Hi Mr. Robinson, – Perry Gruber – Medium

Hi Mr. Robinson,

Well thank you for yet another well-written and insightful reply. We both have a lot to say. We both say what we say well. That makes for good, enjoyable conversation. Thanks for your participation.

Seems you have returned the favor and read our lengthy piece laying out not only the problems with capitalism, but any system relying on money, markets and government. It’s true, we said a lot in that piece. Congrats for getting through it all!

It’s also true we are criticizing not just free markets, but all markets depending on money and government. But it is not true that we offer no alternative.

In our comment to your previous comment we allude to Copiosis, a system our team created. It is, in many people’s opinion, an excellent alternative to every past system, including capitalism.

Please don’t think you can get a full understanding in a three minute video. Even an additional three minutes is not enough. But we’ll offer this six minute, more detailed explanation also:

We’re for the future. Not the past.

By the way. You allude to Marx in your reply. Just so you know, we don’t advocate for the past. We’re implementing the future. So we don’t care much about what Marx did or didn’t do. Same with Keynesians. But we will say the reason Keynes’ ideas failed was because he thought money was a viable mechanism.

It’s a terrible mechanism. It’s a mechanism of control contrived by kings to dominate their subjects and extract their wealth.

Even given it’s good points. We agree, it has good points. But not many.

Eliminating the mediums of exchange is easy. How you do it is being demonstrated so often every day, we’re surprised so few understand this. But as the saying goes “secrets are best hidden in plain sight”. So we don’t blame you for not knowing.

How to eliminate all mediums of exchange

In essence you show people how much better their life can be without them. Do that well enough and people will eliminate the various mediums of exchange for you.

It really is that easy. That’s what we’re doing with Copiosis.

So do we have a workable solution? We sure do! But we really enjoyed your comment about mother-in-laws. That was a good one! 👍🏾

She’s not my mother-in-law, but isn’t she cute?

You write:

How can an inanimate object such as money be moral or immoral? How it may be used can be immoral but not the object itself. As an example, automobiles are involved in killing many more people than are guns, yet they are not moral or immoral either. Human beings are the ones that can either be immoral or moral, not inanimate objects.

The answer is, it takes some thinking, but once you figure it out, it’s easy. They key is designing the inanimate object in a way that prevents immoral usage. You’re not designing “immorality” out. That’s the wrong approach. You’re designing in “morality”. BTW, humanity is well on the way to making amoral automobiles obsolete too. The approach works the same. With the automobile, you design out the human. That’s what’s happening with autos.

So it’s not hard to make inanimate objects moral. It just takes some out-of-the-box thinking. 😀

Ok, we wrote and you quoted us:

“In every case, in the most evil events throughout history, where human beings egregiously harmed or destroyed large numbers of other human beings, money was there making it all happen. After all, you need people to destroy large numbers of other people.”

And you responded with:

IMHO, you are simply implying that human beings have not yet been able to affect a good system of jurisprudence, and thus are blaming money on all the injustices instead of the people doing it and the lack of injustice. You may also want to note, that in almost all major atrocities, a government is involved and the list is too long to address here.

You’re obviously intelligent and that we respect. We also respect your opinion. We’re not talking about jurisprudence though. Humanity’s attempt to legislate morality whether through church edicts or jurisprudence has done more harm than good. Both have slathered all of us with inaccurate labels: we’re either all sinners, all criminals or both. There is little you can do these days — at least in the US — that doesn’t break a law. And no, we’re not libertarian. Far from that.

So no, we’re not arguing for better justice. We’re saying money is so amorally powerful it can cause people to behave in ways they ordinarily wouldn’t.

Greed is good. But when tied to money, it gets out of control.

We agree with you: government is involved in all these cases. But right along with government is money. After all, the government, no matter who leads it, has to pay the people doing the government’s work. That’s the point we’re making. Money enables some people, to pay other people, to do what they personally won’t do, but they can pay another to do it with money, so they don’t have to do it.

War fighting is a great example. You don’t see congressmen on the battlefields. But a nation’s (usually disproportionately disadvantaged) young people, indoctrinated and striving to earn their living, pack them. 🙄

We’re not down on government employees. We know though that government is a major problem, right along with money.

Government is just one of the problems. It gets many people killed. All for money usually.

Very good points in your next statement. You wrote:

Money has some very good qualities as well. It sure does help us conduct trade and commerce easier and more efficiently. The fact that it is abused is also as I noted before, do to the lack of available justice. The fact that an auto mechanic will take advantage of a woman, because of her lack of knowledge is not the fault of money. If a woman wants her auto repaired, she could trade directly for some other service or product, money is not necessarily needed. What you are really talking about is value. It’s why prostitution and gold have always been perceived as value throughout recorded history. Please don’t eliminate sex, as you are wanting to do with money, because some people abuse it.

