Global Governance through Realtime Interaction.

I mean a sphere like the Earth or Sun.

I know in reality they are Elliptical sphere's.... but for arguments sake they are sphere's.

I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect.... nothing EVER is... it would be a constantly changing and evolving entitie...just like society is.

But it would be a great improvement on the current system (which is not like a mountain range, that suggests multiple peaks, maybe a single mountain ... or more acuractely a pyramid)

Jointsmith said:

I mean a sphere like the Earth or Sun.

I know in reality they are Elliptical sphere's.... but for arguments sake they are sphere's.

I'm not suggesting that this system would be perfect.... nothing EVER is... it would be a constantly changing and evolving entitie...just like society is.

But it would be a great improvement on the current system (which is not like a mountain range, that suggests multiple peaks, maybe a single mountain ... or more acuractely a pyramid)

Click to expand...

No, I think a mountain range is a more accurate illustration,

though if you're going to try comparing it to a pyramid, the only institution that would imply is a Socialist System such as the one that you are proposing.

Who would have oversight in your system?

And you still haven't addressed the issue of having to monitor what everyone eats, and how much shit they flush down the toilet.

Your system is a totalitarian regime marred by the massive failures of all such Democracies.

It will let the majority destroy the minority.

No I disagree, the system as it stands is very much a pyramid.

The people with the power to CREATE 'Money' at the top. Followed by the people with the most power to BUY this money (buy with what? good question), down to the largest segments of society, those with little power to BUY money and those with NO POWER to buy money.

I don't see how this idea even compairs to a Pyramid.

A computer protocol, with the basic parameters openly debated , based around the basic Human rights and necissities for existance, to which ANYBODY can contribute EQUALLY. I don't really see who would be at the top.... Maybe the 'GEEKS' at first, but as I've already said, as more and more people grow up having used computers since year zero, I don't see it really being a huge problem.

Why would we NEED to MONITOR how much people eat and how much shit they flush? this is just some thing GOVERNMENT does to justify it's own existance.

As long as these things are being done and everybody has enough, there is no need to MONITOR anything. I suppose the system would really be 'monitored' by the constant input and communication of the PEOPLE.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Who would have oversight in your system?

Click to expand...

Who has oversight in our Current system? and shouldn't it be EVERYONE.

I really think the system I am proposing would increase peoples ability to be FREE and pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit.

The worst parts of society are driven by MONEY .....Exploitation, Crime, People dying because they can't 'Buy' their treatment, poverty, etc etc.

And ANYTHING good, would still be possible even without MONEY.

I see this program as being almost like a mixture of Facebook, GoogleEarth, YellowPages, MySpace, Polls Sites, Web Forums For Every Niche, Youtube, LastFM, etc etc.

All combined into a system running as One Entity of global co-operation.

Jointsmith said:

I see this program as being almost like a mixture of Facebook, GoogleEarth, YellowPages, MySpace, Polls Sites, Web Forums For Every Niche, Youtube, LastFM, etc etc.

All combined into a system running as One Entity of global co-operation.

Click to expand...

Your system will fail, because there are no rewards for hard work.

There are no rewards for pursuing excellence.

There are no rewards for innovation, for talent, for driving humanity upwards.

In short, it's the typical communist agenda that insists that by dividing the wealth there will some how magically be more wealth created.

It's a myth, a lie, and an absurdity.

It goes against human nature.

You speak about people that are capable of using computers, trust me, if I even think for a moment that your system has a chance of existing I will devote my life to tearing it down.

I will do away with my morals that have prohibited me from writing computer viruses and go to writing computer viruses.

I refuse to have my labor equated with the labor of a fastfood worker.

What's even more insulting is that under your system you'd be equating the labor of a farmer with a fastfood worker.

The difference between a farmer and a fastfood worker is that a farmer actually creates something of value, a fast food worker is nothing more than a service employee that does not generate wealth, but exists in the middle of the system.

Your system would require monitoring, and tracking, and lead to a complete violation of privacy.

