Intelligence at the time indicated Iraq was a threat to its neighbors
How very convenient.
Also, let's not forget that "rights" are merely certain activities that people think certain groups of people should be able to do.
But it's no mere opinion that people are likely generally happier when they have more rights.
War is hell.
Which is precisely why it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (defending yourself or others, which doesn't include invading someone for religious reasons). There's no benefit to society by going to war with another country for purely religious reasons, personal reasons, or profit (not to the world, at least). It might benefit you and your followers, but it benefits no one else.
I always found that to be completely pointless, as well. Its meaning is still the same, and it's used in the exact same circumstances as the swear word they're replacing. That said, getting offended by mere words is just idiotic, I think. People use the argument that swear words were intended to be offensive, but not only are they mere words, but you have no obligation to be offended by them. It's ultimately your own fault if you get offended. People need to get out of their little bubbles and toughen up.
but I can't think of any major conflict in the past few decades started by corruption.
You mean that you know of? It's likely that the war in Iraq is for oil. Just because they don't openly admit it doesn't mean it isn't false (or true).
Also, let's not forget that starting wars for pointless personal reasons damages society as a whole. The ends should justify the means (not stripping people of their rights or attacking people because you don't like them), and no one gets to decide that based on their opinion.
Yes, but different places are good for different people. Anyway, people will just have to deal with the finite number of places.
What does that even mean?
It means that the action of building houses will likely be automated. Instead of building them in a static place, they can be moved. While it won't be in a specific spot, you could move it there.
So your entire point is that without greed, good things can happen.
My entire point is that our environment is what causes so much of this greed.
Corruption and currency free societies of self-selected members with purely optional membership have been tried in a lot of places.
Really? I did not know that. Citation?
Do you now what the No True Scotsman fallacy is? It is exactly that. Communism works, but I've tightly defined it such that each person who has tried communism failed in a minor detail of implementation. That's what you are saying. You further say that by eliminating the symptomes of greed and laziness, it would work.
You keep calling them minor details, but I disagree.
How will you succeed in altering people when they have failed.
You said above that corruption-free societies with no currency (and completely voluntary) have been tried before. Can you list specific examples?
It especially hurts your argument that apparently you are completely ignorant with regards to past instantiations of communism.
Well, that doesn't actually hurt my argument, but it's certainly not making it stronger.
We could use capitalistic pressures by charging for pollution
I wonder how long it would take for the ones in power to counter that by lobbying.
Similarly, we could mandate terms that make planned obselecense less valuable.
I suppose, but I can't think of a specific way to do so.
See, I want to use a hammer. If there is only one hammer, I have to wait.
Obviously, but that's not what I meant. You wouldn't have to make a new hammer if there was already one available and not being used (unlike if someone 'owned' one and you had to beg them to use it, which a stranger probably wouldn't let you do).
Society evolved that way do to greed.
Society evolved this way due to the fact that they were seeking a more efficient system than they had previously, I believe. This system doesn't quell greed at all.
Greed we see animals exhibit all the time.
I would have thought that humans could be slightly more intelligent than that. Not to mention the fact that that's largely shaped by their environment and the lack of actual resources or reasons to share with others (or the intellectual prowess to understand the benefits of doing so: benefiting society as a whole, and therefore yourself).
Currency allows for trades to take place with small scrips instead of barrels.
That fixes greed how? That's what I meant. The more unlikely it seems that these problems will ever be fixed, the more I revert to my previous stance that it would be better if the entire human race was simply annihilated. Too much power, and not enough intelligence to know what to do with it.
How is it any worse to believe that your god is mad at somebody rather than your great-great-great-great-grandfather?
It isn't, it's just as idiotic.
What qualifies anyone, or any particular group, to decide what's an insane reason?
No one, but it is my opinion. Senselessly attacking someone is idiotic, I feel. If you're just defending yourself (or others), then I have no problem with it.
I doubt there's any leader in recent times who has started a war for his own enjoyment.
No, but there's those that will start wars over profit or power, and there has been plenty of insane excuses to start wars or attack others (such as religion), but that's not really surprising.
