Our discussion is moot until you guys read the literature to back up the theories I’m talking about. No disrespect, but the stuff I’m talking about here is no as simple as we think.

I’ll collect the sources I used and post them soon.

Your article was about how technology will replace government, as we know it. You indicated that government was a by-product of environmental scarcity and implied that a technocracy will build the resources required for survival in abundance. Your article also said that government then becomes nothing but a distributor of goods – so you are basically saying that a technocracy is a fancy word for absolute pure communism.

OK – so let’s say you are right, let’s say there is an abundance of everything and lets further say that technologically anything we need can be done renewably – even raw materials. Let us even further agree that money is not an object and it has been eliminated.

In this technocracy you created:
Does everyone live in the same exact type of house?
Does everyone drive the same exact type of car?
Does everyone eat the same exact type of food?
Does everyone dress with the same exact type of clothes?
Does everyone use the same exact type of phone?

Be careful of your answer my friend.

If the answer is no – then I say a barter system will develop on its own as people will want what other people have and some sort of profitability will somehow begin to develop. The grass is always greener on the side.

If the answer is yes – that means the individual is taken out of the equation and there is no freedom, we would all be slaves to some technological machine that is making the decisions for us – welcome to the matrix.

Of course, this presupposes that we have already gone through all the changes and the technocracy was actually set up. This will be a long time coming.

I agree with you that technology is good for human kind but it only builds tools for us. It currently does not replace raw materials. You say if it cannot be renewed it is not a logically sound one to use. I say – no mater what you use, eventually it will be “limited” and recognized as such. Therefore, when the new material is created it will be something different then the first.

As more new things are created through technology, people will want the new stuff. This will be perceived as more valuable then the old stuff. In order to eliminate that the technocracy would have to create 100% of all items available to 100% of the people 100% of the time. If it does not, people will use force or fraud to get the new stuff (as indicated above) and the need for the government that you claim will be gone, will again arise.

The article reads:

“First of all, government is a byproduct of environmental scarcity, for if an abundance of all resources was readily available to everyone, there would be no need for government – as criminality, property ownership, and human behavior, do not warrant political supervision…”

This statement serves to show a condition for government not to exist. Yes, if all resources were made in abundance and such resources were easily accessible to all people, then yah, there would be no need for government.
However, this statement isn’t being used to define a technocracy – as your argument claims. A technocracy can be understood through parts of the article above that include:

“The human species has the powerful ability to improve itself through new invention, and we must realize this to maximize its potential. In a world governed through technology people do not make decisions, we arrive at them, with technological tools that incorporate the scientific method.”

and

“Government, and the concept of the state, will eventually be outgrown entirely, replaced by objective global resource management and technological organization. Government, thus becomes a technological system, which is only responsible for the production and distribution of goods, along with resource and environmental management. The most efficient decisions we can make are decisions that take into account all known relevant variables.”

Key words to look for… management and maximization. Objective global resource management denotes the recognition that resources are limited and as such need to be technically managed to ensure longevity and sustainability. This is what a technocracy aims to do.

You claim:

“Both cannot exist at once. You cannot have competition for limited resources and an abundance of those same resources to eliminate competition at the same time?”

A technocracy scientifically manages abundance so there are no limited resources for competition. If the resource in question is to limited, then the resource is not the scientifically sound one to use because it logically can’t be made abundant. Thus, this limited resource is replaced by a more renewable one that can be made abundant. If technology fails at finding a raw replacement, then would be technically designed. In return, there is no competition, so the logic of the argument your questioning is sound.

Have confidence, because the only thing certain in this world that is an UNlimited resource, is the power of technology and human innovation.

You state” For example, a technocracy does not presuppose “100% of everything (including raw materials) exist”. Yet, in your technocracy article it was stated “for if an abundance of all resources was readily available to everyone, there would be no need for government”. Are you now saying that is not true? Is this not a precondition to your technocracy in society to work?

If it does not presuppose such an existence – then there is value and competition of the scarcity of goods – the one thing you need to get rid of in order for abundance to rid society of criminals. If you don’t get rid of it we are back to greed and capitalism (in some form or another).

