Difference between revisions of "Talk:RBEM/Strategies for integration with the monetary market"

From The Crowdsourced Resource-Based Economy Knowledgebase
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "== Rights and property in a RBE == I propose considering that the basis of the whole problem with the monetary system lies in the pursuit of profit, as expressed in Zeitgeist:...")
 
m (Ziggy moved page Talk:Degree of Openness of RBEM Projects to Talk:RBEM/Strategies for integration with the monetary market: Subpages implementation and a more descriptive page name)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Rights and property in a RBE ==
+
I started this article, but I don't think captions, terms, etc. are chosen perfectly. Please feel free to improve them instead of discussing them. With this discussion, the text becomes longer without any additional value for the reader.
−
I propose considering that the basis of the whole problem with the monetary system lies in the pursuit of profit, as expressed in Zeitgeist: Addendum and sustained in ZMF. The whole purposes of the pursuit of profit are a having a priority access to desired scarce resources, and access to property.
+
Also, it might be appropriate to integrate the content of "Criticism" into the above text - it's like discussing pros and cons of different ways and then doing the same thing once more. However, the content of "Criticism" does not say much about the degrees of openness anyway - it's valuable information, but it discusses mainly the differences between RBE and other (mainly monetary) systems, not much about interactions between the systems.
  
−
The reason for an RBE not to use money is to avoid such priority access to scarce resources, which invariably leads to artificially caused scarcities, and scarce resources used for personal satisfaction as opposed to for social benefit. An example for this that has some popularity is the gold toilet.<ref>[http://www.subzin.com/quotes/Zeitgeist%3A+Moving+Forward/Or,+it+may+be+money+demand%0D%0A+wants+a+gold+toilet+seat.Gold toilet seat example in in ZMF]</ref>
+
Actually, this last issue might be a general source of misunderstanding: If money (at least in the current form - the example of the musician is a perfect example for an alternative form in an RBE! Yes, I know - that's not "money" - ahhh terms.) will be used for (inter)actions WITHIN an RBE experiment, it does not make sense to call it an RBE experiment. However, money can still be used for other (inter)actions. People join different "projects" (jobs, hobbies, teams, friends, schools, communities, New Year's resolutions, etc.) and execute millions of different actions, but it seems that so many people still think all aspects of one's life must be controlled by a centralised system (religion, ideology, political party, nationality, economic system) - decentralised decisions alone do not make a decentralised system. I am a big fan of distributed systems (neural networks, ecosystems, etc.) at functional levels (e.g. vision in the brain, gathering food ... managing resources, education, ...). I know this might be hard to understand with our traditional thinking. Maybe some examples will help:
 +
* Resource Management Project 1: Methods are developed to provide sustainable resources in abundance. Everyone who contributes to this project with a certain amount of minimum resources (materials, time, know-how, etc.) can use the resources that are available in abundance.
 +
* Resource Management Project 2: Resources are traded using money.
 +
* Education Project 1: Montessori School
 +
* Education Project 2: Traditional School
 +
* Food Project 1: Permaculture
 +
* Food Project 2: Agriculture
  
−
The problem with property is that as soon as someone has some kind of property, it immediately becomes an artificially created scarce resource, that may lead to competition.
+
Of course, in a final RBE, many aspects of life (things I called "projects" here), won't be relevant anymore, not because they are not allowed, but because no one wants them (either because people do not see any advantages, or because there is too much resistance - e.g. they would not get enough resources for their projects, because they can neither buy them, nor are they allocated to them). "Good" projects will evolve like everything else in the universe does.
  
−
Rights are protected by law (what is being referred in the article as ''more complex rules''), produced by legislation, and enforced by police and the justice system, including punishment methods. It is for this reason that in a RBE there are no rights, as they cannot be enforced due to the (intentional) lack of police or punishing methods.
+
Everyone should be able to join any projects they like, even competing projects. For a project to be successful, some (sometimes much) effort must be provided by the participants, but if there are alternatives, I would never join a project that tries to control aspects of my life that have nothing to do with the project. Yes, sometimes there are no alternatives: e.g. I have to follow national laws, not because I think the laws are appropriate, but because I don't want to be restricted in my life.
  
