Theorization of a possible drug to cure misbehaviour & disobedience

[PCXL-Fan]

Misbehavior or lack of obedience has been linked by a number of researchers to low levels of stress hormone cortisol. So some are theorizing a 'stress' drug used to induce increased stress in youth could bring obedience back to delinquent youth.

Bad boys can blame behaviour on their hormones - life - 30 September 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14844-bad-boys-can-blame-behaviour-on-their-hormones.html)

How about enforcement of cortisol enhancing drugs for all males to create an obedient lawabiding subservient societies. We are like children playing with big gadgets. We don't know the long term consequences of so many things, but we try to sooth our conscience and rationalize the viability of things by convincing ourselves that short term studies (with almost no nonpartisan oversight) funded by groups with self interest in their own products viability/profitability are safe for us.

Can we really say that enforcing through chemicals a form of obiedience will be beneficial for the individual in the long run taking the medication? There may be procreative/beneficial aspects to individuals growing up with delinquent traits.

What we consider delinquency and misbehaviour and lack of fear of consiquences could very well be a trait that is beneficial to them in the environment they live in; dog eat dog environments that breed lots of this behaviour in it popuance , it could be a beneficial trait.

I can already predict the future. The pharmaceutical industry would have us believe that there is something 'haywired/broken/malfunctioning' in there brain, when in actuality it could be something that is beneficial to them, (although not us) in the long term.

People mold themselves to best adapt to the environments they live in. When your living in the Bronx or low income suburbs where there is little opertunity to break out or escape their situation, the sad reality is this type of behaviour can be the most beneficial to individuals in the long run.

[Hard core Rikki]

cure to misbehaviour & disobedience

This would sound like a miraculous elixir indeed.

[capo_2k]

Well...you can say that chemicals and hormones and that are responsible for all aspects of behaviour. You can always use medicine to manipulate them. The real question is if it's ethical.

I definately think that each individual should always have the right to choose what's done to them and ultimately have the final say with regard to their own health and treatment. Everyone has the right to that freedom.

To put it another way, you can't take away peoples right to be a**holes. To disagree and have their own opinions...that's a basic human right. If people are forced to be submissive and obedient, then that's basically depriving them of their own freewill to some degree. And in my opinion that's one of the most corrupt things anyone can do to someone.

[Kraelis]

Free will? *snicker* There was a time when mere mention of the word would start a massive debate that can rip a thread into shreds. :p

Going back though... The way I see it, while people have the "freedom" to be aholes, society also has the right to live in peace and harmony. Bad behavior and disobedience, in general, disrupt the stability of society. Once it breaches into criminal behavior, I do think cortisol is called for.

The thing is, while there is some merit to the survivalist benefits of bad behavior, the point is being missed. Controlling criminal elements in say, the Bronx, as per example, goes a long way in improving living conditions, thereby breaking that "no way out" condition.

[Lord Budweiser]

There is "misbehaviour and disobedience" in societies. That's why there are wars pretty much everywhere.

It is not good a world filled with brainwashed submissive "a**holes". Someone WILL take advantage of such a situation, and probably in a not so good way, as it will not be widely noticed/nobody will care sufficiently about. It may as well hinder progress (specially scintific IMO).

[AHE]

Durrrrrrr im the captin.......

[capo_2k]

Kraelis: I'll agree that when people become aggressive then something should be done about it, but what are we talking about here? We talkin' about drugging up criminals to sort them out or what? There is so much corruption amidst a wide range of institutions that obviously the power to regulate peoples behaviour could easily be abused. I think druggin' people up because they're "disobedient" is a step too far. And besides, disobedient to whom? It's difficult to discuss precisely what's ethical without specific examples.

And I think money (or lack of it to be more precise) is the primary cause for almost all crime anyway.

Lord Budweiser: I think if you look through history, you find pretty much all wars are political and have almost nothing to do with behaviour of the public (with rare exceptions).

AHE: What's your problem you little prick? Don't call me stupid. Either contribute to the topic or get the f**k outta my face!

[Coolsvilleman]

Don't they make entire games, movies and novels around this idea. Suppress the population using drugs. Today its bad boys, tomorrow its everyone.

[Xblade]

Hormones isn't an illness, so they fail miserably. Those failscientist need to gtfo.

[ozzgx4]

A stress drug? now that would be a miracle if that were to come true

[Exodus]

I hear death cures misbehaviour and disobedience.

[Kraelis]

Kraelis: I'll agree that when people become aggressive then something should be done about it, but what are we talking about here? We talkin' about drugging up criminals to sort them out or what? There is so much corruption amidst a wide range of institutions that obviously the power to regulate peoples behaviour could easily be abused. I think druggin' people up because they're "disobedient" is a step too far. And besides, disobedient to whom? It's difficult to discuss precisely what's ethical without specific examples.


If a hormonal imbalance is to be blamed, then what's wrong with medically treating it? It's just a matter of society's collective conscience when determining what's right or wrong anyway.

Imagine, for a moment, if it were possible to eradicate misbehavior and disobedience as a whole. Corruption and evil would generally end there. The problem now lies with how to get there to begin with, which invites trouble...

Talking about trust in other people, especially those in power is a topic I'd like to avoid though. Power and the possibility of its abuse is too complicated a topic, really.

