the organisation itself, out of practical reasons, is composed of autonomous cells which are pursuing projects and expanding the movement. Tech.inc uses a similar system as NET.

The current NET director is Mansel Ismay, known as El Diablo on the NET forums.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 05:12 pm
Yes, the physical limits of consumption are going to be determined by experts working on computerised networks. And yes, politics could indeed be involved, especially in regard to what is going to be produced. I could easily think that for example animal rights activists would protest and try to create opinions against fur farms and the use of animals in agriculture. I could also think of some environmentalist wanting to decrease consumption limits further for the whole population.

These are political issues, and should be dealt with in an open, transparent debate. :)

Technocracy is not perfect. There is nothing such thing as perfect. But at least it will be more sustainable than the current world order.
Well, I'm glad to see you are at least in touch with reality.

Though I strongly :lol: at the idea of coordinating councils and autonomous cells once you get into the real world.

What country you in again?

[Dimentio]

I am living in SE, European Union ^^

Well, there are other organisations who are using the very same model. That is not a whole model of the technate, just of the current technocratic movement. But one idea is to let technocratic administration models and estimations have an impact upon how NET works internally so we could estimate it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 05:55 pm
I am living in SE, European Union ^^

Well, there are other organisations who are using the very same model. That is not a whole model of the technate, just of the current technocratic movement. But one idea is to let technocratic administration models and estimations have an impact upon how NET works internally so we could estimate it.
SE?

I don't doubt that many organizations could run precisely by your model. I just don't see how it can be applied to society as a whole.

[Dimentio]

Of course, we won't just try to establish it as a foundation for the society as a whole. We have formalised a "holonic theory" based on integral teams administrating projects and development in the technate, but the theory is really in an incubation stadium. We are applying it on our own organisation.

The truth is that we have moved a bit from the Taylorist-Weberian model of administration and are implementing systems currently under use in for example information technology and modern robotic factories.

It is not realistic to estimate that we will have a technate in next year. But who knows in 2030? ^^

SE = Kingdom of Sweden. You see, I view the European Union as a confederacy, and one country.

[Intellectual47]

LOL, the EU.

[Dimentio]

Yes, the EU is a joke. But for a pan-European movement like NET, it is really good to already have some form of supranational entity with common laws.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 13, 2006 05:51 am--> (Serpent @ December 13, 2006 05:51 am)
[email protected] 13, 2006 06:10 am
i don't see how it couldn't, any time something is publicly held there needs to be a bueracracy in place to make sure that individuals don't take adavantage of the system. then tecnocrats always say that there is no reason to do this because apparently technology will be so great by that time that scarcity will be eliminated, but thats just honestly retarded.
It is not about how advanced technology is. We are not Star Trek utopians, and do not think that technology would solve all problems. Rather, we think that the price system is wasteful in an environment marked by the ability to distribute a relative abundance, and we want to replace the price system with energy accounting instead, in order to determine demand, supply and production capacity. [/b]
how are you going to use "energy acounting" to determine what people want?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 13, 2006 10:50 am--> (Serpent @ December 13, 2006 10:50 am)
[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;) [/b]
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.

[Dimentio]

Each person is given a share of the production capacity in KWh, in her energy certifikate. She could then use those energy credits as she like, but they cease to exist after they are used. They are only used to track consumption, and the technate adapts it's production after the demands of the users expressed through their energy credits.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+December 13, 2006 07:57 pm--> (colonelguppy @ December 13, 2006 07:57 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me. [/b]
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate.

[Knight of Cydonia]

and if ... i say if the country that want to introducing technocracy for it government system and there are no scientist in that country, then how it can build a technocracy government if they only had an engineer? coz an engineer doesn't have the skills of scientist... v.v.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 13, 2006 08:06 pm
and if ... i say if the country that want to introducing technocracy for it government system and there are no scientist in that country, then how it can build a technocracy government if they only had an engineer? coz an engineer doesn't have the skills of scientist... v.v.
A technate must have 1. a full resource chain, I.E be self-sufficient, 2. have a modern infrastructure, and 3. enough with skilled personnel. That is why technocracy is not possible everywhere at these current circumstances. Heck, we are not even sure if it is possible to create a technate in Europe [that is why we need an energy survey].

In your case, I imagine that South-East Asia, Indonesia, Australia and NZ would be some form of minimum estimation.

[Intellectual47]

Just a question, but if the technate doesn't make laws, what will happen to the criminal court system? It would seem that you need laws to maintain justice. I wouldn't go for a society with no justice. Doesn't seem very safe or accountable.

[Dimentio]

Yes, we will need laws to maintain justice, but these laws would be legislated by an organ outside of the framework of the technate. Some form of confederacy of direct-democratic communes, but with a basic charter of rights as a foundation and a court system. ^^

[ZeroPain]

Just a question, but if the technate doesn't make laws, what will happen to the criminal court system? It would seem that you need laws to maintain justice. I wouldn't go for a society with no justice. Doesn't seem very safe or accountable.

Most crime would no longer exist due to the removal of the price system. Personally I think there needs to be an independent court system. If you look in the technocratic engineering section of the NET forums you will find a good post on this.

[Intellectual47]

Crime wouldn't go away with the abolition of money. That's just wishful thinking.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 03:51 am
Most crime would no longer exist due to the removal of the price system.
how come that you are very sure that there will be no crime just because there are no price system?

well for a crime like stealing or bank robbing, it maybe nothing such crime but what about rape? homicide ?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 13, 2006 08:56 pm
well for a crime like stealing or bank robbing, it maybe nothing such crime but what about rape? homicide ?
Rapes and homicides will certianly decrease post revolution, but obvioously nothing will prevent them utterly, therefore a law enforcment service is required.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by knight of cydonia+December 13, 2006 08:56 pm--> (knight of cydonia @ December 13, 2006 08:56 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 03:51 am
Most crime would no longer exist due to the removal of the price system.
how come that you are very sure that there will be no crime just because there are no price system?

well for a crime like stealing or bank robbing, it maybe nothing such crime but what about rape? homicide ? [/b]
Of course, there are a lot of crimes which are not motivated by economic reasons. That is why we need a independent judiciary

[Knight of Cydonia]

and now what about it's connection to religion? does it offer a frredom to religion just like communist?

[Dimentio]

Technocracy is a secular system and does not make any discrimination for or against religion in general, for or against no particular religion, or any belief system. But it values the separation between religion and the administration which is necessary in order to have an unbiased operation [theoretically, we could imagine a technate run in a state with religious laws, but that is not what the technocratic movement proposes].

[ZeroPain]

how come that you are very sure that there will be no crime just because there are no price system?

well for a crime like stealing or bank robbing, it maybe nothing such crime but what about rape? homicide ?

Did I say no crime?
I said most crime...

:rolleyes:

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:06 am



how come that you are very sure that there will be no crime just because there are no price system?

well for a crime like stealing or bank robbing, it maybe nothing such crime but what about rape? homicide ?

Did I say no crime?
I said most crime...

:rolleyes:
oh yeah .... sorry my bad ;)

but at least someone has answer my question though :)

[Intellectual47]

I just thought of something
In the technocracy, there won't be money right? And you guys want to reduce the amount of human labor, right?
If the answer to those is yes, than what happens to all the people who work in finance?
Let's say 25 million people in the US work in jobs that would be gone with the abolition of money. What are those 25 million people going to do? You can't send them to work in the fields because you're agianst menial labor. And you can't let them just starve. So what do you do? Do you still give them the energy credits they need to live? But won't the rest of the people feel it's not fair that they have to work to support a bunch a unemployed people? And what about competition? If you only have one paper company, people from the other companies will lose their jobs.
So What are you going to do ;) ?

