Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 109
Like Tree42Likes

Thread: Accidental (or intentional) injuries and compensation

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    No matter how you slice it, money is an antiquated concept. When money loses value, the rich will have no power. Money can only lose value by abundance of necessities, so there will be no commodity in which the rich can flee to replace their money and retain their power. So, if the rich wish to retain power, they have to stop the progression of technological efficiency by instituting nationalism and taxing efficient manufacturing. That seems to be where we are right now. After all, what fun is it being rich if there is no one to be richer than?
    I’m not sure if I entirely agree with that because I think a lot of the rich folks want to live longer and so science and technology must progress. Peter Thiel is a great example in that he wants to find a way to live forever. The paradox becomes that nationalism might actually speed up the advancement and progression of science and technology. And how would we know that? White nations/countries that are predominantly White have led the way. Diversity might stagnate or slow down progression. Another paradox are Asians. We assume Asians are smarter and yes, they are smarter, but the paradox is that there is something missing (lack of creativity and innovation?), which goes into unknown or mysterious territory. Some people like to bring up the point about exclusionary versus inclusionary but what they fail to understand is that the paradox itself is the norm and the correct because in the process of exclusion, inclusion would be included after the exclusionary group makes a groundbreaking discovery or breakthrough. This is incredibly difficult to understand for the average ordinary person who can’t understand paradoxes particularly paradoxes that not only constitute a state of normality but also a state closer to perfection or fine-tuned accuracy. I know that may sound abstract but it’s kind of like for example, a person in his/her everyday life should allocate some time alone and allocate some other time for not being alone. When nationalism dissolves or disappears, the fine-grain elements of diversity disappear along with it. Nationalism itself isn’t as radical as it appears to be because it does acknowledge the existence of all that is different from itself being that of other nations existing separately. Globalism is far more radical in that while it may claim it doesn’t utilize methods of coercion, it does by forced assimilation, exerts too much control, destroys the uniqueness of the individual, and violates whatever freewill a person has left after all of the prior.

    “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” - Ayn Rand
    "Change is almost always negative. Things degenerate." - Woody Allen

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Oh, I was under the impression there would be no police force. Ok, if there are cops and punishments, then that answers a lot of questions.

    What if Joe accidentally bumps into Bob who falls down some stairs and breaks his back, then can never walk again and even RBE can't fix it. How will Joe compensate Bob if he has nothing to give? (He can't have anything to give because Bob already has everything that exists, except his back.) What if Bob gets mad and pushes Joe down some stairs in retribution?

    These sorts of squabbles would be constant.
    Cops, Police Force like Today No because this would be a Different Social set-up. More like Justice areas/Groups where these issues can be investigated and then dealt with by Interventions & Treatments. So I wouldn't agree that these things would be constant because we are talking about two Different kinds of ways of Living. So I see these squabbles happening a lot more less and in with lesser degree.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    A few quick thoughts on this issues:

    1. How do we deal with this kind of problem now?
    We award damages (aka money) to the victims.

    2. Why do we deal with this kind of problem the way we do, now?
    It's considered fair. If you damage someone, you must repay in fairness.

    3. Is the situation the same in an "RBE" as it is now, or are there some differences between the two types of societies?
    Humans are humans and the grass only seems greener on the other side. You can't outrun yourself. No matter how far you run, there you are.

    4. Suppose we do live in an "RBE" where we don't need money to buy things or jobs to make money; what's the use getting monetary compensation from someone else for anything? What are they going to do with that money?
    That's my point... there is nothing to give someone in compensation for an injury.

    5. In our present-day situation, what if the person who unintentionally causes the accident is totally broke, owns nothing, and has nothing to offer up for compensation? Should they be forced to become the person's butler?
    LOL Seinfeld! Actually, that happened to dad... a woman hit him in a car accident and he sued her, but she never paid. But it was only $800 (back in the 80's). I think what is supposed to happen is wage-garnishment, but it's so difficult to implement. You have to chase the person down and find where they work and file the papers. Not worth it for $800.

    6: Would stairs still exist? If so, why? From what I recall, stairs are an example of what JF talked about as something that can be improved upon because of this sort of thing (people can even fall without being pushed).
    Well, I assumed they would because of the efficiency of vertical housing.

