Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
Like Tree36Likes

Thread: The Concern About People Becoming Lazy/Dependent

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Killeen, TX
    Posts
    9

    The Concern About People Becoming Lazy/Dependent

    I first heard this objection expressed in Peter's interview with Alex Jones. I'm ambivalent towards AJ, I have to say. On the one hand I have great respect for the information he's put out and hope he's on the level...but on the other hand, I was disgusted with his behavior in that interview.

    Anyway, he -and others since- have persisted with this idea that people in an RBE would become detached from nature, forget how to take care of themselves, perhaps be weak and unable to survive if there was a solar flare or something and all the tech were disabled.

    ...is it just me, or is this notion almost trivially easy to counter?

    Is it not true that individuals in an RBE would be specifically oriented towards connection and understanding of nature? I mean, it's true that tech would handle most operations throughout a community/city on the grand scale, but the perpetuation of whole thing would be predicated on people understanding how it all works, up to and including a working knowledge of how a seed gets planted, nourished by water/sunlight, and so on. Comprehensive education programs would most assuredly feature hours and longer of hands-on time spent in the wilderness, physically planting trees and crops etc with one's bare hands. Not as a job like a farmer today, but as part of each individual's thorough education. In other words, individuals would have had their hands in as many aspects of the functioning of practical society as possible by the time they reach "adult" age, meaning that the whole society would have a base foundation of ground-level strength of body, mind, will, and skills, enabling them to be fully capable of adapting and surviving in the case of some temporary tech failure, rather unlike today, where the vast majority of people would indeed be totally lost without GPS etc. Would a temporary lack of tech function be rough? Of course. But the psychological, philosophical and practical experience/knowledge gained would, it seems to me, make such a situation far less severe than detractors purport.
    Last edited by TZMGuy; 03-24-2016 at 09:40 AM.
    Phil, droneBEE, Izon and 1 others like this.
    "The worst foe lies within..." -Parasite Eve, Playstation 1

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    Why does our society and culture only accept and tolerate LAZY/DEPENDENT folks who are wealthy......and condemn those who are not?

    Why do some people insist on blaming poverty on the poor?

    Life is short, right? ....so, Why should only the rich enjoy leisure? Why do so many people feel guilty when they take time off from their jobs, when they/we experience some leisure time?

    Is that guilty feeling a rational or logical response......or is it a conditioned response?
    Izon likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by TZMGuy View Post

    Anyway, he -and others since- have persisted with this idea that people in an RBE would become detached from nature, forget how to take care of themselves, perhaps be weak and unable to survive if there was a solar flare or something and all the tech were disabled.

    ...is it just me, or is this notion almost trivially easy to counter?
    We can only counter it with a demonstration, not logic.
    droneBEE and Izon like this.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    People who don't perform their duties to society (for example jury duty, although our court system will be replaced with natural law) and disobey natural law will be applicable to lawful justice.

    Such as provisional withdrawal resources and access cut to the bare minimum as in everything the individual has will be taken away except to access for the necessities of life in order to be healthy through basic access to basic products (as in bare minimum requirements), such as food, water, shelter, sanitation, mental health etc until the individual complies with the law upon doing so he will have all his withdrawn access and property restored and in terms of hostility detainment and reassimilation on the basis of civil circumstances.

    Those who don't cooperate with society have the access that cooperation/society provides taken away from them until they become complicit upon which it is restored.

    Talk about incentive to do good for society and work cooperatively.

    The more you can create for society the more you can have access to because the more will be available and if you do not perform your share of work and duty you will be subject to lawful justice.

    Respect for society and your fellow man through unity, equality and cooperation will be a lawful standard.

    This is the safety net designed by the system to coerce those of ill will.

    Those who are convicted of societal neglect and abuse have their access and resources outside of necessities withdrawn from them for the length of one solar year so people can't one day say I won't do this but I'll do it next time as they try to cheat the system and they must perform their standard service to society for the length of that conviction if violated the process starts again.