What about the people living near the North Korean border under constant threat of attack?
If you've been attacked first, then I don't see the problem with defending yourself. When I said "initializing a war," I also meant attacking others, even if that isn't really correct. That should never happen in the first place.
One of Larry Niven's cornerstone pieces is about organ harvesting; it's a very real risk.
If the government would go so far as to kill people to harvest organs, again, the people have more of a problem on their hands than just people purposely killing others. Sounds like they have been in need of a revolution for a long time.
Besides that, if a corrupt government really wanted that to happen, they could make it happen now (since it's plainly obvious that they wouldn't listen to the people).
No, the answer is not to let people rot in the ground, it's to develop nanotechnology so we don't have to die.
That's unlikely for quite a long time, if it's even possible.
Technicalities aside, long term possession is indistinguishable from ownership... both by those doing the possessing and those who are denied its use.
Given the amount of places in the world, I don't see this as being a problem.
And why wouldn't I build a house?
Most likely it would already be built, due to houses having certain specifications.
I don't know why its not the same.
Governmental corruption, widespread greed, and the existence of currency.
And it failed.
Most likely due to the factors that I just listed. Not to mention that the 'change' was forced, not a decision made by a majority of the people.
how is it not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
It something can (theoretically) only be done a certain way, and someone fails to do it in that way, then it really wasn't the same because it wasn't even implemented correctly (not that I'm assuming this could work for sure). In other words, I'm commenting on the method that they used to try to construct such a society.
Namely, that even if such a society as you are proposing could exist, you don't show why it would be intrinsicly more likely to avoid waste.
Due to the focus put on developing new technology that more effectively allows us to manage resources and the smaller population. Money is the limiting factor now. If something that helps the environment is not profitable, it most likely won't get done until it is too late (or not much effort will be put into it). Planned obsolescence just makes this problem worse.
Lack of ownership leads to overutilization of common resources.
Lack of ownership means that we don't need to keep wasting time and resources building things that we already have just so a different person can 'own' it.
People have been trying this for a hundred years.
The specific methods that they employed were not only forced, but the incorrect way to go about the change.
Currency isn't a cause. It's a tool because people are greedy.
Why is it that you believe that people are inherently greedy? Do you really believe that a society which actively promotes greed has no effect on an individual? People will likely continue to fail to change as long as their environment largely encourages their behavior.
Furthermore, how does currency help this situation at all? It helps the greedy be even greedier, and further divides people into groups depending on how much they 'own'.
Right, and then I let my kids sleep there, and build a house, and before you know it that land is "mine".
Technically it isn't, and you won't be building the houses.
Societies have existed on a contiumium for a while. It's not that hard to extrapolate that the Soviet Union is closer to what you're proposing than many other societies, and therefore serves as a basis for comparison.
Closer, maybe, but definitely not the same. If it used currency, had a restrictive government/environment, or had widespread corruption and greed, then they are far from the same thing (maybe closer, though).
It wouldn't happen at all if it wasn't forced, because the non-participating portions of society would take advantage of the group that tried.
No, it's something that must be voluntary. A large group of society must accept it before it can happen (which is the plan).
The current system has lasted hundreds of years.
The current system hasn't used as many resources or destroyed the environment as much as it has now for hundreds of years. Do you truly believe that wasting as many resources as we do, waging as many wars as we do (very destructive wars), and generally treating the environment as a play thing can last longer than not doing those things?
It fails once the population gets over a couple hundred.
Pretending to know the future isn't helping your case. I don't pretend to know it will work, but what I do know is that we won't last much longer if we keep trying to put this system on life support.
I believe habits can be formed and changed
Most people are really incapable of growth.
Yes, I suspect it is difficult to suppress greed and corruption when it is so prevalent. The intention is to rid ourselves of that mass corruption and greed by eliminating the factor that likely causes most of such behavior: currency.
Yes, if I can save my daughter by killing a stranger then I might.
Have fun getting jailed, and then not even being sure if the organ will go to her in the first place!
The Chinese government currently does get away with it (Google "Chinese death vans"), so you are quite wrong.
