Links on abolishing money:

[grandpa]

When I say I am anti-capitalist, I mean it in a very literal sense. So do the people at these links:

http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php...121-000001.htm

An organization to watch out for:
http://www.abolishmoney.org.uk/

I'm aware that most of you are utterly afraid of a world where abstract concepts such as money and imaginary credits don't guide human decisions, but I would like to hear what you all have to say about this idea.

Contrary to conventional wisdom (AKA outright lies), money is not automatically occuring in nature. It is mandated by threats of violence, intimidation and outright brainwashing. Money is just paper and coins, credits are imaginary. It is ALL imagination-based, yet I am seen as crazy for not wanting to make fantasy into an absolutist reality.

What do you say? Can people not be un-brainwashed into valuing human beings over abstract concepts and cynicism of human character (propogated by the status quo, mind you--which becomes self-fulfilling prophesy).


Grandpa h.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: grandpa When I say I am anti-capitalist, I mean it in a very literal sense. So do the people at these links: http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php...121-000001.htm An organization to watch out for: http://www.abolishmoney.org.uk/ I'm aware that most of you are utterly afraid of a world where abstract concepts such as money and imaginary credits don't guide human decisions, but I would like to hear what you all have to say about this idea. Contrary to conventional wisdom (AKA outright lies), money is not automatically occuring in nature. It is mandated by threats of violence, intimidation and outright brainwashing. Money is just paper and coins, credits are imaginary. It is ALL imagination-based, yet I am seen as crazy for not wanting to make fantasy into an absolutist reality. What do you say? Can people not be un-brainwashed into valuing human beings over abstract concepts and cynicism of human character (propogated by the status quo, mind you--which becomes self-fulfilling prophesy). Grandpa h.

I also find it very interesting myself and also wish we could live in a world without money. But it's how the system is--globally. Not only that, but how would you prefer we do business with nations, between people (6.5 billion), and keep the government in business?

Unless you're leading to global communism, which would be nearly impossible, I don't see a point to anti-capitalism. The Eastern European failures should let you remember that!

[grandpa]

I don't think Chairman Mao or Stalin are good examples of abolishing left-Libertarianism or abolishing money. They were about as irrational as one would expect a tyranny to be.

But there is a point to abolishing money--the most obvious one being it is rooted in abstraction. It is something people apply to a given situation, and therefore is not an absolute necessity. It is backed by force, which is ultimately where its "worth" come sfrom. It is worth believing in it as opposed to being thrown out on the street and condemned by mainstream society.

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

Money isn't naturally occuring, but value is.

As soon as a resource is demanded, it becomes scarce because there are not an infinite supply of it.

Thus, value arises.



Grandpa, the only way you will ever get your ideals to work in the real world is if you end scarcity.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Money isn't naturally occuring, but value is. As soon as a resource is demanded, it becomes scarce because there are not an infinite supply of it. Thus, value arises. Grandpa, the only way you will ever get your ideals to work in the real world is if you end scarcity.

This argument makes no sense. Again, just because resources are not infinite, it does not mean they are immediately scarce. I want you to look at the links I've provided for once, TMAN.

They point out the obvious--that capitalism does not discourage overconsumption any more than the alternative of not having it. In fact, as anyone should be able to observe, such abstract considerations as money accumulation gets in the way of addressing genuine scarcity.

People can and do value resources outside of the price tags we slap onto them after the fact. The money is merely used to assure one group can dominate resources, as only irrational means of exchange backed by force could systematically assure such a thing.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

By the way, what do you think of my Avatar? I finally got one. I'm moving up in the world.

Grandpa h.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Grandpa, I like the idea to abolish money, I really do. Bu really, let's get a reality check.

I looked at the websites. The first one was terrible and provided no framework for a new system better than capitalism. It just said how capitalists are bad people, we're corrupt, etc. like we would be great, perfect people in a money-free society. You must have little grasp on pre-history to understand the human nature. We're intellectual animals, you need to remember that.