[Sentinel]

What you fail to grasp here, 'intellectual', is that after capitalism is gone, the new society would have the wellbeing, happiness and development of it's citizens as it's sole purpose for existence. This is characteristic to both communism and the kind of technocracy I advocate. There will be competition but not in order to survive or make a decent living like now. Instead people will try to do as much as they can for the society -- as it both benefits themselves directly and gets them something called respect.


What are those 25 million people going to do?

There have been other occupations that now are obsolete -- that's how progress in society works. Most jobs still needed to be done will be automated in the future and there will not be any hunt for profits, we won't have to have people working their asses of to make society function anymore, like in capitalism. And when a class of wageslaves isn't needed to keep things running, we can instead encourage everyone to reach their maximum potential as human beings.

This fact alone is enough to make capitalism, private property and the bourgeois state obsolete: it doesn't make any sense that the technology and production in an advanced and abundant society would be in private hands, or a in the hands of a state as we know such.

They will be seized by the society, the people who made them, the people who need them.

Btw. Your sig is pathetic, and indicates either a bottomless ignorance and stupidity, or is for trolling purposes. I suggest you change it. I mean, seriously:

'Life in the "state of nature" is nasty,solitary, poor, brutish, and short: Thomas Hobbes. anarchism=state of nature'

What the fuck does anarchism have to do with that quote? What do you mean with 'anarchism=state of nature'?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 02:54 pm
I just thought of something
In the technocracy, there won't be money right? And you guys want to reduce the amount of human labor, right?
If the answer to those is yes, than what happens to all the people who work in finance?
Let's say 25 million people in the US work in jobs that would be gone with the abolition of money. What are those 25 million people going to do? You can't send them to work in the fields because you're agianst menial labor. And you can't let them just starve. So what do you do? Do you still give them the energy credits they need to live? But won't the rest of the people feel it's not fair that they have to work to support a bunch a unemployed people? And what about competition? If you only have one paper company, people from the other companies will lose their jobs.
So What are you going to do ;) ?
Their excessive labor would be used to decrease labor hours more of course. And energy credits are not a wage-system, but a share of the individual's amount of energy/production capacity delivered by the infrastructure [I do not mean her personal energy capacity, but the total production capacity divided on the amount of individuals].

[Intellectual47]

Sentinal, So are you saying that some people would work and some people would do nothing except indulge themsleves in happiness? How would you decide who does what? And if I know humans, we would screw this up somehow. Somehow.

My sig point is that the state of nature is anarchism. Hobbes mean the quote to mean that the state of nature is a lack of governing. Therefore we need government. That was one of his basic arguements.

Serpant, putting more people to work on different jobs won't decrease labor hours. It will work for a while, but at somepoint it will just be inefficent.


There have been other occupations that now are obsolete -- that's how progress in society works. Most jobs still needed to be done will be automated in the future and there will not be any hunt for profits, we won't have to have people working their asses of to make society function anymore, like in capitalism. And when a class of wageslaves isn't needed to keep things running, we can instead encourage everyone to reach their maximum potential as human beings.
No, peope will get bored. If a person has nothing to do, they will get bored.
P.S. How does a technacray differ from Communism? Besides the technacracy is more futuristic.

[Sentinel]

Sentinal, So are you saying that some people would work and some people would do nothing except indulge themsleves in happiness? How would you decide who does what?

Like Serpent said. The remaining work will be shared to minimise working hours for everyone. Work will no longer be the fulltime occupation that prevents us from enjoying life, it is under capitalism..


My sig point is that the state of nature is anarchism. Hobbes mean the quote to mean that the state of nature is a lack of governing. Therefore we need government. That was one of his basic arguements.

Anarchism and communism are not unorganised, but organised from below. The people govern themselves. Anarchism is far from chaotic. So it's a bullshit argument. :)


No, peope will get bored. If a person has nothing to do, they will get bored.

Bored, because they won't have to work like slaves for someone else, countless hours, day after day just in order to make a fucking living, and can intead devote their lives to themselves, getting a supreme education and what not? Nice one. :lol:


P.S. How does a technacray differ from Communism? Besides the technacracy is more futuristic.

Technocracy offers a system for managing of production and distribution, which is I and others find compatible with communism. See this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59495).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 04:10 pm
Anarchism and communism are not unorganised, but organised from below. The people govern themselves. Anarchism is far from chaotic. So it's a bullshit argument. :)
Doesn't work very well. People are too irrational and stupid to govern themselves without affecting a lot of other people, which leads to government, which leads to something not much different than we have now.

Unless, of course that fairy actually sprinkles the world with his magic dust.

[Sentinel]

Doesn't work very well. People are too irrational and stupid to govern themselves without affecting a lot of other people, which leads to government, which leads to something not much different than we have now.

In technocracy, they will govern the production by using their energy credits.. It's quite simple you know.

[Intellectual47]

As opposed to now when we use money?

And why don't you just call them ration cards?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:23 pm
As opposed to now when we use money?
:lol: Money is a stupid measurment, used only to represent debt, it has nothing to do with any actual energy. Furthermore money is tradeable, when an energy credit is used, that's it for that credit.



And why don't you just call them ration cards? Because they aren't.

[Intellectual47]

Yah they are. Ration cards are used to represent how much you get from the government. And since it would appear that energy credits do the same thing, I must wonder why you don't call them that. Perhaps it's because a ration card looks like a stamp, where energy credits might look like a credit card. Which of course begs the question "So why switch from a credit card to an energy card?" I find this a very good question and hope that someone will ask it.

P.S. you never answered my question on the millions of unemployed people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 05:32 pm
Yah they are. Ration cards are used to represent how much you get from the government. And since it would appear that energy credits do the same thing, I must wonder why you don't call them that. Perhaps it's because a ration card looks like a stamp, where energy credits might look like a credit card. Which of course begs the question "So why switch from a credit card to an energy card?" I find this a very good question and hope that someone will ask it.

:lol: Jesus fucking christ, do you read your posts before you make them? An energy credit is not representative of "how much you can get from the government" (how much what? By the by?), it is representative of an amount of kilowatt-hours. Credit cards are just another measurment of debt, as such serve no purpose in a world where we eant to measure something of actual concrete importance, like energy.


P.S. you never answered my question on the millions of unemployed people. That's because it was a ridiculous question. They do the same work as everyone else has to.

[Sentinel]

One of the numerous problems with our current method, the price system, is the enormous overproduction and waste of resources characteristic to it -- a lot gets produced (including heaps of unnecessary shit) the people then can't afford. The result is a 'capitalist crisis'.

This problem is solved with energy accounting: When you order a product with your credits it will be produced, you 'vote' for it, and you can never exceed the resources available to the society with them.


And why don't you just call them ration cards?

Well that would give the wrong impression, as the energy credits are practically endless.. The resources on this planet are huge, but with our present society they won't reach those in need. The technate will consist of several nations and harvest and combine vast resources, abundance lies in it's very nature. Those resources will be distributed to exactly those who need them with energy accounting.

[Intellectual47]

I must admit, Sentenial's response was way better than Jazzratt's. Jazzratt, did you even read the post where I talk about unemployment in the new world? My point is that they wouldn't have jobs. So they couldn't work.

I don't know where you're getting the overproduction problem. If companies have an overproduction probelm, they go out of buisness. Like Atari.

[Dimentio]

Or they just cut down their production to keep prices. We are not seeing it from the perspective of the businesses, but from the users though. Our goal is to reduce costs in order to make everything as energy-efficient in relationship to it's goals as possible, thus increasing the consumer life standard without even needing to increase energy output.

And Jazzratt is right, even though he puts it in a rather direct way. Energy credits represents the amount of production capacity which all consumers are granted, and have no relationship to individual work input. ^^

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:07 pm
And Jazzratt is right, even though he puts it in a rather direct way. Energy credits represents the amount of production capacity which all consumers are granted, and have no relationship to individual work input. ^^
In another thread, Anarchist Tension gets upset when Intellectual47 says that communism means not having to work for your stuff.

