A world without money... [Archive]

D33P7HR047

30 Sep 2009, 07:24 PM

it would only be a socialistic ideology, if there is an actual government and handouts to dole out.

again, it would only happen if resources are being controlled by one group or a government. abolish government and allow for pseudo anarchy and you'd pretty much be there

Give examples throughout history where something like that is feasible.

Weak government means weak system integration. No society can work on a fundamental level where an actual Civilization can prosper. No Sciences, no Maths, and no work of intellectual pursuit.

If you assume that works of anarchy, that although suppressed from their initial creation, were to be somehow stifled and prevented from having influence by the standards of established cultural divide, is somehow less "free" in a society centered around government and law, you might be rudely awakened when no law stands by your side in the very principle you beg to have otherwise.

Society is stochastic and requires an evolved and progressive state of interaction. A random obliteration of society prevents any of that from taking place. Extreme measures and self-centered dogma are very problematic. If every person ruled by decree of their own whims we would have a very stupid and self-centered society.

Madrigal

30 Sep 2009, 07:37 PM

quantumzero

30 Sep 2009, 07:43 PM

for that to work, everyone at every level would need to participate at some level and everyone would have to feel as though their needs are met. It would take serious evolution of the human mind and a loving heart rather than an iron fist. But I dig the concept.

jyakulis

30 Sep 2009, 07:45 PM

(eg. trees would only be cut down, if wood is needed)

supply and demand? :sadbanana:

D33P7HR047

30 Sep 2009, 07:45 PM

:D

*Cough* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpqKA9_ddFk)

for that to work, everyone at every level would need to participate at some level and everyone would have to feel as though their needs are met. It would take serious evolution of the human mind and a loving heart rather than an iron fist. But I dig the concept.

Indeed, for a society to run much smoother/quickly a monetary system was based. Capitalism required a debt to interact with which allowed it to run even smoother. To much of any extent an interest based society has dominated much of the "free world" where other countries have investment of interest in American as a corporate entity. A corporation can't normally run without some form of interest as well, appraised by a standard value (money). Without the trade off of money a society run off of purely a more primal needs-basis would not work. We are animals after all.

Madrigal

30 Sep 2009, 07:54 PM

*Cough* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpqKA9_ddFk)

Hmm I have an objection to that video. *narrows eyes*

Harion

30 Sep 2009, 08:07 PM

Give examples throughout history where something like that is feasible.
you're funny. if it had already occurred in the past, then it would already have been here and there'd be no need for us to discuss it theoretically.

Weak government means weak system integration. No society can work on a fundamental level where an actual Civilization can prosper. No Sciences, no Maths, and no work of intellectual pursuit.
governments are only for those society so weak it'll crumble without external force being applied to uphold order. intellectual pursuit happens whether government is present or not. otherwise, how could we have evolved so?

If you assume that works of anarchy, that although suppressed from their initial creation, were to be somehow stifled and prevented from having influence by the standards of established cultural divide, is somehow less "free" in a society centered around government and law, you might be rudely awakened when no law stands by your side in the very principle you beg to have otherwise.
many have this misconception re anarchy. anarchy does not equate to lawlessness or chaos. it only got attached to that notion due to language evolution. in basic form, anarchy is simply the absence of any government or any authority ruling over everyone.

Society is stochastic and requires an evolved and progressive state of interaction. A random obliteration of society prevents any of that from taking place. Extreme measures and self-centered dogma are very problematic. If every person ruled by decree of their own whims we would have a very stupid and self-centered society.
which is why anarchy requires majority to be wise, matured individuals that have a very different set of values than the ones living right now.

D33P7HR047

30 Sep 2009, 08:11 PM

you're funny. if it had already occurred in the past, then it would already have been here and there'd be no need for us to discuss it theoretically.

Theoretical models are based off concepts that work.

governments are only for those society so weak it'll crumble without external force being applied to uphold order. intellectual pursuit happens whether government is present or not. otherwise, how could we have evolved so?

If people suffer due to conflict the mind cannot evolve. It's a cyclical cycle where only those accustomed to it's abuses never interfere because they are so downtrodden as to never say so.

many have this misconception re anarchy. anarchy does not equate to lawlessness or chaos. it only got attached to that notion due to language evolution. in basic form, anarchy is simply the absence of any government or any authority ruling over everyone.

Wittgenstein

which is why anarchy requires majority to be wise, matured individuals that have a very different set of values than the ones living right now.