Your system does not create PARADISE, it creates HELL

Egalitarianism is “a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges” and “a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.” “Egalitarianismis the moral doctrine that equality ought to prevail among some group along some dimension.” The main concern with those who advocate egalitarianism is equality of results, which is the prime objective of socialism.
One issue that needs to be addressed is whether people want equality of results. It’s only human nature: because people are individuals, each person has different wants and needs. People choose different professions and hobbies based on their individual preferences, not on hoping to achieve equality of results. People purchase goods, be they clothes, computers, fishing gear, food, etc., based on individual lifestyles and how they will enhance one’s interests. It is very doubtful that most people, especially those favoring liberty and freedom of choice, would actually see any value in equality of results.
Another issue is who decides what equality of results means and how it will be administered? Who is the arbiter of equality? Most socialists use phrases like “the people, the masses, the proletariat” to indicate who should be the deciding force in a socialistic society. What they really advocate is democracy, or what I like to call dahMOBcracy, which is just mob rule. Marx stated: "Democracy is the road to socialism.” Democracy is collectivist thinking that the majority can determine what is best for all people, which is inimical to the very ideas of personal freedom and choice. Also, how do you administer this equality of results? Either you allow a free-for-all grab by each individual of what their equal share is (lawless anarchy), or you need a central resource (a state) to administer the common property.
The most important issue is whether equality of results is practical. History shows that it is completely impractical. The only thing that equality of results has accomplished where it has been implemented is to spread poverty and famine. It has never raised the living standards of those it claimed to benefit, but has only lowered them. As has been noted by many – “capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty.”
Karl Marx’s most famous quotation is probably: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” This egalitarian concept of Marx sounds good, but leads to mediocrity at best, and actually discourages production. It is completely out of touch with how individuals act in real life. As Thomas Shelly explained to his high school classes: “Socialism--even in a democracy--would eventually result in a living death for all except the ‘authorities’ and a few of their favorite lackeys.”
Another socialist who advanced egalitarian thinking is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French anarchist of the 19th Century. Proudhon is famous for stating "Property is theft" in his writing “What is Property?” While Proudhon was against private property, he advocated individual possession. It appears that he may have created the popular socialist egalitarian position that property is theft, but at some point he realized it was completely unworkable in real life, and then used the term individual possession to get around the problem he developed. Marx was heavily influenced by Proudhon’s ideas about property.
The idea that private property is theft promotes an economic equality of results that is disastrous. While in theory it should mean that we are all equally rich, sharing in all the property of each other, in reality it means individuals own nothing and are equally poor. An individual’s possessions, his house, car, TV, clothes, and all other belongings, are not his any longer, and can be claimed by the first looter or group of looters who come along to claim them. Even a person’s most valuable possession, his life, is not safe from the depredations of those who view him as a faceless cog to be molded for the greater glory of society.
Private property, or in Proudhon’s case individual possession, is vital for any civilized society. While it is alright for individuals to voluntarily share private property, as in individual families or other arrangements such as communes, the basic concept of individual property rights must be maintained. Private property is vital for an effective rule of law that will be beneficial to society as a whole, something egalitarianism claims to promote, but utterly fails to do. Without private property, societies tend toward lawlessness, and become a looter’s paradise.
Egalitarians have confused the meaning of Jefferson ’s “all men are created equal.” While this is one of the most important concepts in the Declaration of Independence , it has nothing to do with equality of results. Obviously, it can not mean people are identical. Nature creates us as individuals, all with different talents, characteristics, and desires. All it can mean is that all people have equal liberty, and an individual should have the complete freedom to choose how he or she wants to live. Egalitarianism is actually at odds with this concept, and would try to force individuals to accept the dictates of the masses.
Egalitarianism is an attempt to create a utopia, an earthly paradise. Egalitarians, in their mad dash for equality of results, are all too willing to use the power of the state to pass laws that oppose the natural laws of economics and individual expression. As with all such mad schemes, it is completely unsound, and always leads to the opposite, hell on earth. While socialists might regard equality of results as their holy grail, it is really their Achilles’ heel.
As in any scam that promises more than it can deliver, there are always schemers looking to exploit it for a quick profit. There are con men who use equality of results to dupe unsuspecting marks to support their grab for power and looting. As comes as no surprise to freedom lovers, the state and its adherents are the prime supporters of egalitarianism. It makes the perfect façade, a self-righteous wall of hypocrisy, that they are correcting injustices, while perpetrating schemes that rob individuals of liberty, property, and self-determination and adds power to the state.
The state always promises that it will benefit everyone with its programs and that society will be greatly enhanced as a whole. The opposite is always true. From its wars on poverty, crime, drugs, terrorism, and all its other wars and programs, the state never accomplishes what it says are its primary objectives.
The state always uses clever schemes and names, and democratic means, to sell these completely worthless programs to an unsuspecting and gullible public. There is its “No Child Left Behind” education program, which if truth in advertising were required, would be called “Every Child Left Behind.” The state promotes the idea that it is heartless to oppose something for the benefit of all children, when facts show the state is an utter failure at education.
The height of hubris is the US state’s war of terror, which promises to bring peace and freedom, not just to America but the world. Of course you can never bring peace and freedom by murdering people in foreign countries, destroying private property, and stealing their resources. As in all such state programs, it is just a way to grab more power for the state and its sycophants. It allows the politically well-connected to loot the US treasury, at the expense of everyone else.
For those still unconvinced about the negative impact of equality of results, consider this scenario – a society where equality of results is the primary concern and democracy is used to implement it. In this society, everything is determined by democratic vote. What clothes everyone will wear, what food everyone will eat and what times they will eat, what time each person will get up and go to bed, what TV channel everyone will watch and what times everyone will watch it, what toothbrush and toothpaste everyone will use, what job everyone will have, what recreation everyone will be allowed. Even if people could physically survive, such a society would result in such a drab, monotonous existence that it would be a living hell. While this society would ensure equality of results, no rational person would actually want to live under such conditions.
Those who think the previous scenario is unrealistic and not representative of what equality of results would accomplish should read Ayn Rand’s We the Living. The book is a fictional novel, but set in the historical era of the Bolshevik Revolution, which Rand lived through as a child and young adult. The historical facts portrayed in her novel speak for themselves, and are terrifying.
Egalitarianism is actually the enemy of the individual and freedom. To get equality of results, individual desires and preferences have to be ignored. Also, a person’s freedom of self-determination must be sacrificed to achieve equal results.
Egalitarianism, and its equality of results, is not something to be desired or worked for. Its main benefactor is the state, which uses it to rob people of their freedom, property, and self-determination. The only equality that we need is the freedom for each individual to live his life as he chooses.

