Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 109
Like Tree42Likes

Thread: Accidental (or intentional) injuries and compensation

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    115
    No compensation No punishment hence ppl r grown up n accept life n dat ders no strangers in d world n doenst feel harm 2wards others

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    I would assume, since monetary compensation is unnecessary in a RBE and all material and personal injuries are fixed for free, the only variable to contend with is retribution for an injury or death that can't be repaired.

    Thus, in the case where someone is guilty of intentionally, or through negligence, injuring someone beyond repair, the only punishment left (if you rightly outlaw barbaric corporal punishment and restriction of resources) is prison time.

    Corporal punishment is barbaric. Restriction of resources might inspire crime.

    So I'm thinking just restrict their freedom of movement for an amount of time commensurable to the offense?
    The word Prison reminds us of places that Punish people for their offenses. I think in a NLRBE, they should be known more for Treatment, Rehabilitation so I wouldn't even use the word Prison for this. Calling them Centers or something like that would be better.

    Also like you mentioned, being taken away from the Freedoms of a NLRBE would have a Great impact on them to want to change and get better. Compared to Prisons today, a lot of prisoners don't actually have anything good to look forward to on the outside and some even become 'Institutionalized' where they would rather stay in Prison. Now how messed up is that?! That's just Sad..

    So we can deal with those more harder cases where people might have committed a Serious act or those Repeat offenders in more humane ways instead of just locking them up Forever or even the Death Penalty because if the NLRBE System is providing Everyone access to all their Needs, this should manifest into a Low-Crime Social Structure.
    fsir likes this.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    Exactly right. i love Wolff but he's too deep in his Marxist ideology and its making him blind.



    have you been reading my recommendation of 'guns germs and steel' by Jared diamond? seems like you did, well done.




    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.
    Dang, I can't believe one of the "natives" liked something I said lol!

    No, I never heard of Jared Diamond. I don't read much of what others say, just think on my own and come to my own conclusions. I guess I like to reinvent the wheel rather than standing on the shoulders of giants. It's like I never heard of this RBE movement until I came up with the idea on my own. How I missed Zeitgeist (2007) on youtube until 2016, I'm not sure.

    I like Wolff, but he says too many things that are wrong. I mean wrong like 2+2 = 567,876,962.

    I've listened to this one 5 or 6 times.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdCNGkZoIZw

    Then showed it to dad and he said "Is that right? Look that up." So we look it up and sure enough, totally wrong. So wolff is right most of the time and suddenly he just flops. I don't get it. Maybe he figures if he throws in a bit of propaganda, no one will notice. I wish I could find an example, but I don't want to listen to an hour video (again) just for that.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by HAL9000 View Post
    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...
    It's not religious at all. It's colloquial. What I mean by idle hands is not having anything productive to do with your time.

    In the video, we see a people who are fat. (FWD to 43:00)

    "Rivalries between princes and kings have grown intense. Religious fervor, curiosity, and greed are widespread in 1491. And there is a constant hunger for new ideas. The printing press is invented. Books and ideas spread. But, where do they go from here? Where can all this raw energy be channeled? This is the time that Europeans kings and queens send explorers beyond the horizon to expand and enhance their power."

    They are not scraping by, but struggling to survive. They are greedy and looking for more power. It's because they are fat that they become greedy. However, if they were struggling, they would not have been greedy and looking for more power because they would have been struggling just to get by (more like the native americans, without farms and abundance of food).

    This is the same observation of the inner-city hoodlums. They are not scraping by, they are fat. If they were scraping by, they wouldn't have time for trouble.

    Scraping by doesn't mean you're starving. I know people who live in mansions who barely make ends meet. They spend all their time working and have no time for anything, much less causing trouble. But the inner city people get handouts... they don't work for their money, so they are not scraping by, but leeching. They get greedy and seek to increase their power, just like the europeans in 1491 who had the handout of domesticated animals and horses. They didn't work for their food like the native americans. Sure, the natives had abundance of food, but it wasn't sitting on the farm. They had to hunt it.

    When you give someone something for nothing, they then have idle time.