If the people let their government become that corrupt, then who is at fault? It sounds like they have more problems on their hands than just people killing for organs. This also isn't the fault of forced organ donation, but of the government.
It's possible that people could do bad things in such a system (not likely if implemented correctly, however), but anything can be abused.
Sure, I'll grant you that "no one person", the Chinese officials are more than one in number, but that's not my point; my point was setting up such a system will have unintended consequences.
So, the answer, I suppose, is to let people rot in the ground and waste space, all because it might be abused?
We better stop people from becoming voluntary organ donator, too, because it could encourage murder!
Then that's not really a problem with the software, now is it? It's a problem with people who are too lazy and idiotic to at least learn not to run random executable files on their computer.
First come, first serve? I don't know, but this isn't a major problem.
I'm not going to let you get away with a No True Scottsman on communism, either.
Apparently you didn't understand what I meant. I didn't commit a "no true scottsman" fallacy. I asked valid questions as to the conditions of the Soviet Union and stated the fact (it is a fact) that no such society has been implemented as of this time (or even tested). I didn't say anything about me knowing it would work or anything such as that, either.
A society like that never was truly implemented because the act of transitioning to it implodes the society.
It wouldn't 'implode' society if it wasn't forced, I suspect.
Because it cannot work.
Neither can the current system (for long), as I've said previously. It's a bit early to be making such a bold claim, isn't it?
Because its assumption is that you can change human behavior in a specific way that no one has demonstrated you can, and in fact studies have shown are improbable.
So, you don't think behavior can ever be changed? At all? You believe a selfish person can never become generous, or a generous person can never become selfish? If not, then why do you believe it only applies to certain behaviors but not others?
My point was, this gives someone (in Logan's Run's case, the government) incentive to murder people in order to harvest their organs.
It does? The whole point of harvesting the organs is to save someone else. Killing the original owner just makes that goal pretty pointless, including the fact that no one would let other people go around killing people for organs. They certainly wouldn't get away with it, and no one person would get to decide where the organs go (they would be used on demand).
Well, considering no one will actually be owning the land, there won't be a shortage of it. You could, in theory, move somewhere, and then move somewhere else. No one truly owns the land, so you'd be free to go where you please.
The Soviet Union tried for three generations and weren't able to remove those traits.
Was currency eliminated? How restrictive was the government and its environment? How widespread was corruption and greed? I don't believe a society like this has ever been truly implemented or tested.
No, I can't, but I never said that I could. What I said is that you know exactly what I meant. They never had the objects in the first place, so they can't vanish from their possession. That is what I meant, and you likely knew it.
Claiming that it is impossible to be harmed by the loss of an opportunity is disingenuous and incorrect.
You say that it's incorrect, but then you fail to explain how. If you never had the objects in your possession, 'losing' the opportunity does not harm you because they were never in your possession in the first place, and unless you lost time or resources, you remain completely unchanged.
Of course you don't. It doesn't agree with yours, so you're ignoring it. Pretty much par for the course on this site when discussing topics like this.
Why the assumptions? They aren't going to get you anywhere. I said that I don't understand your point because if you aren't willing to debate that harm was done, then what was the point? I'm arguing that no harm is done, and therefore it should be allowed and society should be reshaped to allow for that.
The minute one of them decides to do something to increase market share, it's off to the races.
But if they know the others would likely do the same thing (to prevent too many customers from going to them), why would they even bother? It's not an uncommon thing for competing companies to scheme together, as far as I know.
Actually, I was being sarcastic. Courts can't just interpret the constitution to change its meaning as they see fit, and people keep saying how all of these people are in danger and Wikileaks is irresponsible, but as far as I know, there's not a single report of someone dying because of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence at the time indicated Iraq was a threat to its neighbors
How very convenient.
Also, let's not forget that "rights" are merely certain activities that people think certain groups of people should be able to do.
But it's no mere opinion that people are likely generally happier when they have more rights.
War is hell.
