Are humans trapped in a system?

the evasion_kid

smurgen wrote: »

No you're certainly not mad.there's lots of people like that.i remember watching a louis theroux about some area in America where people are trying to live without government interference and what not.they'd actually patrol at night for state troupers and ask them to leave if they came across them.some people really don't want any interference in their lives.

Slab city?

smurgen

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Slab city?

It wasn't a city.very rural sort of area.they were survivalist type of people . tooled up to the hilt and not afraid of confronting police coming into their area.also refused to pay taxes or insure vehicles etc.

The Corinthian

Dry Rain wrote: »

That's my opinion. Just think about it. It would make life easier for everyone.

Please define this magical 'Government' concept of yours that can somehow supply everyone's basic needs without payment of any kind.

For example, the construction of waterworks that channels, purifies and directs water to our taps - will it will this to happen or what? Or are TD's all going to have to learn plumbing?

Dry Rain

Kenny Bania wrote: »

but money is better than barter because it's not restricted.

Actually it is restricted. If you're buying something online from a foreign country using another currency there's a pointless exchange rate on credit card purchases...

I know this is wrong but let's say that €1 = $2

I buy something online with my credit card. It costs $50. So I have to pay €25 which is equal to $50 but for some ****ed up reason, I have to pay extra.

If there is a point in an exchange rate for purchases then can someone please explain it to me. Apart from the bank being greedy.
We need to have a universal currency if any currency at all.

Oh and another reason why we shouldn't have money. Money is manufactured by people, right? So those people can print off a few million for themselves.

EDIT: How the hell did I just overlook something more worth noting?

Money is restricted. Money can come in the form of paper, circular metal objects and virtual numbers.
One the other hand, if we use something consumable like bread then we can either buy other things or consume it.

blatantrereg

Greentopia wrote: »

Yes, it's a favourite book of mine and Orwell is my favourite author. He fought with the POUM communists, not the anarchists... a fact he later regretted as he was recovering from his gun shot wounds back in England.

A bit more than 5 minutes, it lasted long enough to show it was not only possible but worked very well with increased productivity under the collectivised workers farms and anarcho-syndicalist way industry was organised in Catalonia with around 7 million people living under this philosophy in Spain at the time.

It ultimately failed not because of any inherent failings in anarchy as a way of organising society or because of 'human nature', it failed because of forces from within and without (civil war in the country and Franco's nationalists, communists backed by Russia, opposition by capitalist countries to it and so on).

It wasn't in place long enough to prove that it is a maintainable situation though; and while it did exist it was during the unusual condition of active civil war.

While Orwell clearly liked the concept of Anarchism at that time, you definitely don't get the impression from his work overall that he believed in it. He'd clearly dropped any romantic notions by 1946 when he wrote this:

"This illustrates well the totalitarian tendency which is implicit in the Anarchist or pacifist vision of society. In a society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by 'thou shalt not', the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else."

relax carry on

OP I have to say I find your postings bizarre and extremely naive. You seem to yearn for some sort of utopia of milk and honey where society organises itself with no organisation (anarchy?) or a benevolent governing unit organises society along some sort of need based structure (communism?).

Supposing I'd lost my mind and went along with your idea(s)?, how would you replace existing societal and financial structures? Military action, financial or other material rewards? What timeframe are you considering for this change over? Does the changeover only apply to Ireland or is the rest of the world included? What happens to the unbelievers, those who resit the truth!

Also, have you considered Freemanism as I belive it may be the belief system that captures your take on the world.

smurgen

Dry Rain wrote: »

Actually it is restricted. If you're buying something online from a foreign country using another currency there's a pointless exchange rate on credit card purchases...

I know this is wrong but let's say that €1 = $2

I buy something online with my credit card. It costs $50. So I have to pay €25 which is equal to $50 but for some ****ed up reason, I have to pay extra.

If there is a point in an exchange rate for purchases then can someone please explain it to me. Apart from the bank being greedy.
We need to have a universal currency if any currency at all.

Oh and another reason why we shouldn't have money. Money is manufactured by people, right? So those people can print off a few million for themselves.

The problem with bartering is it's not standardised. If you're exchanging goods or services for other goods and services how do you know what they're really worth?or if there's defects?We all know roughly how much money is worth.it makes the exchange system faster, more accurate and helps reduce the chances of one party taking advance of the other. I'm no fan of modern economic systems but they're the best we have.

KomradeBishop

Well, in a way the OP is right: The way the monetary system works, determines how resources are distributed in the economy, and we're most definitely trapped in the current broken monetary system.

Many Libertarians want to change this monetary system (reverting back to the gold standard or similar), and a small but growing number of Social Democrats also want to change the monetary system (to bring it more under democratic control, instead of the banking/financial industry - including through capture of faux-'independent' central banks - largely getting to run it).

Probably the most important political/economic topic there is, in deciding how society is run, and people in general know very little about it.
With control over the monetary system, it's relatively easy to offer people a decent standard of living, while making sure they have to work for it just as before - without really having to increase the size of government.

The banking/financial industry has so much power over society/politics/business in the current system though, and they derive this power (and astronomical profits) through the current monetary system, that it will probably never be changed in our lifetimes - who knows though, would be nice to see more people learn about it.

smurgen

Believe me the day to day interferences and rules that people rally against are a small price to pay for how things could be.anarchism is terrifying.i got caught up in the London riots and it did feel very menacing.a real free for all vibe around the place.it didn't feel safe.that movie the road is kinda like how I feel life could go like if society really broke down.

Barely There

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You want to have a cake and eat it.

And he'd prefer if somebody else paid for the cake.

KomradeBishop

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Then why do you need a miner? Go get your own resources from the Earth fi you don;t want to pay someone for doing the work for you. You're very confused - you're trying to be all deep, but you don't seem to actually have any idea what you want - your subsequent posts have made that clear. We've always had communities - we've always had barter - but money is better than barter because it's not restricted.

If you want to live off the grid, go do it - lots of people already do. Get your bike & hit the road. Sleep on the earth - and use the Earth for resources as you say. I'm just confused as to what's stopping you exactly? People do this already - it's doable.

Interesting fact: Credit systems (such as tally-sticks) were actually far more prevalent than barter in past history - the idea that economies, on a large scale, used to work on barter, is just a myth.

These worked a lot like IOU's, as that's essentially just keeping a tally of what one person owe's another - back in the 70's bank strike here in Ireland, the economy was able to keep on working without any banks, through resurrecting IOU's like this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-can-all-get-by-quite-well-without-banks--ireland-managed-to-survive-without-them-10382975.html

These IOU's were effectively money. This is no panacea for our current economic problems though - much too complicated to resolve through this - but it gets people thinking, about what money actually is.

It's quite possible to resurrect IOU's again today, and is a good basis for increasing economic activity, especially in local communities (it's a way to escape - or rather supplement - the current monetary system we're trapped in) - but it's not a good basis for resolving our wider economic problems.

looksee

Dry Rain wrote: »

What do the following things have in common?

Water and electricity.

They're both natural resources.

Well, no they are not. Water has to be processed before we can drink it, and it has to be piped into our homes. Electricity is manufactured.

These water charges are new, right? People protest them, but not electricity bills. Sure, someone had to find a way to harness electricity but it's still a natural resource.

And your point is?

If we are to have a more perfect world, we would need to start off with selecting one of these options:

A: Completely remove governments

Who will then ensure that the water continues to be supplied and the electricity continues to be made and distributed?

B: Governments should make sure that everyone has access to basic needs without payment. Food, water, shelter and electricity. (Ok, maybe electricity isn't NECESSARY for survival but come on.)

Do you not think that this is already happening, in Ireland anyway. Everyone in the state is entitled to have the things you list, and the government makes sure you get them by giving you money with which to buy them. Any money you might have left over is yours to use as you wish.

If you are able to work you do so, and the government makes sure that you receive a fair, minimum amount of money for doing that work. If you are not able to work you are given social welfare. This is sharing. The people who have, generally because they work, share with those who do not. They may not be very enthusiastic about this at times, but it does happen. How did you get the money in your pocket OP, was it because others shared with you?

Sh1tbag OToole

Back in 'the olden days' as in 50 odd years ago, if you were living rural enough anyway and had some bit of land you had no bother with 'laws' as such. There were laws for criminals but as long as you weren't going out of your way to cause someone else misery you wouldn't get into trouble and were left to your own devices.

Now things are different,
*If you re-wire your house without a qualification you could possibly get in trouble for it
*If you have a car you need 3 bits of paper on the windshield to keep the guards happy
*If you do a bit of farming there are shedloads of rules
*You have to pay every year to "own" your own house
*There are laws governing what kind of stairs and appliances you are allowed to have in your house
*There are BER inspectors, building inspectors, I'm surprised some bureaucrat hasn't come up with an annual NCT for houses yet
*There are laws governing what kind of bits you are allowed store on your computer and send over the internet
*If you want to produce goods or sell food or do anything useful your certification costs can go into the thousands before you sell a single item.

Now there is talk of broadcast tax and at one point mandatory private rubbish collection services.
Notice how with many of the above doing the "right thing" involves substantial lightening of one's wallet. People like BER assessors would have very little work if it wasn't for the government. How many people would buy car insurance if there was no such thing as third party claims? A lot of these industries are created out of thin air by the Government with the aim of causing money to change hands and giving people jobs.

Even without the Government society itself foists so many things onto people that are quite intrusive. Debit cards, mobile phones, google, facebook. All these things are massively centralised and collect loads of data on you. The decentralised alternative usually doesn't catch on because it doesn't have the marketing budget of the centralised version and as a result you have to sign up to them or be left behind.

Kenny Bania

Dry Rain wrote: »

Actually it is restricted. If you're buying something online from a foreign country using another currency there's a pointless exchange rate on credit card purchases...

I know this is wrong but let's say that €1 = $2

I buy something online with my credit card. It costs $50. So I have to pay €25 which is equal to $50 but for some ****ed up reason, I have to pay extra.

If there is a point in an exchange rate for purchases then can someone please explain it to me. Apart from the bank being greedy.
We need to have a universal currency if any currency at all.

Oh and another reason why we shouldn't have money. Money is manufactured by people, right? So those people can print off a few million for themselves.

.

This is why I said you're confused.

If there is a point in an exchange rate for purchases then can someone please explain it to me.

You're confusing an exchange rate with a handling charge - the exchange rate is the rate one currency is worth in another. If you pay a €2 charge on a transaction, that's a handling fee - you're paying for a SERVICE - the facility of converting currency. You expect Visa or your Bank to work for free? Who pays their employees?

We need to have a universal currency if any currency at all.

Societies evolved at different times and countries introduced their own currencies, also at different times, and all into their own unique economies. And who's this "we" you refer to? You're part of that "we" - so you go do it; introduce a world currency - although that actually sound like the complete OPPOSITE of what you've been going on about!

It's like you don't even understand basic economics or how the world came to be.

mariaalice

When you head off to live off grid and do with out money and rules will you be availing of glasses when you eye sight deteriorates as you age or modern medicine such as antibiotics or treatment for cancer, which of course will be produced by the wage slaves living in a society of rules? or will you be rejecting everything when you go off grid.

The problem is that human nature is flawed ( not in a religious sense) we cant have total freedom .

smurgen

mariaalice wrote: »

When you head off to live off grid and do with out money and rules will you be availing of glasses when you eye sight deteriorates as you age or modern medicine such as antibiotics or treatment for cancer, which of course will be produced by the wage slaves living in a society of rules? or will you be rejecting everything when you go off grid.

The problem is that human nature is flawed ( not in a religious sense) we cant have total freedom .

I wouldn't trust myself without rules.id say I'd completely loose the run of myself.be going around like danny mc bride in this is the end.

PizzamanIRL

I just want to let you know that I understand what you mean OP.

Greentopia

blatantrereg wrote: »

It wasn't in place long enough to prove that it is a maintainable situation though; and while it did exist it was during the unusual condition of active civil war.

First hand accounts and footage of what went on there tell otherwise. Conditions for the revolution and the ground work had been laid for many years through education campaigns, the printed press publishing anarchist tracts in towns and cities before the revolution began, so when it started everything changed utterly literally overnight.
The population were primed and receptive to the ideas which is crucial of course.

blatantrereg wrote: »

While Orwell clearly liked the concept of Anarchism at that time, you definitely don't get the impression from his work overall that he believed in it. He'd clearly dropped any romantic notions by 1946 when he wrote this:

"This illustrates well the totalitarian tendency which is implicit in the Anarchist or pacifist vision of society. In a society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behaviour is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law. When human beings are governed by 'thou shalt not', the individual can practise a certain amount of eccentricity: when they are supposedly governed by 'love' or 'reason', he is under continuous pressure to make him behave and think in exactly the same way as everyone else."

Yes he did tend to change his political views somewhat depending on his circumstances, however he remained a socialist throughout his life.
He also said many years later that "history ended in 1936" so affected was he by his experiences in anarchist Spain. He was anti-authoritarian and anti fascist first and foremost I think. That's what he believed in essentially.

He went to Spain to fight fascism without having a clear idea of what anarchism was about it seems. He did write movingly (or I found it so at least) about what he saw there in Homage to Catalonia.

When the Sun Hits

I think so. Working 5/7 days per week (essentially 75% of your life dedicated to work) is the definition of insanity IMO. It boggles my mind how most people readily accept that as what life is.

Greentopia

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

I think so. Working 5/7 days per week (essentially 75% of your life dedicated to work) is the definition of insanity IMO. It boggles my mind how most people readily accept that as what life is.