Doling out energy ration cards regardless of work put in would seem to confirm Intellectual's point, would it not?

[Intellectual47]

So Homer Simpson would get the same energy credit as Frank Grimes?
That doen't seem very fair. All you have to do is be a good lier and you get energy credits for free.
And what will be the motivation for advancement in your new society?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 13, 2006 03:03 pm--> (Serpent @ December 13, 2006 03:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate. [/b]
does the technate use coercive force while managing?

[Sentinel]

All you have to do is be a good lier and you get energy credits for free.

Everyone gets them for free.


And what will be the motivation for advancement in your new society?

Intellectual47, your main problem is that you have bought into the capitalist lie that people need to be whipped in order to be motivated -- that they wouldn't want to better themselves if wageslavery and money were abolished, and they no longer had to work hard to achieve what they need. Honestly, do you not see why that lie was invented, by whom and who it benefits?

Who is most likely to say: 'Humans are lazy and greedy by nature', and who benefits from such a belief? The lazy and greedy bastards!

If it was true that it's human nature to become lazy if there's no possibility to profit, capitalism wouldn't have worked at all in the first place. Because the majority of people never gets a glance at the profits. They get just enough to survive and keep working, so that the profiteers can sit on their asses and collect. And it could never be otherwise -- capitalism can't exist without an exploited class.

This is why the (public) school system doesn't strive to give all children the best possible education but instead molds them into new servants of the privileged ruling class, the capitalists. It is a blatant lie that everyone has an equal chance in capitalism -- that's impossible because of it's very nature.

But this will all change once capitalism is abolished. When everyone has access to the resources the society possesses, they can finally start living satisfying lifes for the sake of themselves. Just imagine the creativity in a society where all can study for what they want to become and what interests them, not the 'market'.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+December 14, 2006 07:40 pm--> (colonelguppy @ December 14, 2006 07:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:03 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate.
does the technate use coercive force while managing? [/b]
No.

[Intellectual47]

You are horribley mistaken.
Both my parents came from poverty and worked hard to make themselves wealthy. My father is a doctor and my mother is a teacher. They both see these profits and have more than enough to survive. It's the only reason I have the time to goof off on these forums.

Everyone gets them for free.
So I get free stuff, for nothing?

And do you know anyone who would go work at a menial job for no benefit other than thier own personal satisfaction. I don't.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:56 pm
So Homer Simpson would get the same energy credit as Frank Grimes?
That doen't seem very fair. All you have to do is be a good lier and you get energy credits for free.
And what will be the motivation for advancement in your new society?
The motivation is that the individual should work with what she like, and love. Of course, that sounds a bit utopian, but we have a notion within the movement that the current society creates a connection between money and activity due to memetic development. But of course, this part is sensible, and we are going to do research to see how motivation would be affected.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:53 pm
You are horribley mistaken.
Both my parents came from poverty and worked hard to make themselves wealthy. My father is a doctor and my mother is a teacher. They both see these profits and have more than enough to survive. It's the only reason I have the time to goof off on these forums.

Everyone gets them for free.
So I get free stuff, for nothing?

And do you know anyone who would go work at a menial job for no benefit other than thier own personal satisfaction. I don't.
Not if those menial jobs are delivered in a schedule which means that there would be different tasks each time. Moreover, menial tasks could be "in-sourced" down to cooperatives [for example cleaning of locales, elderly care, nursing, kindergartens]. That could perhaps create more interest, since the users of these services often are neighbors and relatives of those who work. ^^

[Intellectual47]

By menial I mean like the jobs on "Dirty jobs"

And what if the relatives are jerks and don't want to take care of the person?

But of course, this part is sensible, and we are going to do research to see how motivation would be affected.
You guys can't figure out a simple problem like the motivation porblem? All you have to do is employ the secret police. Oh wait, you guys are against that.


Still, what defense do you have against great liers who fool the system.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 09:04 pm
By menial I mean like the jobs on "Dirty jobs"

And what if the relatives are jerks and don't want to take care of the person?

But of course, this part is sensible, and we are going to do research to see how motivation would be affected.
You guys can't figure out a simple problem like the motivation porblem? All you have to do is employ the secret police. Oh wait, you guys are against that.


Still, what defense do you have against great liers who fool the system.
Yes, like elderly care, kindergartens and cleaning public spaces. I have realised that.

First, we must evaluate if there is a motivation problem, and secondly what it depends on, and thirdly how we should solve it. Scientifically speaking. But I wonder exactly what it is that makes scarcity-thinking so attractive? About "great liers"? Well, they won't fool us on resources, simply because they already got their share of production capacity. They won't be able to steal your share, or mine share.

There may be a group of people who becomes highly educated just for money today, but remember that money is not a natural law, and that it is uncertain whether humans actually have a desire to consume everything.

[Sentinel]

You are horribley mistaken.
Both my parents came from poverty and worked hard to make themselves wealthy. My father is a doctor and my mother is a teacher. They both see these profits and have more than enough to survive. It's the only reason I have the time to goof off on these forums.

Well your parents might have been lucky, it happens and I've never denied that. Capitalism is a big casino.. But that wasn't what I was arguing at all, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

My point was this: everyone can't get rich, everyone can't be capitalist, because capitalism needs an exploited class in order to exist. So the capitalists get people to work for them with lies, empty promises and if that doesn't work, threats.


And do you know anyone who would go work at a menial job for no benefit other than thier own personal satisfaction. I don't.

Which is why we should share the part of that work that can't be automated, so that everyone did some of it (it wouldn't be much) instead of some people having to do it for shit wages all their lifes like it is now.

In communism our lives would not be all about work and struggle anymore.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 09:04 pm
Still, what defense do you have against great liers who fool the system.
It's "liar", you stupid ****. (Sorry that was bugging me)

Anyway thes great "liers" don' have anything to fool for. They already have energy credits. What the fuck is their incentive?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 15, 2006 04:07 am--> (Jazzratt @ December 15, 2006 04:07 am)
[email protected] 14, 2006 09:04 pm
Still, what defense do you have against great liers who fool the system.
It's "liar", you stupid ****. (Sorry that was bugging me)

Anyway thes great "liers" don' have anything to fool for. They already have energy credits. What the fuck is their incentive? [/b]
i'm agree with Jazzratt, why should they lie (the "liers") if they already have have what they want?

and for the defense against what you called "liers" or should i say is greedy people,there a law enforcement.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 09:06 pm
and that it is uncertain whether humans actually have a desire to consume everything.
Serious question here:

How do you review human history and come to this conclusion?

[t_wolves_fan]

i'm agree with Jazzratt, why should they lie (the "liers") if they already have have what they want?

Your assumption is faulty: they may actually want more.

What if that happens?


and for the defense against what you called "liers" or should i say is greedy people,there a law enforcement.

Right, because law enforcement can never be bribed, special rules can never be created, and people aren't smart/crafty enough to get around the rules unnoticed.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 09:06 pm


Well your parents might have been lucky, it happens and I've never denied that. Capitalism is a big casino.. But that wasn't what I was arguing at all, and is irrelevant to this discussion.


This is why people like you fail: you think it's all based on luck, you assume you have no chance, so you don't even try.

Then you have the audacity to be angry that you're poor.

:rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 15, 2006 03:02 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 15, 2006 03:02 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 09:06 pm
and that it is uncertain whether humans actually have a desire to consume everything.
Serious question here:

How do you review human history and come to this conclusion? [/b]
Because humans have a limited ability to consume. The reason why humans tries to get as much as possible is a rational fear of scarcity in the future, prevailing from the pre-technologic ages. Remember, our specie have existed in at least 30.000 years, but the industrial society have just existed in 200 years.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 10:06 pm

i'm agree with Jazzratt, why should they lie (the "liers") if they already have have what they want?