Click to expand...

TheBrutalTruth said:

Your system will fail, because there are no rewards for hard work.

There are no rewards for pursuing excellence.

There are no rewards for innovation, for talent, for driving humanity upwards.

In short, it's the typical communist agenda that insists that by dividing the wealth there will some how magically be more wealth created.

It's a myth, a lie, and an absurdity.

It goes against human nature.

You speak about people that are capable of using computers, trust me, if I even think for a moment that your system has a chance of existing I will devote my life to tearing it down.

I will do away with my morals that have prohibited me from writing computer viruses and go to writing computer viruses.

Click to expand...

I will count on the fact that there will be a lot more people FAR more intellegent than yourself working to make society function, and weak ass viruses by bitter OLD farts like you will be worked out and resolved quickly.

Thats what happens when people work together and communiate effictively, problems get solved.

I'm not talking about dividing the wealth, wealth comes from within...how hard working you are, your talents, etc.

The Rewards for being Excellence would be exceptional ammount of LOVE you would receive from EVERYONE you benefitted. Having lots of friends and people who love you for who you are is a reward IMO.... thats not even including the fact that your friends are always inclined to help you out.

TheBrutalTruth said:

I refuse to have my labor equated with the labor of a fastfood worker.

What's even more insulting is that under your system you'd be equating the labor of a farmer with a fastfood worker.

The difference between a farmer and a fastfood worker is that a farmer actually creates something of value, a fast food worker is nothing more than a service employee that does not generate wealth, but exists in the middle of the system.