The second website brought more of a challenge but it's far more Marxist than anything I've read so current. People would steal, loot, pillage, plunder, others property, food, families even! No, not because we're bad people but because we're scared. There's no order, it's chaos. We don't live in small villages with our own resources anymore, we have 6.5 billion people on this planet, with many many nations using up their resources. The abandonment of capitalism would scare everybody into protecting their own resources and chaos would ensue. It's so easy to see that this is a madman policy.

Two thumbs down, sorry gramps.

[Amuse]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Money isn't naturally occuring, but value is. As soon as a resource is demanded, it becomes scarce because there are not an infinite supply of it. Thus, value arises. Grandpa, the only way you will ever get your ideals to work in the real world is if you end scarcity.

Scarcity is a falicy, enginnered by the powers to control and dominate society at large. Scarcity IS what gives money it's value. Before money there was barter and people traded goods or services for other goods or sevices needed.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Amuse Scarcity is a falicy, enginnered by the powers to control and dominate society at large. Scarcity IS what gives money it's value. Before money there was barter and people traded goods or services for other goods or sevices needed.

That's absolute bullshit. Whole civilizations, the Anasazi, the Mayan, Easter Island, Mangreva, etc. have died out because of scarce resources.

Before money, there was also a far greater amount of resources worldwide to begin with anyways. Before money, there wasn't 6.5 billion people on the planet. Scarcity is around the corner, but by the time it really hits, about the same time we hit 10 billion people, I'll be dying off anyways, so if no one cares now, neither do I. BUT, it does exist and will be a major issue and already is in many undeveloped nations, contradictory to the common notion that only developed nations have the worst environments. That is a false misconception.

[Amuse]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Grandpa, I like the idea to abolish money, I really do. Bu really, let's get a reality check. I looked at the websites. The first one was terrible and provided no framework for a new system better than capitalism. It just said how capitalists are bad people, we're corrupt, etc. like we would be great, perfect people in a money-free society. You must have little grasp on pre-history to understand the human nature. We're intellectual animals, you need to remember that. The second website brought more of a challenge but it's far more Marxist than anything I've read so current. People would steal, loot, pillage, plunder, others property, food, families even! No, not because we're bad people but because we're scared. There's no order, it's chaos. We don't live in small villages with our own resources anymore, we have 6.5 billion people on this planet, with many many nations using up their resources. The abandonment of capitalism would scare everybody into protecting their own resources and chaos would ensue. It's so easy to see that this is a madman policy. Two thumbs down, sorry gramps.

Finite resorces is also a falicy. It'a an idea sold to the general public by concerns wishing to over value their products or services for undue profit.
We as individuals need to take more responsibility for ourselves with regard to "wants verses needs".
Shelter, food and water are needs everthing else is a want.
The most powerful addiction in the world is capitalist consumerism.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Amuse Finite resorces is also a falicy. It'a an idea sold to the general public by concerns wishing to over value their products or services for undue profit. We as individuals need to take more responsibility for ourselves with regard to "wants verses needs". Shelter, food and water are needs everthing else is a want. The most powerful addiction in the world is capitalist consumerism.

The idea that finite resources are a fallacy is probably the worst environmental observation I've ever heard. I suppose it's ok to use up every resource then as fast as we can so we're happy then right? I mean they are going to last forever aren't they, anyways? I know trees take like 30 years on average to uproot and most other resources like oil and coal take years and years and years to sediment, but hey, maybe the Earth will feel bad for us and just pop in some more trees while we get dry right? Maybe the Earth will start shooting out oil in my backyard when we've reached low on oil.

Seriously, where are all the resources going to come from? After the ANWR, we have pretty much nothing else for reserves. That is finite, right? After the Middle East consumes its oil, they have nothing else, you know that right? I guess not. You seem very uninformed.