Which is precisely why it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (defending yourself or others, which doesn't include invading someone for religious reasons). There's no benefit to society by going to war with another country for purely religious reasons, personal reasons, or profit (not to the world, at least). It might benefit you and your followers, but it benefits no one else.
I always found that to be completely pointless, as well. Its meaning is still the same, and it's used in the exact same circumstances as the swear word they're replacing. That said, getting offended by mere words is just idiotic, I think. People use the argument that swear words were intended to be offensive, but not only are they mere words, but you have no obligation to be offended by them. It's ultimately your own fault if you get offended. People need to get out of their little bubbles and toughen up.
but I can't think of any major conflict in the past few decades started by corruption.
You mean that you know of? It's likely that the war in Iraq is for oil. Just because they don't openly admit it doesn't mean it isn't false (or true).
Also, let's not forget that starting wars for pointless personal reasons damages society as a whole. The ends should justify the means (not stripping people of their rights or attacking people because you don't like them), and no one gets to decide that based on their opinion.
They all had reasons they felt to be very good.
Except the ones knowingly going to war for corrupt reasons, you mean?
They are unequal.
Yes, but different places are good for different people. Anyway, people will just have to deal with the finite number of places.
What does that even mean?
It means that the action of building houses will likely be automated. Instead of building them in a static place, they can be moved. While it won't be in a specific spot, you could move it there.
So your entire point is that without greed, good things can happen.
My entire point is that our environment is what causes so much of this greed.
Corruption and currency free societies of self-selected members with purely optional membership have been tried in a lot of places.
Really? I did not know that. Citation?
Do you now what the No True Scotsman fallacy is? It is exactly that. Communism works, but I've tightly defined it such that each person who has tried communism failed in a minor detail of implementation. That's what you are saying. You further say that by eliminating the symptomes of greed and laziness, it would work.
You keep calling them minor details, but I disagree.
How will you succeed in altering people when they have failed.
You said above that corruption-free societies with no currency (and completely voluntary) have been tried before. Can you list specific examples?
It especially hurts your argument that apparently you are completely ignorant with regards to past instantiations of communism.
Well, that doesn't actually hurt my argument, but it's certainly not making it stronger.
We could use capitalistic pressures by charging for pollution
I wonder how long it would take for the ones in power to counter that by lobbying.
Similarly, we could mandate terms that make planned obselecense less valuable.
I suppose, but I can't think of a specific way to do so.
See, I want to use a hammer. If there is only one hammer, I have to wait.
Obviously, but that's not what I meant. You wouldn't have to make a new hammer if there was already one available and not being used (unlike if someone 'owned' one and you had to beg them to use it, which a stranger probably wouldn't let you do).
Society evolved that way do to greed.
Society evolved this way due to the fact that they were seeking a more efficient system than they had previously, I believe. This system doesn't quell greed at all.
Greed we see animals exhibit all the time.
I would have thought that humans could be slightly more intelligent than that. Not to mention the fact that that's largely shaped by their environment and the lack of actual resources or reasons to share with others (or the intellectual prowess to understand the benefits of doing so: benefiting society as a whole, and therefore yourself).
Currency allows for trades to take place with small scrips instead of barrels.
That fixes greed how? That's what I meant. The more unlikely it seems that these problems will ever be fixed, the more I revert to my previous stance that it would be better if the entire human race was simply annihilated. Too much power, and not enough intelligence to know what to do with it.
How is it any worse to believe that your god is mad at somebody rather than your great-great-great-great-grandfather?
It isn't, it's just as idiotic.
What qualifies anyone, or any particular group, to decide what's an insane reason?
No one, but it is my opinion. Senselessly attacking someone is idiotic, I feel. If you're just defending yourself (or others), then I have no problem with it.
I doubt there's any leader in recent times who has started a war for his own enjoyment.
No, but there's those that will start wars over profit or power, and there has been plenty of insane excuses to start wars or attack others (such as religion), but that's not really surprising.
What about the people living near the North Korean border under constant threat of attack?
If you've been attacked first, then I don't see the problem with defending yourself. When I said "initializing a war," I also meant attacking others, even if that isn't really correct. That should never happen in the first place.
