Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 103
Like Tree89Likes

Thread: How would it be decided who lives where?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637

    How would it be decided who lives where?

    This is the question that brought me here. After listening to Jacque on youtube and seeing all the buildings he's designed, it dawned on me: How will it be decided who lives in the best spots? Surely some plots of land will be considered better than others and all it will take is a couple guys wanting the same plot and suddenly we'll have the Hatfields and McCoys.

    Land is one thing that can't be replicated. We wouldn't fight over a car or guitar or food, but locations. So, in a cashless society, how will people bid against each other for things such as location? Bidding is the only amicable solution because if one is simply chosen above another, then we'll have animosity, vengeance, and need for a police force. There would have to be a fair fight where the loser concedes amicably, "Yes, you beat me fair n square. You can have the location with my blessing."

    The next logical stumbling block is that anything unique will cause wars due to scarcity. Art, animals of a particular color/pattern,,, a rock that falls from the sky. I'm sure the list could be in the 1000s.

    What is the solution?
    YouTuber likes this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    Land: A New Paradigm for a Thriving World, by Martin Adams

    Once the concept of LANDLORD is globally exposed for its true purpose and finally eliminated, we won't have this issue. The world doesn't have too many people, it has too many LANDLORDS denying access to people who need it.....

    EARTH...Nobody made it, everybody needs it.....
    fsir and Necrod like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    637
    H
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Land: A New Paradigm for a Thriving World, by Martin Adams

    Once the concept of LANDLORD is globally exposed for its true purpose and finally eliminated, we won't have this issue. The world doesn't have too many people, it has too many LANDLORDS denying access to people who need it.....

    EARTH...Nobody made it, everybody needs it.....
    That new paradigm of renting all land, although there are many benefits, is completely based on a monetary system and would be pretty useless in the case of a moneyless RBE.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Land: A New Paradigm for a Thriving World, by Martin Adams

    Once the concept of LANDLORD is globally exposed for its true purpose and finally eliminated, we won't have this issue. The world doesn't have too many people, it has too many LANDLORDS denying access to people who need it.....

    EARTH...Nobody made it, everybody needs it.....
    We would still have the problem of location. If I want the spot on the south side of the circle for the best sunlight and another guy wants it too, how will it be decided?

    Locations can't be replicated. That's a scarcity.

    What if everyone wants the penthouses, who would live on the bottom?

    I could go on and on with examples.

    Check out the picture https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...us_project.jpg

    See the shadows? I want to live on the outside ring, on the south side facing the sun. Why should I get that prime spot?
    YouTuber likes this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    This is the question that brought me here.
    Alright! Well, welcome to the forum! I'm glad that to see that a person's willing to step forward and ask. Like my friend Per Sjoborg, who was on Frank Lee Seaux's podcast along with me said, "there are no stupid questions, only questions stupidly not asked."

    A couple things that ought to be addressed, to get them out of the way:

    1.) This is technically not the correct subforum (i.e., the "Common Objections to TZM"), because you're merely posing a question (and it's a very good one, too); your question isn't about a TZM premise that many disagree with. My intention here is not to rebuke; it's only to clarify or "educate" (e.g., someone surfing the world wide web might come across this thread and be confused about being in this subforum & given there's very little - if any - forum moderating, it's not likely going to be moved to a more appropriate subforum). Also, it's possible that could be mistaken, or someone might disagree with my assessment. Or - perhaps you as the OP might even have a rebuttal to my claim & that's cool; I wouldn't mind.

    2.) This forum is also not really technically an open form "per se" (this is part of the forum rules, in the "Overview" section); I don't think it really matters, though, as long as you're genuinely interested in learning about what TZM advocates and not here just to be hostile or "troll" teh forumz. Also, given that there is no open forum on the Internet about what we advocate (at least not that I'm aware of & would be interested if there were), people don't have much of an option other than post on this forum (so because of the circumstances I'm personally fine with people coming here to ask questions).

    Now that I've gotten that "administrative/overhead" stuff out of the way, let's discuss the actual topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    After listening to Jacque on youtube and seeing all the buildings he's designed, it dawned on me: How will it be decided who lives in the best spots?
    First, let me start off by explaining that he himself has stated that all of these designs and concepts he comes up with may not actually be the actual solution that's implemented; for example it might be that a better solution is discovered or his designs become obsolete. His intent is really basically just to show that there are other options/possibilities.

