[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO I fully recognise there is no perfect scheme for social organization; people are not perfect. Which is why you demanding that people solve their own problems, as a principle of social organisation, seems quite flawed.

I may not agree with every
point you made, but overall, you address some really good points.

I hope my responses help you understand ahy I think the current scheme for social organization has poisoned all life.

The system as we know it implies the need to make resources and services unavailable to the public unless they have money.
Here I agree with what Noam Chomsky has said:
"We have not developed the cultural and
moral resources or the democratic forms of social
organization that make possible the humane and rational use
of our material wealth and power."
Abtract principles and overarching authority prevents this from taking place.

Quote by: BobbyO I have no love for landlords. But hey, its their job to fix those types of problems that a tenant may not have sufficient knowledge or interest in doing (and since I know you dislike a "money system" it would seem the problem is greater as there is LESS reason for a person to learn things, in your society, which do not interest them.

I don't think I've advocated a total breakdown of human knowledge. In fact, I've encouraged the opposite. I fail to see how all knowledge could simply disappear, or all the desires to repair what is broken around the house would vanish. I think getting rid of money could be helpful in project planning, but it would require a more scientifically-minded appraoch to a given situation. For example, one needn't spend money to do something--whether we are talking about construction, destruction or picking up tidbits of knowledge. That is a fundamental fact, whereas spending money is socially conditioned.

That the profit motive undermines people's ability to pursue their naked interests is simply irrefutable. Rather than develop the skills they want to have, people may find themselves routinely doing tasks nobody actually has to do do, like maybe serving popcorn at a movie theater or making Telemarketing calls just to get money to afford whatever those interests are. These are unnecessary hurdles, and dangerous ones to social development and sometimes even to survival.

Quote by: BobbyO A leaky faucet? Call the plumber who likes doing this kind of stuff and it doesn't cost me anything).

Or one can learn basic plumbing skills, which seems possible for most people.
When it comes to fixing a situation, it obviously depend on the individual initiative to ask "If not Now then When? If not ME then Who?"

But the point again is that a landlord isn't necessary to either do it yourself or get outsidee help.

Quote by: BobbyO But again, why should the plumber respond to your desire for him to fix your leaky faucet? Since he can't be in two places at once, why go to you, and not to the fellow on the other side of town? Again, mechanisms are needed to make these types of determinations.

Again, you assume that this fundamental problem can be easily solved.
your desire to believe this doesn't make it so. But the easiest mechanism could be procximity, or how about free housing cooperatives that encourage everyone to learn plumbing and other skills? So it doesn't just come to a sense of
doing what is morally right, but of doing what is practical for its own sake.

I think you underestimate human mechanical intelligence. I once fixed a guitar without knowing hardly anything about how they work, so I know that even the less machanically inclined can work things out. Sure, there may be times when we turn to outside help, and money may be involved, but it makes little sense to not be pacified and content with the illusion that money and related authorities are absolutely necessary. In fact, there are plenty of situations that seem to occur randomly which render using money impractical or impossible as a solution.

Grandpa h.