Your assumption is faulty: they may actually want more.

What if that happens?


and what did you call the people who wants more even they had enough? isn't that greed or should i say capitalist? that always exploiting other people to fullfilled their "want more" thing.

[Sentinel]

This is why people like you fail: you think it's all based on luck, you assume you have no chance, so you don't even try.

Then you have the audacity to be angry that you're poor.

Well you can't possibly deny that the right circumstances (like rich parents) do play a decisive role.. although ruthlessness is no doubt another 'positive' trait in capitalism.

In no way does the fact that some people make it and become well off in this system negate my point though. Read this slowly:

For the third and hopefully last time in this thread: It is impossible for most people to become members of the ruling class in capitalism because of it's very nature: the system depends on exploitation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 03:10 pm

Because humans have a limited ability to consume. The reason why humans tries to get as much as possible is a rational fear of scarcity in the future, prevailing from the pre-technologic ages. Remember, our specie have existed in at least 30.000 years, but the industrial society have just existed in 200 years.
You didn't really answer my question.

If scarcity were the answer, it does not explain why those who are already rich continue to seek additional wealth or power. Scarcity is not an issue for them, yet they seek to consume anyway.

Also, people consume goods that have no future value. If future scarcity were the sole, or even most important factor, then why would people consume goods that have no future value at such high levels? Most material goods have no future value yet people consume them at high levels anyway.

Your reliance on scarcity begs a question about technocracy. Your system relies on the assumption that scarcity will be eliminated. This is a huge gamble. The reason ought to be obvious: at any given time, for any number of reasons, certain goods will become scarce either temporarily or permanently. When this happens, your system will be under enormous pressure to maintain production regardless of the effects, otherwise scarcity returns and according to you people would start to consume at high levels for fear of that scarcity.

There is also the fact that you'll be rationing energy credits. This means such credits will be scarce, since there is a limited number, correct? But if you intend to not make them scarce, that means you are permitting nearly unlimited consumption. I.e. if you give everyone on the planet $5 million to spend for the year, they are going to spend it. Why not? They get another $5 million next year, so they have no incentive to save nor to reduce consumption. The only incentive they have to reduce consumption would be...future scarcity created by over-consumption.

So, if everyone gets $5 million and starts to spend it, you're going to put enormous strain on the world's resources. Regardless of your productivity, if consumption still rises, you still have to produce more, correct?

In effect, your system would either create scarcity and a black market by limiting people's ability to purchase (giving them a low number of energy credits), or it would create inflation and put a strain on the world's resources if you give them unlimited purchasing power.

How do you deal with these problems?

[Intellectual47]

T_wolves, that was brutal. That's pretty awesome point.


Anyway thes great "liers" don' have anything to fool for. They already have energy credits. What the fuck is their incentive?
Their incentive to lie is to get out of work. If you have a choice between working and not working, everyone I know would pick "not working". I have not met a single person in my entire existance who would pick "working".

For the third and hopefully last time in this thread: It is impossible for most people to become members of the ruling class in capitalism because of it's very nature: the system depends on exploitation.
Actually, the statistics prove you wrong. This report (http://www.urban.org/publications/306775.html) says that the poor are getting richer. I don't see how you can claim what you do when the facts are against you.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well you can't possibly deny that the right circumstances (like rich parents) do play a decisive role.. although ruthlessness is no doubt another 'positive' trait in capitalism.

True but they are not requirements. My parents were neither rich nor ruthless and I'm in the top 10% of the income bracket.


In no way does the fact that some people make it and become well off in this system negate my point though. Read this slowly:

For the third and hopefully last time in this thread: It is impossible for most people to become members of the ruling class in capitalism because of it's very nature: the system depends on exploitation.

Here is the problem: you assume capitalism says everyone will become rich. It doesn't say that. You also assume capitalism has a ruling class because you believe in wage slavery. Wage slavery is a myth, unfortunately.

Yes, workers are exploited but that exploitation is value-neutral. The rich are used by the workers to provide wages and a standard of living in just the same way.

Your view of capitalism is entirely normative.

[blueeyedboy]

This technocracy sounds silly to me, all this energy credit stuff. We don't live in Star Wars land or anything do we. Let's just stick to what we've got now to change things, and not rely on some space age ideology.

[Sentinel]

Here is the problem: you assume capitalism says everyone will become rich. It doesn't say that.

I don't care what 'it says', and I don't assume anything -- the fact remains that it's a system unable to provide well being and a satisfying life to the majority of people living under it -- a system that has to, and will be overthrown.

The rest of your post didn't make any sense whatsoever, the workers use the rich? So it's sort of a happy symbiosis then? :lol: Give me a fucking break, you'd propably argue slaves use their masters to get food and shelter too?

[Intellectual47]

The rest of your post didn't make any sense whatsoever, the workers use the rich? So it's sort of a happy symbiosis then? Give me a fucking break, you'd propably argue slaves use their masters to get food and shelter too?
Actually, it is a symbiotic relationship. The boss makes a profit, and the workers make money. People in third world countries love this deal. Try telling them that capitalism exploits them. Speciafiically the Indians.

I don't care what 'it says', and I don't assume anything -- the fact remains that it's a system unable to provide well being and a satisfying life to the majority of people living under it -- a system that has to, and will be overthrown
Yah, it only created some of the most powerful, rich, ethical, intellegent, and respected nations in the world and gives the others a dream to aspire to. How evil of those cappie bastards. Making people's lives better and giving them hope. (shakes fist)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 14, 2006 03:52 pm--> (Serpent @ December 14, 2006 03:52 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 07:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:03 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate.
does the technate use coercive force while managing?
No. [/b]
well i don't see how it could effectively manage anything at all then

[t_wolves_fan]

I don't care what 'it says', and I don't assume anything -- the fact remains that it's a system unable to provide well being and a satisfying life to the majority of people living under it

You do assume because you're human and humans make assumptions.

It's only your opinion that the system does not provide well-being and a satisfying life based on your opinionated criteria that everyone has to be socio-economically equal in order for people to be well-off and happy.


-- a system that has to, and will be overthrown.

Right, kind of like a rapture.


The rest of your post didn't make any sense whatsoever, the workers use the rich? So it's sort of a happy symbiosis then?

Yes.


:lol: Give me a fucking break, you'd propably argue slaves use their masters to get food and shelter too?

Key difference: slaves cannot walk off the plantation and start a competing plantation, they can in capitalism.

Your system would make people reliant on the collective for their food and shelter, which according to your logic would make them slaves to the collective. Oh except it's different when it's your system, isn't it.

:lol:

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:23 pm
Actually, it is a symbiotic relationship. The boss makes a profit, and the workers make money. People in third world countries love this deal. Try telling them that capitalism exploits them. Speciafiically the Indians.

The problem from the far-leftist's mindset is that those people are making salaries on and living in conditions the leftist would not accept. To the leftist, if people don't have access to a 2BR apartment with space for a big-screen TV, their own car and 3 nights of boozing at the bar per week, then they're oppressed.

If they stopped and looked, they would understand that in their society, that $4 per day they're now making is actually a decent amount of money. In their society. It's not in our society, so the conclusion is automatically that they must be living in miserable poverty. Now to be sure, their living conditions are substandard compared to ours. But, with the $4 per day they made at the Nike factory, they may actually be better off than before the Nike factory arrived. Before their Nike factory job, they may have barely scraped by selling papayas for $2 a day if they were lucky.