Your system would require monitoring, and tracking, and lead to a complete violation of privacy.

Your system does not create PARADISE, it creates HELL

Click to expand...

How about a 'fastfood worker' who works hard his whole life? Makes beautiful Pizza's, refines complex recipies, works really hard, teaches his friends and family how to make Beautiful Pizza's, makes a Beautiful resturant, people Enjoy his food everyday, always with a smile on his face.

Does THIS 'fastfood worker' have any less value than a hard working farmer?

People Motivated by the love of what they are doing work a lot harder than those being forced to work for money.

I know the people you are refering to, however I think you are being pretty bigotted. You think someone is 'lazy' because they work in a fast food restaurant?

For starters you need to consider the Educational and Social backgrounds of these people and the actual oppertunities that they have had in their lives. This has been caused by the Ecomonic System as it is now and has been for nearly 100 years.

I think this system would open all oppertunities for all.

I think what you're REALLY worried about is that you may not be able to get FASTFOOD.... and you're right... the FAT LAZY FUCKS probably won't be catered for.... not at the expense of people having to be enslaved to jobs they hate, and the total economic exploitation of the 'third world'....

But hey, I expect there'll be plenty of people willing to share their knoweledge of how to make really tasty food... or whatever 'service' needs doing.... and I honestly believe, if it's a fair request people would be willing to offer their help.

You only need to click on 'New Post's' above to see the number of people helping each other and giving advise.... not because their being paid, but just for the sake of it.

Brutal, I'm not advocating Equallity of Results, I'm advocating equallity of Oppertunities.

What people choose to do with those oppertunities is really up to them as it should be.

There would be no invasion into peoples private lives, what people make public about themselves is really up to each individual.

In fact there would be less forcefull invasion into peoples lives than there currently is.... especially when you consider all laws imposed by our goverments, controlling our actions and taking our rights away.

The ONLY reason ANYTHING about your private life would be known by anyone else would be if you made it public or you affected someone else who made it public (either negetively or positively, praise or condemnation).

medicineman said:

One of the drawbacks that I see is the inequality of the poorer countries. No computers to log on to and no apparent skills. The benefit of world labor markets for the greedy Multinational corporations is already driving down regional labor prices. When juxtaposed against living conditions and cost of living, this tends to put the working forces in 1st world countries at a gross disadvantage. The advantage of one world workers, is definently in the favor of the corporations.

Click to expand...

I agree the fact that there are currently less computers in the third world is an inequality, however I bet there's probably enough computers in the world.... it's just a case of spreading them out properly and getting them all connected.... this is already happening naturally

The Third World has been massively exploited by the First World, but this has only been made possible because of Money..... Selling them 'Money' so that they can trade resources and then forcing them to sell their own resources dirt cheap to pay our bankers back...

Personally I feel this is probably one of the main reasons for our current economic crisis.... people around the world, especially in the third world, are waking up and no longer wanting to be exploited.

Jointsmith said:

Brutal, I'm not advocating Equallity of Results, I'm advocating equallity of Oppertunities.

What people choose to do with those oppertunities is really up to them say it should be.

There would be no invasion into peoples private lives, what people make public about themselves is really up to each individual.

In fact there would be less forcefull invasion into peoples lives than there currently is.... especially when you consider all laws imposed by our goverments, controlling our actions and taking our rights away.

The ONLY reason ANYTHING about your private life would be known by anyone else would be if you madeit public or you affected someone else who made it public (either negetively or positively).

Click to expand...

No, you've already admitted that you are pushing for equality of results.

You said that there would be no rewards for excellence, for exceeding the standards of humanity. There would be no recognition for pushing the envelop of human progress further.

Your system sucks.

Oh, and next time you stereotype, you should at least make sure you know something about the person you're trying to stereotype.

I'm probably younger than you.

TheBrutalTruth said:

No, you've already admitted that you are pushing for equality of results.

You said that there would be no rewards for excellence, for exceeding the standards of humanity. There would be no recognition for pushing the envelop of human progress further.

Your system sucks.