−
The lack of rights and property are inherent, defining and unavoidable characteristics of the RBE system. Enable them through quirky approaches can only cause general disruption, confusion, and a seed for the collapse of the system. The system cannot enable the pursuit of profit, enable any kind of differential advantage for personal gain or pleasure.
+
I'm open for any arguments that might change my mind. But from my experience, anything "forced" or centralised is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I think, the fear that a project does not work, because it might be neglected, is not justified, if people agree about their contributions in advance (and consequences, if they do not follow the agreements). On the other hand, the fear that too few (skilled) people will join a project was confirmed in many cases when I spoke to people (and also in discussions with - sometimes unfortunately anonymous - people on the Wiki and the Facebook page).
  
−
Access to scarce resources for personal gain or pleasure is different than diferential advantage for purposes of high quality communal goods, services or research. A musical master may have differential advantage in accessing the best quality instruments as a result of their mastery. Someone who provides a service for hairdressing might have differtial advantage in using the best scissors. Someone who is in a chemistry lab doing research may have differential access to raw materials for the purpose of their research. All of this would be managed by the intelligent management of available resources system, according to skill, trajectory, purpose, benefit, cost, trustworthiness, and collective objectives for development.
+
[[User:Andreas|Andreas]]
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
== References ==
+
−
{{reflist}}
+

Latest revision as of 11:15, 26 February 2013

I started this article, but I don't think captions, terms, etc. are chosen perfectly. Please feel free to improve them instead of discussing them. With this discussion, the text becomes longer without any additional value for the reader. Also, it might be appropriate to integrate the content of "Criticism" into the above text - it's like discussing pros and cons of different ways and then doing the same thing once more. However, the content of "Criticism" does not say much about the degrees of openness anyway - it's valuable information, but it discusses mainly the differences between RBE and other (mainly monetary) systems, not much about interactions between the systems.

Actually, this last issue might be a general source of misunderstanding: If money (at least in the current form - the example of the musician is a perfect example for an alternative form in an RBE! Yes, I know - that's not "money" - ahhh terms.) will be used for (inter)actions WITHIN an RBE experiment, it does not make sense to call it an RBE experiment. However, money can still be used for other (inter)actions. People join different "projects" (jobs, hobbies, teams, friends, schools, communities, New Year's resolutions, etc.) and execute millions of different actions, but it seems that so many people still think all aspects of one's life must be controlled by a centralised system (religion, ideology, political party, nationality, economic system) - decentralised decisions alone do not make a decentralised system. I am a big fan of distributed systems (neural networks, ecosystems, etc.) at functional levels (e.g. vision in the brain, gathering food ... managing resources, education, ...). I know this might be hard to understand with our traditional thinking. Maybe some examples will help:

  • Resource Management Project 1: Methods are developed to provide sustainable resources in abundance. Everyone who contributes to this project with a certain amount of minimum resources (materials, time, know-how, etc.) can use the resources that are available in abundance.
  • Resource Management Project 2: Resources are traded using money.
  • Education Project 1: Montessori School
  • Education Project 2: Traditional School
  • Food Project 1: Permaculture
  • Food Project 2: Agriculture

Of course, in a final RBE, many aspects of life (things I called "projects" here), won't be relevant anymore, not because they are not allowed, but because no one wants them (either because people do not see any advantages, or because there is too much resistance - e.g. they would not get enough resources for their projects, because they can neither buy them, nor are they allocated to them). "Good" projects will evolve like everything else in the universe does.

Everyone should be able to join any projects they like, even competing projects. For a project to be successful, some (sometimes much) effort must be provided by the participants, but if there are alternatives, I would never join a project that tries to control aspects of my life that have nothing to do with the project. Yes, sometimes there are no alternatives: e.g. I have to follow national laws, not because I think the laws are appropriate, but because I don't want to be restricted in my life.

I'm open for any arguments that might change my mind. But from my experience, anything "forced" or centralised is NOT SUSTAINABLE. I think, the fear that a project does not work, because it might be neglected, is not justified, if people agree about their contributions in advance (and consequences, if they do not follow the agreements). On the other hand, the fear that too few (skilled) people will join a project was confirmed in many cases when I spoke to people (and also in discussions with - sometimes unfortunately anonymous - people on the Wiki and the Facebook page).

Andreas

Retrieved from ‘http://en.rbem.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RBEM/Strategies_for_integration_with_the_monetary_market&oldid=1635’
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
Share