But we can dream :D

[Squall-Leonhart]

FFS let kids be kids!

Me and PCXL-Fan are the results of ADHD medication causing changes to the brains chemical structure.

[capo_2k]

if it were possible to eradicate misbehavior and disobedience as a whole. Corruption and evil would generally end there.

Misbehaviour and disobedience would end there. Corruption and evil wouldn't.

[Lord Budweiser]

I also believe so. Actually, I think corruption and evil would really benefit from it. If everyone abides to "rules", no matter what they are, someone would make the "rules" they would want to.

Really, let's try to not treat an aspect of human personality as wrong or pathological. It can by this, but only when out of focus...

For instance, maybe "curing" van Gogh wouldn't be such a great idea, would it?

[EmuFan23]

Oh my god, Anthony Burgess´ vision of the future is becoming reality. A Clockwork Orange, anyone?

[Kraelis]

Misbehaviour and disobedience would end there. Corruption and evil wouldn't.

And corruption and evil are not forms of disobedience and misbehavior against a benevolent set of rules? Corruption and evil are punishable exactly because of rules that are enforced by society.

I also believe so. Actually, I think corruption and evil would really benefit from it. If everyone abides to "rules", no matter what they are, someone would make the "rules" they would want to.

Really, let's try to not treat an aspect of human personality as wrong or pathological. It can by this, but only when out of focus...

For instance, maybe "curing" van Gogh wouldn't be such a great idea, would it?

But then making bad rules would be misbehavior and disobedience to a benevolent set of rules put in place. You guys are missing the point. Nobody would want to do bad things in the first place!

Of course, that being put into reality will just about be the most impossible thing in the whole world I guess... but we can theorize :D

[capo_2k]

And corruption and evil are not forms of disobedience and misbehavior against a benevolent set of rules? Corruption and evil are punishable exactly because of rules that are enforced by society.

Well, hold on a sec, this is getting too theoretical for me...what exactly are we talking about here? Which "benevolent set of rules" d'you mean? And who makes them? And who are the "disobedient" people we're discussing? And to be honest, I don't think "corruption and evil" and "disobedience and misbehaviour" can really be compared like that...

I can appreciate what you're trying to say. Sure, it would be great if society wasn't a s**t house and everyone was cool, but I don't think drugs are the way to accomplish that.

A drug which stopped disobedience or whatever wouldn't work...maybe if the drug installed a completely decent set of ethical values into someone, then yeah, I could kinda see the point of druggin' certain people up! But I can't see that happening!

To be honest, I really think that the transition from a monetary system to a resource based economy is the solution to pretty much all the worlds problems. Money is the source of pretty much all crime in my opinion. I mean, I don't think that many people are inherently rebellious and aggressive or whatever. After all, there are reasons why people sometimes misbehave and are disobedient.

[Lord Budweiser]

There are reasons why people sometimes misbehave and are disobedient.


/thread.

[Gnoman]

Actually, one of the definitions of corrupt is manipulating a structure of rules so that whatever you want to do is legal. That's how Hitler consolidated his power after he was elected.

[Radix865]

Oh my god, Anthony Burgess´ vision of the future is becoming reality. A Clockwork Orange, anyone?

Actually my toughts almost excactly... I was thinking about some movie, clockwork orange for example with controlled society. Because if they take a step of using drugs to "control" people and control is what this drug would do, the next thing you know you're walking around in drugs listening to some recording from loudspeakers saying "Do not oppose the goverment, work hard, do not think".

[Kraelis]

Well, hold on a sec, this is getting too theoretical for me...what exactly are we talking about here? Which "benevolent set of rules" d'you mean? And who makes them? And who are the "disobedient" people we're discussing? And to be honest, I don't think "corruption and evil" and "disobedience and misbehaviour" can really be compared like that...
[...]
To be honest, I really think that the transition from a monetary system to a resource based economy is the solution to pretty much all the worlds problems. Money is the source of pretty much all crime in my opinion. I mean, I don't think that many people are inherently rebellious and aggressive or whatever. After all, there are reasons why people sometimes misbehave and are disobedient.

That's exactly the problem. We can't trust anybody to make a benevolent set of rules that we can call universally "right".

Regarding comparisons with corruption and evil and disobedience and misbehavior, corruption and evil are defined with respect to what is "right". Without the concept of right, we'd have no idea what corruption and evil would be. We as a society codify these into rules. Deviation from the rules, especially with conscious and malicious intent, is what we consider as misbehavior and disobedience. Remember, the original context of the thread was theorizing its use on delinquency and law enforcement.

I'm not sure about the resource based system. Money is merely a standardization of trade currency. I'd elaborate more, but this is not the thread for it. Are you thinking of something similar to Star-Trek Federation economies?

Actually, one of the definitions of corrupt is manipulating a structure of rules so that whatever you want to do is legal. That's how Hitler consolidated his power after he was elected.

Yes, and the very intent of the manipulation is based on deviation from what is morally and ethically right or acceptable. Of course Hitler knew what he was doing, that's why he was changing the laws.

[capo_2k]

That's exactly the problem. We can't trust anybody to make a benevolent set of rules that we can call universally "right".
So who can you trust with this medication then?

corruption and evil are defined with respect to what is "right". Without the concept of right, we'd have no idea what corruption and evil would be.
Obviously, yeah. Like saying you can't have light without dark. Or past without future. Or Windows without an error message.