Did you just say it wasn't possible?

I have to go for the night. Nice talking to you

vSv

30 Sep 2009, 08:15 PM

I think the answer would lie in "A fully automatic system" for every production center.
That way everything would be done without human labour, and so after enough recourse management things could also be "free" to a certain degree, that is in cycle with recycling etc.

Harion

30 Sep 2009, 08:18 PM

Did you just say it wasn't possible?

I have to go for the night. Nice talking to you
i'm saying it's going to take a long time, possibly eugenics and a lot of social reform and a bit of brainwashing here and there

thanks for diverting this thread from being a thread just theorizing on how to implement such a change (whether it be possible or not) into a thread debating on feasibility.

and yes, i understand you're big on data and structure you SJ, you.
no dream ever got achieved discussing feasibilities and impossibilities.
good night.

I think the answer would lie in "A fully automatic system" for every production center.
That way everything would be done without human labour, and so after enough recourse management things could also be "free" to a certain degree, that is in cycle with recycling etc.
that is part of the process. and the easiest to implement.
the biggest and hardest part is reengineering society as a whole
so we don't get these greedy and violent types ruling all over our lives
the solution is a combination of eugenics and brainwashing
mass media is already an effective tool which should be utilized for the noblest of purposes
if the ignorant masses are just going to be manipulated by propaganda,
why not a propaganda for good?
now discuss how to gain control of that tool for propaganda

cripple

30 Sep 2009, 09:03 PM

if you ruled the world with an iron fist, how would you go about easing the world into a moneyless society? currently, the world operates in transactions that requires money (or something of perceived value) changing hands. i envision a day when production and resources aren't just utilized for profit but only for consumption (eg. trees would only be cut down, if wood is needed). similarly, anyone can just go into a department store, get what they need and leave.

i envision eliminating money completely just the same way credit cards were introduced into society slowly.

More people capable of operating on higher levels of consiousness is what is needed for the fundament.

Mass extermination is probably not to be avoided. Selective breeding is most likely also necessary. From here knowledge and wisdom.

get what they need and leave
This is the bummer. People are unaware of what they have, and what they need. I think this characteristic is the first one you need to breed out.

vSv

30 Sep 2009, 09:11 PM

that is part of the process. and the easiest to implement.
the biggest and hardest part is reengineering society as a whole
so we don't get these greedy and violent types ruling all over our lives
the solution is a combination of eugenics and brainwashing
mass media is already an effective tool which should be utilized for the noblest of purposes
if the ignorant masses are just going to be manipulated by propaganda,
why not a propaganda for good?
now discuss how to gain control of that tool for propaganda

Yes, yes I agree.
Some types of people are just born to follow whatever is thrown at them, we would be better off using the sheeples for something "good" rather than have it the way it is now, the problem is only how to do it.

The biggest movement of this type as far as I know that has already begun gaining some influence would be "The Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/)".
And movies such as "Zeitgeist: Addendum (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&ei=7LrDSvrpJITS-AamiJzsBg&q=zeitgeist+addendum#)" and "Orientation Presentation (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261&ei=CrvDSu2yJsbC-AaR-LHwBg&q=zeitgeist+orientation+presentation#)" could be of some help in achieving a new movement for a system change.

Qfwfq

30 Sep 2009, 09:16 PM

Technology will eliminate the workforce, and hence the economy. Obviously it's not in the interest of current government and industry, but you can only postpone something like this, you can't prevent it.

Would continuous education and the pursuit of happiness be enough to control the masses, is the question.

anyway this has already been said.

Coelacanth

30 Sep 2009, 09:56 PM

If I ruled the world with an iron fist, there's a lot of things I'd change, but eliminiating money wouldn't be one of them (eliminiating cash in favor of purely electronic money might work, but that's a very different question).

If anyone can just go into the department store and take whatever they want, who would bother to stock the place and keep the lights lit in the first place? Who would make the stuff with which the store would be stocked? If there's nothing to be gained by making stuff or distributing it, people won't make anything nor distribute it.

As far as material things no longer being valued, that's quite impossible. Food is inherently valuable because it keeps me from starving, and I value my life. Clothes and houses are inherently valuable because they keep me warm and I value my comfort. Computers are inherently valuable because they keep me entertained and I value not being bored.