Maybe he meant that initializing a war in the first place is pointless. The scenarios you described were really about defending yourself or others.
One of Larry Niven's cornerstone pieces is about organ harvesting; it's a very real risk.
If the government would go so far as to kill people to harvest organs, again, the people have more of a problem on their hands than just people purposely killing others. Sounds like they have been in need of a revolution for a long time.
Besides that, if a corrupt government really wanted that to happen, they could make it happen now (since it's plainly obvious that they wouldn't listen to the people).
No, the answer is not to let people rot in the ground, it's to develop nanotechnology so we don't have to die.
That's unlikely for quite a long time, if it's even possible.
Technicalities aside, long term possession is indistinguishable from ownership... both by those doing the possessing and those who are denied its use.
Given the amount of places in the world, I don't see this as being a problem.
And why wouldn't I build a house?
Most likely it would already be built, due to houses having certain specifications.
I don't know why its not the same.
Governmental corruption, widespread greed, and the existence of currency.
And it failed.
Most likely due to the factors that I just listed. Not to mention that the 'change' was forced, not a decision made by a majority of the people.
how is it not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
It something can (theoretically) only be done a certain way, and someone fails to do it in that way, then it really wasn't the same because it wasn't even implemented correctly (not that I'm assuming this could work for sure). In other words, I'm commenting on the method that they used to try to construct such a society.
Namely, that even if such a society as you are proposing could exist, you don't show why it would be intrinsicly more likely to avoid waste.
Due to the focus put on developing new technology that more effectively allows us to manage resources and the smaller population. Money is the limiting factor now. If something that helps the environment is not profitable, it most likely won't get done until it is too late (or not much effort will be put into it). Planned obsolescence just makes this problem worse.
Lack of ownership leads to overutilization of common resources.
Lack of ownership means that we don't need to keep wasting time and resources building things that we already have just so a different person can 'own' it.
People have been trying this for a hundred years.
The specific methods that they employed were not only forced, but the incorrect way to go about the change.
Currency isn't a cause. It's a tool because people are greedy.
Why is it that you believe that people are inherently greedy? Do you really believe that a society which actively promotes greed has no effect on an individual? People will likely continue to fail to change as long as their environment largely encourages their behavior.
Furthermore, how does currency help this situation at all? It helps the greedy be even greedier, and further divides people into groups depending on how much they 'own'.
Right, and then I let my kids sleep there, and build a house, and before you know it that land is "mine".
Technically it isn't, and you won't be building the houses.
Societies have existed on a contiumium for a while. It's not that hard to extrapolate that the Soviet Union is closer to what you're proposing than many other societies, and therefore serves as a basis for comparison.
Closer, maybe, but definitely not the same. If it used currency, had a restrictive government/environment, or had widespread corruption and greed, then they are far from the same thing (maybe closer, though).
It wouldn't happen at all if it wasn't forced, because the non-participating portions of society would take advantage of the group that tried.
No, it's something that must be voluntary. A large group of society must accept it before it can happen (which is the plan).
The current system has lasted hundreds of years.
The current system hasn't used as many resources or destroyed the environment as much as it has now for hundreds of years. Do you truly believe that wasting as many resources as we do, waging as many wars as we do (very destructive wars), and generally treating the environment as a play thing can last longer than not doing those things?
It fails once the population gets over a couple hundred.
Pretending to know the future isn't helping your case. I don't pretend to know it will work, but what I do know is that we won't last much longer if we keep trying to put this system on life support.
I believe habits can be formed and changed
Most people are really incapable of growth.
Yes, I suspect it is difficult to suppress greed and corruption when it is so prevalent. The intention is to rid ourselves of that mass corruption and greed by eliminating the factor that likely causes most of such behavior: currency.
Yes, if I can save my daughter by killing a stranger then I might.
Have fun getting jailed, and then not even being sure if the organ will go to her in the first place!
The Chinese government currently does get away with it (Google "Chinese death vans"), so you are quite wrong.
If the people let their government become that corrupt, then who is at fault? It sounds like they have more problems on their hands than just people killing for organs. This also isn't the fault of forced organ donation, but of the government.