    But, it's just a theory. I'm not married to it.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    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).
    Thanks, so here is my chance to look stupid lol! Ah, I just have too much idle time to think and look for trouble See what I'm doing on a weekend? OCD + internet + time = illusion of brilliance. All the videos and studies you've posted tells me you spend a lot of time researching and thinking, just like I do. We're not that different really.

    Fsir is smart, I'd just prefer he be more fair.

    Check out the comments section here: https://www.wired.com/2016/11/alt-ri...esident-trump/

    Near the top, a guy named Jack Mabry says, "You and Bruce should have more conversations. You are both intelligent and articulate. We need more conversations like this on the comment sections of articles. Well done."

    It's because Hank said, "Hey Bruce. With respect, I think you're misreading the article"

    And then Bruce said, "Yeah - understood - but I..."

    And Hank says, "I don't disagree with you. I think we're talking about very nuanced issues that are really challenging for most writers (and people in general) to tackle in a balanced way."

    It's not that those two guys were displaying all that much wit, but that they were fair to each other... and that was perceived by someone else to be "smart".

    There are a lot of smart guys on there.... Son_Of_Ghidora is one. I think you'd like what he has to say. https://disqus.com/by/Son_Of_Ghidora/

    Especially this one https://disqus.com/home/discussion/w...ent-2995659591

    That comment was so good, I actually copied and saved it.

    But back to your question... We are animals, so no system is going to work,,, I don't think. We have to evolve out of our rut and become more moral and agree to play by the rules because we are then smart enough to see why. Whites being smarter than blacks doesn't matter because the average IQ of whites is still not enough. If we look at the comments section at Wired again, there are only a few guys willing to play by the rules of a moral conversation. The rest of them are just herd animals, strutting and head-butting. "Useful idiots" is the vogue term I guess. Paid trolls in some cases.

    We can't even have a democracy without an average IQ of 90



    So what IQ would it take to have a utopia?

    We have to be smart enough to understand why it's important to play by the rules, instead of needing police forces (forum moderators included) to enforce them.

    But, we could be starting to move forward if the comment from Jack Mabry is any guide. We have to agree to play by a moral code, as Hank Holiday seems to be. As long as we continue to call each other names, imply each other is stupid, and use force in a debate, we are proving to be animals and no system which depends on ethics will work. And they all depend on ethics. I guess we have to be smart enough, on average, to see that. In other words, the average person would need to be at least as smart as Jack Mabry.

    I ask people "Would you do a hobby you like as a service to mankind if everything were free?" People may think that is a good deal, but it would only be a matter of time before someone tried to game the system for an advantage. Someone, invariably, will not hold his end of the bargain. Pretty rare to find someone to hold his end of the deal. That's why character is a good trait... not many have it. If it were widespread, we wouldn't call it character. Giving everyone everything they want will not cause them to have character. In fact, Abe Lincoln said to test someone's character, give them power. So, it's the complete opposite. Power (aka abundance) usually corrupts (or reveals corruption that already exists in a person).

    So, combine that with my "idle hands" theory and RBE is a flop. It's the human condition that needs to change and RBE will naturally follow because it's the moral thing to do. Having the cart before the horse doesn't work.

    I see two ways going forward... either the average IQ of the population goes up (which Satoshi Kanazawa says won't happen because intelligent women are not reproducing) or we have a class of intelligent elites imposing their will on the herd, which is pretty dangerous. Maybe computers will offer a solution, since they aren't prone to character flaws. Maybe it's not us who need to evolve, but computer technology. Although I'm not sure Tay inspires confidence Microsoft's Twitter Chat Robot Quickly Devolves Into Racist, Homophobic, Nazi, Obama-Bashing Psychopath | Zero Hedge

    In the mean time, I think we need to pursue technology and muddle along as best we can until a better way presents itself. Stifling technology to support labor can't be a good thing. Slavery is the necessary evil we hope to replace with machines. Keep using the sweatshops a little while longer until we develop the automation to antiquate them. Outsourcing will go away on its own as 3rd world people modernize and begin demanding more wages without the "competition of the starving" which holds down wages. There should be a way to globalize while also respecting boundaries, races, whatever. Why do we have to pile on top of each other? I mean, we can if we want, I guess, but why push for it?