We as a society codify these into rules.
Well, "we" don't. The people in power make the laws. There's a lot of room for corruption.

Deviation from the rules, especially with conscious and malicious intent, is what we consider as misbehavior and disobedience.

Yeah, I know that. But if the rules are corrupt in the first place, then "misbehaviour and disobedience" wouldn't qualify as being "corrupt and evil". This is what I mean when I say that they can't be compared like that. The comparison can't be expressed so definitively.

I'm not sure about the resource based system. Money is merely a standardization of trade currency.

Well, an interest free currency might serve solely that purpose. (But there's no interest free currency on the planet.) And plus, if it were to be fair, then the amount of money in circulation should be relative to the demand for goods and services. (But again, this is not the case at all.)

Money is debt. All the money you have is owed to someone by someone. The fact is, is that the monetary system is a fraud. (For example, the application of interest is one of the most obvious examples of its fraudulent nature. Money is loaned from the banks at interest, immediately putting the borrower into debt. And this goes for all institutions than borrow money too, including the government.) The current monetary system serves to transfer true wealth from the public to the bankers.

A resource based economy would basically mean that resources on the earth would be distributed according to the needs of people. And there are enough resources (energy, land, etc) in the world today to fully house and accommodate everyone. And that's a fact.

...so there would be no struggle or need to accumulate material wealth. (Put an end to hunger, suffering and inequality.) So basically...you can picture a resource based economy as kind of like having no economy at all...people would simply get what they need, or even what they want, for free. (I mean, within reason obviously. Not everyone could have a house made entirely of gold or whatever. Not that anyone would want that!)

Oh, and with the whole thing about crime... Think about it. Most social problems stem from the lack of money, whether directly or indirectly. The struggle for money screws everything up.

Aside: I'm not trying to argue with you by the way Kraelis. :) Am just giving my honest opinion, that's all...

[Kraelis]

So who can you trust with this medication then?

Now? Or as I envision it applied? If now, then there are institutions and mechanisms for that. As I envision it applied, nobody as of yet because it falls into a problem of being unable to trust someone with that kind of power :D


Well, "we" don't. The people in power make the laws. There's a lot of room for corruption.

Oh yes we do. I'm not referring to legal laws alone but societal laws as well. Besides, the people in power decide the laws primarily based on societal rules. Anybody trying to make a law that's totally unacceptable by society won't prosper. At best, there will be protests and debunking by fellow lawmakers, at worse you can have a revolt. I might be oversimplifying things, but definitely we, the societal units make the laws. Room for corruption is a sad reality though.


Yeah, I know that. But if the rules are corrupt in the first place, then "misbehaviour and disobedience" wouldn't qualify as being "corrupt and evil". This is what I mean when I say that they can't be compared like that. The comparison can't be expressed so definitively.

First of all, we take it axiomatically that our rules are not corrupt and evil and assume that they're right and good. In practice, that's what we do. Hence, I was taking this into account when I was talking about misbehaviour against the commonly held ruleset.

However, if you posit the possibility of an evil ruleset, misbehavior and disobedience against it is "evil" with respect to itself. Just as left is always the opposite of right. No matter what the definition of left is, right will always be defined as its opposite.

By saying that it's not possible to express definitively evil as deviance from a ruleset especially with an evil and corrupt ruleset, then I must ask you... why not? Because deviance to an evil ruleset is "good"? That means you're trying to follow "good". If so, where did you pick up your concept of good that you are to believe that the prevailing ruleset is evil? It's like saying that no matter what the definition of left is, you'll still follow your definition of right (the direction). But if right is the opposite of left, how do you know what the real right is? Or are you assuming the existence of an independent definition of right (both the ethical right and the directional right)?

Well, an interest free currency might serve solely that purpose. (But there's no interest free currency on the planet.) And plus, if it were to be fair, then the amount of money in circulation should be relative to the demand for goods and services. (But again, this is not the case at all.)

Money is debt. All the money you have is owed to someone by someone. The fact is, is that the monetary system is a fraud. (For example, the application of interest is one of the most obvious examples of its fraudulent nature. Money is loaned from the banks at interest, immediately putting the borrower into debt. And this goes for all institutions than borrow money too, including the government.) The current monetary system serves to transfer true wealth from the public to the bankers.


It's not a problem of the monetary system as it is a problem of the trade system. Even if they replace the monetary system back to barter, you'd still have to worry about interest and being owed to someone by someone. If they remove interest, how does it help? There are still cultures that reject interest. If I'm not mistaken, the Jews and the Muslims prohibit interest (usury). Even if I'm wrong, the Jews and early Christians definitely did not charge interest (it was a sin). Did it make for better living conditions? I don't think so.

A resource based economy would basically mean that resources on the earth would be distributed according to the needs of people. And there are enough resources (energy, land, etc) in the world today to fully house and accommodate everyone. And that's a fact.

...so there would be no struggle or need to accumulate material wealth. (Put an end to hunger, suffering and inequality.) So basically...you can picture a resource based economy as kind of like having no economy at all...people would simply get what they need, or even what they want, for free. (I mean, within reason obviously. Not everyone could have a house made entirely of gold or whatever. Not that anyone would want that!)