The alternative to money is barter -- people will only let you have valuable things if you give them somethingg of value in return. And while it's possible to run a society entirely on barter -- indeed, everyone did for thousands of years -- it most certainly leads to a substantially lowered standard of living and minimal technological progress, neither of which is particularly appealing to me. Even straight-up ferverently communist countries have seen the need to retain some form of currency, and for good reason -- it's a very powerful and useful invention.

Depending on how iron your fist is, you may well be able to eliminate money. But you really shouldn't.

30footsmurf

30 Sep 2009, 10:01 PM

Wouldn't that be a society where things become meaningless and of a lower denominator? How could something be valued at all or any more. A take-all mindset would be created and pretty soon chaos would ensue, would it not?

I guess it would only hold the value that it has to yourself as a good. The elimination of exchange value is not the elimination of value all together, but rather of fetish value. Value is totally subjective and marketing gimmicks and market manipulation help people "create wealth" out of anxiety and desire to part of the in crowd. Chaos would only ensue if people were unable to get the things they need, not just because they don't know what number to assign to the products the have or need. It costs what it takes to create and transport, without money there wouldn't be a capitalist on top doing nothing but driving up cost with their delusional self importance.

I don't want to rule the world. But I would like to have by thoughts considered when a decision affects me. So if I did, thats how I would use my iron fist, I would be the world consultant. I guess I would just hold veto power and enjoy my hammock.

Coelacanth

30 Sep 2009, 10:09 PM

I guess it would only hold the value that it has to yourself as a good. The elimination of exchange value is not the elimination of value all together, but rather of fetish value.

The only way to eliminate exchange value is to eliminate exchange. And although with enough power you could do this, the end result would be that every individual would be responsible for producing their own food, their own clothing, their own shelter, their own everything. People might be able to survive under those conditions, but everyone's condition would be heavily impoverished compared to even the poorest members of modern industrialized society.

An individal (or, generously, a family) on their own in the wilderness could probably just about manage to scrape together enough food and warmth to keep from death, but all the wonderful features of the modern world we take for granted -- computers, hot running water, vehicular transportation, books, pizza would be impossible. No one, acting on their own, can transform raw materials into a working computer, it's simply far too complicated -- it requires numerous people, and therefore, exchange.

30footsmurf

30 Sep 2009, 11:25 PM

The only way to eliminate exchange value is to eliminate exchange. And although with enough power you could do this, the end result would be that every individual would be responsible for producing their own food, their own clothing, their own shelter, their own everything. People might be able to survive under those conditions, but everyone's condition would be heavily impoverished compared to even the poorest members of modern industrialized society.

An individal (or, generously, a family) on their own in the wilderness could probably just about manage to scrape together enough food and warmth to keep from death, but all the wonderful features of the modern world we take for granted -- computers, hot running water, vehicular transportation, books, pizza would be impossible. No one, acting on their own, can transform raw materials into a working computer, it's simply far too complicated -- it requires numerous people, and therefore, exchange.

I don't think our definitions of exchange value are the same. My view of exchange value is where we create a good for its use as an exchange item, ie I will make this widget even if it is utterly worthless because john will give me his car for it, and it only takes 12 minutes for me to make one. Exchange doesn't mean exchange value, you can go to a garage sale and you can barter and end up paying what its worth to you. Or you can go to a store where prices are fixed and pay what it is worth to the average moron buying an item. A perfect example of this is the pet rock. The pet rock was worthless as anything but a rock, the fact that someone made money on it proves that people will pay money for nothing, for a feeling, much the same way porn is consumed (Fetish value=Exchange Value). The society that would be able to run without the use of exchange value on products would be based on the ability of people to recognize and come together for their best interests and willingly subjugate themselves to the cause of transforming raw materials into a computer or whatever product is needed and enjoy the fruits of our labor collectively. This is all assuming we can see value in each other which is the real problem with everything. We are led to value things by those in our environment who wish to profit of the things we value. What this leads to is resentment among those who have and those who do not have. Those who have become fearful others will take their precious, those who don't have are trying to get their precious. (I'm going a little overboard with the precious, but it still rings true I think) However the desire that was placed in them through marketing doesn't go away, so they may to underhanded things to get what they now desire. Its all stupid really.