    7. Is something like this a reason to say "oh darn" and bring the so-called transition to a screeching halt?
    Oh no, I was just curious. That's all. At the time, I was under the impression there would be no police or crime.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    So I'm thinking just restrict their freedom of movement for an amount of time commensurable to the offense?
    So, RBE would have prisons? Are we all on board with that? It seems like someone was giving me a hard time over the idea of police and prisons last winter on here.
    Ernest likes this.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Even today, if something was an accident, we don't inflict any kind of punishment or penalty on people in the form of a fine, jail time, etc. In some cases there's property damage and insurance companies pay for it; but in an "RBE" that won't matter because it would conceptually be obsolete. In an "RBE", if something was unintentional, then I think we can simply keep the status quo. So at this point, the only question I guess is whether something was intentional, what we can do is first determine how likely is it that something intentional will happen.

    These days, many intentional attacks (muggings, armed robbery, etc.) are directly the result of scarcity & they won't happen for that reason in an "RBE"; some things could be indirectly the result of scarcity, such as riots. Many riots can be tied back to scarcity, such as union protests that get violent; in an "RBE" unions would be obsolete, because there's no longer a need for a labor force thus they no longer need to band together to make the kinds of demands they make now, anymore. Union laborers will no longer need their jobs, because conceptually everything they pay for with the money they make from their jobs would be free, meaning no point fighting to keep their jobs anymore, etc.

    With the current oil pipeline protests happening now, in North Dakota, there are ways of looking at that situation as intentional fighting that would go away. The first is that the people who live there need to get their water from a resource that can be contaminated if or when problems with the oil pipeline happen, and the other is that the company trying to install that pipeline is going to want to set it up one place or another; they're probably going with the least expensive place to set it up, and if they had to go with setting it up somewhere that would appease everyone it would probably be very expensive. One solution is to get water to the people who live there so they're no longer dependent on the existing water resources that they have access to, without them having to pay for it to be brought over to them; if that were done, they would no longer be fighting to stop the installation of the oil pipeline for that reason, which is what an "RBE" could do. Another solution that an "RBE" could offer is to eliminate the need for so much energy to be transferred to the oil pipeline's destination, or at least eliminate the practical need for the route it's going to take. A route that would be more expensive today might be doable in an "RBE". Maybe the oil is being transferred to a location where there's an oil refinery, and maybe the oil refinery is where it is now because of the price of property and availability of manual labor; if that's the case we know how an "RBE" could resolve that situation. These are just examples & in reality the actual solutions that are implemented might be something else.

    The point is that most intentional fighting or incidents that lead to permanent injuries or killings will likely go away in an "RBE". I wouldn't expect it to get perfect, but who ever said life is fair? If things can be done to improve the situation, why not look into it? That's what it's about, to me.

    Not everything can be replicated, so scarcity will exist to some degree. I can understand how you think there would be less crime because of the near-elimination of scarcity, but in practice, I think you'd be surprised. I still have my theory that idle hands are the devil's workshop. And I still say, give me everything and I'll find something else to want. The loss of a doll to a little girl and the jewel in the crown of a king are the same. We always want what we can't have. The things we have, we take for granted and focus on what we can't yet attain. You must first learn to be content in a world of scarcity before you can have abundance A man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest. That kinda thing.

    I'm not denying RBE is a good thing, but we must come up with solutions to problems rather than denying they will exist.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    Iím not sure if I entirely agree with that because I think a lot of the rich folks want to live longer and so science and technology must progress.
    I was listening to this video tonight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IwIOUg_Cs

    Richard Wolff is a professor of economics in NY. He's a socialist. He makes many good points, but then suddenly says automation is a bad thing. I'm like "whaaat..." It's like watching a tight-rope walker do tricks and then suddenly fall off. So, if I'm reading him right, the idea is to get rid of automation (aka progress and efficiency) for the purpose of giving people some jobs. So we should go back to horse-drawn plows instead of tractors so the people have work. This is the mentality that I JUST typed on here yesterday. I couldn't believe it.

    Yes, science will progress, just not inside the US. The advantage goes to the Chinese because of this nationalist movement seeking to give people jobs at the sacrifice of automation and outsourcing. Can you see it?

