Israel is Bombing Syria

[QUOTE="Allthishate"]ye i might be leaping to conclusions but u can put 2 and 2 together when its blatantly obviousZyamaman

...Said every other conspiracy nutjob in existance...

[QUOTE="Zyamaman"]

[QUOTE="Allthishate"]ye i might be leaping to conclusions but u can put 2 and 2 together when its blatantly obviousAllthishate

...Said every other conspiracy nutjob in existance...

Which has what to do with the fact that you haven't got a shred of proof to support your claim?

Try to use your brain before you post - helps to bring your point across a lot easier.

Good. Enough with Syria's bullshit

Well, I guess the US is going to be involved in another war in Asia. 

jimkabrhel

Interesting, and it's just another typical day in the Middle East.

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

Hope this doesn't escalate into more hellfire and tomahawks of freedom.

..or someone else getting involved

frannkzappa

I'm not gonna lie... i've got a man-crush on Putin.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

Hope this doesn't escalate into more hellfire and tomahawks of freedom.

..or someone else getting involved

 

 

BossPerson

I'm not gonna lie... i've got a man-crush on Putin.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O98wmcIDXqw

I found this parody to be rather funny.

Anyways this is good for the opposition in Syria. 

Now if only Israel would bomb syria military outposts on their way to bombing the chemical weapons locations

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I'm not gonna lie... i've got a man-crush on Putin.

Darkman2007

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O98wmcIDXqw

I found this parody to be rather funny.

Anyways this is good for the opposition in Syria. 

Now if only Israel would bomb syria military outposts on their way to bombing the chemical weapons locations

BossPerson

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I'm not gonna lie... i've got a man-crush on Putin.

BossPerson

Holy fvck.. Am I the only one that realizes that "allthishate" is a troll?

*facepalm x1.000*

smh

Holy fvck.. Am I the only one that realizes that "allthishate" is a troll?

 

*facepalm x1.000*

smh

00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]

Holy fvck.. Am I the only one that realizes that "allthishate" is a troll?

 

*facepalm x1.000*

smh

themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]

Holy fvck.. Am I the only one that realizes that "allthishate" is a troll?

 

*facepalm x1.000*

smh

00-Riddick-00

I fully support this if true. Israel is one of the three nations capable of forming the ideal government, and this shows they are well on their way to reaching that goal. We (the US) should learn from this.

If Israel would break the shackles of democracy and adopt a more technocratic government they would be well on their way to becoming the ideal nation state.

Ok I have been doing this a lot recently, but once again GS has sprung something new on me. A few posters here seem to be outright supporting violence against israel, and honestly wishing death....no genocide on anyone is showing a disgusting perspective on life in general. And I hope maturity and broadening of your world views fixes that for you.

don't got a problem with this

Interesting.

I fully support this if true. Israel is one of the three nations capable of forming the ideal government, and this shows they are well on their way to reaching that goal. We (the US) should learn from this.

 

If Israel would break the shackles of democracy and adopt a more technocratic government they would be well on their way to becoming the ideal nation state.

frannkzappa

You are a genuine idiot along with Allthishate.

Anyways this is good for the opposition in Syria. 

Now if only Israel would bomb syria military outposts on their way to bombing the chemical weapons locations

BossPerson

could be totally off base here

but couldn't there be problematic implications for bombing chemical weapons caches for the local populous?

Interesting.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I fully support this if true. Israel is one of the three nations capable of forming the ideal government, and this shows they are well on their way to reaching that goal. We (the US) should learn from this.

 

If Israel would break the shackles of democracy and adopt a more technocratic government they would be well on their way to becoming the ideal nation state.

coolbeans90

You are a genuine idiot along with Allthishate.

Anyways this is good for the opposition in Syria. 

Now if only Israel would bomb syria military outposts on their way to bombing the chemical weapons locations

BossPerson

could be totally off base here

but couldn't there be problematic implications for bombing chemical weapons caches for the local populous?

Interesting.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I fully support this if true. Israel is one of the three nations capable of forming the ideal government, and this shows they are well on their way to reaching that goal. We (the US) should learn from this.

If Israel would break the shackles of democracy and adopt a more technocratic government they would be well on their way to becoming the ideal nation state.

coolbeans90

You are a genuine idiot along with Allthishate.

Anyways this is good for the opposition in Syria.