Ah but then, who do you trust to distribute the resources evenly?. (Sounds familiar? :p ) By what criteria are the resources to be distributed? Can you calculate the total worth resources that can be supplied and distribute them equally? Even wealth and resources themselves change in value. For example, scarcity affects the value of a given resource. Can you adapt the distribution to account of it as it changes? Can you put a number of everyone's level of need and satisfy them equally well?

People being able to get what they need is a difficult issue. Just as you posit the possibility of corruption in my model, so too must I posit it on yours. Can you trust people not to hoard and artificially affect worth of wealth? Just because you have what you need does not mean you wouldn't want more.

Also, while all men are created equal in dignity, we are not all equal in ability. We will end up with a condition where those who do nothing or very little will receive equally what a man who works like a horse does.

Another example would be, farming and labor are heavily taxing professions, toiling in the sun for days on end, while a corporate CEO works in his air conditioned office. His work is more mental and drives huge companies, affecting more people. How will you calculate need in this case?

Also, if you say that it's a fact that there's enough in the world for our needs, care to cite your source?

Now you see the problems plaguing any utopian scheme. The flaw is in the people actually :D

Oh, and with the whole thing about crime... Think about it. Most social problems stem from the lack of money, whether directly or indirectly. The struggle for money screws everything up.

For the most part, yes, and this is something we agree in.

Aside: I'm not trying to argue with you by the way Kraelis. :) Am just giving my honest opinion, that's all...

Don't worry. No offence taken. You're new here, are you? :p

Curiously odd that Proto hasn't popped in yet though :lol:

[capo_2k]

Alrighty...

Now? Or as I envision it applied? If now, then there are institutions and mechanisms for that. As I envision it applied, nobody as of yet because it falls into a problem of being unable to trust someone with that kind of power :D
Well, you have your opinions, I have mine. Personally I think that no-one should have that kind of control over people.

Oh yes we do. I'm not referring to legal laws alone but societal laws as well. Besides, the people in power decide the laws primarily based on societal rules. Anybody trying to make a law that's totally unacceptable by society won't prosper. At best, there will be protests and debunking by fellow lawmakers, at worse you can have a revolt. I might be oversimplifying things, but definitely we, the societal units make the laws. Room for corruption is a sad reality though.
There's an overall sense of what's right and wrong and what's acceptable amongst the public, but in my opinion this is all imposed on people by the state through the media, education and various institutions. And I think that most of the power to manipulate public opinion and create laws lies with a very small group of people. I think the rights and power the public have to protest and make a difference is generally under exercised. As far as I can see, this is because people don't care enough about it all because the vast majority of people are misinformed or undereducated when it comes to this kinda thing.

First of all, we take it axiomatically that our rules are not corrupt and evil and assume that they're right and good. In practice, that's what we do. Hence, I was taking this into account when I was talking about misbehaviour against the commonly held ruleset.

However, if you posit the possibility of an evil ruleset, misbehavior and disobedience against it is "evil" with respect to itself. Just as left is always the opposite of right. No matter what the definition of left is, right will always be defined as its opposite.

By saying that it's not possible to express definitively evil as deviance from a ruleset especially with an evil and corrupt ruleset, then I must ask you... why not? Because deviance to an evil ruleset is "good"? That means you're trying to follow "good". If so, where did you pick up your concept of good that you are to believe that the prevailing ruleset is evil? It's like saying that no matter what the definition of left is, you'll still follow your definition of right (the direction). But if right is the opposite of left, how do you know what the real right is? Or are you assuming the existence of an independent definition of right (both the ethical right and the directional right)?
Talk about getting tangled up in words...
Look, at the end of the day, "misbehaviour and disobedience" are not "corrupt and evil" if the laws are "corrupt and evil" in the first place. Simple as that. (Such as it's not evil to rebel against an evil power. For example, it's not evil for a Nazi soldier to refuse to exterminate Jews during the second world war.) Like I say, I don't support blind submission to authority. I think people should think for themselves first...

Anyway, d'you want to argue ethics or English here? Let's keep things clear because I get the feeling that my words and the points I'm trying to make are getting twisted and distorted. If you don't agree me with on this, then that's fine. I don't really care.

It's not a problem of the monetary system as it is a problem of the trade system. Even if they replace the monetary system back to barter, you'd still have to worry about interest and being owed to someone by someone. If they remove interest, how does it help? There are still cultures that reject interest. If I'm not mistaken, the Jews and the Muslims prohibit interest (usury). Even if I'm wrong, the Jews and early Christians definitely did not charge interest (it was a sin). Did it make for better living conditions? I don't think so.
The application of interest is a fraud. Look into it. The need for money is a debate worth having in itself but let's just look at interest for a second.

Interest free currencies allow for fair trade, true (in theory). But you'll find that when interest free currencies have existed in the past they have been extremely short lived. This is simply because banking interests have sought to destroy them because without interest, it's not possible for them to control the money supply.

