Log in

View Full Version : The worst thing that could happen to this world . . .


winwun
March 11th, 2009, 02:11 PM
If there was a "Magic Button" that if pushed, would suddenly and irrevocably cause everyone to immediately start living in strict accordance with the Ten Commandments, would you push it ?

Think before you say "yes", for you would unleash the worst catastrophe this world has ever seen . . .

I suggest that within 30 days, persons would be dying of starvation, and their cries would be accompanied by the wails of those powerless to help.

I believe that fully 90% of persons are engaged in occupations either directly or closely associated with those concerned with keeping us "honest" or "in line", and if those person were not needed, then their support economy would fold as well (no lawyers = no law books).

With the exception of a small contingent to handle natural disasters, the military, and consequently the military-industrial complex would be gone.

Scary -- so do something to help the economy, commit one of the BARROM crimes -- Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, (omit the O) or Murder.

Do your part -- be crooked . . .

Tsar Phalanxia
March 11th, 2009, 02:29 PM
That's flawed reasoning. By saying that "Oh, by commiting this crime, I'm providing finacial stimulus to the police" is not true, as that money would otherwise be spent on something that was more efficient, e.g. road repair, than trying to catch you. And if everyone was morally sound, then we could live in an Anarchist state, without a need for government and live happily for ever and evar.

winwun
March 11th, 2009, 02:48 PM
Hypothetical, Tsar:

Someone sledge-hammers the rear brick wall of a whisky store and makes off with the inventory and discounts it to other stores.

1. The burgled store has insurance coverage for such events.

2. The wholesaler fills a new order for the burgled store.

3. The manufacturer increases production to cover the need.

4. The insuror anticipated and figured the loss and the premium was based accordingly.

5. The police handle the crime as part of their work.

6. The burglar made money he otherwise would not have made.

7. Those purchasing the "hot" booze get a good deal at the discounted price.

8. The burglar's wife empties his billfold while he is sleeping 'till noon and supports the local economy.

I see this as win X 8.

Nobody loses.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the bricklayer gets a few days work repairing the hole in the whisky store . . .

Yiuel
March 11th, 2009, 04:45 PM
winwun : You don't get Tsar's point at all.

Say that, instead of investing 50 billion dollars in a police system, you get to have wall these ressources be spent on (oh yeah so wonderful!) a train system. When you do that :

1. Companies involved into building it will have money.
2. They will hire new employees, making more work.
3. In turn, these employees will pay for stuff to live, financing other companies.
4. These companies in turn will have to hire new employees as well, which will repeat the virtuous circle, so you basically have an endless circle of economical growth.

(To maintain it, however, you must be sure to import ressources that people may use. Otherwise, you're just creating a bubble that will ultimately explode, like what happen in the US just recently, or in Japan 20 years ago shortly after I was born. These ressources can turn out to be fairly immaterial however, so you don't need to import natural ressources endlessly. Just find useful (mostly) non-material ressources, like knowledge or entertainment.)

Also, you failed to understand how Insurrance companies make money.

Insurrance companies work because risk is never 100%. Not everything will happen to everyone. You might be burgled, but there are more chances that you will not be. Say you have 1/1000 to be burgled 100 000$ of stuff. The inssurance company will find around a few thousand peoples, and will ask each of them to pay around 1200$ each year (100$ per month). So, for a group of a thousand insured people, they will get 120 000$. Now, you, out of the 1000 people, get stolen. The insurrance company will pay you back 100 000$. So the company only makes 20 000$ ultimately. (Actually, a little more, since an intelligent company will invest part of the money they get to be sure they get more of it before claims).

Multiply by 10^3 (1 thousand), and the company will get 20 million dollars out of its proposal to insure your stuff. You'll still get your 100 000$ though, but various people elsewhere will have lost (YES, THEY LOOSE) their money into nothing. You're are hence not creating anything, just making sure you will not fall into povrety from an unfortunate event.

(If you understood the trick, making it bigger will make your profits bigger. And making it public will mean that all those profits (if any) will go for other services.

But really, if you could spare some of those inssurances, people could, instead of paying 1200$ a year for upgrades in services, only pay a meager 200$ (17$ per month, instead of 100$) and keep 1000$ for other personal uses.)