One of the things that come to mind regarding capitalism is that it tends to strip away the bonds of people, to create a false sense of individualism and independence. A wealthy man in American can say reasonably that he doesn't need anyone. Of course he doesn't he can buy peoples effort and use it to meet his needs. However the truth of the matter is that without those people willing to work for it his money is worthless and he is not as self sufficient as he thinks. Much the same way as you said no single man can make a computer with raw materials. There is a real value to some things, and others are simply the result of psychological coercion through the use of marketing.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in the money driven economy, we become convinced that if you don't have money its because you suck. You didn't work or you blow all your resources on hookers and drugs. Everyone is out to make things just for themselves. But I ask you this, How often are the things you own not doing shit. Most of the time probably because you probably work or go to school. There is so much wealth here that we all think we have to have our own everything when it would make total sense for a group of people to buy a huge projector and screen and make a big comfy room to hang out and watch things on a big screen. Instead we have theaters that charge you 8 dollars for $0.25 worth of pop corn. This type of stuff brings societies together. Capitalism is more than likely the reason we are so divided politically. We aren't all just people no more, many of us have developed a fetish for ourselves because of it.

Architectonic

30 Sep 2009, 11:42 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is impossible for humans in their present form to live in a post materialistic society. Money is not a physical thing, but a promise (a medium of exchange). It doesn't matter whether you promise goods or labor. A barter society still uses a sort of money.
An efficient top down organizational system is computationally impossible (though current computational power is lacking, the real problem is due to lack of information inputs).

A wealthy man in American can say reasonably that he doesn't need anyone.

You must be joking!

Anyone who actively participates in our society understands the concept of division of labour.

Coelacanth

30 Sep 2009, 11:57 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that in the money driven economy, we become convinced that if you don't have money its because you suck. You didn't work or you blow all your resources on hookers and drugs. Everyone is out to make things just for themselves. But I ask you this, How often are the things you own not doing shit. Most of the time probably because you probably work or go to school. There is so much wealth here that we all think we have to have our own everything when it would make total sense for a group of people to buy a huge projector and screen and make a big comfy room to hang out and watch things on a big screen. Instead we have theaters that charge you 8 dollars for $0.25 worth of pop corn. This type of stuff brings societies together. Capitalism is more than likely the reason we are so divided politically. We aren't all just people no more, many of us have developed a fetish for ourselves because of it.

I believe you're conflating the use of money with consumerist capitalism. Even quite socialist, even communist, societies use money. Even without money, people would be quite free to exchange four goats and a sheep for a stupid pet rock, and even with money, it's quite possible to outlaw such transactions (not that I actually would).

What I think you're after is a world without envy, status-seeking, fads, or luxury beyond the standards you think are appropriate (cinema ok, private TV bad -- by which principle do you draw the line?). All of which are a hell of a lot harder to get rid of than money, no matter how much political power you have.

Additionally, people have been politically divided and at each others' throats since well before the advent of modern capitalism, or even money.

hoodrich84

1 Oct 2009, 12:09 AM

yep. money makes the world go round'
if society functions moneylessly, there would be more intp's running around buttnaked

Harion

2 Oct 2009, 08:46 AM

If I ruled the world with an iron fist, there's a lot of things I'd change, but eliminiating money wouldn't be one of them (eliminiating cash in favor of purely electronic money might work, but that's a very different question).
moving from cash to electronic money is just part of the process. after all, think of how things would be in a universally cashless society. what would be the difference between a pure electronic money society from online games driven by online cash? simple. electronic money would be tied down with real value (backed up by real goods, like gold - same with cash system if you understand the principle) while online games' money isn't tied down to anything of real value (these are those free games.obviously, when real money enters into the equation, online money starts to have a tied down value, albeitly, in a diluted form). money in online games is tied down to players' perception of value.
now, think of purely electronic money-driven society losing all sense of tied down value. electronic money not needing to be backed up by relal goods. eg. your gil's (electronic money) value is what it is as perceived by others and not what is backed up by real goods.
what prevents society from just "creating wealth out of nowhere?" after all, electronic money are just bits of code. you can just create it with a simple command. what would happen to those economies?
answer: hyperinflation. this can be observed in online games economies.
even then, hyperinflation can be managed by a centrally strong government. ceiling prices can be established for all goods.
now supposed everything happens that way. and a purely electronic financial society comes to pass. what do you think would be the natural progression of things?
heh. all the possibility is there. you just can't see it (or refuses to acknowledge it) because of some sort of inner control telling you what is and what is not possible when really, everything i've posited can be and is possible. it's just a matter of how much willpower is needed for it to be realized. you see, all the impossibilities you see are not impossibilities created by physical laws or science. they're impossibilities created by man.
reenginer mankind and give them a different set of values and you can achieve such a society as i envision.

If anyone can just go into the department store and take whatever they want, who would bother to stock the place and keep the lights lit in the first place? Who would make the stuff with which the store would be stocked? If there's nothing to be gained by making stuff or distributing it, people won't make anything nor distribute it.
i think this has already been answered

I think the answer would lie in "A fully automatic system" for every production center.
also this

Technology will eliminate the workforce, and hence the economy.

As far as material things no longer being valued, that's quite impossible. Food is inherently valuable because it keeps me from starving, and I value my life. Clothes and houses are inherently valuable because they keep me warm and I value my comfort. Computers are inherently valuable because they keep me entertained and I value not being bored.
you misunderstand things. material things don't lose "value." they just lose "monetary value." in a moneyless society, things don't have a price. you can just get anything you need because no one sells them. the concept of money or barter (money is just another form of barter) won't be needed. barter after all, is just needed in a society that doesn't share resources. what would you need to have to play barter for if you can just get what you need from a production center?
think of full automation. of production centers and automated deliveries. and stores being stocked from them. ppl don't work to live. they work to get self-attainment. and respect. the new money is "respect." your worth is determined by your expertise. with labor being unneeded, ppl can just be bums OR they can choose to work in specialized fields that aren't labor intensive. you'll see the sciences and research booming. as well as the creative and entertainment industry. you see, even without the need for money, or for daily survival (with every essential needs being provided), ppl would still choose to do something with their time. with ppls time being freed up from having to work, what would they do? they'd do exactly whatever it is they'd like and would be doing if ever they were on vacation. work, would be anything of recreational value to them.

Lee

4 Oct 2009, 05:36 PM

There was once a world without money, and then money emerged to solve that problem.

kuranes

4 Oct 2009, 07:02 PM

What I think you're after is a world without envyYes, I think you're right. There is a book by C.J. Cherryh called "Wave Without a Shore" that supposedly shows a society based on philosophical values. It's on my to-be-read list. But its science fiction. The lower Maslovian levels of need have probably been replaced by robots and AI's, or different bodily requirements etc.

The closest thing we've got in the real world ( which is not really very close at all ) is the ideas and real world practices of Ricardo Semmler, which I've mentioned elsewhere.

Mr.Defense

6 Oct 2009, 03:57 AM

The question is why is money a neccesity in society?

Why do we assign monetary numbers to everything. What meaning do these numbers have?

bass_n_treble

6 Oct 2009, 04:43 AM

Me personally? I could give a shit about the human race. It is not my responsibility to take care of other people at large--I will only defend my own personal well-being, and the well-being of my loved ones. The rest of you need to stop infecting the planet.

Imagine[/YOUTUBE]

I love John Lennon as a musician, but as an activist he was about as fickle, socially irresponsible and hypocritical as they come.

"Was it a millionaire who said imagine no possessions?" ~Elvis Costello

*Cough* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpqKA9_ddFk)

Wow! I figured it out!

Maynard can only sing in minor key, with parallel 4ths and 5ths harmonizing with him, and 4/4 is only permitted in side projects. I still have yet to hear a Tool song where 6/8 isn't the prominent time signature.

lowtech redneck

6 Oct 2009, 05:12 AM

The question is why is money a neccesity in society?

Because quite often no one around you wants that pig you're trying to exchange for butter, so you need to exchange something that can be utilized toward the acquisition of anything and everything material or service-related.

A world without money is impossible for anything beyond a barbaric and miserable subsistence existence for everyone.

LazyReed

7 Oct 2009, 03:26 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

notjeffgoldblum

7 Oct 2009, 03:54 AM

What you're talking about is a society in which anyone they want can get anything they want, any time they want, for zero cost. Basically everyone is omnipotent and conflict of interest is nonexistent. I would not need to (nor could I) rule anything with an iron fist in this society because everyone in this society is an abstraction of an all powerful god.

BAJ

7 Oct 2009, 04:35 AM

If I could rule with an iron fist, then probably I would not try to eliminate money.

In the USSR the government required a shoe quota. This leads to the production of 1000's of shoes, all one size, regardless of the size distribution of human feet. It is a very, very stupid system.