So which is it, does technocracy get rid this stuff by having an abundance of everything or do we have some form of a capitalistic society even with the advances of technology?

Both cannot exist at once. You cannot have competition for limited resources and an abundance of those same resources to eliminate competition at the same time?

I don’t think I got this wrong, but then again, maybe I am too dense to understand how you have opposites in a world solving each others problems by creating each other and then getting rid of each other at the same time. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how capitalistic competition for scarce resources will create an abundance of those same resources to eliminate capitalistic competition.

What is a loaded proof?

I am asking him to prove that the human concern is the priority in a free market. Your right, there is no way to prove it because the human concern is not priority in a free market, profit is. Profit is different from human concern. Although the two may serve each other, the main goal is profit.

You got “my world” wrongly interpreted. Between the two articles and my responses, cross apply your responses and You’ll see they don’t match up. Maybe our discussion should be verbal so the points are conveyed appropriately.

For example, a technocracy does not presuppose “100% of everything (including raw materials) exist”, as you claim.

You asked lptbruce “In a free market – or anarcho-capitalist society, the human concern would still be second to the profit motive. Prove otherwise” Now that is a loaded proof. LOL

By definition, in a free market society or any other type of capitalistic society, there will be the need for profit. It is about competition for the use of scarce resources. There is no way to prove otherwise.

I guess, he could come back and say to you. With scarce resources prove that your abundance theory will work. You won’t be able to because not all resources are abundant. Some are scarce and therefore valued more then others.

If you wanted to create a hypothetical world where 100% of all resources (including raw materials) are unlimited, then there would be no value and no competition. Once achieved, there would also be no motivation to increase any technology since everything is needed is already handled.

There would be no use of force since everything is readily available. There would be no use of fraud since nothing has value. There would be no need for a government because there would not be anyone competing for anything in any way shape or form. Crime would not exist.

In theory, if this world could be created and 100% of everything (including raw materials) existed, your point would be absolutely valid. Until it does, the argument is moot because there is no way to disprove it. Prove otherwise.

If they are irrelevant then you would not have technology. What incentive do I have to create anything other than for my own self interest in myself and my family? Once I solve that problem, why bother giving my invention to anyone else? What is my motivation for it?

Even if I take the IP idea out of the equation and write up the exact steps to create what I created and put it into a book somewhere. What would be my motivation to give that book to anyone? What would be my motivation to mass produce the book?

In your world, you would say that I should do it for “human concern”. But to do so costs money or whatever you use as value in your world. Where do I accumulate such a thing if not by making profit somehow to have enough to cover my personal needs and the new additional costs of producing the book for human concerns?

How is that profit irrelevant? How is that incentive irrelevant?

In a technocracy, there would be no government, so there would be no government to create the alternative reasons you provide that I claimed are caused by the profit incentive.

In a free market – or anarcho-capitalist society, the human concern would still be second to the profit motive. Prove otherwise.

Why bother perpetrating a system that requires money and property just so people can have the option of having cheap, un-technologically advanced product options. It doesn’t make sense. Why not have the most technologically advance products available to everyone and negate the need to the profit motive.

Remember, the most powerful contributions to society did not come from people seeking profit. Lui Pasture, Charles Darwin, The Wrights Brothers, and Sir Isaac Newton, did not make their massive contributions to society because of material self-interest. While it is true that useful inventions do come from the motivation for personal gain, the intent behind those creations typically have nothing to do with human or social concerns, and everything to do with detached self-interest and personal gain. The pursuit of profit always comes before human concern, and simple glance at the cancer causing preservatives in out food, and obsolescence of nearly everything manufactured, along with a healthcare industry that charges $300 for an antibiotic pill, will indicate that the profit incentive is actually a detriment.

Profit, incentive, lost opportunity costs, these concerns all become irrelevant.

What lptbruce is saying is that even though the 100 year old car is produced it would be sold at a much higher cost. The free market would them allow a buyer to choose between a cheap throw a way that last ten years and an expensive car that lasts 100 years. If the car company was worried about profit for years to come on the 100 year car – it simply needs to charge 10 times as much as their most expensive ten year car. Thus the problem would be solved as the profitability would be maintained.