There is also the fact that people cannot just go from selling papayas on the street to working in a car factory or designing software. Societies, unfortunately, gradually become more technologically advanced as time goes on, experience is gained and knowledge is disseminated. If you wrote some third world worker a check for $40,000 a year and put him to work in a supercomputer factory, you'd have inflation and crappy supercomputers.

This is how it ought to be viewed: are the people working in these places doing so by choice (if the government is requiring them to work in these places and artificially holding their wages down through collusion with the company, or if a company has unethically taken over the market then this is not an acceptable situation) and are they better off than they were before they took the job?

If the answer is yes, then there is really no problem.

[Sentinel]

People in third world countries love this deal.

Right, troll.. :rolleyes:


Speciafiically the Indians.

Yes, I know. Even more specifically, these Indians:


Originally posted by Amnesty International
Clouds of Injustice: Bhopal disaster 20 Years on

More than 7,000 people died within a matter of days when toxic gases leaked from a chemical plant in Bhopal, India on the night of 2/3 December 1984. Over the last 21 years exposure to the toxins has resulted in the deaths of a further 15,000 people as well as chronic and debilitating illnesses for thousands of others for which treatment is largely ineffective.

The disaster shocked the world and raised fundamental questions about government and corporate responsibility for industrial accidents that devastate human life and local environments. Yet 21 years later, the survivors still await just compensation, adequate medical assistance and treatment, and comprehensive economic and social rehabilitation. The plant site, has still not been cleaned up. As a result, toxic wastes continue to pollute the environment and contaminate water that surrounding communities rely on.

Despite determined efforts by survivors to secure justice, they have been denied adequate compensation and appropriate and timely medical assistance and rehabilitation. Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), then owner of the pesticide factory in Bhopal, and Dow Chemical, which merged with UCC in 2001, have publicly denied all responsibility for the leak and the resulting damage. Astonishingly, no one has been held responsible.

The Bhopal case illustrates how companies evade their human rights responsibilities and underlines the need to establish a universal human rights framework that can be applied to companies directly. Governments have the primary responsibility for protecting the human rights of communities endangered by the activities of corporations, such as those employing hazardous technology. However, as the influence and reach of companies have grown, there has been a developing consensus that they must be brought within the framework of international human rights standards

Intellectual47, you are trolling this board with the intention of provocation and I don't think much can come from interacting with you. :(

I've gotta go and haw a couple of pints now with some slightly more charming individuals than you guys but I'll read what t_wolves_fan has written and respond to him tomorrow.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+December 15, 2006 04:42 pm--> (colonelguppy @ December 15, 2006 04:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 03:52 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 07:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:03 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate.
does the technate use coercive force while managing?
No.
well i don't see how it could effectively manage anything at all then [/b]
Because it does not rely on taxation, because it does not have money. The technate is not there to govern people, but to govern technology. The technate could use sanctions against it's own personnel if they break the code of ethics, but it could not put sanctions on the users.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:34 pm
I've gotta go and haw a couple of pints
Well there's one thing we could agree on.

:D

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 15, 2006 03:25 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 15, 2006 03:25 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 03:10 pm

Because humans have a limited ability to consume. The reason why humans tries to get as much as possible is a rational fear of scarcity in the future, prevailing from the pre-technologic ages. Remember, our specie have existed in at least 30.000 years, but the industrial society have just existed in 200 years.
You didn't really answer my question.

If scarcity were the answer, it does not explain why those who are already rich continue to seek additional wealth or power. Scarcity is not an issue for them, yet they seek to consume anyway.

Also, people consume goods that have no future value. If future scarcity were the sole, or even most important factor, then why would people consume goods that have no future value at such high levels? Most material goods have no future value yet people consume them at high levels anyway.

Your reliance on scarcity begs a question about technocracy. Your system relies on the assumption that scarcity will be eliminated. This is a huge gamble. The reason ought to be obvious: at any given time, for any number of reasons, certain goods will become scarce either temporarily or permanently. When this happens, your system will be under enormous pressure to maintain production regardless of the effects, otherwise scarcity returns and according to you people would start to consume at high levels for fear of that scarcity.

There is also the fact that you'll be rationing energy credits. This means such credits will be scarce, since there is a limited number, correct? But if you intend to not make them scarce, that means you are permitting nearly unlimited consumption. I.e. if you give everyone on the planet $5 million to spend for the year, they are going to spend it. Why not? They get another $5 million next year, so they have no incentive to save nor to reduce consumption. The only incentive they have to reduce consumption would be...future scarcity created by over-consumption.

So, if everyone gets $5 million and starts to spend it, you're going to put enormous strain on the world's resources. Regardless of your productivity, if consumption still rises, you still have to produce more, correct?

In effect, your system would either create scarcity and a black market by limiting people's ability to purchase (giving them a low number of energy credits), or it would create inflation and put a strain on the world's resources if you give them unlimited purchasing power.

How do you deal with these problems? [/b]
The wrong assumption you make here is that abundance means something limitless. We are talking about relative abundance in relationship to the human's limited ability to consume. The production capacity today most likely slightly exceeds that point.

But we have to determine it scientifically, that is why we are going to make an Energy Survey. NET is not a political movement, but a research organisation.

[Intellectual47]

Because it does not rely on taxation, because it does not have money. The technate is not there to govern people, but to govern technology. The technate could use sanctions against it's own personnel if they break the code of ethics, but it could not put sanctions on the users.
So It's a powerless governement, that rules over it's people with ultimate power.
Are you assuming this will happen in a vacuam or something?

Right, troll..
Fine, don't actually refute my points with facts. Just call me a name. See T_wolves post on this, it's better than how I would have said it.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:42 pm

Because it does not rely on taxation, because it does not have money. The technate is not there to govern people, but to govern technology. The technate could use sanctions against it's own personnel if they break the code of ethics, but it could not put sanctions on the users.
So It's a powerless governement, that rules over it's people with ultimate power.
Are you assuming this will happen in a vacuam or something?

Right, troll..
Fine, don't actually refute my points with facts. Just call me a name. See T_wolves post on this, it's better than how I would have said it.
No, it is not supposed to rule over people. The technate is a service which is responsible for administrating the infrastructure, not a government. And there is no money in a technate because of energy accounting.

Please, read Technocracy for dummies (http://spazz.mine.nu/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=156)

[Intellectual47]

So, what kind of government will exist?

Again with the "is this going to happen in a vacuam?"

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 05:55 pm
So, what kind of government will exist?

Again with the "is this going to happen in a vacuam?"
It will not be a vacuum. As I have earlier explained on this very thread, society under technocracy will have two spheres, one technocratic which administrates the infrastructure and production, and one democratic composed of a confederacy of autonomous communes which together elects a government which is responsible for legislation.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 10:38 pm
I have not met a single person in my entire existance who would pick "working".

i do.... i would pick working, coz working is the only way i can buy some beer and whiskey. :D

[Intellectual47]

The problem is that unless the technocracy rules the entire world at once, it won't be able to live due to the pressure from it's own people and outside individuals. See, you never name what country you wish to try this in because you know then you would have SPECIFIC problems like the middle East or the Chinese environmental policy. Instead you choose to have this "technocracy" exist on it's own planet with no hardships. No rebels, no lazy-asses, no greed, no evil whatsoever.
Whereas capitalism uses the evil of the world to it's advantage. It advances by using people's greed and giving more money the harder they work. Capitalism is a real-world idea that works, has worked, and will work. Technocracy doesn't work, hasn't work, and hopefully never work.

I say "hopefully" because a Technacracy has no defense against a dictator. You may say all you want about how "this one will be different" and "we'll figure out something" and "That'll never happen", but it will. If a technacracy were to exist, it would either be like the UN and powerless, or it would be like the USSR and totalitarian

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:09 am
Whereas capitalism uses the evil of the world to it's advantage. It advances by using people's greed and giving more money the harder they work. Capitalism is a real-world idea that works, has worked, and will work.
so it's certain my assumption that all capitalist are evil. it filled by the greedy people.

capitalism is the real-world idea? no it's a greedy people idea and only work in the US.