    They can also apply to a return to standards program which will help them to do right by society.

    We take things seriously don't mess with an NLRBE.

    Everything ranging from tv's to pencils is applicable for withdrawal.

    Also, people in an NLRBE won't have a problem with becoming detached from nature and society's operational standards as it is a part of the constitutional standards set to maintain the integrity of society operational education about the world is applied to mandatory basic education.

    Natural Law mandates survival, therefore, society's survival mechanism's must be understood on an operational basis to maintain integrity, therefore, it is complicit to all those who inhabit society.
    Last edited by Izon; 03-18-2016 at 11:03 PM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Izon View Post
    People who don't perform their duties to society (for example jury duty, although our court system will be replaced with natural law) and disobey natural law will be applicable to lawful justice.

    Such as provisional withdrawal resources and access cut to the bare minimum as in everything the individual has will be taken away except to access for the necessities of life in order to be healthy through basic access to basic products (as in bare minimum requirements), such as food, water, shelter, sanitation, mental health etc until the individual complies with the law upon doing so he will have all his withdrawn access and property restored and in terms of hostility detainment and reassimilation on the basis of civil circumstances.

    Those who don't cooperate with society have the access that cooperation/society provides taken away from them until they become complicit upon which it is restored.

    Talk about incentive to do good for society and work cooperatively.

    The more you can create for society the more you can have access to because the more will be available and if you do not perform your share of work and duty you will be subject to lawful justice.

    Respect for society and your fellow man through unity, equality and cooperation will be a lawful standard.

    This is the safety net designed by the system to coerce those of ill will.

    Those who are convicted of societal neglect and abuse have their access and resources outside of necessities withdrawn from them for the length of one solar year so people can't one day say I won't do this but I'll do it next time as they try to cheat the system and they must perform their standard service to society for the length of that conviction if violated the process starts again.

    They can also apply to a return to standards program which will help them to do right by society.

    We take things seriously don't mess with an NLRBE.

    Everything ranging from tv's to pencils is applicable for withdrawal.

    Also, people in an NLRBE won't have a problem with becoming detached from nature and society's operational standards as it is a part of the constitutional standards set to maintain the integrity of society operational education about the world is applied to mandatory basic education.

    Natural Law mandates survival, therefore, society's survival mechanism's must be understood on an operational basis to maintain integrity, therefore, it is complicit to all those who inhabit society.


    Doesn't that seem a bit restrictive to people's freedom of choice?

    Perhaps I missed all that when I read TZM Defined but I expected a voluntary resource management model like a RBE to allow the existence of voluntary alternatives to participation in a RBE for those unwilling to practice moneyless resource based exchange as long as they didn't exploit or damage the planet or interfere with other voluntary resource management models.

    I think part of the reason some resource management philosophies fail is because they subsume both willing and unwilling participants under their direction. For instance, a lot of the issues and complaints against Capitalism derive from the fact that it subsumes under its model really many otherwise unwilling participants. The same problem occurred with Socialism. And I would expect no less in a RBE that coerced unwilling participants into participation.

    I understand the point about not allowing cheaters who might want to exploit the goodness and cooperative labor of a RBE and return nothing, though. But that's why you have to allow non-exploitative, voluntary alternatives to a RBE for people who, we may think are foolish, but just would rather not participate in a RBE model of cooperative exchange. If a person would rather prefer their labor be exploited by an employer in some hierarchal capitalist post-scarcity sub-culture, that's their right as long as it doesn't threaten the planet's health and the right and ability of others to also practice the voluntary resource management and exchange model of their choice.