Oh, and next time you stereotype, you should at least make sure you know something about the person you're trying to stereotype.

I'm probably younger than you.

Click to expand...

Where have I admitted that I am pushing for equality of results. You are Putting words in my mouth.

I have only advocated a system where everyone has equal OPPERTUNITY to contribute and equal OPPERTUNITY to access its information.

I am not talking about a RESULT, there isn't a perfect AIM for society.

Society is a constantly evolving entity containing every single one of us whether you like it or not.

You Keep talking about Socialism, but that's just another form of IMPOSED SOCIAL CONTROL.

Hey, if you come up with a really great idea, and you only want to share it with people able to give you something that you value, fair enough, do that....

you be free to do whatever you choose man, be selfish or generous it's up to you, as long as you don't encroache on anyone elses rights it's not really anyone's business..... But people who share usually have more true friends and therefore people who would share with them.... which is big a reward in my opinion.

Biggravy22 said:

Jointsmith.

That sounds nice and dandy, but that system doesn't allow for any free thought whatsoever. Where does this money come from if no one earns any wages? Who pays for it? Who sustains it? Who controls it? This is a system that we as a people should be against.Look at the way things are now, and tell me a system with even less individual control is better.

Click to expand...

I feel the opposite, I think this system would allow for more free thought as we have now. With the rise of the internet people are able to communicate with people all around the world, now we're finding out how we're all so different, yet so alike at the same time. Individuallity is increasing faster all the time.

I mean look at this internet forum, or any internet forum. People from all over the world helping each other sharing different opinions and view points, not for payment but for the sake of helping one another and making friends.

The system (Society) would be controlled by anyone who cares to contribute, so I imagine different aspects woulld be controlled by different types of people, as we all have different skills.

Unlike our current system, where we elect someone to represent us, then they get to stay in power and decide our fates for four years, whether we agree with them or not. We would contribute realtime to decisions being made that affect us.

I think this would give people more individual control over their OWN LIVES, which is the only thing you SHOULD really be ABLE to control anyway.

It would make you dependent on the people around you and them on you, by working together, instead of competing as we are now.

Dear TBT, Please address the level of excellence attained by managers at AIG. They are certainly being rewarded handsomely.
You said that there would be no rewards for excellence, for exceeding the standards of humanity. There would be no recognition for pushing the envelop of human progress further.
BTW I don't get it. Many people exceed the "standards of humanity" as you have labeled doing a good job, and recieve no more than an atta-boy and their paycheck, sometimes even no atta-boy. Why should anyone recieve bonuses for doing their jobs? I built probably 50 buildings as the ramrod for my boss, Never got a bonus, and all the buildings came in on time and under budget, not even an atta-boy. I was just doing my job to the best of my abilities and getting paid. This Bonus thing is crap.

medicineman said:

Dear TBT, Please address the level of excellence attained by managers at AIG. They are certainly being rewarded handsomely.
You said that there would be no rewards for excellence, for exceeding the standards of humanity. There would be no recognition for pushing the envelop of human progress further.
BTW I don't get it. Many people exceed the "standards of humanity" as you have labeled doing a good job, and recieve no more than an atta-boy and their paycheck, sometimes even no atta-boy. Why should anyone recieve bonuses for doing their jobs? I built probably 50 buildings as the ramrod for my boss, Never got a bonus, and all the buildings came in on time and under budget, not even an atta-boy. I was just doing my job to the best of my abilities and getting paid. This Bonus thing is crap.

Click to expand...

Fine then, you get 2.85 an hour, you shouldn't need anything more than that. You don't need a place to live. Just enough to feed yourself.

Oh, and if you bitch the idiots like the proposer of this bloated scheme get to beat the shit out of you, and confiscate your property to "better" serve the rest of humanity.

Like I said, it's a sh*t idea.

And if you're going to try arguing at least try arguing intelligently Med o Mao.

Never once have I supported the f* bail outs for AIG, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Wachovia, BoA (Serpent Bank, err Bank of America), or any other entity that got wiped out due to the fact that they were logging paper profits and paying out real bonuses to their employees.