Let's consider a national bank. National banks loan money out to the government at interest. Now this is where the money for the economy comes from. So as soon as this money is created, it is created with a percentage of debt attached to it. At this point you may be asking yourself the following question...if all a countries money comes from the national bank, and that bank loans money out at interest, where does the money come from to pay the debt? ...well it can only come from the national bank again in the form of another loan (again, loaned at interest). As insane as this sounds, it's true. This system supports a perpetual growth of debt to the national banks. So, since the money owed back to the national bank is always greater than the amount of money in circulation then it means that someone is always gonna get the short end of the stick. Ultimately, this is where bankruptcies and repossessions emerge from. Like I said, it transfers true wealth from the people at the bottom (the public) to the people at the top (the international bankers).

Ah but then, who do you trust to distribute the resources evenly?. (Sounds familiar? :p ) By what criteria are the resources to be distributed?
You can trust anyone. When there's no need to accumulate wealth and compete over resources, there's no cause for mistrust. For example...even in today's economy, why is water so cheap? Well because it'd be pointless to make it expensive. People wouldn't be forced to pay too much for it. There's so much of it around that you can't claim it's scarce! ...in a resource based economy, it would be pointless to withhold resources from people when they're in such abundance.

Can you calculate the total worth resources that can be supplied and distribute them equally? Even wealth and resources themselves change in value. For example, scarcity affects the value of a given resource. Can you adapt the distribution to account of it as it changes? Can you put a number of everyone's level of need and satisfy them equally well?
Well if there's enough resources for everyone then there's no need to fight over them, and so they'd have no relative value in an economy! There's certainly enough for everyone to have the basic necessities (running water, heat, food, shelter, etc) as well as many other products, services and technologies (such as a health service). The scarcity of resources in the world is simply an illusion in my opinion, an illusion maintained solely for the purpose of profit.

People being able to get what they need is a difficult issue. Just as you posit the possibility of corruption in my model, so too must I posit it on yours. Can you trust people not to hoard and artificially affect worth of wealth? Just because you have what you need does not mean you wouldn't want more.
Well, sure, no one is perfect. But in today's economy there is real motive to accumulate wealth. If everything was free for everyone, there wouldn't be a motive. Again it just goes back to what I've already said.

Also, while all men are created equal in dignity, we are not all equal in ability. We will end up with a condition where those who do nothing or very little will receive equally what a man who works like a horse does.
True. But then like 90% of current jobs wouldn't even be needed in a resource based economy anyway. (For example, anything to do with money could go straight out the window for a start.) And anyway...why would you want to deprive anyone of anything just for being "lazy"? It's like, children or the homeless or whoever don't work either, but they're still entitled to the basic necessities. Anyway, in a resource based economy you wouldn't work to survive or even to accumulate possessions. There would be different motives...

Another example would be, farming and labor are heavily taxing professions, toiling in the sun for days on end, while a corporate CEO works in his air conditioned office. His work is more mental and drives huge companies, affecting more people. How will you calculate need in this case?
What? This is irrelevant.

It's worth pointing out though at this point that almost all jobs could be partially (if not completely) automated by machines. The only reason this isn't a reality today is because technological development is crippled by the monetary system.

Also, if you say that it's a fact that there's enough in the world for our needs, care to cite your source?
I don't have any one particular definitive source for this information that springs to mind, but there's loads of stuff out there, I just can't be bothered searching for it all because this is turning into a pretty massive essay type thread for me and it's making me tired...but anyway, I know it to be true. I mean, just think about energy for a start. For example geothermal alone would easily provide enough energy to power the world, many times over...and this is just one form of free, clean, safe, renewable energy available. Again, the only reason this is not used is because there are a few people makin' s**tloads of money off the current energy industry. (And the more scarce the resources appear to be, the more profit it brings in!)

Now you see the problems plaguing any utopian scheme. The flaw is in the people actually :D
Well, I don't really believe in a perfect, "utopian" society. There are always problems to be solved...but I definitely think things could be much better than they are today.

[Kraelis]

There's an overall sense of what's right and wrong and what's acceptable amongst the public, but in my opinion this is all imposed on people by the state through the media, education and various institutions. And I think that most of the power to manipulate public opinion and create laws lies with a very small group of people. I think the rights and power the public have to protest and make a difference is generally under exercised. As far as I can see, this is because people don't care enough about it all because the vast majority of people are misinformed or undereducated when it comes to this kinda thing.

You're looking at it from a legislative point of view. Of course a small people control all that. That's why societies created governments in the first place. Yes, the general public can be undereducated about this. However, remember that while the controlling forces can seem all-powerful, such institutions are still shaped by the society that perpetuate them. I have a more sociological approach on this.



Talk about getting tangled up in words...
Look, at the end of the day, "misbehaviour and disobedience" are not "corrupt and evil" if the laws are "corrupt and evil" in the first place. Simple as that. (Such as it's not evil to rebel against an evil power. For example, it's not evil for a Nazi soldier to refuse to exterminate Jews during the second world war.) Like I say, I don't support blind submission to authority. I think people should think for themselves first...

Anyway, d'you want to argue ethics or English here? Let's keep things clear because I get the feeling that my words and the points I'm trying to make are getting twisted and distorted. If you don't agree me with on this, then that's fine. I don't really care.