Now if only Israel would bomb syria military outposts on their way to bombing the chemical weapons locations

BossPerson

could be totally off base here

but couldn't there be problematic implications for bombing chemical weapons caches for the local populous?

Why is that? Anything i have said is open for discussion (which imo is more productive then name calling).

Why is that? Anything i have said is open for discussion (which imo is more productive then name calling).

frannkzappa

Typical Utopian drivel that, in practice, would be utterly disastrous. You'll prob get past that phase in a few years though, so I probably should be so harsh.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Anyways this is good for the opposition in Syria. 

Now if only Israel would bomb syria military outposts on their way to bombing the chemical weapons locations

BossPerson

could be totally off base here

but couldn't there be problematic implications for bombing chemical weapons caches for the local populous?

Neither am I, hence my tenative skepticism towards bombing chemical weapons caches in particular.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Why is that? Anything i have said is open for discussion (which imo is more productive then name calling).

coolbeans90

Typical Utopian drivel that, in practice, would be utterly disastrous. You'll prob get past that phase in a few years though, so I probably should be so harsh.

Do you even know which "utopian" drivel i support?

As for your low blow of a second sentence you are quite wrong to think that technocracy (not to be confused with the socialist garbage technocracy in preaches) is some pipe dream thought up by teenagers. In fact most technocrats are like me, 25+ engineers, scientists and mathematicians who like Plato have seen the incompetence of the worlds current governments. And while yes a true authoritarian technocratic meritocracy is far off it is still in a governments best intrest to at least try to imitate one as even a quasi-technocratic government is better then a tyranny of the masses.

Anyone who has any sense should see that democracy, while having good intentions always leads to massive corruption and incompetence, and to just sit back and accept this corruption and incompetence says something about a person.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Why is that? Anything i have said is open for discussion (which imo is more productive then name calling).

frannkzappa

Typical Utopian drivel that, in practice, would be utterly disastrous. You'll prob get past that phase in a few years though, so I probably should be so harsh.

Do you even know which "utopian" drivel i support?

As for your low blow of a second sentence you are quite wrong to think that technocracy (not to be confused with the socialist garbage technocracy in preaches) is some pipe dream thought up by teenagers. In fact most technocrats are like me, 25+ engineers, scientists and mathematicians who like Plato have seen the incompetence of the worlds current governments. And while yes a true authoritarian technocratic meritocracy is far off it is still in a governments best intrest to at least try to imitate one as even a quasi-technocratic government is better then a tyranny of the masses.

Anyone who has any sense should see that democracy, while having good intentions always leads to massive corruption and incompetence, and to just sit back and accept this corruption and incompetence says something about a person.

You've gone over your political views before. Cute, but hardly original or worth commenting on. Attaching Plato's name to them doesn't add authority. I'm currently in school/co-oping for engineering, but I'm not delusional because of it. In your case, outsider ignorance shows its colors and will wither with age, hopefully.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Typical Utopian drivel that, in practice, would be utterly disastrous. You'll prob get past that phase in a few years though, so I probably should be so harsh.

coolbeans90

Do you even know which "utopian" drivel i support?

As for your low blow of a second sentence you are quite wrong to think that technocracy (not to be confused with the socialist garbage technocracy in preaches) is some pipe dream thought up by teenagers. In fact most technocrats are like me, 25+ engineers, scientists and mathematicians who like Plato have seen the incompetence of the worlds current governments. And while yes a true authoritarian technocratic meritocracy is far off it is still in a governments best intrest to at least try to imitate one as even a quasi-technocratic government is better then a tyranny of the masses.

Anyone who has any sense should see that democracy, while having good intentions always leads to massive corruption and incompetence, and to just sit back and accept this corruption and incompetence says something about a person.

You've gone over your political views before. Cute, but hardly original or worth commenting on. Attaching Plato's name to them doesn't add authority. I'm currently in school/co-oping for engineering, but I'm not delusional because of it. In your case, outsider ignorance shows its colors and will wither with age, hopefully.

May i ask what field?

Since you refuse to refute anything i say.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Do you even know which "utopian" drivel i support?