    My initial reaction is this: how is it decided who lives where, now? How has this been decided in the past?

    Let's look at it from the perspective of going to websites, or calling someone, what movie you want to watch, where you want to go on vacation, etc. Who decides those things? It's "you", the person who wants to go to a website, or call someone; you're the one who decides that you want to watch a movie and what movie you want to watch. It's you who decides that you want to go on a vacation, and where you want to go.

    I see the Internet as the information version of an "RBE" or "post-scarcity society"; we're already at least halfway there. When you surf the net, who decides what website you're going to visit? It's you, not sort of Internet bureaucrat. Same with calling a friend, family member, etc. You're the one who decided that you want to make a phone call, and who you want to call.

    You're the one entering a URL or search term into an online search engine, or a website such as this one; you're the one dialing a number on a phone. The same's going to be done in an "RBE"; you "dial" where you want to live and simply go there and live there.

    No one's going to tell you that you can't live in this or that place. Right now we live in a scarcity-oriented society, where access is based on property rights (basically what I think droneBEE is talking about), and the owners or managers of property decide who can be excluded from the land they own or operate. In an "RBE", the premise is that there would no longer be a need to own property; in that case, there's no on telling anyone else that they're excluded. Anyone comes and goes to whereever they want to, whenever they want to.

    The solutions to certain kinds of problems will be technical; for instance, if solutions for dealing with deadly diseases that can spread via inter-personal proximity can be found, there would no longer be any non-political arguments for maintaining "political" (national, international, etc.) borders, quarantines, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Surely some plots of land will be considered better than others and all it will take is a couple guys wanting the same plot and suddenly we'll have the Hatfields and McCoys.
    According to what I read on the Wikipedia entry about the Hatfields & McCoys, it wasn't mainly or originally about the same plot of land (apparently at one point it was, though). Normally individuals don't have violent fights over a plot of land; they go to court if necessary and have it settled there. Governments, on the other hand, do go to war over land - actually, it could be argued that it's really to go after the oil or other valuable minerals on or underneath the plot of land in question; so, even in that case it's not really about a plot of land & in an "RBE" no one's going to be fighting over oil or valuable minerals (that's for a different thread to explain why, though).

    In an "RBE", what would make one plot of land better than any other? There are places where the land is suitable or unsuitable for building homes, and not only is there plenty of land for that purpose, but in an "RBE" and with implementation of advancements in technology we'll be able to turn unsuitable places into nice and suitable places to live. We do that to a limited extent in our present-day capitalism-based society.

    You might also be referring to everyone wanting to live in the same place, like Hawaii. I actually lived there for 4 years. It was a nice place to live in for those 4 years; but by the time we had to leave (my father was in the military & got orders to relocate) I didn't miss the place; it started feeling to me like that comic strip image of a shirtless guy with long hair & a beard on a small tropical island about 5 feet in diameter with a single palm tree feels to this guy on that island.

    I submit to you that in an "RBE" there will be more places available for people to live in than they'll know what to do with & people will want to travel, like we like to do, now (but usually don't because we can't afford it & have jobs, etc.). With the implementation of automation & other advances in technology, we'll be able to turn more barren, worthless plots of land (there are plenty of deserts around) into paradises, just like they have in places like Dubai.

    Whenever someone want to go somewhere and live there or just stay for a day or two, it'll be like checking into a hotel without having to pay for the stay, and without having to pay rent or mortgage. There will generally be no evictions (the exception would be safety reasons, and essentially you'd be evicting yourself in such situations) by a government entity, landlord, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Land is one thing that can't be replicated.
    There actually isn't really a scarcity of land. There's plenty of land out there that's worthless & can be turned into paradises (to basically reiterate). The world's population of today could fit within the borders of Rhode Island with room to spare, if you gave everone a 1'x2' area to stand in. If you look at Rhode Island on a roughly basketball-sized globe it's barely the size of a grain of sand. There are even places out at sea what can be turned into land or islands. We'll probably be able to find & colonize planets in other solar systems within a century (that's my guess). The point is I don't think we have a land dilemma.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    We wouldn't fight over a car or guitar or food, but locations. So, in a cashless society, how will people bid against each other for things such as location? Bidding is the only amicable solution because if one is simply chosen above another, then we'll have animosity, vengeance, and need for a police force. There would have to be a fair fight where the loser concedes amicably, "Yes, you beat me fair n square. You can have the location with my blessing."