Tsar Phalanxia
March 11th, 2009, 06:22 PM
What Yiuel said :icon_cool:

sam the moderately wize
March 11th, 2009, 08:27 PM
I don't think forcing everyone to obey the 10 commandments is the worst thing that could possibly happen to this world. The worldwide triumph of a Faschist dictatorship coupled with a series of natural disasters that completely destroy modern society would be worse than that.

PS Kudos to Yiuel

winwun
March 12th, 2009, 01:19 AM
You guys are talking about what COULD be, and I am talking about what IS.

No one can deny that our whole socio-economic system is geared toward the premise that persons are dishonest, need watching, and when caught must be incarcerated.

If we suddenly switched over to everyone being a goody-two-shoes, my previous prognosis holds . . .

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 12th, 2009, 01:34 AM
The great thing about the human race is we are built to adapt and change. If we changed to all being goodie 2-shoes then we would adapt to it and the world would not collapse it would just change.

Daruko
March 12th, 2009, 09:05 AM
You guys are talking about what COULD be, and I am talking about what IS.
No, you're not.
Yuo are talking about the way the world seems to you, which is very unlike the way the world seems to anyone else anywhere else in the multiverse.
Not only does that not reflect much at all of what IS, but it stands to provide a very poor picture of anything else.

Simply put, yuo poor dumb sod, it's a very stupid way of looking at things, and you should stop trying to think entirely. Your still laem little "covert" christian trolling effort, homophobic inuendos, ignorant "it must be wrong if it's illegal" attempt at reasoning, your pathetic exercise in virtual limbaughism (hypocritical self-pwning fundamentalist ranting), "we must march the ivory tower and stop these bastards in power because we/i am/are the smartest and will do it right and they have it all wrong" mentality is unremarkable, unimpressive, and frankly makes we want to shit in your face and then watch you burn in a fire.

But hey, good points man! :icon_lol:

Tsar Phalanxia
March 12th, 2009, 11:34 AM
I smiled, sniggered, then ful out laughed whilst reading Daruko's comment.

djura
March 12th, 2009, 12:24 PM
sure some people make money on the fact that other people do bad shit to one another. Every socio-economic system on the planet treats crime as an anomaly rather than predictable human behavior. Sure, when planning governments tend to predict the amount of effort needed to keep the crime below certain level.
One other thing bothers me in winwuns statement - you speak of crime as it came out of nowhere, and people them selves are to blame for behaving like animals. I resent that.
People do bad shit in order to gain something - wealth, respect or just to get by. Nobody robes a liqueur store for no reason, or because they are afraid of actually doing some work. That's bullshit!
And did I get you right?!? Fuck good behavior because crime makes good economy? That's just plain retarded man. Crime makes BAD economy, and bad economy makes poor people, and poor people do crime just to get by. Nobody can be left a side in such system unharmed, no one survives alone, because in the end everyone's expendable.

winwun
March 12th, 2009, 05:16 PM
So, Djura, would you like to talk about it and let us know how it played out for you ? ?

Don't be bashful, just let your true self shine, through the transparency of your viewpoints . . .

tagnostic
March 12th, 2009, 06:48 PM
The argument comes down to
Is anti social behaviour human nature
or a result of socio-economic conditions

can we start over without the ad hominem's

Daruko
March 12th, 2009, 07:06 PM
can we start over without the ad hominem's
Then what further use would I have in this discussion?

tagnostic
March 12th, 2009, 07:16 PM
rofl,

comic belief?
jk

Daruko
March 12th, 2009, 10:44 PM
Here, I'll spew some in-context psychobabble (just to throw you off Tag :D )

Ppl often like to jump to conclusions about solutions without forming a proper understanding of the problems. I find that it is helpful to suspend conclusions as much as possible. Hypotheticals still arise, we still make decisions and so on, but one is a whole lot less apt to take the true solutions so srsly when one is still paying attention to observation and analysis (i.e., overturning personal b.s.). I've thought of captioning a t-shirt about this idea with the phrase "Stop Knowing. Try Thinking."