As for your low blow of a second sentence you are quite wrong to think that technocracy (not to be confused with the socialist garbage technocracy in preaches) is some pipe dream thought up by teenagers. In fact most technocrats are like me, 25+ engineers, scientists and mathematicians who like Plato have seen the incompetence of the worlds current governments. And while yes a true authoritarian technocratic meritocracy is far off it is still in a governments best intrest to at least try to imitate one as even a quasi-technocratic government is better then a tyranny of the masses.

Anyone who has any sense should see that democracy, while having good intentions always leads to massive corruption and incompetence, and to just sit back and accept this corruption and incompetence says something about a person.

frannkzappa

You've gone over your political views before. Cute, but hardly original or worth commenting on. Attaching Plato's name to them doesn't add authority. I'm currently in school/co-oping for engineering, but I'm not delusional because of it. In your case, outsider ignorance shows its colors and will wither with age, hopefully.

May i ask what field?

Semiconductor fabrication.

could be totally off base here

but couldn't there be problematic implications for bombing chemical weapons caches for the local populous?

coolbeans90

From what I gathered, it was the delivery systems that got hit, not any actual chemical agents. Which explains the massive explosions and fireballs that can be seen in those videos.

How come israel supporting freedom fighters/rebels of syria against assad?SNIPER4321

I don't think Israel supports either side. In fact, I don't believe this recent strike is directly related to the Syrian civil war at all.

Short-range ballistic missiles are not a weapon Hezbollah needs, and I'm willing to bet good money that a lot of high-ranking people in Lebanon sighed with relief that those missiles were destroyed where and when they were (ie. in Syria, rather than Lebanon), because that robbed all the involved parties of a casus-belli to go for another round, ala 2006...

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You've gone over your political views before. Cute, but hardly original or worth commenting on. Attaching Plato's name to them doesn't add authority. I'm currently in school/co-oping for engineering, but I'm not delusional because of it. In your case, outsider ignorance shows its colors and will wither with age, hopefully.

coolbeans90

May i ask what field?

Semiconductor fabrication.

Explains alot.

It's not what I'll end up doing, in all probability.

As for refutations, due to the incredibly vague nature of your propositions (as disconnected idealists tend to do), little more than pointing to, say, China's record on the human rights thing should suffice.

Well i generaly only talk about my ideology as it applies to the thread, No real point in writing 20 pages of technical information.

If you have a specific question my proposed form of government i will answer in more detail.If you want to know what a proper technocratic government will do in a scenario just ask.

If you have a specific question my proposed form of government i will answer in more detail.If you want to know what a proper technocratic government will do in a scenario just ask.

frannkzappa

For the virtual entirety of recorded human history, from the inception of agrarian civilizations until the dawn of democracy, the potential for a Utopian technocracy has existed within the hands of those in power of authoritarian regimes. Not only did no technocratic Utopias occur, or even really semi-technocratic civilizations headed by a king, the living conditions endured by the proles at the hands of kings and queens left quite a bit to be desired, to put it lightly. A similar trend remains in China. Under democratic rule, people tend to live much better lives, and living conditions have generally improved more quickly because of the influence people have historically exerted on their own behalf. Despite some conflicts at times between experts and populist movements, it would be nothing short of an untruth to say that the government currently outright disregards experts (they are still pivotal to public policy) or that scientific advancement doesn't happen. Modern democracies have done more to support science than any other form of government by a pretty substantial margin. Now, the question I have for you is:

Given the complete lack of inherent interest by authoritarian regimes for anything other than selfish endeavors (an inherent incentive in such a system, mind you), their tendency to disregard human well-being for those aforementioned personal gains, and no particular interest in the long-term advancement of science, why exactly do you think that such a system implemented now, even if founded by well-meaning individuals, wouldn't degrade into yet another dystopian clusterfvck?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

If you have a specific question my proposed form of government i will answer in more detail.If you want to know what a proper technocratic government will do in a scenario just ask.

coolbeans90

For the virtual entirety of recorded human history, from the inception of agrarian civilizations until the dawn of democracy, the potential for a Utopian technocracy has existed within the hands of those in power of authoritarian regimes. Not only did no technocratic Utopias occur, or even really semi-technocratic civilizations headed by a king, the living conditions endured by the proles at the hands of kings and queens left quite a bit to be desired, to put it lightly. A similar trend remains in China. Under democratic rule, people tend to live much better lives, and living conditions have generally improved more quickly because of the influence people have historically exerted on their own behalf. Despite some conflicts at times between experts and populist movements, it would be nothing short of an untruth to say that the government currently outright disregards experts (they are still pivotal to public policy) or that scientific advancement doesn't happen. Modern democracies have done more to support science than any other form of government by a pretty substantial margin. Now, the question I have for you is:

Given the complete lack of inherent interest by authoritarian regimes for anything other than selfish endeavors (an inherent incentive in such a system, mind you), their tendency to disregard human well-being for those aforementioned personal gains, and no particular interest in the long-term advancement of science, why exactly do you think that such a system implemented now, even if founded by well-meaning individuals, wouldn't degrade into yet another dystopian clusterfvck?