What other good qualities does it have?

It certainly does not help us conduct trade more easily and more efficiently. What is does do efficiently is indoctrinate people into thinking they must have money to get what they need. That it does exceedingly efficiently. But it does not enable more efficient trade. Here’s how we know: three words: “we can’t afford it”.

Take our transportation system in the US for example. We’ve been traveling on roads created decades ago. They’re falling apart. Particularly our bridges. They have been in disrepair for years. Some are on the verge of collapse.

There’s more from Business Insider here.

How is money facilitating the efficient repair and upgrade of our infrastructure systems? Hell, many cities can’t even afford to repair potholes. LOL

No, money does not make things efficient. Money is friction. Things don’t get done because we can’t afford it. Whether it’s an individual, a family, a multi-billion dollar corporation or a nation, “we can’t afford it” or the business version “it’s not in the budget” indicate not money’s efficiency, but its role as an impediment.

Now in the next part of our exchange as represented in your reply is interesting to us. It’s interesting because you performed a little sleight of hand that while deft, it twisted what we said.

You quoted us as writing:

“That means, some things some people want, get funded while other things other people want don’t. The amount of money spent on what’s done, reduces by exactly that amount the money available to do something else we want done. A little truth in jest. Doesn’t that sound like a zero-sum relationship?”

Then you wrote in response to that:

“You are not inferring the free market but any one of the versions of a mixed economic model. In a free market, wealth is unlimited by the amount of production. The more we produce individually and as a society, the more wealth is created. If a poor man and a wealthy man are both producing something of value, both are creating more wealth, all be it not necessarily equitable in the amounts. Poor men like many black athletes can end up producing more value than the average person, whereas a rich man like Bernie Madoff could produce less value in the end. Obviously, as you noted, the government is not very good at regulating anything, especially themselves Now with the government, it is a not even a zero-sum game. For the government to exist and operate, they must take money from society at the majorities expense. The cost of the government must come out of the revenue, and the remainder may or may not benefit the majority. The government through the 6,000+/- years of history is notorious for its misallocation of resources and providing benefits to the wealthier special interests.”

What’s accurate in your response is that we are inferring a zero-sum relationship in all versions of economic models that use money, which is to say all of them. Including a free market.

But what you did was you used the word “wealth” as though it is interchangeable with the word “money”. Using wealth makes everything else in your response accurate. Wealth is unlimited because human beings create it as naturally as they exhale.

But money is not the same as wealth. Wealth, as you know, is the total value of assets minus liabilities. It usually measures material prosperity, which also can include intangible things such as health and well being. Money can be included in wealth, but wealth is a far broader concept.

Money is a different matter. It’s limited. That’s why people, businesses and nations can’t afford to do everything they want to do.

So then you quoted us thusly. Then asked us a question:

“ Imagine what the world would be like if we could cooperate to have our needs mutually met without fearing the other person is trying to take advantage of us.”

Your question was this:

How would we then determine value and price if we did not competitively negotiate them?

The answer is, you don’t have to determine value and prices, nor negotiate such things. But you do have to when money is involved. Can you see how ingrained this concept of money is in society? You can’t even conceive of a way of humans interacting and trading without it! Even though they did great for thousands of years before kings (government) invented money!

We’re not making fun. We’ve been in the same boat. Thankfully, we’re not there anymore.

You write:

I think it is safe to say, most people fear the government’s taxing and police powers much more then they do negotiate the purchasing of good and services.

We don’t think that’s safe to say. We think there are people who fear this. A lot (probably the majority) would rather the government not take their money. But the reason people don’t fear negotiating purchasing goods and services is because they’re used to it.

98% of the time the prices are already set. All we have to do is say no or yes or continue shopping harder until we find the price we want to sell or pay at.

This is accurate.

You make it sound much more horrible than it really is. Women appear to actually enjoy it.

The only reason people don’t think it’s as horrible as it is, is because they don’t know any better. They’re numb. Women do appear to actually enjoy it. But what they’re really enjoying is not the “paying” part. It’s the “shopping” part! Especially if someone else is doing the paying part! 😜😜😜

In seriousness: there is a level of empowerment accompanying being able to pay for what you want. But that’s ingrained too. I the “I earned this” indoctrination made real. It’s a pavlovian response. It can be unlearned. That trained response reinforces the myth of individualism over the ever-present cooperative reality of human life. All life. And the gifts, the natural desire to give that is human nature, which flows from love, which in turn naturally arises when that cooperative nature is remembered and expressed in giving, is what being human is about.