So what? Just sit around and think, and not DO anything? Not really. I'm not condoning apathy, but rather, I am attempting to illustrate a larger problem; ape-brained idiots trying to fix a world that other ape-brained idiots have been mucking up in the same fashion for ages. I would posit that one can hardly ever, if ever, reconcile the "big problems" (religion, -isms, ideologies, morality, etc.) on a mass scale with personal b.s., and form some coherent picture of what society needs.

That doesn't go to say we don't go ahead and fuck around anyway. I mean, we are human beings for fuck's sake. Let's have some fun... or not; live manic, get sick and die, fuck. But there's a big difference between the drives* of art and innovation and ideological warfare. Sometimes I entertain the thought that, sociologically speaking, trolling is some kind of ridiculous evolved reactionary product of ideological banter; i.e., SRS business, evangelism, conformity, speech suppression, will to power, etc.

*Ooh! Freudian Slip! :icon_razz:

rzm61
March 12th, 2009, 11:09 PM
tl;fo

tagnostic
March 13th, 2009, 02:06 AM
wow,
that worked.
Win to Daruko

Will.
March 13th, 2009, 03:40 AM
If there was a "Magic Button" that if pushed, would suddenly and irrevocably cause everyone to immediately start living in strict accordance with the Ten Commandments, would you push it ?

Think before you say "yes", for you would unleash the worst catastrophe this world has ever seen . . .

I suggest that within 30 days, persons would be dying of starvation, and their cries would be accompanied by the wails of those powerless to help.

I believe that fully 90% of persons are engaged in occupations either directly or closely associated with those concerned with keeping us "honest" or "in line", and if those person were not needed, then their support economy would fold as well (no lawyers = no law books).

With the exception of a small contingent to handle natural disasters, the military, and consequently the military-industrial complex would be gone.

Scary -- so do something to help the economy, commit one of the BARROM crimes -- Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, (omit the O) or Murder.

Do your part -- be crooked . . .


But isn't the ideal of the whole situation of the Ten Commandments is to be a good person and to do un to others as others would do un to you? So all in all if you pushed that button and it went biblical kung fu on our asses wouldn't the goal of the whole entity is to make a race of respect thy fellow man kind of people?

djura
March 13th, 2009, 11:01 AM
So, Djura, would you like to talk about it and let us know how it played out for you ? ?

Gladly.

Don't be bashful, just let your true self shine, through the transparency of your viewpoints . . .

Look, regardless of my true self, my viewpoints or whatever you find so offensive, most times the answer is in the books. The book you maybe failed to read is called BASIC ECONOMY, in most European countries, mandatory for first or second year of high school.
The good thing about this particular book is the fact that all the world runs on same principals, regardless of the country being socialist, capitalist, neo-capitalistic or whatever.
principal no.1 - In order to archive any profit one must create surplus value that is higher then input variables put together.
The difference between surplus value and input variables (such as materials used, energy etc.) - gross profit is taxed for the benefit of the whole system.
principal no.2 - In order to have a sustainable economic system, economic subject (a company, a factory or whole country) MUST have continually increasing growing rate. When annual growing rate drops below certain point (0,5% of gross national product) the business subject goes into recessive state. In other words economy starts to shrink.
principal no.3 - In a stock market orientated system (pretty much all systems in the world run this way) shrinking economy triggers a dis balance between offer and demand (buying power shrinks, as well as capital demand from companies that slow down production of goods). Stock attempts to compensate by withdrawing stocks from the market in an effort to negate the newly created dis balance. When stock markets can no longer do this, they collapse (what happened in 1929).

Now, crime targets the surplus value in an economic system, by not creating any and spending crime fighting fonds. It's like a parasite feeding on the host untill there is no more blood to suck.
If you rob a liqueur store it will not go back to business eminently, it takes some time to fix the damage, resupply, collect insurance (provided the store has insurance) etc. Therefor, the store will create that much less surplus value, in addition to police withdrawing fonds in order to find the perpetrator and send him to prison (again, costs money). The 8 people in chain you mentioned as 8Xwin actually have less profit then total amount of money spent in the process, so less money goes back to the system. This difference has to come from somewhere, and you've guessed it - TAXES!
The more crime happens, the higher the taxes (provided we don't all kill eachother in the crime process). The higher the taxes, the lesser the buying power of general public, and this leads, as I explained, to recessive state.
Now, if you rob a liquer store 400 times it is eventually going to close down. This will speed up the recession even further.
In other words, crime ani't good.

winwun
March 13th, 2009, 01:33 PM
Djur, I didn't find anything offensive about you or your thoughts or viewpoints, just a little tongue-in-cheek pointing out that your reply was brightly illustrating your own agenda, and gently suggesting that perhaps keeping your aims from your posts could be a good idea . . .