Ah, there is the rub is it not? Well in a Proper technate those in power would not benefit from a dystopia. So the question is how do we do that. well the the answer lies in the modern price system. since the the dawn of man economy has been scarcity based and thus oligarchies have flourished. oligarchies by nature abuse the "common man" (for lack of a better word) and so to combat this democracies were formed. however the nature of the "common man" caused the failures of democracies, the unorganized group is to easily manipulated and duped, and thus democracies are plagued by corruption and incompetence just like the oligarchies they fought to eliminate. So historically you see a cycle of tyrannies being overthrown and popular governments replacing them and then failing only to be replaced by another tyrant. However we of the modern age are in a unique position to break this cycle. For we have ability to move away from scarcity economics and thus away from oligarchies and democracies. We have machines that can eliminate human labour and produce limitless goods with near zero human labour.

Now, you may ask "doesn't that empower the oligarchy even more? for machines and automated production hurts the working man, taking their lively hood and worth and empowering the elite and the rich." Well you would be correct in asking this...under the price system at least. If we (I'm talking about the US now for ease of example) utilized the resources of the north American Continent we could provide an infinite amount of consumer goods with zero human labour. The oligarchy would become powerless for what could they offer to placate the "common man"?

Now you may ask yet another question "why would the oligarchy let this happen?". Well I in no way suggest they would just give up their power, but they don't have any choice in the matter. For the price system as we know it is unstable and bound to fail, when it will fail is the question. And when the price system does collapse the Technocrats will be there to pick up the ashes, hopefully by that time having educated enough of the populace about the merits of technocracy. Now its safe to say this can't happen anywhere most states will likely not survive the collapse and the inevitable warfare and economic destruction that will ensue. At the moment it seems only three countries could possibly make the transition: the USA, Israel and China.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

If you have a specific question my proposed form of government i will answer in more detail.If you want to know what a proper technocratic government will do in a scenario just ask.

frannkzappa

For the virtual entirety of recorded human history, from the inception of agrarian civilizations until the dawn of democracy, the potential for a Utopian technocracy has existed within the hands of those in power of authoritarian regimes. Not only did no technocratic Utopias occur, or even really semi-technocratic civilizations headed by a king, the living conditions endured by the proles at the hands of kings and queens left quite a bit to be desired, to put it lightly. A similar trend remains in China. Under democratic rule, people tend to live much better lives, and living conditions have generally improved more quickly because of the influence people have historically exerted on their own behalf. Despite some conflicts at times between experts and populist movements, it would be nothing short of an untruth to say that the government currently outright disregards experts (they are still pivotal to public policy) or that scientific advancement doesn't happen. Modern democracies have done more to support science than any other form of government by a pretty substantial margin. Now, the question I have for you is:

Given the complete lack of inherent interest by authoritarian regimes for anything other than selfish endeavors (an inherent incentive in such a system, mind you), their tendency to disregard human well-being for those aforementioned personal gains, and no particular interest in the long-term advancement of science, why exactly do you think that such a system implemented now, even if founded by well-meaning individuals, wouldn't degrade into yet another dystopian clusterfvck?

Ah, there is the rub is it not? Well in a Proper technate those in power would not benefit from a dystopia. So the question is how do we do that. well the the answer lies in the modern price system. since the the dawn of man economy has been scarcity based and thus oligarchies have flourished. oligarchies by nature abuse the "common man" (for lack of a better word) and so to combat this democracies were formed. however the nature of the "common man" caused the failures of democracies, the unorganized group is to easily manipulated and duped, and thus democracies are plagued by corruption and incompetence just like the oligarchies they fought to eliminate. So historically you see a cycle of tyrannies being overthrown and popular governments replacing them and then failing only to be replaced by another tyrant. However we of the modern age are in a unique position to break this cycle. For we have ability to move away from scarcity economics and thus away from oligarchies and democracies. We have machines that can eliminate human labour and produce limitless goods with near zero human labour.