[t_wolves_fan]

The wrong assumption you make here is that abundance means something limitless. We are talking about relative abundance in relationship to the human's limited ability to consume. The production capacity today most likely slightly exceeds that point.

But we have to determine it scientifically, that is why we are going to make an Energy Survey. NET is not a political movement, but a research organisation.

You did not address my question. Perhaps I was unclear so I will rephrase.

Abundance does not mean limitless, it means there is enough to meet demand. The problem you are going to have if your energy credit ration is large is that people will demand - and consume - more than if you gave them a small ration. A large ration means they have no reason to conserve since they conceivably have no reason to save, given that they will be provided another ration of similar or larger size next year (imagine the political problems you'll encounter if you try to reduce the ration?).

The problem I see in your response is that you're making an assumption that people will limit their consumption. On what do you base this assumption? Those of us in the West are unlikely to purposefully reduce our consumption, while those in the 3rd world can reasonably be expected to increase their level of consumption to a level at least as great as that of the West.

The effect will unquestionably be inflation. If suddenly everyone on earth is given more energy credits than they could ever spend, they will start spending. If say BMWs were given a "price" of 500 energy credits, you would have so many more people with more credits than they can spend out demanding BMWs. Demand would unquestionably increase beyond what the BMW technate can produce in the short-term. The result would be to require BMW workers to work more, to create waiting lists, or to ration BMWs. The last two would result in a black market where those lucky enough to get a BMW at 500 credits would sell their BMW to someone who wants one for 1,000 credits.

Demand is the side of the equation you don't seem to take into account. You claim we produce plenty right now. But we produce plenty for a situation where only a small fraction of the planet's population can afford labor and resource-intensive goods. What happens when a large population or everyone can afford those same goods? Efficiency is not going to make up the gap when you now have 4 or 5 billion more people demanding the goods produced for the West.

The capitalist system is no different: if suddenly everone were given a check for $20 million, BMW could not possibly keep up with demand. The price would go up, they would be rationed, and you'd have a black market.

How do you deal with this?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 06:09 pm
The problem is that unless the technocracy rules the entire world at once, it won't be able to live due to the pressure from it's own people and outside individuals. See, you never name what country you wish to try this in because you know then you would have SPECIFIC problems like the middle East or the Chinese environmental policy. Instead you choose to have this "technocracy" exist on it's own planet with no hardships. No rebels, no lazy-asses, no greed, no evil whatsoever.
Whereas capitalism uses the evil of the world to it's advantage. It advances by using people's greed and giving more money the harder they work. Capitalism is a real-world idea that works, has worked, and will work. Technocracy doesn't work, hasn't work, and hopefully never work.

I say "hopefully" because a Technacracy has no defense against a dictator. You may say all you want about how "this one will be different" and "we'll figure out something" and "That'll never happen", but it will. If a technacracy were to exist, it would either be like the UN and powerless, or it would be like the USSR and totalitarian
It would exist a democratic sphere [administrating social issues] parallell to the technate. Have I not already said that?

[Intellectual47]

You again address the small point and not the large point.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 01:37 am
You again address the small point and not the large point.
for fuck sake, have you ever said to someone "oh yes i was wrong i'm sorry" ?!

you want a larger point? click the link at the Serpent or Jazzratt signature, there's your larger point you dick weed. :angry:

oh sorry Jazzratt didn't have the link.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 06:23 pm

The wrong assumption you make here is that abundance means something limitless. We are talking about relative abundance in relationship to the human's limited ability to consume. The production capacity today most likely slightly exceeds that point.

But we have to determine it scientifically, that is why we are going to make an Energy Survey. NET is not a political movement, but a research organisation.

You did not address my question. Perhaps I was unclear so I will rephrase.

Abundance does not mean limitless, it means there is enough to meet demand. The problem you are going to have if your energy credit ration is large is that people will demand - and consume - more than if you gave them a small ration. A large ration means they have no reason to conserve since they conceivably have no reason to save, given that they will be provided another ration of similar or larger size next year (imagine the political problems you'll encounter if you try to reduce the ration?).

The problem I see in your response is that you're making an assumption that people will limit their consumption. On what do you base this assumption? Those of us in the West are unlikely to purposefully reduce our consumption, while those in the 3rd world can reasonably be expected to increase their level of consumption to a level at least as great as that of the West.

The effect will unquestionably be inflation. If suddenly everyone on earth is given more energy credits than they could ever spend, they will start spending. If say BMWs were given a "price" of 500 energy credits, you would have so many more people with more credits than they can spend out demanding BMWs. Demand would unquestionably increase beyond what the BMW technate can produce in the short-term. The result would be to require BMW workers to work more, to create waiting lists, or to ration BMWs. The last two would result in a black market where those lucky enough to get a BMW at 500 credits would sell their BMW to someone who wants one for 1,000 credits.

Demand is the side of the equation you don't seem to take into account. You claim we produce plenty right now. But we produce plenty for a situation where only a small fraction of the planet's population can afford labor and resource-intensive goods. What happens when a large population or everyone can afford those same goods? Efficiency is not going to make up the gap when you now have 4 or 5 billion more people demanding the goods produced for the West.

The capitalist system is no different: if suddenly everone were given a check for $20 million, BMW could not possibly keep up with demand. The price would go up, they would be rationed, and you'd have a black market.

How do you deal with this?
Now I understand your point.

And yes, I agree that especially during the end of the consumption cycles, people could begin to spend like mad rabbits. It is a great problem, but it would not create inflation. Why? Because energy credits do not have their name just because it sounds cool or something, but because the vaue they uphold is the value of the production capacity. Hence, the income of the individual would increase when consumption capacity goes up.

Now to the second issue, about ownership. I am sure you know about Jay Leno. He got a lot of Italian sport cars. That would be impossible in a technate. You cannot own a car in a technate. You could just use a car. And yes, you could use it for months, even years, but if you change car, you will return the other to the car pool. One of the operational goals is to decrease load factors.

Now to the real problem with consumption frenzy. The real problem is that it will stress environment even after the formation of the sustainable system. Therefore, the only thing which could help there is that the consumers are aware of their choice, or time. Eventually, people would not see personal status in products, items and material wealth, and only take what they need to live a happy life. ^^

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 06:37 pm
You again address the small point and not the large point.
What big point? You made a strawman and tried to talk about how technocracy either would be a repressive government [in it's design, it is not even a government over people, but a service which administrates infrastructure] or a vacuum government [because it has no authority over people, but it does'nt need to have since the democratic spere, composed of a confederal government based on autonomous communes fills that role].

You chose to ignore my earlier arguments and stress your own earlier arguments without even mentioning or considering what I have written continually.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 06:42 pm

And yes, I agree that especially during the end of the consumption cycles, people could begin to spend like mad rabbits. It is a great problem, but it would not create inflation. Why? Because energy credits do not have their name just because it sounds cool or something, but because the vaue they uphold is the value of the production capacity. Hence, the income of the individual would increase when consumption capacity goes up.

This raises some questions. Sorry, unlike the slogan-spouting morons here I always have more questions. ;)

The problem this brings up is timing. If the energy credits are distributed based on current production capacity, you are not accounting for futre demand. In other words if you add 500 credits to the pot for what the BMW factory can produce, and demand for BMWs rises, you have a mismatch between supply and demand. BMW planned to produce 500 cars, but people want 750, so a black market is created until you adjust. If demand falls, then you have credits that should have been used on BMWs out chasing other goods and presumably you'd produce the BMWs anyway because you've already allocated the resources to do so. If not, do the experts tell the workers to go produce other goods? What if the workers don't want to produce other goods? Again you have the conflict - which you have not addressed - between the power of the experts and the will of the workers if things do not go your way. Simply assuming they'll all agree with you is an insufficient answer.