Not “buying”.

You wrote:

I think it is interesting that Marx gave us the 10 planks of communism but never gave us the rest of the equation to improve the system.

Me too. Maybe he didn’t know how to improve them? Maybe he knew when the time was right someone would come along with the improvement.

You write:

I will assume you believe that we should have some form of rule of law.

A very limited form, yes. We’ll now answer your questions:

Do you then think we should have some sort of constitution that provides us with the specific scope and powers that we the people want the government to provide or should those scope and powers be unlimited?

Yes. But that document would not enshrine powers of a government, and it should be much more inclusive (of everyone) than our current one. It would establish a “specific scope and powers” we want society to benefit from, scope and powers attributable to individuals. Not governments.

Do you think the free market with it inevitable embracing of natural law would work things out especially if the government is not there to mess things up? People eventually get tired of fighting and make a deal to stop harming one another unless force is legalized by the government.

Yes. But only in a designed economy that:

  1. Is predicated on gift, not buying and selling.
  2. Uses a moral form of reward
  3. Provides basic necessities to every human at no cost to that human.
  4. Abolishes “work” and instead enshrines and promotes pursuing passions.

Should there also be a bill of rights which the government should protect in which to provide the Citizens with a way in which to restrain government from exerting to much force and taxation?

There should be a list of rights, yes. But a government is not necessary to forcibly ensure them. Instead, society can do it (not a market). But only based on an economy that (in addition to the four points above also):

  1. Decrees as part of the list that property is privately owned, but not in the way it is privately owned today
  2. Has a justice system that is moral, and whose members are rewarded for their actions with a moral form of reward
  3. That everyone is free to participate as members of that justice system at any time, but subject to the moral reward system.

You write:

Of course, the free market has flaws. We have a huge number of sociopaths, psychopaths and other criminal personalities that exist in our world and they alone will create problems. Then you have ill-informed people who can easily be manipulated by the Sociopath and criminal types.

Yeah. We have such people due largely because of free market’s flaws (money, markets and government). It’s hard to see where the chicken or the egg start this conundrum. But it’s clear that free markets, combined with money, advantage sociopaths and criminals no matter how much law government tries to enforce.

Interestingly, free markets combined with money create perfect conditions for sociopaths, sociopathy, criminals and crime to be things! Interesting! Right?

Answers to your other questions:

  1. Can the government solve such problems? No
  2. Will it only make things worse? Yes
  3. Can the free market better solve problems the free markets creates? No.

You seem to think we (society) have two choices: government or free markets There is a third choice. There are more choices than that. But for the time being, this third choice can solve the problems. It creates some problems, but all the problems it creates can be solved within itself, quickly.

Your final comment is sage:

That is where it appears all the various Marxist ideologies fail. There are a lot of imperfections and inequalities in society because we have vast differences in people. You have people with high intelligence and low intelligence levels, people who can play golf well and people who can’t. What we are trying to both accomplish is what is “just” while improving equality, knowing there is nor can be no real equality. Some people will accidentally fall off their tractor and become paralyzed and die and some will live to be a centurian, driving that same model tractor all their life. Some smoke all their lives and never get cancer and some die as children from lung cancer. Life is not fair or equitable and I see no way other than improving justice in which to make the playing field as level as possible. The government surely can do it.

Capitalism (free markets) fail too for these reasons. There are no imperfections in human society. The things you lay out here are strengths (diversity). Not flaws. But in all existing systems dominating the planet today, these strengths are seen as problems and, they can be exploit by the powerful, the wealthy, the criminal and the sociopath, to their advantage.

You’re right. There is no such thing as “equality”. Life is not fair. And…there is such a thing as equality and life is eminently fair.

Everyone comes into the world with their own unique gifts. Everyone’s gifts expressed to their maximum extent, will advance humanity. But the current system (money, markets and governments) doesn’t prioritize this. It prioritizes people earning a living, which causes the majority (the vast majority) of people to forego exploring their gifts in favor of doing what they need to do.

So life is fair and equal: everyone has gifts that, if explored and developed, enrich all humanity. This includes:

  • Being a great mother
  • Being a great teacher
  • Being a great change agent
  • Being great at art
  • Being great at seeing injustice and wanting to do something about it
  • Being great at having the courage to call out bad behavior (blow the whistle).

and a whole lot more

But…all these gifts are devalued by our current system in the extreme. That makes people sick. It makes sociopaths and criminals. And a whole lot more.

Great converstation Skip.

Source link
Show More
Back to top button

Pin It on Pinterest