Now, you may ask "doesn't that empower the oligarchy even more? for machines and automated production hurts the working man, taking their lively hood and worth and empowering the elite and the rich." Well you would be correct in asking this...under the price system at least. If we (I'm talking about the US now for ease of example) utilized the resources of the north American Continent we could provide an infinite amount of consumer goods with zero human labour. The oligarchy would become powerless for what could they offer to placate the "common man"?

Now you may ask yet another question "why would the oligarchy let this happen?". Well I in no way suggest they would just give up their power, but they don't have any choice in the matter. For the price system as we know it is unstable and bound to fail, when it will fail is the question. And when the price system does collapse the Technocrats will be there to pick up the ashes, hopefully by that time having educated enough of the populace about the merits of technocracy. Now its safe to say this can't happen anywhere most states will likely not survive the collapse and the inevitable warfare and economic destruction that will ensue. At the moment it seems only three countries could possibly make the transition: the USA, Israel and China.

You are gravely mistaken if you are under the impression that moving away from scarcity-based economics/the price system - and removing a substantial (not all, mind you) portion of the labor makes it costless. Moreover, you haven't addressed how eliminating it removes the power from those in control of it. Finally, the price system is pretty god damned stable. Your entire thought process here stands a bit shy of coherent.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

For the virtual entirety of recorded human history, from the inception of agrarian civilizations until the dawn of democracy, the potential for a Utopian technocracy has existed within the hands of those in power of authoritarian regimes. Not only did no technocratic Utopias occur, or even really semi-technocratic civilizations headed by a king, the living conditions endured by the proles at the hands of kings and queens left quite a bit to be desired, to put it lightly. A similar trend remains in China. Under democratic rule, people tend to live much better lives, and living conditions have generally improved more quickly because of the influence people have historically exerted on their own behalf. Despite some conflicts at times between experts and populist movements, it would be nothing short of an untruth to say that the government currently outright disregards experts (they are still pivotal to public policy) or that scientific advancement doesn't happen. Modern democracies have done more to support science than any other form of government by a pretty substantial margin. Now, the question I have for you is:

Given the complete lack of inherent interest by authoritarian regimes for anything other than selfish endeavors (an inherent incentive in such a system, mind you), their tendency to disregard human well-being for those aforementioned personal gains, and no particular interest in the long-term advancement of science, why exactly do you think that such a system implemented now, even if founded by well-meaning individuals, wouldn't degrade into yet another dystopian clusterfvck?

coolbeans90

Ah, there is the rub is it not? Well in a Proper technate those in power would not benefit from a dystopia. So the question is how do we do that. well the the answer lies in the modern price system. since the the dawn of man economy has been scarcity based and thus oligarchies have flourished. oligarchies by nature abuse the "common man" (for lack of a better word) and so to combat this democracies were formed. however the nature of the "common man" caused the failures of democracies, the unorganized group is to easily manipulated and duped, and thus democracies are plagued by corruption and incompetence just like the oligarchies they fought to eliminate. So historically you see a cycle of tyrannies being overthrown and popular governments replacing them and then failing only to be replaced by another tyrant. However we of the modern age are in a unique position to break this cycle. For we have ability to move away from scarcity economics and thus away from oligarchies and democracies. We have machines that can eliminate human labour and produce limitless goods with near zero human labour.

Now, you may ask "doesn't that empower the oligarchy even more? for machines and automated production hurts the working man, taking their lively hood and worth and empowering the elite and the rich." Well you would be correct in asking this...under the price system at least. If we (I'm talking about the US now for ease of example) utilized the resources of the north American Continent we could provide an infinite amount of consumer goods with zero human labour. The oligarchy would become powerless for what could they offer to placate the "common man"?

Now you may ask yet another question "why would the oligarchy let this happen?". Well I in no way suggest they would just give up their power, but they don't have any choice in the matter. For the price system as we know it is unstable and bound to fail, when it will fail is the question. And when the price system does collapse the Technocrats will be there to pick up the ashes, hopefully by that time having educated enough of the populace about the merits of technocracy. Now its safe to say this can't happen anywhere most states will likely not survive the collapse and the inevitable warfare and economic destruction that will ensue. At the moment it seems only three countries could possibly make the transition: the USA, Israel and China.