Now, I suppose you could say that you'd distribute energy credits based on planned production. This is problematic for basically the same reason. Say you knew you were going to build a new furniture factory in July so you added the credits for that factory when you distributed the credit in January. There is always the possibility that the factory does not get built because demand unexpectedly drops for whatever reason. In other words, the dynamics of an economy change on a dime for a variety of reasons that can affect demand/consumption patterns. This is the inherent weakness of planned economies - which your economy would have to be if the credits distributed are to match the production in any way over the long term.

Now, I suppose you could say that credits are to be distributed biweekly just as our paychecks are now or even in real time via a computer. This would cause problems for two reasons: one, even the most advanced supercomputer cannot keep track of every economic decision at the same time. Production plans change day by day, minute by minute, hour by hour, as does demand (again the central weakness in a planned economy - it cannot keep up with people's split-second decisions). The result would be chaos because people would get 250 credits one week and 75 the next week. How would they react? They'd freak out. If they got 250 credits one week and 350 the next, they'd assume things were good and go on a shopping binge.

Boiling my on-screen ramblings down to a main point, your economy would be susceptible to all the weaknesses of a planned economy: inability of a central authority (whoever doles out the energy credits) to accurately keep track of constantly-fluid economic conditions.




Now to the second issue, about ownership. I am sure you know about Jay Leno. He got a lot of Italian sport cars. That would be impossible in a technate. You cannot own a car in a technate. You could just use a car. And yes, you could use it for months, even years, but if you change car, you will return the other to the car pool. One of the operational goals is to decrease load factors.

Well this explains it: you simply limit people's ability to consume by using the power of the state (I presume if someone does try to keep too many cars, they would face a sanction of some kind).

Frankly this plan of yours is patently absurd. People are not going to be happy to just give up ownership of their car nor will be they happy to use everything communally. There really is no point in arguing this topic, as it is a change in human attitudes towards consumption that would have to be proufound and that is highly, highly unlikely. Statements like this are why I write about fairies and magical dust.


Now to the real problem with consumption frenzy. The real problem is that it will stress environment even after the formation of the sustainable system. Therefore, the only thing which could help there is that the consumers are aware of their choice, or time.

Price forces them to do this. They have to pay for what they are consuming. If the system fails, government can step in using pigouvian taxes.


Eventually, people would not see personal status in products, items and material wealth, and only take what they need to live a happy life. ^^

Here is the real problem: you are defining for others what will make their lives happy. Unfortunately for you, people tend to have their own definitions of what makes them happy and if they disagree with you when it comes to ownership and consumption en masse, your entire system fails.

So to bring about this desired social change, do you advocate a slow, evolutionary process towards communally-owned automobiles or would you accept using the power of the state to enforce this world view?

That's pretty much the key question right now.

[Dimentio]

This raises some questions. Sorry, unlike the slogan-spouting morons here I always have more questions. wink.gif

The problem this brings up is timing. If the energy credits are distributed based on current production capacity, you are not accounting for futre demand. In other words if you add 500 credits to the pot for what the BMW factory can produce, and demand for BMWs rises, you have a mismatch between supply and demand. BMW planned to produce 500 cars, but people want 750, so a black market is created until you adjust. If demand falls, then you have credits that should have been used on BMWs out chasing other goods and presumably you'd produce the BMWs anyway because you've already allocated the resources to do so.

Now, I suppose you could say that you'd distribute energy credits based on planned production. This is problematic for basically the same reason. Say you knew you were going to build a new furniture factory in July so you added the credits for that factory when you distributed the credit in January. There is always the possibility that the factory does not get built because demand unexpectedly drops for whatever reason. In other words, the dynamics of an economy change on a dime for a variety of reasons that can affect demand/consumption patterns. This is the inherent weakness of planned economies - which your economy would have to be if the credits distributed are to match the production in any way over the long term.

Now, I suppose you could say that credits are to be distributed biweekly just as our paychecks are now or even in real time via a computer. This would cause problems for two reasons: one, even the most advanced supercomputer cannot keep track of every economic decision at the same time. Production plans change day by day, minute by minute, hour by hour, as does demand (again the central weakness in a planned economy - it cannot keep up with people's split-second decisions). The result would be chaos because people would get 250 credits one week and 75 the next week. How would they react? They'd freak out. If they got 250 credits one week and 350 the next, they'd assume things were good and go on a shopping binge.

Boiling my on-screen ramblings down to a main point, your economy would be susceptible to all the weaknesses of a planned economy: inability of a central authority (whoever doles out the energy credits) to accurately keep track of constantly-fluid economic conditions.


Well, that is why consumers/users would have to pre-order stuff for a cycle. And consequently, the technate would also put the industrial load factors on less than 100% so that we could increase production in the case of rapidly increasing demand. The energy cycle would before the energy certifikate is going to be uploaded again would be a quarter of a year probably.


Well this explains it: you simply limit people's ability to consume by using the power of the state (I presume if someone does try to keep too many cars, they would face a sanction of some kind).

Frankly this plan of yours is patently absurd. People are not going to be happy to just give up ownership of their car nor will be they happy to use everything communally. There really is no point in arguing this topic, as it is a change in human attitudes towards consumption that would have to be proufound and that is highly, highly unlikely. Statements like this are why I write about fairies and magical dust.

Well, you simply stick your energy certifikate into a small hole in the instrument panel of the car. The computer of the car reads the certifikate to see if you have a driver's license. Then you press your code, dip, dip, duppe dupp, and you could drive off. If you try to use another car, you must return with the previous one to the car pool and release it. It is hardly government control.



Price forces them to do this. They have to pay for what they are consuming. If the system fails, government can step in using pigouvian taxes.

Yes, I have studied environmental law. But the problem is not pollution, but over-usage of resources during this current model. We cannot employ a system built on the need for constant accumulation forever without depriving the planet of biodiversity.


Here is the real problem: you are defining for others what will make their lives happy. Unfortunately for you, people tend to have their own definitions of what makes them happy and if they disagree with you when it comes to ownership and consumption en masse, your entire system fails.

So to bring about this desired social change, do you advocate a slow, evolutionary process towards communally-owned automobiles or would you accept using the power of the state to enforce this world view?

That's pretty much the key question right now.

No, I am not saying to you that you should be happy by doing something that you do not want to do. I am simply saying that in an environment of relative abundance, where everything is available for it's resource cost, and income is not a factor in determining social status, the status connected to material wealth would probably be reduced while other memes, which the people defines by themselves, while rise as new denominators.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well, that is why consumers/users would have to pre-order stuff for a cycle. And consequently, the technate would also put the industrial load factors on less than 100% so that we could increase production in the case of rapidly increasing demand. The energy cycle would before the energy certifikate is going to be uploaded again would be a quarter of a year probably.

I've got to pre-order everything I want 3 months in advance? :o Are you serious? People are a little too fickle to be sure that what they wanted three months ago is what they want now, nor can people plan for certain what they're going to want or need 3 months into the future.

There's also the issue of production: if demand for something in the next quarter comes in far higher than expected, you do understand that it takes a little longer than 3 months to build a new factory, get workers hired and get them trained, right?


Well, you simply stick your energy certifikate into a small hole in the instrument panel of the car. The computer of the car reads the certifikate to see if you have a driver's license. Then you press your code, dip, dip, duppe dupp, and you could drive off. If you try to use another car, you must return with the previous one to the car pool and release it. It is hardly government control.

Um, Serpent, someone has to program the cars to accept only certain certificates, someone has to set the requirements, someone has to enforce the requirements, and someone has to implement punishment if necessary.

There is control, governmental or otherwise.