Back to my original contention of the disaster following a SUDDEN and very HYPOTHETICAL shift in the direction of our economy . . .

Your illustrations are likely correct, however I had little or no experience with European economics, having to work 40+ hrs per week in a cotton mill at age 14 (anyone want to discuss child labor laws here?), and your illustrations of a system that grew and is evolving is very likely correct, but AGAIN, it has no bearing on my presupposition of a SUDDEN shift in attitudes.

No one yet has been able to explain satisfactorily why more than 80% of our work force are engaged in jobs directly or indirectly (supportive) of industries dedicated toward checking or maintaining the honesty of everyone.

tagnostic
March 13th, 2009, 01:39 PM
Back to my original contention of the disaster following a SUDDEN and very HYPOTHETICAL shift in the direction of our economy . . .

how sudden & how large a shift?


No one yet has been able to explain satisfactorily why more than 80% of our work force are engaged in jobs directly or indirectly (supportive) of industries dedicated toward checking or maintaining the honesty of everyone.citation required


need to define terms for useful debate
(where's Wallsey?)

Yiuel
March 13th, 2009, 02:39 PM
No one yet has been able to explain satisfactorily why more than 80% of our work force are engaged in jobs directly or indirectly (supportive) of industries dedicated toward checking or maintaining the honesty of everyone.

Now, I shall laugh out loud badly.

One of my favorite comparaisons is between human society and our own body. Our body is pretty much an eusociety of cells. So deeply eusocialized that an individual cell mostly cannot survive on its own : individual cells are way too specialized. All our organs are part of this huge eusociety. And we can find a few similarities between our body, and human society.

Our body is divided into multiple organs : groupment of cells forming tissues, them in turn forming organs, them in turn forming systems some of them further grouping into bodywide systems together forming our great body. Take our limbs. Formed of muscles, nerves, bones and other small organs, their ultimate purpose is to gather food (natural ressources) to our mouth by moving around.

This food goes in our mouth, which, along the whole digestive system is there to make sure food enters the body. (Only air enters by another system.) When food (and air) enters, it all goes into our blood. It is further processed by the liver, to transform food into elements that can be used by cells. These elements are then distributed all over the place, to the brain (the body's controller), to the heart (the pump pushing blood all over the place), to the digestive system, to the kidneys, who are there to dispose of the junk let by the cells in the bloodstream.

But we have not spoken of that last, very useful system. This is our immune system, composed of white cells and control centers producing them or checking whether there is any dangerous activity occuring in the body. Its purpose : with skin, keep out viruses, bacterias and alien tissue outside the body. If the skin breaks, leucocytes (white cells) rush there to destroy the invader (other cells will take care of reparing the skin-wall). Internally, they also serve the purpose of killing of cancerous cells, and making sure they don't affect the healthy ones. Really, they make sure the whole body does run amoke, filling with intruders and rebellers that don't give but take everything.

Well, the brain keeps control over it, the digestive system gives it food, the lungs will give air, kidneys will get rid of what they have as junk, even our limbs will make sure our digestive system has enough food for even those little policemen and soldiers in our bodies. The whole body is related directly or indirectly to the immune system.

Well... This is no different with our police and military. Their purpose : getting rid of invaders after they have entered, and kicking out or killing out those from the inside that turn against the other systems, the social cancer. And, to have these, you have to support them with ressources, so all the industries will take a part of what they produce to support these. Society's digestive system are our industries. The limbs? Those merchants and explorers and other ressource seekers. The brain? Our politicians and other people working out how thing should be controlled. Our kidneys? Trash and recycling. They'll all take a part in taking care of the police, and they will in turn take care of all the other systems within society.