You are gravely mistaken if you are under the impression that moving away from scarcity-based economics/the price system - and removing a substantial (not all, mind you) portion of the labor makes it costless. Moreover, you haven't addressed how eliminating it removes the power from those in control of it. Finally, the price system is pretty god damned stable. Your entire thought process here stands a bit shy of coherent.

For your first point: For a government with absolute control of it's geographical resources and an infrastructure already in place yes production is cost free it's all a matter of transportation and deciding who gets what.

For your second point: If a government has full control of production and gives the fruits of production free to its citizens based on merit and worth how will the oligarchy maintain its self?

As for the stability of the price system, look around you it should be obvious that the world economy is anything but stable. it's been less then 100 years since the last economic crash and this current one is even more persistent then the last. it's clear that at the rate it's going the price system will kill itself given enough time, if this will happen anywhere in the near future is to be seen.

How come israel supporting freedom fighters/rebels of syria against assad?SNIPER4321

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Ah, there is the rub is it not? Well in a Proper technate those in power would not benefit from a dystopia. So the question is how do we do that. well the the answer lies in the modern price system. since the the dawn of man economy has been scarcity based and thus oligarchies have flourished. oligarchies by nature abuse the "common man" (for lack of a better word) and so to combat this democracies were formed. however the nature of the "common man" caused the failures of democracies, the unorganized group is to easily manipulated and duped, and thus democracies are plagued by corruption and incompetence just like the oligarchies they fought to eliminate. So historically you see a cycle of tyrannies being overthrown and popular governments replacing them and then failing only to be replaced by another tyrant. However we of the modern age are in a unique position to break this cycle. For we have ability to move away from scarcity economics and thus away from oligarchies and democracies. We have machines that can eliminate human labour and produce limitless goods with near zero human labour.

Now, you may ask "doesn't that empower the oligarchy even more? for machines and automated production hurts the working man, taking their lively hood and worth and empowering the elite and the rich." Well you would be correct in asking this...under the price system at least. If we (I'm talking about the US now for ease of example) utilized the resources of the north American Continent we could provide an infinite amount of consumer goods with zero human labour. The oligarchy would become powerless for what could they offer to placate the "common man"?

Now you may ask yet another question "why would the oligarchy let this happen?". Well I in no way suggest they would just give up their power, but they don't have any choice in the matter. For the price system as we know it is unstable and bound to fail, when it will fail is the question. And when the price system does collapse the Technocrats will be there to pick up the ashes, hopefully by that time having educated enough of the populace about the merits of technocracy. Now its safe to say this can't happen anywhere most states will likely not survive the collapse and the inevitable warfare and economic destruction that will ensue. At the moment it seems only three countries could possibly make the transition: the USA, Israel and China.

 

frannkzappa

You are gravely mistaken if you are under the impression that moving away from scarcity-based economics/the price system - and removing a substantial (not all, mind you) portion of the labor makes it costless. Moreover, you haven't addressed how eliminating it removes the power from those in control of it. Finally, the price system is pretty god damned stable. Your entire thought process here stands a bit shy of coherent.

For your first point: For a government with absolute control of it's geographical resources and an infrastructure already in place yes production is cost free it's all a matter of transportation and deciding who gets what.

For your second point: If a government has full control of production and gives the fruits of production free to its citizens based on merit and worth how will the oligarchy maintain its self?

As for the stability of the price system, look around you it should be obvious that the world economy is anything but stable. it's been less then 100 years since the last economic crash and this current one is even more persistent then the last. it's clear that at the rate it's going the price system will kill itself given enough time, if this will happen anywhere in the near future is to be seen.

What you are describing is moving from a regulated, market-based system to a top-down managed economy which have historically been notoriously inefficient by comparison.

To your second point because, ultimately, meritocracy would give way to politics. That happens in bureaucratic, hierarchical, authoritarian systems of government. The well-being of the citizenry would become a pretty insignificant concern when powerless.