    The paradox becomes that nationalism might actually speed up the advancement and progression of science and technology. And how would we know that? White nations/countries that are predominantly White have led the way.
    Agreed. And I've speculated before on here that it could be cows, pigs, and horses that made it happen. It could have been dumb luck that whites evolved in a place that had cows, pigs and horses. Domesticated animals gave whites the advantage in nutrition while horses helped in transportation. Maybe whites evolved bigger brains, but it could have been luck that made it happen.

    This video is definitely worth your time (everyone else has probably seen it from when I posted it last winter while arguing that abundance leads to idle hands which leads to war... watch for that about halfway thru.):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FItlStGMY4

    Diversity might stagnate or slow down progression.
    Well, unless they are "slaves" to capitalism. Slavery comes before automation. Governments outlaw slave-wages (by raising the mandated pay) and then machines fill the void left by the cheap workers. But this time it's different. Robots are outlawed in the name of employing the dumb workers at high wages. It's the worst possible combo.

    When I think of US manufacturing, I think of old machines, old guys who are lazy and feel entitled to $100k a yr with benefits for sleeping on the job and poor quality of work. In contrast, the chinese have updated machines and a people driven to quality because there are mobs outside waiting to take their place if they screw up something. No chinese is standing outside demanding higher wages. They are happy to have a job at all. The american worker has no work ethic anymore. I'm not even sure the american manufacturing worker is even smarter than his chinese counterpart.

    So, we're going to pay a dumb and lazy guy a super-high wage to work with outdated equipment to make products that cost way more than chinese stuff, but then tax the chinese stuff to make it cost the same so the entitled-american has a job. And then outlaw automation to secure the job. It seems crazy, but maybe I'm missing something. Trump really reminds me of Hoover with that tariff talk and 70-80 yrs is about the right time to repeat history (generational reasons).

    Another paradox are Asians. We assume Asians are smarter and yes, they are smarter, but the paradox is that there is something missing (lack of creativity and innovation?), which goes into unknown or mysterious territory.
    Maybe they were missing the pigs, cows and horses?

    Some people like to bring up the point about exclusionary versus inclusionary but what they fail to understand is that the paradox itself is the norm and the correct because in the process of exclusion, inclusion would be included after the exclusionary group makes a groundbreaking discovery or breakthrough. This is incredibly difficult to understand for the average ordinary person who canít understand paradoxes particularly paradoxes that not only constitute a state of normality but also a state closer to perfection or fine-tuned accuracy. I know that may sound abstract but itís kind of like for example, a person in his/her everyday life should allocate some time alone and allocate some other time for not being alone. When nationalism dissolves or disappears, the fine-grain elements of diversity disappear along with it. Nationalism itself isnít as radical as it appears to be because it does acknowledge the existence of all that is different from itself being that of other nations existing separately. Globalism is far more radical in that while it may claim it doesnít utilize methods of coercion, it does by forced assimilation, exerts too much control, destroys the uniqueness of the individual, and violates whatever freewill a person has left after all of the prior.

    ďThe smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.Ē - Ayn Rand
    I'm not going to start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. I'm just curious about the universe, that's all. If it turns out that nationalism is better, then cool. If not, that's cool too. I just want to know the truth.

    That said, I think if you take a group and impose equality on them such that they have to include minorities for balance, then I think that group will underperform. That's reasonable, right? But that isn't to say that a group of optimum members wouldn't also contain minorities. I'm just saying the forced-inclusion is a detriment.

    Dad and I were discussing the wage gap (that Wolff was talking about in the video) between male and female workers. He used to be a plant manager, so he has experience and he couldn't think of one instance where men and women did the same job. The women did the lab tech jobs and the men did the manual labor type jobs. He didn't know why. It just was. So, it's not fair to compare the wages of men and women because the women always seem to work the more menial jobs of their own volition. In Wyoming, where the gap is the largest, we have some oil workers and probably some waitresses. We can't expect many women oil workers nor many men working as waiters, so to expect the pay to be equal is crazy. If there are women oil workers, then I can guarantee they get paid the same as men or there would be big trouble. So to have some blanket-law raising the pay of women is a disservice. In that regard, I'm fearful of all this equality talk because it's not fair at all. Just dumb and manipulative propaganda. Show me a woman or minority working the exact same job as a white dude, but getting less pay. That probably hasn't happened in a half-century or more. No one in their right mind would pay a woman less... he would be skewered.