It leads to shelves filled with potatoes or some shit.

dtachh

7 Oct 2009, 04:51 AM

look up the venus project its pretty interesting.

i mean there would have to of course be limits, but starting it one community at a time sounds like it could be a pretty cool experiment i guess

BAJ

7 Oct 2009, 05:09 AM

look up the venus project its pretty interesting.

i mean there would have to of course be limits, but starting it one community at a time sounds like it could be a pretty cool experiment i guess

I did. I even actually paid for one of their books, but never actually got the book.

Yet, I bought a book from Amazon and it arrived on time. Hummmm. I prefer my books to arrive on time rather than never arrive.

lowtech redneck

7 Oct 2009, 07:57 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

:rofl:

Hey, give me your X-box; I promise to grant you loads of acclamation and respect in return.

Edit: Better yet, manufacture me an X-box.

kuranes

7 Oct 2009, 09:56 AM

What you're talking about is a society in which anyone they want can get anything they want, any time they want, for zero cost. Basically everyone is omnipotent and conflict of interest is nonexistent. I wonder if there would be people who would try to control, hurt, intimidate, or at least engage in momentary one-up-manship even in such a world, unless actively prevented, despite there being no need any longer. Humans can be that fucked up, sometimes.

I would not need to (nor could I) rule anything with an iron fist in this society because everyone in this society is an abstraction of an all powerful god. This would be at least several layers of sophistication higher than just removing "need", if not many layers higher. ( Bolding in quote mine . )

Harion

7 Oct 2009, 06:26 PM

I would not need to (nor could I) rule anything with an iron fist in this society because everyone in this society is an abstraction of an all powerful god.
the need for an iron fist in a society that's already living this is redundant
the iron fist is needed so we can get there
if you read my OP carefully, you'll see that all i asked is HOW. HOW. HOW. if ever you had the power to turn things around, how would you do it step by step to achieve a moneyless society?
basically, everyone just skirted the question and attacked the validity and possibility of a society like that even existing
and i ended up defending that it is possible just to tolerate ppl
but really, this is an IF and HOW question. IF it can be done, HOW would you do it? let's put aside for the moment the possibility or impossibility of it.

and no one's really put a very convincing argument that it CAN'T be done
all everyone's cited is the impossibility of it because of HUMAN NATURE
which of course, can be fixed, and in time, with evolution, humanity will achieve social enlightenment.
it's said INTPs can see the big picture. so i wonder why most can't see past their own conceptions of what is possible and what is not.
the moment you stick into your mind that something is impossible to do, you immediately restrict your imagination and creativity, thereby self-fulfilling your statement that it is indeed impossible.
once upon a time, ppl like you also thought it would be impossible for man to fly. don't close your eye to the possibilities simply because you don't like the proposition..

slant

7 Oct 2009, 06:53 PM

We already tried, money was invented so people didn't have to waste their time trading things with each other of equal value or demand etc.

All governments, especially capitalism, depend upon money to thrive. So you'd be suggesting a revamp of everything.

Harion

7 Oct 2009, 07:02 PM

you're positing that in a future world, we still need to keep trading, or even hogging resources. if everyone can get what they want because all resources aren't owned by anybody and products and goods are manufactured in automated factories, and food is grown by machines and robots, what need does money provide? in a world where supply isn't stifled, and never runs out, money becomes superfluous. in a world with an over supply of every material thing, it will be non-material things that will be highly valued. like skills, creativity, and knowledge. like i postulated a few posts back, money would evolve to be something else. the new currency wouldn't be tied to anything of financial value but would be tied to an abstract value. money isn't gold, or paper, or properties, land, or things to barter... money is what you can do and how good you can do it and if there's a demand for it... and that currency isn't used to buy anything (since everything is free) but used only to increase your social status

i'm not suggesting a revamp of "everything"
just minor things to get things moving in the right direction
bit by bit steps which will eventually lead to its realization

and sigh. no one still answers the HOW question.
is everyone that blinded? or brainwashed?
i thought INTPs were analytical?
so here's your problem. solve it.

look. i'll give you a hint. supply and demand.
it's the basics of all market system right? so school me.

slant

7 Oct 2009, 07:11 PM

There must be some flaw to this logic which is why I'm not able to process the idea right. If nobody owns anything, who is enforcing it?

If there isn't anyone enforcing it, how do we know that people will follow it?

Communism, the government owns everything and distributes everything.

In socialism, the people own everything and distributes everything.

I guess anarchy is the closest thing to this theory because there isn't anyone owning anything, or enforcing anything.