It's possible that people could do bad things in such a system (not likely if implemented correctly, however), but anything can be abused.
Sure, I'll grant you that "no one person", the Chinese officials are more than one in number, but that's not my point; my point was setting up such a system will have unintended consequences.
So, the answer, I suppose, is to let people rot in the ground and waste space, all because it might be abused?
We better stop people from becoming voluntary organ donator, too, because it could encourage murder!
Then that's not really a problem with the software, now is it? It's a problem with people who are too lazy and idiotic to at least learn not to run random executable files on their computer.
How do we decide?
First come, first serve? I don't know, but this isn't a major problem.
I'm not going to let you get away with a No True Scottsman on communism, either.
Apparently you didn't understand what I meant. I didn't commit a "no true scottsman" fallacy. I asked valid questions as to the conditions of the Soviet Union and stated the fact (it is a fact) that no such society has been implemented as of this time (or even tested). I didn't say anything about me knowing it would work or anything such as that, either.
A society like that never was truly implemented because the act of transitioning to it implodes the society.
It wouldn't 'implode' society if it wasn't forced, I suspect.
Because it cannot work.
Neither can the current system (for long), as I've said previously. It's a bit early to be making such a bold claim, isn't it?
Because its assumption is that you can change human behavior in a specific way that no one has demonstrated you can, and in fact studies have shown are improbable.
So, you don't think behavior can ever be changed? At all? You believe a selfish person can never become generous, or a generous person can never become selfish? If not, then why do you believe it only applies to certain behaviors but not others?
Common sense and an antivirus software could be used to weed out a majority of the malware. As for the spam and bad torrents, I have no idea.
My point was, this gives someone (in Logan's Run's case, the government) incentive to murder people in order to harvest their organs.
It does? The whole point of harvesting the organs is to save someone else. Killing the original owner just makes that goal pretty pointless, including the fact that no one would let other people go around killing people for organs. They certainly wouldn't get away with it, and no one person would get to decide where the organs go (they would be used on demand).
How could this be handled?
Well, considering no one will actually be owning the land, there won't be a shortage of it. You could, in theory, move somewhere, and then move somewhere else. No one truly owns the land, so you'd be free to go where you please.
The Soviet Union tried for three generations and weren't able to remove those traits.
Was currency eliminated? How restrictive was the government and its environment? How widespread was corruption and greed? I don't believe a society like this has ever been truly implemented or tested.
No, you can't redefine words when it suits you.
No, I can't, but I never said that I could. What I said is that you know exactly what I meant. They never had the objects in the first place, so they can't vanish from their possession. That is what I meant, and you likely knew it.
Claiming that it is impossible to be harmed by the loss of an opportunity is disingenuous and incorrect.
You say that it's incorrect, but then you fail to explain how. If you never had the objects in your possession, 'losing' the opportunity does not harm you because they were never in your possession in the first place, and unless you lost time or resources, you remain completely unchanged.
Of course you don't. It doesn't agree with yours, so you're ignoring it. Pretty much par for the course on this site when discussing topics like this.
Why the assumptions? They aren't going to get you anywhere. I said that I don't understand your point because if you aren't willing to debate that harm was done, then what was the point? I'm arguing that no harm is done, and therefore it should be allowed and society should be reshaped to allow for that.
The minute one of them decides to do something to increase market share, it's off to the races.
But if they know the others would likely do the same thing (to prevent too many customers from going to them), why would they even bother? It's not an uncommon thing for competing companies to scheme together, as far as I know.
Unless, of course, they all decided to go the same route as the others to maximize profits?
How about don't vote for either, instead?
in reality, I think the majority of the USA sees one single cable provider and several slow DSL providers
Really? I'm seeing one single cable provider (Comcast) and zero DSL providers.
When he said death row patients and citizens, I meant specifically after they're already dead.
Actually, I was being sarcastic. Courts can't just interpret the constitution to change its meaning as they see fit, and people keep saying how all of these people are in danger and Wikileaks is irresponsible, but as far as I know, there's not a single report of someone dying because of them.