Yes, most, if not all technology came from self-interest (you sadi personal gain also but then – isn’t that derived from self-interest?). I don’t think anyone would argue this fact, if they did they would need to go back and look at history.

You mentioned the pursuit of profit always comes before human concern – for this I would ask you to read my comments about opportunity costs and see if it fits as a counter argument that makes sense for you.

Your last statement “Thus, a property valuing society with a monetary based economy dictates that problems will only have a resolution if money can be made from solving those problems.” I am not sure is true. I think the invention would be found out of laziness or necessity. I would agree that if it is to be sold in a free market for the world at large to use it, it will be done based on profit. – Again – I think my comment on opportunity costs already covered this as well.

While it is true that useful inventions do come from the motivation for personal gain, the intent behind those creations typically have nothing to do with human or social concerns, and everything to do with detached self-interest and personal gain. The pursuit of profit always comes before human concern, and simple glance at the cancer causing preservatives in out food, and obsolescence of nearly everything manufactured, along with a healthcare industry that charges $300 for an antibiotic pill, will indicate that the profit incentive is actually a detriment. Thus, a property valuing society with a monetary based economy dictates that problems will only have a resolution if money can be made from solving those problems.

You say:

“the time value of an item with respect to wear out is one of the variables addressed in free markets. you can opt for throw aways — low cost or expensive (hopefully) commensurate quality/durability. having such options (although beyond liberal comprehension) is one of the strengths of the free market.”

Please rephrase. I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here, lol.

Thank you for reading the other article.

p.s. i read your latest article and am among the contributors to commentary thereon.

This is wrong when you say:
“with respect to law i agree that scarcity is unduly brought about. a free market economy however produces the most abundant conditions yet for human society.”

Go read my latest article titled property – should we really care?

A society that values property (free marketers) prioritizes profit, creates the need for cyclical consumption, and perpetuates an abundance of scarcity.

Think of it this way:

Today, we have the technology to make a car to last 100 years. However, no car company in the world would ever produce such a car because the number of cars they produce would be dramatically reduced. Thus the car company makes people indulge in cyclical consumption – to buy a limited technological design, further limited to only last about 10 years and requiring more cars to be purchased over time.

with respect to law i agree that scarcity is unduly brought about. a free market economy however produces the most abundant conditions yet for human society.

No, I am referring to technology taking over and we are all plugged in – LOL

All I have to say is, ugghhhhhhh. I don’t think you get what I’m saying. I’m not comparing two societies. I’m saying that a system of laws, combined with a monetary economy (free markets, etc) hinders technology from being expressed in its fullest potential. As a result, scarcity is perpetuated. Abundance, unlike scarcity, would solve back socioeconomic produced crime. There are no dots being connected – I was just warranting my argument that social conditions impact crime through the Merva-Fowler Study. There are no assumptions I am making here.

I have two articles out that supplement each other on this issue – but I think there is enough information here to make my point.

What does the Matrix have to do with this? lol
Are you referring to Philosopher Slavoj Zizek theory on “The Real”?

Oh – so you are the one who connected the dots – LOL.

OK – well you see the point about comparing the two societies, right?

I only asked you the curiosity question because if you created the technocracy it should have eliminated the need for the other stuff; yet, you still address it toward the end of your article. It didn’t make sense to me for you indicate it would go away and then still talk about it.

Matrix, here we come – LOL

Galambos felt that intellectual property owners should have primary control over their own ideas and over how others might secondarily use those ideas. A Technocracy would eliminate the need to value property. I just wrote an article on it. Check it out and let me know what you think please.

You had asked:

“Just out of curiosity, if you had all this abundance of resources and technologically solve our socio-economic problems, why would there be any crime. As your article indicated, all crime is based on socio-economic problems; if these problems went away there should not be any crime right? So what is there to address?”

You answered the question while asking it, lol. An abundance of resources through technology solves back the socio-economic problems that insights crime.

For the record just in case there was a misunderstanding, Linton just said the quote at the top of the article, I wrote the rest, lol.

I’ll research Galambos and give you my opinion.

Glad you enjoyed the article.