Now, let's return to our dear body. What if all viruses, all bacterias and any alien tissue would avoid the body? What if there were no cancer anymore? What you are saying, with your OP, is that without these, because the "police et al." would have no purpose, the whole society would collapse. But our body will live very well without its police if it has no need of it at all. Limbs will still look for food, the digestive system with the liver will take care of it to make sure it enters the body, the circulatory system will distribute it to the various cells, the nervous system will take care of directing everything, the kidney will still trash away everything they all do.

However, they would have one system they wouldn't need, and it would slowly reduce itself into non-existence : the immune system. Why give it any food : it serves no purpose at all. I'll take the food and give it to other cells, like those of my limbs, to have MOAR food. Like those of my digestive system to have MOAR treated food. Like those of my circulatory system to have it MOAR quickly. And we could go like that for every other system.

Why would it be different with human society? The ressources the industries produce will be placed in other industries (bigger liver, bigger digestive system), or perhaps in more miners and food producers (limbs). Or perhaps will it let us have better fed administrators and, hopefully, smarter (brain). Perhaps it would invest in better roads and rails (circulatory system), or maybe a more efficient way to take care of trash (kidney). Or maybe it wouldn't do that, and instead have the people (cells) work a little more slowly, and thus not causing them stress, so aging less quickly.

In our society, the police is linked to everything because we work as a gestalt : the police cannot exist without ressources being brought to it. In our world, the immune system exists because there are viruses, bacterias and cancers to protect the body from. The police exists because there are burglars, murderers and Madoffs (that was a big cancer!). The body cannot exist without the immune system, and society cannot exist without the police (or an equivalent) because without it, it would be completely exposed to the silliness of other cells, or humans. But get rid of the attacks, you don't need anyone to protect yourself, and you'll survive pretty well, and even better.

(Oh, as a side joke, what is the equivalent of inssurance companies? Fat cells, obviously. They fill themselves with fat (ressources) and when disaster occurs and the body (society) need food (ressources) quickly it will use some provided by the fat cells (insurrance companies). Oh, and yes, it's pretty natural that we might want to have fat cells, but also that they might not get too big or we'll slow down.)

Tsar Phalanxia
March 13th, 2009, 02:40 PM
What terms do you need to define?

EDIT: Awesome post Yiuel. Couldn't sum it up any better. Where did you get the analogy from?

Yiuel
March 13th, 2009, 02:50 PM
EDIT: Awesome post Yiuel. Couldn't sum it up any better. Where did you get the analogy from?

Myself.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 13th, 2009, 02:55 PM
Good stuff. *Thumbs up*

tagnostic
March 13th, 2009, 05:05 PM
"sudden" in a societal sense
and "shift"
what defines a societal "shift"
and over what time period can/does it occur?

Daruko
March 13th, 2009, 06:23 PM
seems relative to the model your using, and what your using it for.

tagnostic
March 13th, 2009, 06:54 PM
careful, D,
your
intellect is showing

Daruko
March 13th, 2009, 08:31 PM
careful, D,
your
intellect is showing
ofuk

pclamb
March 13th, 2009, 09:42 PM
r u retarded? i know for a fact only a third would perish...i can live with that...

rmw
March 13th, 2009, 11:55 PM
r u retarded? i know for a fact only a third would perish...i can live with that...

The irony--it burns.

Yiuel
March 14th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Good stuff. *Thumbs up*

I have years of reflexion behind me, despite my young age. If you need more, don't hesitate, I can say more of those things that seem intelligent.

Daruko
March 14th, 2009, 02:34 AM
I have years of reflexion behind me, despite my young age. If you need more, don't hesitate, I can say more of those things that seem intelligent.
Preach it, brother Yiuel.

djura
March 14th, 2009, 12:31 PM
Djur, I didn't find anything offensive about you or your thoughts or viewpoints, just a little tongue-in-cheek pointing out that your reply was brightly illustrating your own agenda, and gently suggesting that perhaps keeping your aims from your posts could be a good idea . . .


Glad we understand each other, however I'm not trying to inflict my views or opinions on anyone. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I honestly couldn't care less what someone thinks. I respect them nevertheless.
If, however, someone asked my opinion I expect same respect, so if you don't like what I think that's just too damn bad.


Back to my original contention of the disaster following a SUDDEN and very HYPOTHETICAL shift in the direction of our economy . . .