[Amuse]

I'd like to point out that supply and demand is the model used for establishing value. Suppliers are well aware that once a dependance on anything is established, value is regulated by supply and demand. If you want higer profits then choke the supply and establish the belief in scarcity. You and many others fall victim to this everyday through consumerism. Take a moment and ask yourself what things in your life you enjoy are wants and which are needs. Everyday we see advertisements on tv, newspapers, billboards, magazines and the internet things we are told we need and after a while we begin to believe the brainwashing.
We grow more food per acre now then ever before, in fact our government pays farmers NOT to grow certain things in order to keep the market from being flooded there by keeping prices high. This IS fact. Other countries governments control their people by controling the food supply. This IS fact. We send food to other parts of the world to stem hunger but it is often never distributed to the people that need it but instead it goes to the wealthy and government people. This IS fact. We have vast oil fields in Alaska that are tapped but we don't use it because we would rather use up somebody elses first. Auto makers would be STUPID to keep making gas guzzeling autos if there was dwindeling oil supplies because they would quickly go out of business.
Socitey is based on consumerism. Economies can't survive without consumerism but people can if they learn that there is little they need and can control their want.

[Amuse]

[quote=SoccerfreakAB2]That's absolute bullshit. Whole civilizations, the Anasazi, the Mayan, Easter Island, Mangreva, etc. have died out because of scarce resources.

Before money, there was also a far greater amount of resources worldwide to begin with anyways. Before money, there wasn't 6.5 billion people on the planet. Scarcity is around the corner, but by the time it really hits, about the same time we hit 10 billion people, I'll be dying off anyways, so if no one cares now, neither do I. BUT, it does exist and will be a major issue and already is in many undeveloped nations, contradictory to the common notion that only developed nations have the worst environments. That is a false misconception.[/QUOTE

Nobody knows what happend to the Anasazi or the people on Easter Island and other civilisations that died out did so becaused they refused to leave there home when nature dictated it was time to move on so your statment is speculative, The Mayans were mostly obliterated by the Catholics during their expansion into the "New World".
As far as your belief that rescorces were greater before money that is misleading. When the pilgrims landed in America there was fewer wildlife populations then than there is now due to conservation. While it is true the buffalo were almost wiped out they now have grown to a very large population. Other species that have disappeard before conservation practices were implemented is unfortunate but we have survived without them and maybe our existance is less enjoyable without them but none the less species come and go so why should ours be any different? We are animals too.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa just because resources are not infinite, it does not mean they are immediately scarce.

I have no idea what immediately scare means. However, by definition, if there are not an infinite amount of resources, they're scarce.

They point out the obvious--that capitalism does not discourage overconsumption any more than the alternative of not having it.

There is no such thing as overconsumption.

Over what? What is your reference point?

such abstract considerations as money accumulation gets in the way of addressing genuine scarcity.

What is genuine scarcity?

The money is merely used to assure one group can dominate resources

Money is just a place holder. It's nothing more than a symbol.

I could carry bricks of gold around, but that's a pain in the ass, don't you think?

Quote by: Amuse Scarcity IS what gives money it's value.

Money itself has no more value than the paper it's printed on.

Things have value, not money. And things aquire value from supply and demand.

Before money there was barter and people traded goods or services for other goods or sevices needed.

Yes, based on value and supply and demand.


As I just said, I could carry around bricks of gold, but they're very heavy. Have you ever held one?

[Amuse]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I have no idea what immediately scare means. However, by definition, if there are not an infinite amount of resources, they're scarce. There is no such thing as overconsumption. Over what? What is your reference point? What is genuine scarcity? Money is just a place holder. It's nothing more than a symbol. I could carry bricks of gold around, but that's a pain in the ass, don't you think? Money itself has no more value than the paper it's printed on. Things have value, not money. And things aquire value from supply and demand. Yes, based on value and supply and demand. As I just said, I could carry around bricks of gold, but they're very heavy. Have you ever held one?