Lemme simplify. I used my apparently semantic example to show the problem with your argument. Anyway, backtracking, remember that I posited a benevolent set of rules which are NOT corrupt and evil. If that's too hard to swallow, general societal rules are good. Do not kill, do not steal, do not cheat, etc etc... therefore in that context, misbehavior and disobedience to it is corrupt and evil. That's why I reminded you the original context of the issue. It was you who posited the an evil ruleset, which I exactly tried to avoid in the first place because I knew it'd be straying from the issue at hand!

The application of interest is a fraud. Look into it. The need for money is a debate worth having in itself but let's just look at interest for a second.

Interest free currencies allow for fair trade, true (in theory). But you'll find that when interest free currencies have existed in the past they have been extremely short lived. This is simply because banking interests have sought to destroy them because without interest, it's not possible for them to control the money supply.

Let's consider a national bank. National banks loan money out to the government at interest. Now this is where the money for the economy comes from. So as soon as this money is created, it is created with a percentage of debt attached to it. At this point you may be asking yourself the following question...if all a countries money comes from the national bank, and that bank loans money out at interest, where does the money come from to pay the debt? ...well it can only come from the national bank again in the form of another loan (again, loaned at interest). As insane as this sounds, it's true. This system supports a perpetual growth of debt to the national banks. So, since the money owed back to the national bank is always greater than the amount of money in circulation then it means that someone is always gonna get the short end of the stick. Ultimately, this is where bankruptcies and repossessions emerge from. Like I said, it transfers true wealth from the people at the bottom (the public) to the people at the top (the international bankers).

While your arguments sound interesting, I must admit that economics is not my strong point. However, I am confused over the national bank lending to the government idea. The money of governments come from taxation. The national bank stores the money for the government. If the government needs money, it does not borrow from the national bank. Since the national bank is owned by the government, that'd be like borrowing from itself! What happens is that the government sells bonds to other institutions, typically private, and it's to them that the government pays interest, not the national bank! The bank merely becomes the agent with which bonds are created to be sold, if I understand it correctly.


You can trust anyone. When there's no need to accumulate wealth and compete over resources, there's no cause for mistrust. For example...even in today's economy, why is water so cheap? Well because it'd be pointless to make it expensive. People wouldn't be forced to pay too much for it. There's so much of it around that you can't claim it's scarce! ...in a resource based economy, it would be pointless to withhold resources from people when they're in such abundance.

Certainly not a corrupt and evil person, otherwise, he'd twist the distribution for his gain. Wasn't that your implicit argument against mine in the first place?

Even if such a benevolent distributor could be had, how will the logistics of determining need and equal allocation be carried out? Resources are not unlimited. While water may seem everywhere, that's just one resource out of the many others. Not all resources are renewable in nature. While the most basic necessities seem aplenty, others are not. But even basic necessities can be scarce. Imagine the difficulty of providing food and water in arid locales! A defining equal standard simply cannot apply.


Well if there's enough resources for everyone then there's no need to fight over them, and so they'd have no relative value in an economy! There's certainly enough for everyone to have the basic necessities (running water, heat, food, shelter, etc) as well as many other products, services and technologies (such as a health service). The scarcity of resources in the world is simply an illusion in my opinion, an illusion maintained solely for the purpose of profit.

Also, humans' insatiable nature will want more, more and more, and artificially create demand. Greed in the distribution levels can also create artificial scarcity of an already scarce resource. The same problem in the current system applies to the resource bases system. Fair distribution can and will be controlled for profit.

Besides, how do you intend to change the prevailing system to a resource based system if people will resist it because of the want for profit anyway? This is why I said that regardless of whatever system in place, the problem will always be the people.


Well, sure, no one is perfect. But in today's economy there is real motive to accumulate wealth. If everything was free for everyone, there wouldn't be a motive. Again it just goes back to what I've already said.

Making everything free will not work for 2 reasons: One is Human greed and the other is scarcity. After all that's been said in done about abundance of resources, remember that this is still a finite world designed to carry only so much.


True. But then like 90% of current jobs wouldn't even be needed in a resource based economy anyway. (For example, anything to do with money could go straight out the window for a start.) And anyway...why would you want to deprive anyone of anything just for being "lazy"? It's like, children or the homeless or whoever don't work either, but they're still entitled to the basic necessities. Anyway, in a resource based economy you wouldn't work to survive or even to accumulate possessions. There would be different motives...

I never said anything about being lazy. However, people really do not have equal levels of ability. Some people can simply do more and some people less. Anyway, what piques my curiosity is the motives... what motives would people have to work if not to survive or accumulate possessions? I feel if we can straighten this out, we can find a point to see eye to eye on.



What? This is irrelevant.

Why so? This is an example of the difficulty of allocating resources equally... how do you judge the worth of manual versus mental labor? However, since you mentioned about equal basic necessities and different motives for work, then I think I see why you'd render this irrelevant.

It's worth pointing out though at this point that almost all jobs could be partially (if not completely) automated by machines. The only reason this isn't a reality today is because technological development is crippled by the monetary system.

I don't have any one particular definitive source for this information that springs to mind, but there's loads of stuff out there, I just can't be bothered searching for it all because this is turning into a pretty massive essay type thread for me and it's making me tired...but anyway, I know it to be true. I mean, just think about energy for a start. For example geothermal alone would easily provide enough energy to power the world, many times over...and this is just one form of free, clean, safe, renewable energy available. Again, the only reason this is not used is because there are a few people makin' s**tloads of money off the current energy industry. (And the more scarce the resources appear to be, the more profit it brings in!)