    The next logical stumbling block is that anything unique will cause wars due to scarcity. Art, animals of a particular color/pattern,,, a rock that falls from the sky. I'm sure the list could be in the 1000s.

    What is the solution?
    Basically the problem with the economic infrastructure of today's society is that in order to avoid starving to death, dying from exposure to the elements, be able to travel & have things, we essentially need to gain the ownership (or rent, obtain right to use, etc.) of the food we eat, clothes we wear, house we live in, car we travel in, and things that we want to use. In order to gain the ownership or right to use something, almost everyone (with maybe the exception of some fraction of a percent of the wealthiest individuals) has to work; they need to have a job to make the money (or trade/barter, etc.) for gaining or obtaining those things. If we implement automation, robotics, and other advancements in technology, then we will no longer need to work to obtain those things, because the automation, robotics, and other advancements in technology will provide those things to us with a price tag of $0.

    I think the Internet is sort of a "proof-of-concept" when it comes to information aspect of a "post-scarcity society", because there's no fee for going to almost all websites, or even to get some things such as computer programs or files for 3D printed items. There are still fees in the background since a user still has to pay the ISP, the web hosting entities have to pay for the machines, electricity, maintenance, overhead, and ISP themselves, but that's because we don't have robots & automation to handle those things, yet.

    To summarize, the solution to society's problems are technical (and not political - as Jacque Fresco says).

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    We would still have the problem of location. If I want the spot on the south side of the circle for the best sunlight and another guy wants it too, how will it be decided?

    Locations can't be replicated. That's a scarcity.

    What if everyone wants the penthouses, who would live on the bottom?

    I could go on and on with examples.

    Check out the picture https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...us_project.jpg

    See the shadows? I want to live on the outside ring, on the south side facing the sun. Why should I get that prime spot?
    If you were to really want something like that, you'd simply get it. The underlying premise is that no one's really going to want something like that, but if there were, there would be so few people like that, that it wouldn't matter or be a dilemma. Conceptually, there would be thousands of those circular cities all over the world.

    The reason a particular spot would not be a dilemma is because it's not expected that many people are going to get a spot just to spend all day, day after day, doing nothing in their life other than staring out a window to not see some shadows, while they say to themselves, "Ooh look at me, I have the spot with no shadows - huh huh!" The expectation is that almost everyone's going to want to spend their time doing something far better than just staring out a window, such as traveling, surfing, skiing, going to amusement parks, plays, concerts, parties, museums, tourist attractions, etc. For the rare individual who does want to just stare out a window, they can just take the south point, north point, etc. and indulge in it all they want.

    You could technically say it's scarce in a sense, but the point I'm making is that there may not necessarily be the demand for something that you may be assuming. This is where I think droneBEE would say that scarcity is an illusion & in this case I would agree with him.
    Last edited by Neil; 02-28-2016 at 09:47 PM.
    Phil and droneBEE like this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,141
    If you want to come up with a different example besides something like the south point case because it doesn't illustrate the point you're trying to make, let me know & we can do an analysis again. The real trick is to find a good case of true scarcity in an "RBE."

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    I just got here and already lots of homework

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Alright! Well, welcome to the forum! I'm glad that to see that a person's willing to step forward and ask. Like my friend Per Sjoborg, who was on Frank Lee Seaux's podcast along with me said, "there are no stupid questions, only questions stupidly not asked."
    Thanks! I'm glad to have this opportunity! As a token of good faith, let me attempt to set your mind at ease about why I'm here.

    I'm an economist and philosopher. I contribute nothing to society Being an economist.... and philosopher, all I think about is the future. Before I knew of Peter Joseph, Jacque Fresco, Zeitgeist, or Venus Project, I would argue with friends that something like RBE was coming anyway, naturally, by evolution and not (necessarily) by engineering a society (the idea never occurred to me, honestly). I'm confident that prices (in terms of labor-hours per item, not $/item) will continue to fall to zero. What you have to work a year for today, will cost you a month in the future,,, and then only a few seconds. Eventually, the unemployed will be too much of a burden for the employed to support. That's the point that the system breaks.

