Welcome to 2030, I Own Nothing...

[Gfted1]

Maybe if you squint hard enough. But to me there is a vast difference between, say, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family and going out and mugging someone to buy your next bag of dope. For example.

[Rosbjerg]

I know that seemed a bit pedantic, but it was mostly to find some common ground as my argument is based on the perception of greed and need in a macroperspective.

 

But I would argue that 'self policing' is actually the only way to go to achieve a functioning society, at least that there is a larger degree of self policing than government control and that the government <-> citizen relationship should be one based on trust.

 

source

 

Now of course we could argue about the chicken and the egg and we would both be right in this case. I do still find it interestingly though, that China is seeing massive dives in crime perception, a massive rise of income equality - and a massive rise in trust..

 

So I think the most effective way to create equality, both income and legal, is trust.. And the most effective way to create trust is to remove incentives of need, by assuring that most of your citizens have all of their needs covered and that they can trust society to take care of it.

 

This won't kill greed or need of course as need is tied with social recognition and status - but today that greed is centered on monetary wealth, because we link social status with monetary wealth. And as long as we perceive monetary wealth as the only path or reward for social recognition, then government oversight to protect the individuals status seems necessary. Where a very simple shift in government function could drastically alter perceptions of value.

[Gfted1]

China had nowhere to go but up.

 

But you know me Ros, I'm never going to be in the socialist camp. Its a perspective Ive never lived in and honestly it rubs me a little wrong. I cant stand moochers, and yes there are people truly in need, but most are capable of supporting themselves.

 

I also agree that self policing should exceed government policing but someone has to watch the sheep. We already have prisons full of people that failed at self policing. Our various societies have established rules for living in them, and people have to deal with those rules.

[Rosbjerg]

But you know me Ros, I'm never going to be in the socialist camp. Its a perspective Ive never lived in and honestly it rubs me a little wrong. 

 

I get that and I'm in no way a proponent of a socialist society either, as that require social control and conformity to the norms of the collective. So we agree there as well - I'm more a classical libertarian these days, that just incidentally hates capitalism except for its one redeeming factor.. That it actively incentivises solving other people's problems.

 

I don't think trust is a socialist trait and I don't think control is a conservative or liberal trait. In fact quite the opposite.

[213374U]

The safest communities don't have the most police, they have the most resources.

 

OMG look, it's socialism! Run!

[Rosbjerg]

The safest communities don't have the most police, they have the most resources.

 

OMG look, it's socialism! Run!

 

That's a good point - and if you can make your primary resource your citizen's creativity, well-being and thought out-put, then you've come a long way as a society.. but is it inherently socialist?

 

It's more post-scarcity, which marxism and socialism brushes up against true enough. Whereas capitalism is more about controlling the flow of resources to ensure economic efficiency.. I would still argue though that both systems misunderstand the point of what welfare is really about.

 

Or were you joking that any thought of post-scarcity is often confused with socialism?

[213374U]

Or were you joking that any thought of post-scarcity is often confused with socialism?

If it was only post-scarcity... 

 

It's kinda funny actually, because the most likely folks to go "socialism!" and get a bad rash when presented with something that doesn't jibe with a 'Murica ca.1950 mindset aren't those who actually lived in so-called socialist countries and experienced their worst excesses first-hand. In the former Eastern Bloc this atavistic fear would be justified, but in "the freest country in the world"? Meh.

 

After about ten years of rehashing the same topics, you'll have to forgive me if a weak jab is the best I got.

[Chippy]

I find England's surveillance and weapons laws interesting and I'm a little on the fence about it. I don't really have a problem with there being cameras in public places but I don't have any real world knowledge of living in that type of society. I mean, it sounds like a good idea. People are on their best behavior when they know they are being watched. The internet stuff seems over the top. Don't you guys have to "opt in" for porn or something like that? That ticks a box in some database somewhere. And cant carry a pocket knife? Thats why brick-in-a-sock crimes are up!

It was on the news today that a women killed another with a ceramic chicken-shaped pot.  Generally speaking we in Britain adapt - when I was a tradesman we all knew the police would wait outside of building sites and randomly search us for carpet knives, etc just to get their number up.  The porn stuff is just stupid, it's now illegal to watch a derrier getting smacked.  I'm actually paying tax for the police to develop software that alerts them to someone watching a butt spanking, and (I assume) they get alerted while driving around in patrol cars to go to arrest the person.  I just wanna hear that first transmission to that patrol car, play it in parliment, and dare those prats to keep a straight face.