What's more amazing is that you some how think that an employee that is bringing in (or was supposedly bringing in 20 Million/year) in income isn't worth a million, or half a million/year.

While I might not agree that Stock Trading is honest work (At least not day trading, and futures trading.) I can't really bitch to loudly about the fact that it's probably a lot more stressful than building houses or writing computer programs.

One false move and they might cost the company millions, in which case their job is likely on the line, and they might be facing jail time and other criminal charges for their failure.

Compensation has to be commensurate with risk.

It also explains why CEOs get a lot of money. I wouldn't be willing to risk jail time because I signed Financial Docs that stated a company was making x amount of money when do to the actions of people under me it was only making y amount of money.

$500,000/year for 4 - 5 years is not enough to compensate me for having to spend even 1 fucking night in prison, or in holding, or even having to deal with the hassle of dealing with government pukes.

Then there's the fact that CEOs on the average have spent 30 - 40 years at one company, have moved 6 times for the company, as a result of their job duties, and ended up (after that 30 - 40 years) making that millions of dollars a year.

Compared to a brain dead jock who's only talent is playing with balls who makes that kind of money right out of college.

If you want to bitch about something, now there's something to bitch about. Idiotic Jocks making millions right out of college as opposed to CEOs who likely have a masters degree in a Business Related Field, or a Science, and have waited 20 - 30 years to make millions.



Then there's f* bureaucrats who make $300,000 a year (School Administrators, Mayors) Now that's something to be pissed off about. Why the f* should a bureaucrat be making $300K/year for what would probably only get $50 - $60K in the private sector.

I didn't think Government, Public Service was supposed to be a f* get rich quick scheme.

Give me just 1 year at that kind of salary and I'd retire.

I will also pass on the one world government idea.

We have how many governments in the world right now and how many of them are actually honest governments? I'll vote none.

If there is only one government for the entire world, the corruption will explode. You thinks politicians are theives and liars now? Put them in a dictatorship position, such as one world government, and see how much theiving and lieing goes one.

misshestermoffitt said:

I will also pass on the one world government idea.

We have how many governments in the world right now and how many of them are actually honest governments? I'll vote none.

If there is only one government for the entire world, the corruption will explode. You thinks politicians are theives and liars now? Put them in a dictatorship position, such as one world government, and see how much theiving and lieing goes one.

Click to expand...

I want elliminate the Job Role 'Politician' all together.... I agree completely with what you have said, which is why I think we should decentralize control of EVERYONE away from any sort of 'Government' completely.

The only things that should 'Govern' our society, are the Basic Human Rights that EVERYONE should be entitled to (not EVERYONE currently receives these)

By making us all politicians (or none of us).... because when everyone has the power.... no one does.

The system I am proposing is not a means of 'control of the people'.... only a means of making sure everyone has access to the necessities for life. (anything else is induvidual choice)

The only reason I have even suggested this is as a means of REMOVING POWER from ANYONE wanting to interfere with MY (or anyone elses) LIFE, or rights.

I don't think ANY government ANYWHERE should be allow to dictate what I can or cannot do, unless it encroaches on the rights of others.... yet every government does this.

I don't want a one world Government, in fact I don't want a Government at all (a government is a selected group of people chosen to make our laws and decide the actions of the country) I don't think ANYONE should be selected for this....because we should ALL have an EQUAL input.....

This isn't COMMUNISM or CAPITALISM or SOCIALISM or FASCISM.... these are ALL only means of social control, society DOESN'T NEED to be CONTROLLED....

However we DO need the basic resources needed for life.....

I want to find a better way of making sure everybody feels fulfilled in society.

If you think this idea is shit then fair enough, please make another suggestion.... because we can ALL see the MASSIVE PROBLEMS with our current system.... yet nobody is making any suggestions of how we can improve it.

I don't want to FORCE anything onto ANYONE.

But I DO feel we NEED to have OPEN discussion about how we (as a society) proceed from here...

Not just in the darkened back rooms of the banksters and their lapdogs the politicians.

For starters we'll have to uproot the existing government and that's not going to be an easy task.