StormCloudsGathering·OK its very long, and they covered a lot of topics, but one area that i that i've been looking for answers for was covered and that is; Who is in control (eg ensures all wants/needs are being met, is it a computer, government, everyone or locals) and how are these decisions enforced (does everyone just need to accept the decisions of the "system" if what they are looking for is not available/recommended, will there be police or enforcers) and also whats available to people if they feel the system is not looking after them because they are in the minority or not in line with the rest of society.
The standard generic answers of "science" or "society" were initially put forward as the solutions, but then some specifics came up, which didn't really answer the question to a level that most (or at least me) people want.
But basically what i took the the answer to be : if someone has an idea for an improvement the idea is proposed (to who and how?) and then put through the system using scientific methods to come up with a recommendation which is basically what will happen.
So the question i now have is, in the decision making process, are options going to be produced (in situations where no perfect solution is available, multiple options with differeent benefits/negatives will need to be weighed up, taking into account if the are multiple categories of entities that will affected differently depending on what decision is ultimately made), or is only "the best" (the goals are defined by who?) answer going to be put forward.
If the answer is various options, then who makes the final choice, if it's only one, what happens if some people dont agree with it, will this decision be enforced and if so by who?
It was stated that that experts should/can be challenged, but its difficult to convience an expert (or the decision makers) they are wrong when you are not and expert and unable to use their methods to prove your point (as thats the method being used to determine the outcome), or even if its a moral reason and not a difference in their interpretation of the data. Also if two sets of scientists disagree using the scientific method what happens then? Some decisions will need to be made quickly due to need and maybe the decision making process will take longer than the time available.....can decsions be made without this process and if so under what conditions. Can morality ever overide the outcome of a decision resulting from the science method?
Even in an RBE, people will still have different opinions/preferences even if the they all support the basic premise of an RBE and have been educated in it. I agree with the point raised in the discussion that we are talking about an RBE with todays values and expectations of how things work, which may not be helping things when thinking of an RBE, since there are many issues today which wont be issues then like greed or the quest for profit, but since we know that fact, answers should be able to be formulated in todays "talk" so the people of today can understand it, instead of "in and RBE that won't be a problem...society will be different...trust me".
I think some rules or principles in this area need to be documented (even if it changes over time) so people can make a decsion to get on board. People want details, and i don't think there are details provided to the level they want them or using a frame of reference they are used to.
I agree with an RBE in principle, and so i'm also looking for an understanding of the details of how it will operate, or the next level down. The reason we can say the current system is bad is because we know how these things work in it, and its hard to convience others that an RBE is better if these questions can't be detailed for comparrison of the two, ie not why an RBE is the best idea, but at least how it is better than what we have now.
Another topic i feel worth detailing that was raised in the discussion is that the purpose of an RBE is not to restrict what people can/cant do but how to do the things that need doing. So its not saying you cant have potato chips, but rather how to manage the creation of them in the most effective manner.
Are there quick answers to the following questions?
a) In an RBE do we need a government, if so what will their role be
b) In an RBE do we need a justice system, if so what will their role be
c) In an RBE do we need police, if so what will their role be
d) In an RBE do we need an army, if so what will their role be
and if so how are they selected or what privileges will they have over others if any? Will an RBE require enforcement of some of its principles for the proctection of its people?
I came across these videos by the same person in the original video, which explores these ideas not just for an RBE (i think he doesn't like an RBE actually) but for any social system or civilization thats in place, that in my opinion need to be throught about for an RBE.
The Declaration of Natural Rights (8:50) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIKDKtRQuY
The Chain of Obedience (2:21) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NcLNoxiPBk
The Death Throes of the United States (8:25) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpEwul07ps
The Chain of Identity (5:26) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95zRdGDQoTQ
Capitalism - The Anatomy of Wedge Issue (8:27) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWnp28QkdfI
Now we all know these bad things occured in todays society or the ones that have precededed it, so how do we think an RBE will stop these things from happening under it? The removal of greed is probably an obvious one, but if something else becomes "powerful" underan RBE, what mechanisim will be in place to stop things like we know have happened from happening again?
I think we will need someone/something to perform the role of government/police/army/legal systems in one form or another(at least intially since we are used to them now), although they will most likely do less than they do now and be on much reduced scales, but from my experience of discussing these topics, these are the things people i talk to want to know about in an RBE.
Also, its most likely that the whole world will not come on board to an RBE at the same time, however the person in the video has presented some ideas (in other videos) on what could happen if everyone is not on board :
So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government? (6:51) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Fm03LhWvU
After America Collapses, What Comes Next? (8:05) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQdwZk2gpWo
After America Collapses - Part II - The Constitution in Perspective (8:47) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63zZ6I0QiO8
The summary of which is most likely there will not be one system that everyone agrees on at the point in time when a choice is needed to be made, so a constitution should be written now (which may be quicker than a test city) by each of the organized groups now for what ever systems they want to happen after the current system ceases to exist, and ask for people to get on board in principle, as well as getting involved in the process, and that each different group should agree to allow other groups to exist with a non aggression agreement, and to work out how to get on with other groups before hand. Even if an RBE has a principle to reduce the need for written laws, one would still be useful at the start of the process where this situation will most likely be the state of play when this happens. Sure this can split people into groups, reduce numbers etc, but even in the zeitgeist movement there are diefferent opinions on how to do things, but I still think this gives an RBE the best chance to come into place and evolve over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment