Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Most hunter gatherers do not adopt fiscal tokens for transaction. All property and resources are communally owned. Implementing that into an industrial post capitalist civilization, would require a paradigm shift of epic proportion. Certainly.

Paradigm shift....yeah, it would be.
Are you seriously proposing that we all
adopt a hunter gatherer economy?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

"Unregulated" is another straw man. It's highly regulated
here & elsewhere. The issue is always what kind of
regulation best serves the country. I've advocated for
various kinds of regulation.

Deregulation is seldom a benefit to worker or consumer. Especially of things like, safety standards or food hygiene.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Paradigm shift....yeah, it would be.
Are you seriously proposing that we all
adopt a hunter gatherer economy?

No. That would not be feasible. A credit debit system might be workable. For another thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dude.

I'm too old & neuronontypical to be called "dude".
I suggest "geezer", "codger", or "coot".

Person who has spent time and effort communicating with me. I appreciate your patience and civility. If I have insulted you, I apologize.

No worries.
You've been gentle compared to others.
At least you didn't tell me to choke to death on my own bile.
(One of my favorite ad hominems endured.
Rules prohibit saying who said it.)

However I am emotively invested. Let me put it this way. I am a left leaning cynicist who is descended from stock deemed unacceptable to exist by Nazis. Thus. When I hear Nazis compared to the loving decent kind leftist well meaning heart bleeders. I gets a little testy. Anyway. No offence. No malicious intentions intended. As i hinted before. This subject is close to the bone. Closer than most.

I sympathize (to the extent I can).
Note that I'm rather empathy challenged, & not
keen on social niceties or sensitivity to feelings.
Meh....we are who we are. So tolerance is useful.

Lo! The theme of the thread has reared its head.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. That would not be feasible. A credit debit system might be workable. For another thread.

Credit & debit is a double entry accounting feature.
It's used to track the flow of money. So you're
proposing money by a different name.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Credit & debit is a double entry accounting feature.
It's used to track the flow of money. So you're
proposing money by a different name.

Basically. Every time you take from the system a numerically quantified debit is listed to your legal identity, your ledger. So if you walk into a food distribution centre, if you leave with a tin of peas. A quantified debit is awarded. Conversely, every time you provide your labour, a credit is awarded. Say you volunteer to work for a hospital as a nurse. For 25 hours a week. A quantity of credit is awarded.

Here's the two fundamental aspects of the system, that are key.

1. You do NOT need credits to obtain anything, credits are not units of value for transaction. Credits/Debits are a numerical qualification of your net contribution to the economy and thus society.
(With caveats. Which I won't go into yet. For example a reasonable cap on annual consumption per capita)

2. Everyone's ledger, is entirely and instantly transparent to everyone else.

As said. A paradigm shift would be necessary to enact an economic system based on universal mutual awareness and the following societal pressure and reduction of opportunity, on those who are a drain and lazy or predatory and greedy, like the one above. I am not expecting much interest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Basically. Every time you take from the system a numerically quantified debit is listed to your legal identity, your ledger. So if you walk into a food distribution centre, if you leave with a tin of peas. A quantified debit is awarded. Conversely, every time you provide your labour, a credit is awarded. Say you volunteer to work for a hospital as a nurse. For 25 hours a week. A quantity of credit is awarded.

Here's the two fundamental aspects of the system, that are key.

1. You do NOT need credits to obtain anything, credits are not units of value for transaction. Credits/Debits are a numerical qualification of your net contribution to the economy and thus society.
(With caveats. Which I won't go into yet. For example a reasonable cap on annual consumption per capita)

2. Everyone's ledger, is entirely and instantly transparent to everyone else.

As said. A paradigm shift would be necessary to enact an economic system based on universal mutual awareness and the following societal pressure and reduction of opportunity, on those who are a drain and lazy or predatory and greedy, like the one above. I am not expecting much interest.

So government would determine what I'm worth, &
what I'm entitled to, eh. Sounds too much like China.
I think such a system would inspire violent rebellion.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

So government would determine what I'm worth, &
what I'm entitled to, eh. Sounds too much like China.
I think such a system would inspire violent rebellion.

No. That's a misrepresentation. Has nothing in common with any Chinese program or system. Nor does government determine your net economic effect nor your entitlement. Consistent negative demonisation is truly your forte.
I withdraw from this thread. Thanks for all responses.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. That's a misrepresentation. Has nothing in common with any Chinese program or system. Nor does government determine your net economic effect nor your entitlement. Consistent negative demonisation is truly your forte.
I withdraw from this thread. Thanks for all responses.

Not everyone will be a fan of what I infer from their posts.
But yours still strikes me as very big brotherish, eg, the PRC.
Far too much government judgment of, & control over us IMO.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Not everyone will be a fan of what I infer from their posts.
But yours still strikes me as very big brotherish, eg, the PRC.
Far too much government judgment of, & control over us IMO.

Judgement? Control? I don't see that at all in my post above. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. To automatically suspect everything as some insidious plot to control you. Oh well, no worries. I wasn't really expecting much support for the idea, it was just a suggestion of a way to operate an egalitarian system within the context of a post Industrial planetary civilization. Without fiscal transactions. Nevermind.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Not everyone will be a fan of what I infer from their posts.

Indeed. That is increasingly true for me it seems. However I don't normally see eye to eye with libertarians. We are very different people. So it's cool. Constant disagreement is to be expected.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Either I've been spending too much time on Reddit, or there is an uprising in a certain political agenda that I believe would lead us straight to fascism. It's typically known as the "woke culture". I'm sure it's been talked about on here before.

I recently saw a Reddit post where a guy sporting a Swastika on his shoulder got punched in the face by a black guy. Thousands of comments were praising this, and it worries me.

I got into a debate in the thread that followed, I voiced my opinion that physical resentment to nonphysical opinion is exactly what the problem is in society. I argued that attacking these narrow minded sort of people just creates hate all around: 1) The Neo-nazi being attacked is going to be reinforced in his hate people of color because of this experience, 2) Neo-nazi's and other racists and bigots that saw the video are going to have their hate reinforced also. 3) Anti-white racists (which also seems to be a growing thing) are going to have their hate reinforced seeing this "justice" in action. .... etc. ---- A non-violent approach to the Neo-nazi would've spoken more, it would've shown peace from the person of color's side and influenced some bigot opinions to think "PoC aren't so bad", it would've reinforced the idea into some Anti-white racists that peace is a better reaction, etc. The Neo-nazi that was attacked may have been so relieved that he could've become more trusting or accepting of PoC - or not, but whatever the outcome it would've certainly been better than the reinforced hate from being decked in the face.

The debate eventually escalated into freedom of speech, whether or not we should tolerate the intolerant in society. I argued that people shouldn't be attacked for their opinions, they should be kept in check by reason and logic. When the bigoted opinions are no longer willing to meet at the level of reason and become harassment, that's when retaliation is necessary. Simply wearing a Swatsika is NOT harassment.

-----

The main point I'd like to discuss is how important it is to keep freedom of speech truly free. We shouldn't silence anybody for any opinion. Opinions aren't threatening, actions are. If we are to limit what a person is allowed to preach, speak about, believe, then that's the fertile grounds for fascism. If you are familiar with 1984, I think the Thought Police would become a literal thing if we start arresting people for wearing Swatsikas, using wrong gender pronouns, voicing their dislike for homosexuality - just like if we started arresting people for wearing BLM symbols, identifying as non-binary, or voicing their dislike for Christianity. It's all the same.

Unlimited freedom of speech and nonviolent protest is how minorities speak for themselves, and it doesn't matter if these minorities are bigots, everybody deserves the right to stand up for themselves against what they believe is oppression. Once we start silencing people, where does it end? Once Father Government has control over the words we say then the next thing you know we'll be unable to speak against the government at all.

I'm not a very political person, but that's something I know for a fact. We need to stop this censorship crap. We can't be banning stand-up comedians for offending us, we can't be punching people in the face for wearing symbols that offend us, we can't be accusing people of being transphobic or racist for any little thing people say (that's harassment just as much as actual transphobia and racism is). The majority will always speak the loudest, but this doesn't mean the minority should have no say. Are we really becoming better as a society by doing this thing, or just remaining the same but turning the tables?

Dear The Sum of Awe,

Liberty for "the intolerant", hmm. That depends, I suppose, on how the intolerance in question is expressed. Is it solely expressed in words...? Few things are, really. More often than not, words either lead to or inspire to action and while actions express opinion, by law, actions are different.

So, while we (should) all be at liberty to turn away from people we do not wish to listen to*, we may not in fact be at liberty to punch those same people in the face for what they say.

*) As I get older, I find that I do this a lot


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Revoltingest]

Judgement? Control? I don't see that at all in my post above. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. To automatically suspect everything as some insidious plot to control you. Oh well, no worries. I wasn't really expecting much support for the idea, it was just a suggestion of a way to operate an egalitarian system within the context of a post Industrial planetary civilization. Without fiscal transactions. Nevermind.

It's how your plan looks to me.
If not government, who would allocate the debits & credits?

 

[Revoltingest]

...I don't normally see eye to eye with libertarians.

Very few here do.
Ever visited these threads?
Political Compass Test
RF-Wide Political Compass
Political Compass Results

 

[Azrael Antilla]

It's how your plan looks to me.
If not government, who would allocate the debits & credits?

The debit award of goods, could be calculated algorithmically and awarded digitally automatically, these algorithms accounting for parameters like the availability/demand and energy costs of making the product, it's essentiality, carbon cost, etc to determine how much debit an item incurs. At some point however yes there has to be human input. Democratically mandated with any luck.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Very few here do.
Ever visited these threads?
Political Compass Test
RF-Wide Political Compass
Political Compass Results

Il check em out.

 

[Revoltingest]

The debit award of goods, could be calculated algorithmically and awarded digitally automatically, these algorithms accounting for parameters like the availability/demand and energy costs of making the product, it's essentiality, carbon cost, etc to determine how much debit an item incurs. At some point however yes there has to be human input. Democratically mandated with any luck.

Who designs, implements, & enforces the algorithms?
Would we be allowed to engage in economic activity
outside of this system?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Who designs, implements, & enforces the algorithms?
Would we be allowed to engage in economic activity
outside of this system?

Details sir, mere details. Where there is a will there is a way.

As for your second query I don't immediately see why not. So long as I guess we're talking about barter.

 

[Revoltingest]

Details sir, mere details. Where there is a will there is a way.

Don't need much detail.
Would the algorithms & enforcement be in the
province of government or private industry?

As for your second query I don't immediately see why not. So long as I guess we're talking about barter.

What if we wanted to use cryptocurrency
after government eliminated money?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Don't need much detail.
Would the algorithms & enforcement be in the
province of government or private industry?

What if we wanted to use cryptocurrency
after government eliminated money?

There wouldn't technically be any private industry. I envisage a scientific and democratically mandated approach to the implementation and design of algorithms.

Crypto currency is money, and money would undermine the system. Probably.