Harion

7 Oct 2009, 07:19 PM

There must be some flaw to this logic which is why I'm not able to process the idea right. If nobody owns anything, who is enforcing it?
in your limited imagination, you cannot imagine a world that doesn't need enforcing. imagine for a moment that all humanity can achieve self-enlightenment... is a moneyless society possible?

If there isn't anyone enforcing it, how do we know that people will follow it?
pls see above. to add, if everyone can see that it will be to their own benefit, why would they not follow it? (because they're dumb, stupid, hateful, etc? but we've already solved that by positing that we've achieved a level of society that is enlightened/wise)

Communism, the government owns everything and distributes everything.

In socialism, the people own everything and distributes everything.

I guess anarchy is the closest thing to this theory because there isn't anyone owning anything, or enforcing anything.
yes, anarchy is the closest thing. the absence of government but the presence of order.

slant

7 Oct 2009, 08:04 PM

My limited imagination eh?

I can imagine it, I didn't know we were supposed to be imagining it. I thought you seriously wanted a hypothetical, realisitic projection of what it would have to take for that to be possible. I suppose the elimination of money would end poverty, which causes a lot of crime and violence- also a lack of education, would that be dealt with? Sure, in a world where people are intellegent and make wise, thoughtful decisions it would be possible, but I doubt that it will happen any time in the future. My question is how would you even achieve a community like that? You could kill everyone with a low IQ and hope people have high IQ offspring until the point that everyone is intellegent. But then how would you justify the killing, you'd have to get grunts to do that.

Harion

7 Oct 2009, 08:24 PM

My limited imagination eh?

I can imagine it, I didn't know we were supposed to be imagining it. I thought you seriously wanted a hypothetical, realisitic projection of what it would have to take for that to be possible.
no. how many times do i have to hammer it in that the discussion i want is about HOW to go about bringing about such a society and NOT if it's possible or not or however you wanna look at it. let's do away with the question of possibility altogether and posit for a moment that it is possible. HOW would you do it?

I suppose the elimination of money would end poverty, which causes a lot of crime and violence- also a lack of education, would that be dealt with?
Sure, in a world where people are intellegent and make wise, thoughtful decisions it would be possible
yes. i already tackled this if you were following the thread carefully.

..but I doubt that it will happen any time in the future.
yes. i already said that.

My question is how would you even achieve a community like that? You could kill everyone with a low IQ and hope people have high IQ offspring until the point that everyone is intellegent.
again. i already mentioned this.

But then how would you justify the killing, you'd have to get grunts to do that.
which is why in my make believe world, you rule with an iron fist. then you can get anyone to do anything so as to achieve that goal.
you really need to read the whole thread. esp the OP. you're getting redundant.

slant

7 Oct 2009, 08:36 PM

Okay.

notjeffgoldblum

7 Oct 2009, 11:53 PM

the need for an iron fist in a society that's already living this is redundant
the iron fist is needed so we can get there
if you read my OP carefully, you'll see that all i asked is HOW. HOW. HOW. if ever you had the power to turn things around, how would you do it step by step to achieve a moneyless society?
basically, everyone just skirted the question and attacked the validity and possibility of a society like that even existing
and i ended up defending that it is possible just to tolerate ppl
but really, this is an IF and HOW question. IF it can be done, HOW would you do it? let's put aside for the moment the possibility or impossibility of it.

and no one's really put a very convincing argument that it CAN'T be done
all everyone's cited is the impossibility of it because of HUMAN NATURE
which of course, can be fixed, and in time, with evolution, humanity will achieve social enlightenment.
it's said INTPs can see the big picture. so i wonder why most can't see past their own conceptions of what is possible and what is not.
the moment you stick into your mind that something is impossible to do, you immediately restrict your imagination and creativity, thereby self-fulfilling your statement that it is indeed impossible.
once upon a time, ppl like you also thought it would be impossible for man to fly. don't close your eye to the possibilities simply because you don't like the proposition..

In this case, I don't think this is possible. For one thing, I think this scenario necessitates the existence of a being that is both human and god-like. I hope I do not need to explain why I find this idea absurd, but I will if you wish.

Lateralus

10 Oct 2009, 05:19 PM

I'm amazed at the ways some people have described money in this thread, like this.