    But once everyone can easily choose which model they prefer from well established and non-interfering voluntary models, I would expect the dominant trending and chosen model to easily be a RBE. It will be very difficult to compete with access to free land in a RBE if you're telling people over in your monetary model they must pay to access it. No one is going to want to pay for land if it comes included automatically in a RBE for your cooperative labor.
    Last edited by fsir; 03-19-2016 at 04:47 AM.
    Izon and droneBEE like this.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by TZMGuy View Post

    Anyway, he -and others since- have persisted with this idea that people in an RBE would become detached from nature, forget how to take care of themselves, perhaps be weak and unable to survive if there was a solar flare or something and all the tech were disabled.

    ...is it just me, or is this notion almost trivially easy to counter?
    .
    I'm sure that objection has been leveled throughout history by every generation encountering labor-saving technology. And if it were correct (which it's not by a long shot), the alternative every time would be to not allow technological progress.

    I'm sure there was some caveman 30,000 or whatever thousands of years ago ranting about how the bow and arrow was making the younger generation "soft" and "detached from nature" because no one was confronting wild prey head on with spears and clubs. "In my day, we used to walk right up to the rhinoceros and club it in the head!"

    The same guy who complained fire was making everything too easy. "In my day, there wasn't any fire! We huddled for warmth like men! These kids today are spoiled and out of touch with the real world! Rabble, rabble rabble!"

    With the introduction of each major and minor piece of technology, by that logic, hasn't each successive generation become "weaker"? Every generation more "spoiled?" Or are we really becoming stronger by mastering our circumstances more and more effectively?

    And of course the complainers always forget they themselves were the recipients of any labor-saving, lazy-making technology that preceded the new one of which they're objecting.

    We are all the welfare recipients of technology.
    Last edited by fsir; 03-19-2016 at 06:00 AM.
    Izon and TZMGuy like this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    I'm sure that objection has been leveled throughout history by every generation encountering labor-saving technology. And if it were correct (which it's not by a long shot), the alternative every time would be to not allow technological progress.

    I'm sure there was some caveman 30,000 or whatever thousands of years ago ranting about how the bow and arrow was making the younger generation "soft" and "detached from nature" because no one was confronting wild prey head on with spears and clubs. "In my day, we used to walk right up to the rhinoceros and club it in the head!"

    The same guy who complained fire was making everything too easy. "In my day, there wasn't any fire! We huddled for warmth like men! These kids today are spoiled and out of touch with the real world! Rabble, rabble rabble!"

    With the introduction of each major and minor piece of technology, by that logic, hasn't each successive generation become "weaker"? Every generation more "spoiled?" Or are we really becoming stronger by mastering our circumstances more and more effectively?

    And of course the complainers always forget they themselves were the recipients of any labor-saving, lazy-making technology that preceded the new one of which they're objecting.

    We are all the welfare recipients of technology.
    I'm not so certain about some of this......and can only offer the example (s) of my Native American Ancestors, who upon discovering and obtaining new technologies from the west, very quickly adopted and adapted their lifestyles to absorb many of these new technologies.......

    This acceptance of new technologies was accomplished willingly in most cases, and were adapted into the fold despite having a 'thriving' existence before the 'terrorists' arrived on Turtle Island....effectively transforming a lifestyle that was perfectly in tune with the Natural World, whereby 'respect' for life was held in high regard.......changed into a 'new' prospect that caught the vast majority of my brothers and sisters off guard and unprepared ..... ....for the coming slaughter...
    Last edited by droneBEE; 03-19-2016 at 06:54 AM.
    fsir, Izon and TZMGuy like this.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I'm not so certain about some of this......and can only offer the example (s) of my Native American Ancestors, who upon discovering and obtaining new technologies from the west, very quickly adopted and adapted their lifestyles to absorb many of these new technologies.......