Citation is really needed please. Those are bold claims you make and the burden of proof lies with you in this case.


Well, I don't really believe in a perfect, "utopian" society. There are always problems to be solved...but I definitely think things could be much better than they are today.

I agree with your notions of a better society. I must confess to having grand ambitions of a society as you describe as well. A way to distribute all basic resources equally to everyone so that nobody would have to feel hunger and be content.

However, I ran into the same problems I outline above. If I may seem to be attacking you, then I apologize for that was not my intention. I was trying to see if you've thought of any solutions to the problem. :D

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Looks like I am going to have to explain economics to you capo_2k
Ok so let's deal with the illusion of scarcity first shall we?
South Africa produces a lot of Gold and Platinum but perhaps very little of minerals and materials required for silicon. Now does that not mean that silicion is rare and that Gold and Platinum are abundant?
Perhaps let's go for a different example, Russia due to it's cold northern climate can't really prodcue tropical fruit. A place like the West Indies however can. Now does that not mean that tropical fruit is rare in russia?

Now you see there's a problem here, let' say Russia wants tropical fruit but has nothing to offer the West Indies (as in the West Indies don't want anything russia offers), then Russia would be deprived of tropical fruit. However the people in Russia want tropical fruit, so there needs to be something else, something which is not a resource, which provides a means for obtaining tropical fruit for Russia. That item is money.

Let's look at a different example then. Let' say South Africa requires silicon and the US requires Gold. Now they could simply exchange some gold for some silicon, but how exactly do you decide how much gold for how much silicion? The US may say it takes them a week just to get half a container of Silicon together whilst South Africa produces two containers of gold a week so that should be a fair trade. But Africa may also require some gold in order to obtain some sheep skins from Australia so they are not willing to part with 2 containers of gold. Once again the monetary system steps in, so that a value may easily be assigned in a fair manner to the various items.

Sure we could have stayed with the barter system, but this would have led to two things, stagnation and war. Certain countries poor in resources would not be able to obtain anything and would stagnate and continue living in the iron age. Larger countries would be going to war with each other in order to obtain to valuable resources required for their advancement or they to would stagnate and not be able to improve the quality of their life.

Yeah the monetary system aint perfect and people sure as hell take advantage of it, but it's the best we got. Just like capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the best system available.
That's before we even get into the stock market which is a whole different animal.


Now let's take a look at Interest shall we. Interest is an incentive to give money to someone else instead of say starting a business of some sort, candle making perhaps.
Let's say I give you 100 bucks. Well with that same 100 bucks I could have made a bunch of candles which I might have made say 160 bucks. Now you see if I would not change you 10% interest for 6 months, then I would never make that profit, I would not be able to expand and everything would stagnate however I want to improve my quality of life, not live in the iron age just like that poor country I mentioned earlier.


There you go capo, economics and interest super-simplified, perhaps not the best examples, but the concepts should be clear enough to you. In reality of course there and hundreds of other little factors which also come into play, but this should be enough.
If you still don't get it then I suggest you play a PC game called Anno 1503 (or the newer 1702).


Now let's get onto why for instance revolutionary new technologies are not being discoevered every day. It's because it costs and it costs a lot with very little gain at first, billions in fact. Now those billions you will at the start b**** and moan about saying they should be used for housing and education instead. Especially if say the idea being researched is found to not to be quite practical yet due to limitations on strength of some material at the present and is abandoned/put on hold. Well then you will cry murder and ask for the President's head, demand Congress should be booted out, complain about some fat cat getting their belly filled some more when all those billions could have provided quality housing and education. So people have to play it safe and not invest too much into research or people will complain, hell they do already anyways. Unfortunately this also means that actual progress is slow and steady.

[capo_2k]

Lemme simplify. I used my apparently semantic example to show the problem with your argument. Anyway, backtracking, remember that I posited a benevolent set of rules which are NOT corrupt and evil. If that's too hard to swallow, general societal rules are good. Do not kill, do not steal, do not cheat, etc etc... therefore in that context, misbehavior and disobedience to it is corrupt and evil. That's why I reminded you the original context of the issue. It was you who posited the an evil ruleset, which I exactly tried to avoid in the first place because I knew it'd be straying from the issue at hand!
First off, don't patronize me. Believe me, your thoughts and ideas are not difficult for me to comprehend. Personally I think your English could do with some improvement though quite frankly.
I simply think that this "problem" or flaw in my argument that you envisage just doesn't exist and I don't care to get caught up a pointless debate about it any longer.

While your arguments sound interesting, I must admit that economics is not my strong point. However, I am confused over the national bank lending to the government idea. The money of governments come from taxation. The national bank stores the money for the government. If the government needs money, it does not borrow from the national bank. Since the national bank is owned by the government, that'd be like borrowing from itself! What happens is that the government sells bonds to other institutions, typically private, and it's to them that the government pays interest, not the national bank! The bank merely becomes the agent with which bonds are created to be sold, if I understand it correctly.
Yeah, you don't understand it correctly, no offence...For a start, the national bank is not owned or regulated by the government, it is a completely privately run institution. The "federal reserve" for example in the US is about as federal as "federal express". If economics isn't your strong point, why are you even making an argument?