I suppose the elimination of money would end poverty.
Are you serious? I ask because if you are, you obviously haven't thought this through, unless you have some really strange definition for poverty. Without money, civilization would grind to a halt. Poverty wouldn't be eliminated, it would increase exponentially.

immol8

10 Oct 2009, 06:07 PM

I do not think an absolute ruler could create an enlightened society directly. His interference would taint the results with bias towards his own view. The very thing inhibiting general enlightenment of society. It would take a demigod-like dictator with no individual ambitions to catalyze the correct direction for this type of societal change. I am obviously not qualified to step into those shoes so projecting his course of action is not possible for me.

I just see this nasty circle of dictatorship promoting sheeple who will not contest the policies of the dictator being more successful than those who rebel and are punished. Sheeple are not good working material for getting to enlightenment.

The only thing I see that could speed up human evolution towards enlightenment would be widespread catastrophe that seriously culled the population under the guise of what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Forcing us to reorganize in new ways, improve efficient distribution of more severely limited resources, innovate new technologies to compensate for what has been lost.. new societal infrastructure...

Lee

10 Oct 2009, 08:07 PM

I'm amazed at the ways some people have described money in this thread ...It isn't even worth trying to respond seriously. Most people in this thread have demonstrated a staggering degree of economic illiteracy. I actually expected more from INTPCentral, and I really didn't expect very much to begin with. When someone is this far away from comprehending the function of money, discussion on an internet forum isn't going to help.

immol8

10 Oct 2009, 08:37 PM

It isn't even worth trying to respond seriously. Most people in this thread have demonstrated a staggering degree of economic illiteracy. I actually expected more from INTPCentral, and I really didn't expect very much to begin with. When someone is this far away from comprehending the function of money, discussion on an internet forum isn't going to help.

Well, I agree. I see money as a fantastic instrument for fair value exchange. I find no fault in money at all. I was trying to suppose under what societal conditions money would not be necessary as desired by the OP. It doesn't mean I wish to live in that society.

Wise Fool

10 Oct 2009, 10:53 PM

all everyone's cited is the impossibility of it because of HUMAN NATURE
which of course, can be fixed, and in time, with evolution, humanity will achieve social enlightenment.

Harion, I am sympathetic to your cause in this thread, however, I do not believe humanity will achieve social enlightenment. Relatively -perhaps, or even probably- but not absolutely.

For example, say if we were able to look into the future of society and it appears that social enlightenment has been achieved. It is only so because our eye would not be attenuated to the finer aspects of the society where difference and contention still exist.

In this case, I don't think this is possible. For one thing, I think this scenario necessitates the existence of a being that is both human and god-like. I hope I do not need to explain why I find this idea absurd, but I will if you wish.

I wish.

_________

Money became necessary when increased economic complexity made it so. Also necessary were the will to rule and the will to be ruled. Money is only necessary so long that it is. Perhaps the will to rule and be ruled will sublimated into the will to understand and the will to be understood (maybe once INTPWDC establishes their world dominance!). This would conceivably extinguish some necessities and establish other necessities.

if you ruled the world with an iron fist, how would you go about easing the world into a moneyless society? currently, the world operates in transactions that requires money (or something of perceived value) changing hands. i envision a day when production and resources aren't just utilized for profit but only for consumption (eg. trees would only be cut down, if wood is needed). similarly, anyone can just go into a department store, get what they need and leave.

i envision eliminating money completely just the same way credit cards were introduced into society slowly.
If i ruled with an iron fist, I would not ease the world into anything. I don't think this type of thing works that way. I think my way of easing the world into a moneyless society would not be done from a position of authority over others, but from a position of authority over self, so it would be an independent endeavor (will to power). Money would be phased out with authoritative rule over others...

I think what would be needed at first is a teleological plan for success which is believable and enactable. A covenant should be enacted in accordance with this plan. The covenant will either die or flourish depending on the soundness of the original plan and the degree of faith in the covenant.

I imagine such a plan would begin as a gathering of minds who would begin to form their plan upon which their covenant is based. The plan might involve eventually establishing a communal home for themselves where they could practice their ideal way of living, internally. We would essentially be a corporation of like minded individuals, with the will to inflict change in the world by concerting our efforts into one focused political will. If we find any success we may spur parallel movements and increase the momentum of our own. If the time comes when money is officially phased out world wide, the will to rule would be left to the fringes of society, and new necessities and along with a host of their luxuries become open for exploitation, and the beat goes on.

My plan would ideally work towards bringing about a realization in those who have subjected themselves to the covenant that their essential role in life is in the stewardship of Nature.

Rule over others wouldn't be committed by the covenant because individuals willingly subject themselves to it.