    Competition between companies for market-share will cause prices to drop and dropping prices will necessitate robotics and the elimination of workers who are demanding too much money to produce a product that costs less and less. As the workforce drops and unemployed increases, then the burden of unemployed falls on the shoulders of the remaining workers, who demand higher wages to offset the burden. The higher wages are paid through the cost savings of the shedding of workers. Eventually, robotics progresses to take even their jobs, and the remaining jobs that simply have to be done by a human will be extremely valuable because the tax on those few workers will be extremely high. If the trend continues, we'll come to a point where the cost of motivating anyone to work will be too high. Once the burden of the unemployed becomes too much for the few to willingly support, the system breaks.

    This is the idea that I've come to from my own reasoning, so I have no motivation to challenge what I endorse. And it's good to be in the company of people who think likewise, instead of what I've been getting. I see a cashless society coming, but I also see problems I can't solve by scratching my own head. Solving those types of problems is... fun.

    your question isn't about a TZM premise that many disagree with.
    I actually thought of that, but wasn't sure where else to put it. I saw the thread on cleaning toilets and figured it fit here as well as that one. There are a lot of categories here. It's hard making a decision.

    This forum is also not really technically an open form "per se" (this is part of the forum rules, in the "Overview" section); I don't think it really matters, though, as long as you're genuinely interested in learning about what TZM advocates and not here just to be hostile or "troll" teh forumz. Also, given that there is no open forum on the Internet about what we advocate (at least not that I'm aware of & would be interested if there were), people don't have much of an option other than post on this forum (so because of the circumstances I'm personally fine with people coming here to ask questions).
    We should welcome a challenge however we can get it. It would be bad to build a city and then think "aw man, why didn't I think of that before?"

    First, let me start off by explaining that he himself has stated that all of these designs and concepts he comes up with may not actually be the actual solution that's implemented; for example it might be that a better solution is discovered or his designs become obsolete. His intent is really basically just to show that there are other options/possibilities.
    Yeah, I heard him say that on the youtube video. It makes good sense. Lots of admiration for Jacque!

    My initial reaction is this: how is it decided who lives where, now? How has this been decided in the past?
    With money. You bid for it. Highest bidder wins.

    Let's look at it from the perspective of going to websites, or calling someone, what movie you want to watch, where you want to go on vacation, etc. Who decides those things? It's "you", the person who wants to go to a website, or call someone; you're the one who decides that you want to watch a movie and what movie you want to watch. It's you who decides that you want to go on a vacation, and where you want to go.
    We can replicate a website or movie. We can't replicate a location that is currently occupied. If I want to go on vacation, but the place I want to go is fully booked, then it is not me who decides. I'm told to go away (or offer more money).

    I see the Internet as the information version of an "RBE" or "post-scarcity society"; we're already at least halfway there. When you surf the net, who decides what website you're going to visit? It's you, not sort of Internet bureaucrat.
    If the net is a version of RBE, then why do forums need mods? Why are they jam-packed with rules? I don't feel free on the net at all. You just admonished me for coming here. I have to grovel to redeem myself. I understand why you do it, so it's ok (ie more groveling lol), but I'm just bringing that to your attention. There are very few places on the net that are sort-kinda free. This is one of them (yet I read about threads disappearing a lot).

    In an "RBE", the premise is that there would no longer be a need to own property; in that case, there's no on telling anyone else that they're excluded. Anyone comes and goes to whereever they want to, whenever they want to.
    Well,,, not really. If you occupy a place I want to occupy, then it's the same as ownership until you freely decide to leave.

    The solutions to certain kinds of problems will be technical; for instance, if solutions for dealing with deadly diseases that can spread via inter-personal proximity can be found, there would no longer be any non-political arguments for maintaining "political" (national, international, etc.) borders, quarantines, etc.
    I wasn't ready to open the "germs" can of worms yet and was working under the assumption that there would be no disease. But since you mentioned it, the idea of sharing cars did give me pause. Not just for germs, but individuality. People like to store things in their cars and express themselves with their cars. Anyway, we don't need to talk about those sorts of things now.

    about the Hatfields & McCoys,
    That was just dramatization on my part. Not suggesting there would be gun fights over land, but more an ongoing animosity for someone else, possibly spanning generations.