    We should recognize the claim that whites may be pushed to extinction (especially blondes and blue eyes). That seems like a reasonable concern. There is no expression of hate towards anyone, but self-preservation. We would save any other endangered species, wouldn't we? If there is a group of whites who want to pursue that goal, why should they be persecuted? That doesn't mean all whites have to participate. If an old white dude wants a hot Filipino chick, I'm all for it.

    Honestly, I've not given this race-stuff much thought before this last few months. Before, I just kinda figured the whites would be bred-out of existence and was fine with it. So what? I won't be around to see it. And those people in that future will know no different because the change would be so gradual through time. It isn't like we'd wake up one day and all the blondes are gone. It would be so gradual, you'd never notice. Then again, if we get another ice age or such, well then the white skin comes back from reduced UVB rays. So maybe being white is an eventually for everyone. If the UV theory is right, then we should all be white anyway since we wear clothes and stay inside so much. Until we start spending most of our days in the equatorial sun, half-naked, we're going to trend white anyway.

    Seems like everyone is making big deals out of things that don't have to be.

    Satoshi could be right that the IQ may dip for a while, but I think as 3rd world countries achieve better standards of living through technology, that their women will start demanding more intelligent men and reproducing less, just like in the more developed countries. Eventually, the global IQ should start to rise again... both through the selection from women and the fact that less kids and more intelligent mothers would provide better care and nurture IQ. Yup, RBE will probably happen. I just convinced myself. It will be a while though.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    115
    No compensation No punishment hence ppl r grown up n accept life n dat ders no strangers in d world n doenst feel harm 2wards others

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    473
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Yup, RBE will probably happen. I just convinced myself. It will be a while though.
    Yeah, you're probably right. But for now, with the whole Trump presidency and all that, RBE will at least be delayed for another 4 years unless something huge happens to the monetary system which I doubt would happen. And if Trump gets elected again, that would be another 8 years. By then, who knows if certain proponents/supporters of TZM/RBE would still be around. I have to wonder what would happen if Jacque Fresco or Peter Joseph is no longer around. I know Peter will still be around but what happens or what phase/stage would TZM/RBE be in 100 years?

    This may sound negative or pessimistic but I have doubts TZM/RBE will happen in my lifetime considering how deeply divided the mass population really are whether it be in terms of races, appropriate sex roles, in-group favoritism, and the left versus right paradigm. Do you think TZM/RBE can happen in conjunction or in some combination with nationalism? In other words, do you think each nation can have their own little TZM/RBE with borders?
    "Change is almost always negative. Things degenerate." - Woody Allen

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,171
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    We award damages (aka money) to the victims.

    It's considered fair. If you damage someone, you must repay in fairness.
    But why is it considered fair?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    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.
    The answer is that the situations are different.

    The reason for compensation is because people need jobs, and when they're injured and can't work, they can't work to make the money they would have been able to, had they not been injured. The argument is that the person responsible for injuring another person is now responsible for replacing that loss by paying damages.

    Since that would not be the case in an "RBE", where an injured person is not losing money because of an injury inflicted, since they no longer need to use money or work to make money.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    That's my point... there is nothing to give someone in compensation for an injury.
    My point is that it would just be unnecessary, anyways.

    What do you want people to do, take revenge? An eye for an eye?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    LOL Seinfeld!
    Bingo!

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    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.
    I can see it being unusual, but not impossible, if they two parties involved agree to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Well, I assumed they would because of the efficiency of vertical housing.
    Yeah, that or convenience - rather than having to climb a ladder, rope, etc. I wish I could remember what JF said about stairs or what he offered as an alternative or substitution for stairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Oh no, I was just curious. That's all. At the time, I was under the impression there would be no police or crime.
    Well, the idea is to make them taper off; so yeah, there would eventually be no police or crime, anymore. Some day they may no longer be necessary.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    Yeah, you're probably right. But for now, with the whole Trump presidency and all that, RBE will at least be delayed for another 4 years unless something huge happens to the monetary system which I doubt would happen. And if Trump gets elected again, that would be another 8 years. By then, who knows if certain proponents/supporters of TZM/RBE would still be around. I have to wonder what would happen if Jacque Fresco or Peter Joseph is no longer around. I know Peter will still be around but what happens or what phase/stage would TZM/RBE be in 100 years?