Yes, I have studied environmental law. But the problem is not pollution, but over-usage of resources during this current model. We cannot employ a system built on the need for constant accumulation forever without depriving the planet of biodiversity.

Yes we can. First we use government to protect natural resources as we do today. Second we enact taxes that make people pay for the true social cost of their purchases and use the revenues from those purchases to alleviate the effects (i.e. buying more parkland).


No, I am not saying to you that you should be happy by doing something that you do not want to do. I am simply saying that in an environment of relative abundance,

I see you've added "relative" abundance, meaning you must accept that demand will not be met.


where everything is available for it's resource cost, and income is not a factor in determining social status, the status connected to material wealth would probably be reduced while other memes, which the people defines by themselves, while rise as new denominators.

This is an attractive outcome and given our agreement that people should pay a price equivalent to the true cost of their purchase, I think there is some common ground between us. But I do not see, based on how you've explained it, how your system is realistic at present. Maybe you'll achieve your desired social change, but I'm skeptical.

[Dimentio]

I've got to pre-order everything I want 3 months in advance? ohmy.gif Are you serious? People are a little too fickle to be sure that what they wanted three months ago is what they want now, nor can people plan for certain what they're going to want or need 3 months into the future.

There's also the issue of production: if demand for something in the next quarter comes in far higher than expected, you do understand that it takes a little longer than 3 months to build a new factory, get workers hired and get them trained, right?

No, you are not going to wait in three months. You could go to a depot and simply find the alternatives there. But if you want something special, for example a car with a crane on [if you for example want to build a solar panel on your roof] you could preorder that. There would always be stuff in the depots, but if you pre-order, you could get the benefit of having the stuff transported to you.

About sudden increase in demand: That is why we would have factories operating on less than 100% load factors, so that extra demand could be assigned to an idle operation unit/a couple of idle production units. That would add a little energy cost, but it won't be felt so much.


Um, Serpent, someone has to program the cars to accept only certain certificates, someone has to set the requirements, someone has to enforce the requirements, and someone has to implement punishment if necessary.

There is control, governmental or otherwise.

Yes. That is why we have technicians. And we do already have similar systems in order today.



Yes we can. First we use government to protect natural resources as we do today. Second we enact taxes that make people pay for the true social cost of their purchases and use the revenues from those purchases to alleviate the effects (i.e. buying more parkland).

The countries with the best environment are just consuming more stuff from countries which lacks environmental legislation. It is more cost-efficient to get lumber from Pakistan if the Swedish lumber is taxed for it's environmental damage. The trade of emission rights according to the Kyoto protocol have been a goldmine, and corrupt countries like Russia are not afraid to sell more emission rights than they got.


This is an attractive outcome and given our agreement that people should pay a price equivalent to the true cost of their purchase, I think there is some common ground between us. But I do not see, based on how you've explained it, how your system is realistic at present. Maybe you'll achieve your desired social change, but I'm skeptical.

NET is as said not a political movement, but a research organisation. When we talk about technocratic theories, we intend to use them as a model in order to find social, material and empirical basis of our theories. That is why we intend to have limited experiments with networks of eco-units and so forth.

If the results are beneficient, we will simply move up to the next step, and so on, always leaving enough room for tactical retreats.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 15, 2006 12:35 pm--> (Serpent @ December 15, 2006 12:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:42 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 03:52 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 07:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:03 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate.
does the technate use coercive force while managing?
No.
well i don't see how it could effectively manage anything at all then
Because it does not rely on taxation, because it does not have money. The technate is not there to govern people, but to govern technology. The technate could use sanctions against it's own personnel if they break the code of ethics, but it could not put sanctions on the users. [/b]
how are they going to sanction others without using some coercive force

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
You do assume because you're human and humans make assumptions.

Well obviously I do make some assumptions in life. But not on this particular topic -- on some areas assuming shit is not only stupid but dangerous. Class war is one such zone
( :) ). There, for sure, I apply my scientific, historical materialist worldview to my thinking.


It's only your opinion that the system does not provide well-being and a satisfying life based on your opinionated criteria that everyone has to be socio-economically equal in order for people to be well-off and happy.

No, it's something called a 'fact' that the system called 'capitalism' creates unimaginable misery and suffering globally and fails in getting a satisfying life for everyone living under it. You would understand this if you had not been absent-minded while reading my posts. ;)


Yes.

Well I'm the worker here and you belong to the richest 10%, like you said. I don't at all doubt you consider our mode of production a happy symbiosis, considering you belong to the ruling class, or at least the so called upper petty bougeoisie.

But the class hate exists..

You might not recognise it even though you saw it daily, because you're not able to read the signs. Empathy is an unknown concept for you -- you are most likely a sociopath like most politically active, or at least aware, supporters of the right wing are.

But one day it'll strike down upon you like lightning! :angry:


Key difference: slaves cannot walk off the plantation and start a competing plantation, they can in capitalism.

No darling, the chances for a worker to rise up to the ruling class in capitalism are minimal. There is only a counted number of seats in that circle under this system, like I've explained in this thread, and the children of the rich have superior advantages.


Your system would make people reliant on the collective for their food and shelter, which according to your logic would make them slaves to the collective. Oh except it's different when it's your system, isn't it.

No, it woud not 'make' them reliant of the collective. They already are -- we human beings are flock animals and thus generally benefit from cooperation. But it would give them the power in the collective, something capitalism doesn't give the working class, the class which maintains the society..

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+December 16, 2006 08:39 pm--> (colonelguppy @ December 16, 2006 08:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 12:35 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:42 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 03:52 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 07:40 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:03 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:57 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 10:50 am

[email protected] 13, 2006 03:47 pm
Just a question for technocrats, Isn't a technocracy just "1984"? Stalinist Russia would be exactly like "1984", but they hadn't invented the telescreen yet. So really your just giving communism more high-tech stuff to spy on people with.

Since you are basically high-tech communists.
No, technocracy is not a "1984"-esque government. The technate is not even a government since it does'nt legislate or implement laws. It is simply a service installed to manage the distribution of resources according to the wishes of the users.

Look at http://www.technocracyeurope.eu and search for anything authoritarian, please ;)
managing anything? sounds like a governing body to me.
Most things in modern society are managing something. The technate won't legislate, and thus the central definition for a state is void in the nature of the technate.
does the technate use coercive force while managing?
No.
well i don't see how it could effectively manage anything at all then
Because it does not rely on taxation, because it does not have money. The technate is not there to govern people, but to govern technology. The technate could use sanctions against it's own personnel if they break the code of ethics, but it could not put sanctions on the users.
how are they going to sanction others without using some coercive force [/b]
The technate is not responsible for coercive force, for the judiciary. The democratically established federation/confederacy is.

[colonelguppy]

so then the technate has to work through the government to enforce its policies?

[Dimentio]

The technate has to work according to the legal standards set by a government elected by the people, and also have to obey the consumer desires of the users. :)

At least according to NET;s review of the technocratic system.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 10:48 pm
The technate has to work according to the legal standards set by a government elected by the people, and also have to obey the consumer desires of the users. :)

At least according to NET;s review of the technocratic system.
FTR, it sounds like a good way to run a business. I just do not think it can be applied to govern society as a whole.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 18, 2006 04:52 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 18, 2006 04:52 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2006 10:48 pm
The technate has to work according to the legal standards set by a government elected by the people, and also have to obey the consumer desires of the users. :)

At least according to NET;s review of the technocratic system.
FTR, it sounds like a good way to run a business. I just do not think it can be applied to govern society as a whole. [/b]
On the contrary, there are very strong arguments for running a society that way. There are some problems, but heck, why do we do research?

It would give the consumer a maximum of transparency, would abolish the traditional control system of economic power, and create a natural balance between consumption and production.