This sounds pretty much like Galambos as well. The scientific methodology used to solve our socio-economic problems. Can you say “Welcome to the Matrix”? LOL

Just out of curiosity, if you had all this abundance of resources and technologically solve our socio-economic problems, why would there be any crime. As your article indicated, all crime is based on socio-economic problems; if these problems went away there should not be any crime right? So what is there to address?

Also, I do agree that no one looks at the root cause of the crime and tries to fix the root cause. That is because most of the time it is based on greed, NOT need, as the article seems to imply.

None-the-less, we do have crime. Like the article states, we try to control it by threats and laws. This doesn’t seem to work here in America because we change them so often and they have permanent education when implemented. There are other things that can be done but here they would seem too cruel.

For instance, you could make the punishment fit the crime. If someone steals something, cut off his hand. If he steals again, cut off the other one. With no hands he cannot repeat the crime a third time. If some guy rapes a girl cut his thing off, then he cannot repeat the crime. These types of actions will leave a permanent educational mark in the criminal’s brain.

Of course, if we are going to go that far, we may as well just take it all the way to most extreme possible case for EVERY crime. Just kill anyone who commits a crime. Must people are self preservationists. If they know they will die for committing a crime, the deterrent would be enough to stop the crime. Unless of course the guy is suicidal, but then, once he is gone that problem goes away too.

If we get rid of everyone who ever commits a crime, there would be no need for prisons so that means we could save billions a year for the tax payers.

While I will not argue the Merva-Fowles study because I agree that crime increases when unemployment rises as I can see that just living in my own neighborhood. However, you should take these studies with a grain of salt. You see, with statistics, one can draw and picture they want.

You could take the same unemployment rate and compare that to the increase of new born children and say that the survival of a society as a whole is threatened unless more kids are born. Or you could compare it to inflation and say that a government who does not control inflation during that period will send itself into a depression.

There is any number of things you can manipulate data for. In this particular case it was used to give credence to the argument that no one looks at root causes. Unfortunately, the Merva-Fowles study did not say anything about root causes, only that there was a connection between increased crime and unemployment. Dr. Linton made that connection for us. So he is using someone else’s numbers to provide credence to his theory.

If Linton really wanted to do a comparison and give proof of his ideas he would take two places with high unemployment. He should have taken one that does not address root cause and one that does. Then, comparing the data between the two, he would have proof of what he was talking about. Until some society actually puts his theory to test we will not know for sure if it will work.

It does sound plausible so I will not discount his idea. I mean, it could be real, we saw the movie Matrix and everything in the movies are real aren’t they? Well, if not right now, maybe in the future. After all, life imitates art. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be facing Orwell’s “1984” world right now, would we?

Very nice article, I can how it might get one’s mental juices flowing as we witness the new technologies emerging on a daily basis. Is it possible that we are already moving toward a technocracy, we just don’t realize it yet?

The proposition I make presupposes such an advanced form of technology that it would not yield the flaws you pointed out. Additionally, in a Technocracy, there would be no incentive for people to engage in offensive behavior that result in the identity groups you mentioned above. This is due to people having access to an abundance of resources that easily result from technological advancement.

now despite these and other concerns (not thought of at this moment or they would also have been listed) the concept is intriguing. certainly wealth and liberty could be greatly enhanced by removing the shackles imposed by alien forces such as– (1)international (UN,WTO<NAFTA<etc (2) national and/or federal (DEA, EEOC,TSA<FDA,BATFE, etc (3) state (provincial) or city, county, town, municipal governance (4) religion when coercive such as involuntary imposition of shariah law as an example (5) corporate monopoly (achieved not by market process but through government largesse also known as corporate welfare) . this (inexhaustive) listing of some of our obstacles to peace,prosperity and liberty it would indeed be great to overcome.

technology though hasn't always worked out think barbed wire, zyklon b gas, nuclear bombs, etc

so — all in all – a qualified hooray for technology it has brought us light bulbs,cars,computers,ipods,television, personal protection(guns, burglar alarms, insurance), a choice of organic or conventional or designer foods, numerous housing styles, fashions, books, etc– all wonderful.

thus again lets hope cool heads prevail and a brighter — and less tyrannical– future awaits. if we could free ourselves of these political boobs and other obstructionists maybe the future could be good.