Yep, and often in jobs people hate. It's like many people don't use any critical thinking about what exactly they want to do in life that will give them joy and pleasure and fulfilment but rather go along with what's available or what's expected of them. Some people just sleep walk through life.

16 hours a week in productive labour in work of one's choosing under one's own control would be my choice, not withering away in some cubicle as a wage slave drone.

kylith

Isn't the OP basically talking about communism? The miners will mine and refine and hand over the ore to the manufacturers who will make whatever out of it. The farmers will raise the livestock and grow the veg and hand it all over to the government who will dole it out fairly and evenly to everyone. And no-one will need any money because we'll all work for each other's good and the world will be a blissful paradise where lions will lie down with lambs and everyone will be equal.

The only problem being that it's been tried many times and it turns out that human nature just isn't like that.

Sh1tbag OToole

Greentopia wrote: »

Yep, and often in jobs people hate. It's like many people don't use any critical thinking about what exactly they want to do in life that will give them joy and pleasure and fulfilment but rather go along with what's available or what's expected of them. Some people just sleep walk through life.

16 hours a week in productive labour in work of one's choosing under one's own control would be my choice, not withering away in some cubicle as a wage slave drone.

Automation was supposed to bring us all effortless 1-day a week jobs but instead it has brought more boring cubicle-based and boardroom-based jobs and the hours stay the same

KomradeBishop

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

I think so. Working 5/7 days per week (essentially 75% of your life dedicated to work) is the definition of insanity IMO. It boggles my mind how most people readily accept that as what life is.

Yea it's like that mostly because gains in productivity, overwhelmingly go to those at the top in organizations, rather than to workers - all the benefits of increased automation etc., and the productivity/profit gains, are not proportionately seen by the average worker - it would be quite possible to sustainably reduce average work hours continent-wide, without having to sacrifice quality of life too much.

Discussion of such ideas doesn't mesh with sustaining the current economic order though (i.e. one where workers tend not to see as much of a share of the gains anymore), so it's not really possible to promote politically, and doesn't tend to see much discussion publicly or in media either.

kylith

Greentopia wrote: »

Yep, and often in jobs people hate. It's like many people don't use any critical thinking about what exactly they want to do in life that will give them joy and pleasure and fulfilment but rather go along with what's available or what's expected of them. Some people just sleep walk through life.

16 hours a week in productive labour in work of one's choosing under one's own control would be my choice, not withering away in some cubicle as a wage slave drone.

Problem being that we'd all be poets or architects and have wonderful lives except that nothing would ever get made or fixed because no-one actually wants to work in an iphone factory, or a call centre, and we'd starve because very few people get pleasure out of getting up at 6am in midwinter to milk cattle.

donegaLroad

When the Sun Hits wrote: »

I think so. Working 5/7 days per week (essentially 75% of your life dedicated to work) is the definition of insanity IMO. It boggles my mind how most people readily accept that as what life is.

yep.. who came up with the 9 - 5, Monday - Friday model? what did people do before this?

hatrickpatrick

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Money is just a rationing system. Without infinite resources, by getting rid of one rationing system you'd be replacing it with another.

It's a silly one though, because our methods of creating money do not create sufficient amounts of it to ration out everything we're capable of producing. Hence the utterly absurd and more importantly utterly sickening concept of "surplus" food in the EU while millions of people around the world would give their right arm for a slice of bread.

The system is f*cked. Utterly. And I for one am glad that more and more people like the OP are beginning to realise that. It only works because we consent to it, albeit on an almost automatic level. If we withdraw that, we can replace that system with something different.

I have no shame in admitting that I want to see the international fractional reserve system destroy itself to a level in which it is not capable of being repaired. The transition will be painful, but after that we can build a new system which doesn't place obscene amounts of power into the hands of a tiny, tiny proportion of the world's population who don't give a f*ck about anyone other than themselves.

Greentopia

kylith wrote: »

Isn't the OP basically talking about communism?

A conservative communist? :pac:

kylith wrote: »

The only problem being that it's been tried many times and it turns out that human nature just isn't like that.

Ah the old "human nature" trope. Rolled out many times here I see. Libertarian communism hasn't been tried. State capitalism-ie Stalinism and Maoism? yes.

Watch the video I posted on 'arguments against anarchism' on why that human nature argument is invalid.

coffee_cake

donegaLroad wrote: »

yep.. who came up with the 9 - 5, Monday - Friday model? what did people do before this?

7 - 7 monday to sunday??

G_R

As interesting as this has been, obvious troll is obvious.

We'll leave this one here.

Jim79 wrote: »

OP
u say u r a conservative but you espouse a libertarian or anarchist way of living. u need to do a little more research

Txt spk mkes bby jesus kry