Your illustrations are likely correct, however I had little or no experience with European economics, having to work 40+ hrs per week in a cotton mill at age 14 (anyone want to discuss child labor laws here?), and your illustrations of a system that grew and is evolving is very likely correct, but AGAIN, it has no bearing on my presupposition of a SUDDEN shift in attitudes.


I pulled 40+ hours per week when I was 16 and I lived in the US - this is how I bought my first ever computer. That was in 1991 (I still have 386SX with 1 Mb ram around somewhere and it runs). From this given perspective little would change if SUDDEN change should occur, but than again it is ONLY what I think.


No one yet has been able to explain satisfactorily why more than 80% of our work force are engaged in jobs directly or indirectly (supportive) of industries dedicated toward checking or maintaining the honesty of everyone.

This has to do with math, from what I can see. Let's neglect for a sec that actual number of police in Germany (only info I could find) as well as technical staff, companies that supply police gear etc. is BELOW 0,5% total working population.
If what you say is true, 80% workforce spends fonds in part supplied by them selves (they pay taxes too), but most of the money comes from 20% total working population. Now, US does invest in health care system as it currently takes 13th place in the world (right above Slovenia). So, some money must go there as well. And what about govermant pension fonds, govermant owned power plants, infrastructure projects, keeping fuil cost low (subventions form the govermant, and btw. fuil is 3 times more expensive in Serbia then in US), not to menshen all other shit that HAS to be done in order to keep 260 million people country running. It is a rough calculation, but it seems to me that for every dollar erned by non military/police personal, additional $16 should be taxed away. I know for a fact that I pay higher taxes than you guys (20% net income tax, 18% VAT, 21,7% tax for renting office space, 7% monthly tax for mandatory healt insurence, anual car tax that is calculated in proportion to engine power...)
and Serbian supports only 1,8% govermant/militarry/police/community work/social worker aparatus - considered extrimly HIGH number.
So another words, whoom ever told you the 80% thing is eather a moron or wery missinformed person, since any country would collapse under it'sown weight after 5 minutes or so.

I mean no disrespect, but please check your shit before you post next time.

winwun
March 14th, 2009, 01:05 PM
Do you consider as inconsequential the vast mumbers involved in bookkeeping, accounting, credit reporting, credit cards, banking, as well as supporting industries, none pf which (Oh, BTW, did I mention lawyers, judges, and the court systems) would be needed if everyone suddenly turned "honest". ? ? ?

The "incarceration" industry . . .

Get your census book down and read the numbers employed in such occupations and your eyes will open . . .

To suggest that the police comprise the whole of the "watching and checking" industry and economy is laughable . . .

djura
March 14th, 2009, 01:31 PM
Do you consider as inconsequential the vast mumbers involved in bookkeeping, accounting, credit reporting, credit cards, banking, as well as supporting industries, none pf which (Oh, BTW, did I mention lawyers, judges, and the court systems) would be needed if everyone suddenly turned "honest". ? ? ?

The "incarceration" industry . . .

Get your census book down and read the numbers employed in such occupations and your eyes will open . . .

To suggest that the police comprise the whole of the "watching and checking" industry and economy is laughable . . .

Every business needs bookkeeping not for being dishonest but rather for knowing if one made any profit or not. Same reason with accounting. Credit business is a for of lending people money, right now this particular industry isn't making any money what so ever. Insurance covers the cost of making bad decisions - again one doesn't need to be dishonest to be stupid.
As far as Judges and lawyers go, it's a whole other story and you may have a point there, but it's only a small number of people considering the whole apparatus.
need to rush, to be continued latter!

pclamb
March 14th, 2009, 07:51 PM
no police...bad...bad...

Tsar Phalanxia
March 14th, 2009, 08:40 PM
no police...bad...bad...

Debate fail :\

Yiuel
March 14th, 2009, 10:09 PM
Debate fail :\

winwun did not answer to my own post. Probably too long :P

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 15th, 2009, 08:52 AM
No one answered mine thus is the way of life.

djura
March 16th, 2009, 09:59 AM
or it might be just you :icon_twisted: (just kidding)

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 16th, 2009, 11:44 AM
I knew it! *hurls self of cliff!*

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 01:33 PM
quick
grab on to
the "cliff notes"