Thats why money should be eliminated. It has no real value. It's not backed by gold anymore. It's a false value. Yet people get killed or thrown in prision over money. Even gold has little to no value since it's not a nessecity for basic survival.

[tman_ndsu08]

Our money is fiat money, yes.

But so what?


Would you rather carry around things of value instead of agreed upon symbols of value?


IE, would you rather carry around TV's than money?

[Amuse]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Our money is fiat money, yes. But so what? Would you rather carry around things of value instead of agreed upon symbols of value? IE, would you rather carry around TV's than money?

Maybe a Dick Wracy wrist watch tv.

[tman_ndsu08]

So you understand the idea, then?

Trust me, they thought this out long and hard several hundred years ago.

[Sonart]

.

Grandpa...

Let me take a shot at this.

Human beings are social animals. We survive in nature by banding together in social groups for mutual defense and provision. We hunted more successfully in cooperative groups, we defended ourselves better in cooperative groups, we raised families more successfully in cooperative groups.

For millenia, the basic group was the tribe, and everyone knew everyone else. (even today, research has determined that most humans are comfortable with an immediate circle of no more than about 120 close family, friends and co-workers) Within that tribe, everyone was expected to contribute whatever they could to the survival of the tribe. Those capable of contributing more than average -- the best hunter, the shaman, the healer, etc. -- received extra value for their extra contributions. A larger share of the hunts and gathers, special clothes, the cosiest parts of the cave, etc.

As societies became more complex, the distribution of individual value based on their contributions to the group became more complex. The accumulation of cattle or horses or goats or shares of the crops or wives. Those of less value to the group received less value from the product of the group. What one needed to make their lives comfortable and secure could be bartered for trading what your skills could create of value -- food, clothes, minerals, services -- with the things of value someone else could provide.

But as societies became even MORE complex, barter becomes troublesome. If I'm an artisan or a trainer of horses or a scribe, not everyone that has what I need necessarily needs what I have to offer. At some point it becomes necessary to develop an abstract but universally accepted currency of intrinsic value, so that if I offer my skills as an artisan to an architect, I don't have to expect them to pay me in food or clothes or that new, hi-tech bronze chisel that I've been drooling over. They can provide me with units of value -- gold, wampum, cowery shells, whatever -- in whatever amount we've agreed is worthy of my contribution. I can then go to whatever specialist -- the metalsmith, for instance, who's the only person capable of making those nifty new chisels -- with whatever units of currency we've agreed is equal to the value of his creating that chisel... so the he can go to the wood collectors for the extra fuel for his hearth, so that they can go to the goat herders for a weeks supply of milk, etc. etc.

As societies become even more complex, the units of currency become more abstract... after all, there's only so much gold or cowery shells ...just as long as everyone agrees on the value of the currency. And thus here we are today, exchanging the agreed value of our contribution to our social group -- like, y'know, being a really good football player :rolleyes: -- for an agreed equivelent value of currency which we can then use with anyone anywhere to trade for what we need, without having to directly barter x amount of football skills or aircraft maintainance for a quart of milk.

.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: grandpa I'm aware that most of you are utterly afraid of a world where abstract concepts such as money and imaginary credits don't guide human decisions..

But if you abolish money, we'll have to barter? That's an even worse situation. I am to pay for internet with chickens?

UPDATE: Ok, i read the first source:

Say you want to build a house. In the money free system, you find open land, go to the manufacturers and get materials (again, there would still be manufacturers, because there are people who enjoy making things)

OMG, you're dreaming. Yeah, people love inserting peg A into slot B for 8hrs a day... oh, shared work system... I meant 3hrs a day. They won't stick around Flint Michagan to make widgets, and wipe asses for the good of society. I agree, people won't pursue wealth, but they'd sure like to lay on beach in Maui until they die. It's not even worth discussing this topic.