The economic hiccups of the past century have been child's play in contrast to wars and famines left unattended to by regimes not all too dissimilar to what would become of what you propose. Even in what we consider to be a horrendous recession in this day and age, living standards remain near the peak of human history, and due to improvements in market regulation, was far less of a problem than The Great Depression. Long-term trends point towards gradual improvement.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You are gravely mistaken if you are under the impression that moving away from scarcity-based economics/the price system - and removing a substantial (not all, mind you) portion of the labor makes it costless. Moreover, you haven't addressed how eliminating it removes the power from those in control of it. Finally, the price system is pretty god damned stable. Your entire thought process here stands a bit shy of coherent.

coolbeans90

For your first point: For a government with absolute control of it's geographical resources and an infrastructure already in place yes production is cost free it's all a matter of transportation and deciding who gets what.

For your second point: If a government has full control of production and gives the fruits of production free to its citizens based on merit and worth how will the oligarchy maintain its self?

As for the stability of the price system, look around you it should be obvious that the world economy is anything but stable. it's been less then 100 years since the last economic crash and this current one is even more persistent then the last. it's clear that at the rate it's going the price system will kill itself given enough time, if this will happen anywhere in the near future is to be seen.

What you are describing is moving from a regulated, market-based system to a top-down managed economy which have historically been notoriously inefficient by comparison.

To your second point because, ultimately, meritocracy would give way to politics. That happens in bureaucratic, hierarchical, authoritarian systems of government. The well-being of the citizenry would become a pretty insignificant concern when powerless.

The economic hiccups of the past century have been child's play in contrast to wars and famines left unattended to by regimes not all too dissimilar to what would become of what you propose. Even in what we consider to be a horrendous recession in this day and age, living standards remain near the peak of human history, and due to improvements in market regulation, was far less of a problem than The Great Depression. Long-term trends point towards gradual improvement.

Yes historically top downs have not worked, but that is because of the oligarchy and the pyramid structured governments they create. They are inefficient because a few individuals benefit from it being inefficient, in a technocracy this is not the case.

Yes an unregulated meritocracy does descend into popular politics. However i don't support meritocracies, i support technocracies with meritocratic elements.

yes while your living conditions may seem good they are not what they should be. A government that fully and efficiently utilizes it's geographic resources could provide much better for the citizen.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

For your first point: For a government with absolute control of it's geographical resources and an infrastructure already in place yes production is cost free it's all a matter of transportation and deciding who gets what.

For your second point: If a government has full control of production and gives the fruits of production free to its citizens based on merit and worth how will the oligarchy maintain its self?

 

As for the stability of the price system, look around you it should be obvious that the world economy is anything but stable. it's been less then 100 years since the last economic crash and this current one is even more persistent then the last. it's clear that at the rate it's going the price system will kill itself given enough time, if this will happen anywhere in the near future is to be seen.

frannkzappa

What you are describing is moving from a regulated, market-based system to a top-down managed economy which have historically been notoriously inefficient by comparison.

To your second point because, ultimately, meritocracy would give way to politics. That happens in bureaucratic, hierarchical, authoritarian systems of government. The well-being of the citizenry would become a pretty insignificant concern when powerless.

The economic hiccups of the past century have been child's play in contrast to wars and famines left unattended to by regimes not all too dissimilar to what would become of what you propose. Even in what we consider to be a horrendous recession in this day and age, living standards remain near the peak of human history, and due to improvements in market regulation, was far less of a problem than The Great Depression. Long-term trends point towards gradual improvement.

Yes historically top downs have not worked, but that is because of the oligarchy and the pyramid structured governments they create. They are inefficient because a few individuals benefit from it being inefficient, in a technocracy this is not the case.

Yes an unregulated meritocracy does descend into popular politics. However i don't support meritocracies, i support technocracies with meritocratic elements.

yes while your living conditions may seem good they are not what they should be. A government that fully and efficiently utilizes it's geographic resources could provide much better the citizen.

The reason that this also would not work because it would deteriorate pretty rapidly into a typical oligarchy due tendencies inherent to centralized power structures. What you have proposed does not fundamentally alter any of these characteristics.

Competitive market systems tend to pretty efficiently allocate resources in contrast to top-down systems because of the price mechanism.

Introducing WW3 Brought to you by: Israel and Murricapercech

how is it a world war? that implies the WHOLE world, not a few backwater middle eastern countries.

[QUOTE="percech"]Introducing WW3 Brought to you by: Israel and Murricafrannkzappa

how is it a world war? that implies the WHOLE world, not a few backwater middle eastern countries.