 

 

It's not just about privacy and the amount we are willing to give up to the government in the hopes that there's a relation between the ratio of privacy vs threats we face to our lives.  What struck me most about this article is that the person (apologies to Rosbjerg if they know the author) is willing to entirely give up her freedom and individuality to the state. 

To whatever she percieves the state to be.  It seems that she is saying that we can all only ever be free if we all live in an open prison.

 

Take TrueNeutral and KhaineParker: It's obvious that these two are total sexual deviants that engage in destructive and horrendous pornography.  So when the government start tracking their habits and profiling them by storing their internet data and building up a risk assessments (just beginning here in the UK) - how long will it be before it's classified a jail time offence because TrueNeutral has a thing for tennis balls big, 20" long ****-swinging-blue-skinned Liara the asari, and KahineParker a thing for vampires of Caine and all...that stuff.   

 

It's the small steps that erode freedom, and Ida Auken is happy to give it all up in one go.  Except for the deviants, who I notice she is happy to relegate to the outskirts of her Utopia.

 

Must have missed the part where she explicitly says she's willing to give anything up to the state. A circular economy is not necessarily a command economy. If you see any form of social participation as "the state", then the problem is with your definition, not her ideas.

 

Also, in order to give up your freedom or individuality, you must have either. Do you?

 

"Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me."

 

This was the chilling paragraph - The recording of movement, location, thoughts and dreams is pretty specific.  Admittedly she might be saying that this info should be shared with other citizens and not a governing body but, either way, it's giving up the self be governed by the perception of an unflawed system.

 

Jordan Peterson in Canada is an example of an individual fighting for his right to freedom and individuality because he can see where the Canadian laws will take everyone as a society.

 

 

It's not just about privacy and the amount we are willing to give up to the government in the hopes that there's a relation between the ratio of privacy vs threats we face to our lives.  What struck me most about this article is that the person (apologies to Rosbjerg if they know the author) is willing to entirely give up her freedom and individuality to the state. 

To whatever she percieves the state to be.  It seems that she is saying that we can all only ever be free if we all live in an open prison.

 

Take TrueNeutral and KhaineParker: It's obvious that these two are total sexual deviants that engage in destructive and horrendous pornography.  So when the government start tracking their habits and profiling them by storing their internet data and building up a risk assessments (just beginning here in the UK) - how long will it be before it's classified a jail time offence because TrueNeutral has a thing for tennis balls big, 20" long ****-swinging-blue-skinned Liara the asari, and KahineParker a thing for vampires of Caine and all...that stuff.   

 

It's the small steps that erode freedom, and Ida Auken is happy to give it all up in one go.  Except for the deviants, who I notice she is happy to relegate to the outskirts of her Utopia.

But don't we already give up our freedom and individuality to private entities as is? Think about it, in America(and much of the West, I assume) it's likely everything you own was purchased by loan of some sort and can be confiscated and you already give up most freedom by signing agreements to use an ipod or get spied on using the internet. We don't start being more free when you swap the state with Google or your bank or whoever does the same thing we're freaking out about the state potentially doing. As I stated previously, post-privacy is the present and I don't really see much of a difference between google harvesting my information and the state doing it, if anything google is worse because the US government is so inept they'd probably raid my ex's house while Google would make sure my bank account gets drained and I get hit with a **** load of fines because I did something illegal once.

 

And my porn history is much worse and you should apologise to TN for saying he likes Mass Effect.

 

 

I'd say it seeds into what information they harvest and what laws the government makes based on that data (and if you believe the tin foil hat wearers) the data/algorithims that companies use to dictate what products we buy which is then enforced by law by the government.  E.g.  I know how to build a house from the foundations up, I'm willing to accept that the state needs local council and building control to sign it off, but expect it wont be long before it becomes illegal for me to make my own windows.  Even though I can do a smoke test on the house to prove they're just as efficient as double/triple glazed products from a company. 

It'll get to the point that they'll know when you bought your windows, when they need replacing (always before they've paid for themselves) and justify it by law because we need to reduce energy use and save the planet - because my windows might cause a seal to fall through the ice in Canada.

 

But yeah, apologies to TrueNeutral for the suggestion about ME. You guys are lucky, as George Carlin said "Show me a guy staying at home.... .... .... and I'll show you a guy who isn't causing anyone any trouble".  The way it's going over here, I'll need those homemade windows for the privacy glass so I can go nuts with the porn and be protected from the SJW led sniper police on patrol.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Chippy

[Blarghagh]

People offended on my behalf when I didn't know what Liara the asari means anyway.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

People offended on my behalf when I didn't know what Liara the asari means anyway.

Be thankful you don't.

[Chippy]

^ Suggesting my porn history is worse than his.  That was underhanded.