    So, yes, I guess I'm happy to embrace nationalism for a while to balance the irrational equality crap that is oppressing anyone who isn't a minority, but it's no final solution. Like the unions in the 1930s that were needed and who eventually needed to be squashed by Reagan 50 yrs later... every ideology eventually goes too far.

    In the mean time, if Trump goes through with the tariffs, I won't see a pay raise, just price increases and less quality in the things I like to buy. Can you believe carbs cost $30 from china? If I had to buy a genuine Mikuni, it would be $300 at least.

    Ramsey makes winches (proudly) in the US. Company History They cost $1300 on ebay for a 12,000lb model. I bought a chinese one for $250 a few years ago. Beat the snot out of it too.

    I bought a Briggs engine for $900 and it literally fell apart. They lazy workers couldn't even stamp the model number on right and I had to email Briggs a pic to figure out what model I had so I knew which manual to download. I bought a chinese engine for $300 that was twice the HP and has lasted nearly a decade (compared to 2 yrs for the Briggs).

    Endless stories like these have caused me to have no respect for the american worker... overpaid, lazy, entitled. Trump can't make america great again when the people have no great ethic to start with.
    HAL9000 likes this.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post

    Richard Wolff is a professor of economics in NY. He's a socialist. He makes many good points, but then suddenly says automation is a bad thing. I'm like "whaaat..." It's like watching a tight-rope walker do tricks and then suddenly fall off. So, if I'm reading him right, the idea is to get rid of automation (aka progress and efficiency) for the purpose of giving people some jobs. So we should go back to horse-drawn plows instead of tractors so the people have work. This is the mentality that I JUST typed on here yesterday. I couldn't believe it.
    Exactly right. i love Wolff but he's too deep in his Marxist ideology and its making him blind.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Agreed. And I've speculated before on here that it could be cows, pigs, and horses that made it happen. It could have been dumb luck that whites evolved in a place that had cows, pigs and horses. Domesticated animals gave whites the advantage in nutrition while horses helped in transportation. Maybe whites evolved bigger brains, but it could have been luck that made it happen.
    have you been reading my recommendation of 'guns germs and steel' by Jared diamond? seems like you did, well done.


    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    So, we're going to pay a dumb and lazy guy a super-high wage to work with outdated equipment to make products that cost way more than chinese stuff, but then tax the chinese stuff to make it cost the same so the entitled-american has a job. And then outlaw automation to secure the job. It seems crazy, but maybe I'm missing something. Trump really reminds me of Hoover with that tariff talk and 70-80 yrs is about the right time to repeat history (generational reasons).
    yes its absurd. there should be no tariffs and no protections. both people and goods should be free to move around the earth without restrictions.
    Ernest likes this.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I still have my theory that idle hands are the devil's workshop.
    This is religious nonsense. we are living in 2016 and need to update our stories and myths, and overcome the ethos of work.

    people should not be forced to work to survive, and there are plenty of hobbies and activities one can choose if given the opportunity and right education.

    the main problem today is that unemployed people are usually poor and cant go anywhere or participate in other activities, so many choose crime and selling drugs etc...
    Ernest likes this.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I was listening to this video tonight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0IwIOUg_Cs

    Richard Wolff is a professor of economics in NY. He's a socialist. He makes many good points, but then suddenly says automation is a bad thing. I'm like "whaaat..." It's like watching a tight-rope walker do tricks and then suddenly fall off. So, if I'm reading him right, the idea is to get rid of automation (aka progress and efficiency) for the purpose of giving people some jobs. So we should go back to horse-drawn plows instead of tractors so the people have work. This is the mentality that I JUST typed on here yesterday. I couldn't believe it.

    Yes, science will progress, just not inside the US. The advantage goes to the Chinese because of this nationalist movement seeking to give people jobs at the sacrifice of automation and outsourcing. Can you see it?



    Agreed. And I've speculated before on here that it could be cows, pigs, and horses that made it happen. It could have been dumb luck that whites evolved in a place that had cows, pigs and horses. Domesticated animals gave whites the advantage in nutrition while horses helped in transportation. Maybe whites evolved bigger brains, but it could have been luck that made it happen.

    This video is definitely worth your time (everyone else has probably seen it from when I posted it last winter while arguing that abundance leads to idle hands which leads to war... watch for that about halfway thru.):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FItlStGMY4



    Well, unless they are "slaves" to capitalism. Slavery comes before automation. Governments outlaw slave-wages (by raising the mandated pay) and then machines fill the void left by the cheap workers. But this time it's different. Robots are outlawed in the name of employing the dumb workers at high wages. It's the worst possible combo.

    When I think of US manufacturing, I think of old machines, old guys who are lazy and feel entitled to $100k a yr with benefits for sleeping on the job and poor quality of work. In contrast, the chinese have updated machines and a people driven to quality because there are mobs outside waiting to take their place if they screw up something. No chinese is standing outside demanding higher wages. They are happy to have a job at all. The american worker has no work ethic anymore. I'm not even sure the american manufacturing worker is even smarter than his chinese counterpart.

    So, we're going to pay a dumb and lazy guy a super-high wage to work with outdated equipment to make products that cost way more than chinese stuff, but then tax the chinese stuff to make it cost the same so the entitled-american has a job. And then outlaw automation to secure the job. It seems crazy, but maybe I'm missing something. Trump really reminds me of Hoover with that tariff talk and 70-80 yrs is about the right time to repeat history (generational reasons).



    Maybe they were missing the pigs, cows and horses?



    I'm not going to start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. I'm just curious about the universe, that's all. If it turns out that nationalism is better, then cool. If not, that's cool too. I just want to know the truth.

    That said, I think if you take a group and impose equality on them such that they have to include minorities for balance, then I think that group will underperform. That's reasonable, right? But that isn't to say that a group of optimum members wouldn't also contain minorities. I'm just saying the forced-inclusion is a detriment.

    Dad and I were discussing the wage gap (that Wolff was talking about in the video) between male and female workers. He used to be a plant manager, so he has experience and he couldn't think of one instance where men and women did the same job. The women did the lab tech jobs and the men did the manual labor type jobs. He didn't know why. It just was. So, it's not fair to compare the wages of men and women because the women always seem to work the more menial jobs of their own volition. In Wyoming, where the gap is the largest, we have some oil workers and probably some waitresses. We can't expect many women oil workers nor many men working as waiters, so to expect the pay to be equal is crazy. If there are women oil workers, then I can guarantee they get paid the same as men or there would be big trouble. So to have some blanket-law raising the pay of women is a disservice. In that regard, I'm fearful of all this equality talk because it's not fair at all. Just dumb and manipulative propaganda. Show me a woman or minority working the exact same job as a white dude, but getting less pay. That probably hasn't happened in a half-century or more. No one in their right mind would pay a woman less... he would be skewered.

    So, yes, I guess I'm happy to embrace nationalism for a while to balance the irrational equality crap that is oppressing anyone who isn't a minority, but it's no final solution. Like the unions in the 1930s that were needed and who eventually needed to be squashed by Reagan 50 yrs later... every ideology eventually goes too far.

    In the mean time, if Trump goes through with the tariffs, I won't see a pay raise, just price increases and less quality in the things I like to buy. Can you believe carbs cost $30 from china? If I had to buy a genuine Mikuni, it would be $300 at least.

    Ramsey makes winches (proudly) in the US. Company History They cost $1300 on ebay for a 12,000lb model. I bought a chinese one for $250 a few years ago. Beat the snot out of it too.

    I bought a Briggs engine for $900 and it literally fell apart. They lazy workers couldn't even stamp the model number on right and I had to email Briggs a pic to figure out what model I had so I knew which manual to download. I bought a chinese engine for $300 that was twice the HP and has lasted nearly a decade (compared to 2 yrs for the Briggs).

    Endless stories like these have caused me to have no respect for the american worker... overpaid, lazy, entitled. Trump can't make america great again when the people have no great ethic to start with.
    If there appears to be no right solution, then what is the solution? What do you think is the ultimate/final solution? I ask because you seem incredibly brilliant, far, far more brilliant than some other people here, especially fsir (no offense).
    "Change is almost always negative. Things degenerate." - Woody Allen

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Show me a woman or minority working the exact same job as a white dude, but getting less pay. That probably hasn't happened in a half-century or more. No one in their right mind would pay a woman less... he would be skewered.
    Yes! You are correct. I'm amazed that there are actually some non-intelligent people out there in the real world who actually believe that nonsense.

    Could you imagine going to Starbucks or Burger King only to find out that women got paid less?
    "Change is almost always negative. Things degenerate." - Woody Allen

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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