    This may sound negative or pessimistic but I have doubts TZM/RBE will happen in my lifetime considering how deeply divided the mass population really are whether it be in terms of races, appropriate sex roles, in-group favoritism, and the left versus right paradigm. Do you think TZM/RBE can happen in conjunction or in some combination with nationalism? In other words, do you think each nation can have their own little TZM/RBE with borders?
    That's actually pretty much what I'm thinking will happen. Like I said, I don't see why we can't have globalism and borders at the same time. We kinda have it now.

    I don't think we will live to see RBE. It's like with marijuana laws... you have to wait for the old ones to die off before progress is made. The Boomers for sure have to go and maybe even some Gen-x. I'm not even sure a Millennial is that socialist and they are the biggest generation so far.

    Trump is probably not as nationalist as we thought. I'm starting to think he is a butt-kisser. He's like one of those guys who is a bit bigger than most fellas and talks tough around them, but a total puss around someone bigger than him. He could be like a Harry Bennett to someone behind the scenes... fearless to anyone but his boss. What group has its butt kissed more than any other? What's the most powerful butt on earth?

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    694
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    But why is it considered fair?
    A judge says so.

    The reason for compensation is because people need jobs, and when they're injured and can't work, they can't work to make the money they would have been able to, had they not been injured. The argument is that the person responsible for injuring another person is now responsible for replacing that loss by paying damages.

    Since that would not be the case in an "RBE", where an injured person is not losing money because of an injury inflicted, since they no longer need to use money or work to make money.
    "The argument is that the person responsible for injuring another person is now responsible for replacing that loss by paying damages."

    We define loss, not only as loss of income potential, but loss of quality of life. That's the basis for much of medical malpractice (and doctors aren't starving for money). What happens in RBE when the resident doctor is having a bad day and, after years of doing the same operation, he decides to cut a corner, get done early, and get back to golf? What if he reduced someone's quality of life because he was in a hurry to go play golf rather than perform another boring operation? It's the human condition that needs to change.

    How would you award damages in that case? Suppose the injured guy can have a corrective operation and things will get back on track, so what's the ordeal of having to endure a second operation worth to you? You would just say "Oh, it's ok. I like getting cut on anyway. Don't worry about it. I know how much you like golf."

    There are 1000s, if not millions, of examples.

    Do we just chalk it up to one of the hazards of living in RBE? That someone may hurt you and not be able to compensate? Well, doesn't that legalize malpractice? If I can get off the hook for being lazy by accident, then why not by intention as well?

    I wish I could remember what JF said about stairs or what he offered as an alternative or substitution for stairs.
    JF has lots of good ideas, but he can't engineer a perfect world. He has lots of improvements, but not an infinite supply of them, which is about what he'd need to make a perfect world where morality is unnecessary.

    A cat and a dog will live together in peace if there is enough food, but that isn't because either are moral. Take away the food and they go right back to being mean to each other. The problem is that you can't provide abundance in every facet of life, which is about what's required to remove the need for morality. You'd have to be able to heal ANY injury. You'd have to be able to arrange atoms, one by one, and make perfect duplicates of anything. You'd have to be able to put the atoms back the way they were in someone's spine so that they can walk again. Having that kind of capability is about the only way you'd ever remove the need for morality in society. So it's either the people become moral or technology gets like Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry isn't stupid and knew the only way the audience would buy a society having no money would be if the technology can do anything.

    Well, the idea is to make them taper off; so yeah, there would eventually be no police or crime, anymore. Some day they may no longer be necessary.
    I agree, but only because the people will change and make police unnecessary. Police will be antiquated when people are moral enough to not need them.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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