    In an "RBE", what would make one plot of land better than any other? There are places where the land is suitable or unsuitable for building homes, and not only is there plenty of land for that purpose, but in an "RBE" and with implementation of advancements in technology we'll be able to turn unsuitable places into nice and suitable places to live. We do that to a limited extent in our present-day capitalism-based society.
    If RBE looks like a circle, then I want the penthouse of the southern outer ring. I want to be at the highest point. I want to be at the outermost ring. And I want to be on the south side so I get the most sunshine through my window. I don't want on the north side where the mold grows. So, why do I get to live there and not someone else?

    There actually isn't really a scarcity of land. There's plenty of land out there that's worthless & can be turned into paradises (to basically reiterate). The world's population of today could fit within the borders of Rhode Island with room to spare, if you gave everone a 1'x2' area to stand in. If you look at Rhode Island on a roughly basketball-sized globe it's barely the size of a grain of sand. There are even places out at sea what can be turned into land or islands. We'll probably be able to find & colonize planets in other solar systems within a century (that's my guess). The point is I don't think we have a land dilemma.
    I agree that there is plenty of land, but within a community, there will always be locations that are better than others. The currently proposed system has no means of dealing with potential disputes. The assumption is that abundances will cure disputes. I maintain scarcity can't be eliminated. Give me everything and I'll find something else to want.

    Who goes first in line?

    "Why should you go ahead of me?"
    "Because I got here first."
    "So? I'm smarter."
    "If you were, then you would have gotten here first!"
    "How would you like to eat some leather!?!"
    "Help!"

    Anything that is unique (a place in line, locations to live, art, animals, rocks from the sky) will cause issues.

    So you might say "How do we decide who goes first in line now?"

    We have fights, cops come, people sue and pay compensation in money. What does Jacque propose as an alternative?

    "Well, proper raising of children will eliminate disputes."

    You're going to build a whole city to test that theory?

    In my humble opinion, these are some serious holes that need to be fixed before moving forward. I have absolutely no solution. That's why I'm here... hoping to find one.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    If you were to really want something like that, you'd simply get it. The underlying premise is that no one's really going to want something like that, but if there were, there would be so few people like that, that it wouldn't matter or be a dilemma. Conceptually, there would be thousands of those circular cities all over the world.

    The reason a particular spot would not be a dilemma is because it's not expected that many people are going to get a spot just to spend all day, day after day, doing nothing in their life other than staring out a window to not see some shadows, while they say to themselves, "Ooh look at me, I have the spot with no shadows - huh huh!" The expectation is that almost everyone's going to want to spend their time doing something far better than just staring out a window, such as traveling, surfing, skiing, going to amusement parks, plays, concerts, parties, museums, tourist attractions, etc. For the rare individual who does want to just stare out a window, they can just take the south point, north point, etc. and indulge in it all they want.

    You could technically say it's scarce in a sense, but the point I'm making is that there may not necessarily be the demand for something that you may be assuming. This is where I think droneBEE would say that scarcity is an illusion & in this case I would agree with him.
    The problem with that explanation is it addresses only one worm out of the whole can of possible disputes. People can fight over the silliest of things.

    You say people will be "traveling, surfing, skiing, going to amusement parks, plays, concerts, parties, museums, tourist attractions, etc"

    Traveling -the place I want is booked up. You say make more places. What if I want the place where I got married? Can you make more of those?
    Surfing - too many surfers and not enough waves at my local beach. Another beach is farther than I want to go.
    Skiing - Weather is too warm.
    Amusement park - Who parks at the front?
    Plays - who gets the best seats?
    Concerts - Who goes back stage?
    Parties - The room is full. Fire hazard.
    Museum - Been there before

    So I want to look out the window

    Assuming you build enough circles that there are plenty of "best locations", that's not answering the broader question of what will happen when there invariably will be a scarcity of something? Somebody, somewhere will be jealous of something someone else has. Everything can't be replicated.

    You say these problems won't happen that much. Ok, but it only takes one. How will you resolve the one dispute? By what authority? By what means?

    If person A wants X
    And person B wants X
    And X can't be replicated
    How is it decided who gets X?

    Our imagination is limited to what we see now. We can only see the problems of the current system, so we propose a fix, but we can't see the problems of the fix until it's implemented.
    YouTuber likes this.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1