Certainly not a corrupt and evil person, otherwise, he'd twist the distribution for his gain. Wasn't that your implicit argument against mine in the first place?
Sigh...like I say, I think money is the cause of most crime and corruption, so if there isn't any money, the whole situation changes.

Even if such a benevolent distributor could be had
Seriously...you talk as if everyone in the world is inherently evil or something. Like I said, if everything's free, there's no motive to steal.

how will the logistics of determining need and equal allocation be carried out? Resources are not unlimited.
If resources are in abundance then they are quite literally unlimited for the purpose of this argument.

While water may seem everywhere, that's just one resource out of the many others. Not all resources are renewable in nature. While the most basic necessities seem aplenty, others are not. But even basic necessities can be scarce. Imagine the difficulty of providing food and water in arid locales! A defining equal standard simply cannot apply.
All those problems can be easily overcome with technology. (There are plenty of examples of such accomplishments in the world today already.)

Also, humans' insatiable nature will want more, more and more, and artificially create demand. Greed in the distribution levels can also create artificial scarcity of an already scarce resource. The same problem in the current system applies to the resource bases system. Fair distribution can and will be controlled for profit.

Besides, how do you intend to change the prevailing system to a resource based system if people will resist it because of the want for profit anyway? This is why I said that regardless of whatever system in place, the problem will always be the people.
I think what you're saying is irrational. "Humans' insatiable nature"? Humans' are simply not insatiable by nature in my opinion...I kinda think that neither one of us wants to back down with our opinions, and that's the real argument here.

Making everything free will not work for 2 reasons: One is Human greed and the other is scarcity. After all that's been said in done about abundance of resources, remember that this is still a finite world designed to carry only so much.
I'll say it again...I don't think people are inherently greedy. I think the monetary system is the primary cause of this behaviour. And again, like I've said before, I think the scarcity of most resources on the earth is an illusion created by financial and business interests for the purpose of profit.

I never said anything about being lazy.
You said "We will end up with a condition where those who do nothing or very little will receive equally what a man who works like a horse does". Well if you weren't referring to laziness here then I guess you were referring to either those reluctant to work or those who are incapable of doing such hard work, right? (Like the elderly or the disabled (mentally or physically) or something like that.) But again, it's not really important because I'd make the same point. That just because someone doesn't work, it doesn't mean they're not entitled to the same basic resources as someone who does. It may seem to be fair like that in the monetary system, but I disagree. I think everyone is entitled to such things regardless.

Anyway, what piques my curiosity is the motives... what motives would people have to work if not to survive or accumulate possessions? I feel if we can straighten this out, we can find a point to see eye to eye on.
Well...all kinds of reasons. For example, I know people who're retired who still teach because they enjoy it. I know people who work not for money (the pay is poor) but because they believe they have a virtuous profession. There's the motive to work for personal development, to follow your ambitions or for the good of society, etc.

Citation is really needed please. Those are bold claims you make and the burden of proof lies with you in this case.
Look right, the best form of proof I can give you is for you to do your own research, because I could point you in the right directions but I can't be bothered doing this research for you and I'm confident that no information I could provide you with would convince you anyway. And besides, I don't have any burden to do anything. You don't believe me, that's fine.

But I tell you what...if you can prove me wrong by providing sources, then I'll start providing sources to counteract what you've said. ;)

I agree with your notions of a better society. I must confess to having grand ambitions of a society as you describe as well. A way to distribute all basic resources equally to everyone so that nobody would have to feel hunger and be content.

However, I ran into the same problems I outline above. If I may seem to be attacking you, then I apologize for that was not my intention. I was trying to see if you've thought of any solutions to the problem. :D
You know what, I'll admit I'm pretty stubborn sometimes. Would you say the same about yourself?
But I really do think I'm right about much of what I've said here.
When it comes to “me finding a solution to the problem”...no, not really. I just think more education would help at the moment. I'm pretty sure about that.

But here is a webpage about global change I recommend checking from time to time if you're interested.
The Zeitgeist Movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/tool.htm)

SCHUMI-4-EVA: Gold for example. Gold is rare. That's something that really is scarce. Renewable energies, food, water, most building materials, etc...they're not. Play a computer game to explain the current economy to me? That's stupid. Barter system? I never suggested one. Need you to explain the economy to me? No thanks, I'm good. Interest? I think your understanding of interest and its implications are underdeveloped and naive. Perhaps not the best examples of economics? No they're not. And the whole thing about technologies and their costs is way outta perspective.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Even those seemingly free items still cost resources to get to you. You merely get charged for the creation of more of such ways of getting them to you (for instance expansion of the pipes) and others, maintenance and research into improved methods of getting them to you.

Resource based enconomy sounds very much like the barter system.

[capo_2k]

I feel like my point's been totally missed...

Tell you what, watch this film if you want and tell me what ya think. Most of my ideas and interest in this subject began here.

Zeitgeist Addendum (www.zeitgeistmovie.com)

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Not like I am going to watch a movie where the fist installment ridicules my faith. Besides I don't have the bandwidth to spare. Still sounds like a bunch of balony though.

[capo_2k]

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

[Squall-Leonhart]

you know what happens when an ADHD sufferer is put under stress?, they clam up, and ignore everything thats going on.