Strangely I feel like I've responded to this post already but I must of abandoned it. So, thread revival time...
endyss wrote:We're going in circles at this point. Let me try to refocus things a bit (and forgive the cut/pasting, but the discussion is going to get way too fragmented if we keep break-quoting all of every post).
I think you're conflating "wealth" with technological advancement. It's not the wealth necessary to produce that has grown; it's the innovation and continual technological refinement. What I mean is, every ounce of wealth and power from every corner of the entire world in 1200 AD would not have produced a single modern refrigerator. Our wealth hasn't grown so exponentially, nor has a single human's productive capacity. Sure, technological advancement and innovative ways of doing things have made it possible for an individual to be more productive, but it's not a function of his wealth but the application of invention to the means of production.
I think you have a more relativistic conception of wealth than I do. Compared to the fridgeless monarchs of yore we live like gods. To me that is wealth. We are some of the wealthiest humans to have ever lived. Technological advancement generally expands wealth, that is what I am getting at.
endyss wrote:
There's a difference between voluntary work and involuntary servitude. You can point out that people have to work in order to survive, but no one is telling him what work to do, how much to do, or how to go about doing it. Right now, that is the reality of our existence, but it is reality.
Reality fucking sucks. Is your servitude voluntary? Mine certainly isn't. I generally enjoy what I do but if I don't do it my life is destroyed. I'm not free to choose to work, I am forced to work.
endyss wrote:
Compare it to the world you describe:
I'll admit, that sounds like an awesome world. And given the choice between our current reality and having what you've described, I'd choose yours in a heartbeat. What I'm maybe not understanding from what you've said is how such a world would become reality.
Based on the things you've said comparing us to civilization of the past, technological progress might one day make that a reality. Hence I refer back again to Star Trek, except that even that reality isn't right, since people still have to work, fight and die. But they have replicators, holodecks, and no system of money or wealth whatsoever. If you're going the technology and innovation route, how are we supposed to get there from our current situation? Place progressively punishing limits (by our current measurement) on the successful as a means to raise up the less fortunate, in the hopes that as their standard of living is handed out to them they will turn to be more innovative and more productive than they would have, or than their luckier/richer brothers?
Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor works, it's certainly part of getting there from here. Right now wealth accumulates at the top. It's not sustainable and it's detrimental to progress. If you're unfamiliar with the Gini coefficient, go check it out. America's is heading in the wrong direction. Turning that around is key to continuing this civilization long enough to develop the kinds of technologies necessary to eliminate money.
endyss wrote:
Under the capitalist / free market / monetary system you decry, if you do something better, you're paid better for it than someone else. If you invent a better widget, your widget will command a higher price. If your company continually turns a profit, investors pay more for your stock.
This is the mythology of capitalism. If you are a better capitalist you are paid for it better than someone else. One corporation makes a better widget than another, what difference does it make?
It's like you're channeling von Mises here! Widget quality is mostly meaningless, the world doesn't work that way except on paper. You make a better widget than me? So what, I'll make mine more shiny. Everyone loves the shiny. Desire can be manufactured like anything else. The free market isn't a competition to make better widgets, it's a competition to make the better profits. Better widgets are just an occasional side effect.
endyss wrote:
Where that breaks down is when a centralized power attempts to tinker in the name of fairness or "social justice." You might envision a world where innovation or productivity does not result in a tangible reward, since wealth is so abundant as to become meaningless, but it can't become reality overnight. We have to get from Point A to Point B somehow. Explain that to me while also arguing to punish success and disincentivize productivity.
Free markets break down because they are impossible. The only thing that keeps markets functional is centralized power. All markets inevitably trend towards oligopoly or monopoly without government regulation there to ensure fairness. I'm not arguing to punish success or to disincentivize productivity, I'm arguing that one of our central goals as a species should be to make the very idea meaningless.
I think it is more likely that we will crash and burn. Assuming we can survive ourselves long enough, getting from point A to point B is probably inevitable. Not to get all teleological or dialectical on you but I think it's embedded in the culture of science. As long as science continues as a human project we will eventually find the technologies that make a world without money possible. I think we should restructure our economy to accelerate that timeframe as much as possible. Right now we waste an absurd amount of resources on really stupid shit, our entire economy is structured to vacuum up the world, and wealth is declining for nearly everyone who isn't already rich. The economy is totally dysfunctional, we are living an apocalypse.
So, in the broadest sense: Tax the rich, educate everyone, invest in progress.
endyss wrote:
If you really believe this, then we have two very different understandings of property rights indeed. Mine has enabled the creation of wealth AND the technological advances to raise everyone's standards of living. Yours has broken every civilization to try it through poverty, corruption and slaughter.
The above was in response to me saying: It's wrong to steal but it can be justified by the necessity.
I have no qualms about violating property rights if I believe it is the least immoral option. To take the idea to the extreme:
Your wife is about to die unless she gets medicine. You are unable to get the medicine except by stealing it.
Personally, I would be willing to violate a lot more than property rights.
Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