    This acceptance of new technologies was accomplished willingly in most cases, and were adapted into the fold despite having a 'thriving' existence before the 'terrorists' arrived on Turtle Island....effectively transforming a lifestyle that was perfectly in tune with the Natural World, whereby 'respect' for life was held in high regard.......changed into a 'new' prospect that caught the vast majority of my brothers and sisters off guard and unprepared ..... ....for the coming slaughter...
    Certainly, there is an argument to be made against the pace and application of technology. Every new technology can be used for evil and introduce other problems. The car for instance freed us from horses but was it necessary to propel ourselves at speeds dangerous to the health of the human body in the event of an accident? I think not and so would agree with you in a sense. Humanity tends to overdo everything. It's our choice to risk death at the high speeds and the pollution of the internal combustion engine when we could have easily found a way to be happy with the originally slower and less environmentally harmful electric vehicle.

    So yea, I agree we overdo it sometimes and there are some technologies we should use sparingly rather than fully indulge ourselves in but what we choose to do with technology is not an argument against technology.

    Otherwise, you can say the discovery and spread of fire making was a bad thing because it gave us the ability to burn people alive which, of course, is a horrible thing to even contemplate.

    Sometimes we unconsciously adopt more than another culture's technology. We also adopt their abuse or poor application of it.
    Last edited by fsir; 03-19-2016 at 07:38 AM.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by fsir View Post
    Doesn't that seem a bit restrictive to people's freedom of choice?

    Perhaps I missed all that when I read TZM Defined but I expected a voluntary resource management model like a RBE to allow the existence of voluntary alternatives to participation in a RBE for those unwilling to practice moneyless resource based exchange as long as they didn't exploit or damage the planet or interfere with other voluntary resource management models.

    I think part of the reason some resource management philosophies fail is because they subsume both willing and unwilling participants under their direction. For instance, a lot of the issues and complaints against Capitalism derive from the fact that it subsumes under its model really many otherwise unwilling participants. The same problem occurred with Socialism. And I would expect no less in a RBE that coerced unwilling participants into participation.

    I understand the point about not allowing cheaters who might want to exploit the goodness and cooperative labor of a RBE and return nothing, though. But that's why you have to allow non-exploitative, voluntary alternatives to a RBE for people who, we may think are foolish, but just would rather not participate in a RBE model of cooperative exchange. If a person would rather prefer their labor be exploited by an employer in some hierarchal capitalist post-scarcity sub-culture, that's their right as long as it doesn't threaten the planet's health and the right and ability of others to also practice the voluntary resource management and exchange model of their choice.

    But once everyone can easily choose which model they prefer from well established and non-interfering voluntary models, I would expect the dominant trending and chosen model to easily be a RBE. It will be very difficult to compete with access to free land in a RBE if you're telling people over in your monetary model they must pay to access it. No one is going to want to pay for land if it comes included automatically in a RBE for your cooperative labor.
    Restrictive yes to a good and healthy standard.

    Natural Law mandates integrity aka survival therefore, we must maintain our society and those who have ill will and oppose and degrade neglect and abuse society will need to be corrected otherwise we are doing a diss-service to our potential and influence.

    I understand the idea of freedom we are trying to establish but there must be order and natural law.

    We cannot let psychopathic serial killers run around willy nilly, we also can't let society rot due to rotten members we have to fix it.
    Last edited by Izon; 03-19-2016 at 09:24 AM.
    fsir likes this.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    east coast
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Izon View Post
    Restrictive yes to a good and healthy standard.

    Natural Law mandates integrity aka survival therefore, we must maintain our society and those who have ill will and oppose and degrade neglect and abuse society will need to be corrected otherwise we are doing a diss-service to our potential and influence.

    I understand the idea of freedom we are trying to establish but there must be order and natural law.

    We cannot let psychopathic serial killers run around willy nilly, we also can't let society rot due to rotten members we have to fix it.
    I agree serial killers should not be tolerated and dealt with under any worthy resource management model.

    I was merely talking about people who just don't want to participate in a RBE and want to get together with others and voluntarily use money in their exchanges. Eliminating choice in what people can exchange their energy for is a rather restrictive path to go down and will beget accusations of despotism.
    Izon, droneBEE and TZMGuy like this.

Page 1 of 2 12 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