Moderator: Mod Squad
Q.U. wrote:Omitted, Long Post
Part of why this is a "weekly" discussion is so tangents and arguments won't ramble on indefinitely. A bit is fine, but if things continue past the 6th (as it appears they will) I can make a new thread and cross-link it with the discussion here.RuffDraft wrote:Hey, guys, I like this dicussion because it is very revealing as to your inner thoughts and mechanisms and therefore makes it easier to see where each of you stand and where your individual arguments break down, but this is Valhallen's discussion, and I think if you're going to argue this you should make a new thread.
It's not 'if that one guy doesn't produce eggs' it's if 'no one out of millions or billions of people produce eggs' that a problem can arise.
As for workers that aren't working, I didn't say they were disabled I said they were unemployed. The benefits of unemployment are limited and the neccessary number of people in the workforce is going down. That will always result in a group who is willing to work but can't bring lumped in with what you refer to as leeches.
Money for recognition is not work for work, particularly if the little work you're recognized for contributed nothing to the society's needed functions or to the improvement of the society. You can not have an ethical work for work system if functions in it exist to arbitrarily and disproportionately reward some lucky individuals or where manipulating the system itself rather than contributing work can result in a gain. Your system is based on tenets which it does not follow, that's why it is little more than rhetoric.
BR wrote:when you say that they are cut off and penalized, Q.U., what do you mean?
Ruff wrote:you have not made a clear contention as to how someone in a Communist society would be penalized for being non-productive, especially if they are supposed to working towards this "common goal."
Yes, and I question that way of thinking. They are composing a theory that connects a society that is ideal and a people that are imperfect and chaotic. If people are going to work, they should be and feel rewarded appropriately.Q.U. wrote:RuffDraft wrote:you have not made a clear contention as to how someone in a Communist society would be penalized for being non-productive, especially if they are supposed to working towards this "common goal."
They did kinda account for it, Ruff. They said that people will work just for shits and giggles of it (or rather satisfaction and passion rather than money).
Q.U. wrote:Omitted, Long Post
RuffDraft wrote:Omitted, Long Post
when you are the one who wants to focus on 'what if this individual throws a wrench in everything
The disgruntling part is that you don't know that egg farms are run like factory lines
If no one anywhere will fill that position then either someone will have to come up with a way to get eggs using no workers, change the working conditions so that people will be willing to do that job, or eggs are going off the market.
Further a great number of jobs can be eliminated by simple realization of a value errors. The purpose of a waiter is simply to take and order and deliver food, but people lump in a whole load of other expectations to fulfill their ego and thus do not realize how cut and dry that job actually is.
so it's a short hop to say that garbage trucks will be driving themselves in the near future. Many garbage trucks in my area already have claws on them for picking up trash can which the companies enforce that you must use.
Q.U. wrote:a stupid idea and will not work
Your example of advertising as work is retarded and hasn't been used by any big business in decades if ever. I doubt even small business do it, it's more cost effective to rent advertising space on a bus. The amount of actual work done to get the recognition (which in food service 1 advertisement can be all it takes to get hundreds of repeat visits) is minuscule compared to the work of actually producing what's being sold, the paychecks certainly don't reflect the discrepancy though.
The very ability to do these things and make people you know aware of your ideas are the only motivators for participating in getting Achievements or doing anything on Facebook.
Imagine then that in the future, this sort of thing continues to increase its presence in our lives? That by participating completely of your only will in different activities, you generate points for that activity rather than applicable-everywhere money, and those points mean nothing but show how much you are invested in a project. You instantly have a resume made out of your every accomplishment.
I mean, I understand that the models of theoretical communism fail right now because they're too idealistic, but what happens when you design the model to encourage that idealism through completely capitalist-style advancement, detached from generating inequality through money?
>_> the cynicism is the thing I'm worried about, because your argument basically boils down to: "What I understand about humanity is that they are awful".
1) People should not be assumed to be worthless fucks that you need to beat into line to get anything done, rather they should be seen as both wonderful human beings you can get to know personally and enjoy, and as resources (strictly speaking in that order).
2) Technology that we have nowadays can accomplish the beginnings of FRAMING future goals, which is what we should be preparing for, rather than saying "NOPE CAN'T DO IT NOW OR SHIT FOR A BILLION FUCKIN YEARS".
our predispositions are not towards awful things but good things
icha_icha_paradise wrote:Realist here, despite the whole "people are selfish bastards when given power", not all actions that benefit the self are detrimental to the whole. Even the act of helping others is a type of selfishness, as per either the chance that the guy you help may also help you later on, or as per the arousal cost-reward model which basically boils down to "People don't like seeing others suffer very often because it may also make them feel bad, and will help to stop this negative feeling".
DaCrum wrote:See, I stopped paying attention when QU started posting because half of the things he says are strawmen arguments, overt cynicism, appeals to cynicism, and bullshit, and the other half is articles.
Q.U. wrote:Long posts are long
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests