andyh wrote:
Your slavery scheme is much worse than a few people avoiding tax with created wealth, which is different to wealth taken from others. Do you understand that there is not a finite pot of wealth?

Space Bandit wrote:

andyh wrote:
A better way is to prevent excesses, tax evasion and return control of money to the people. Your approval of a slave system is frankly disgusting.

simulacra wrote:
That's not what I'm suggesting. It does appear to be what andy and mike are suggesting though (whether they know it or not), and they advocate slavery as a way to do this.

You and I happen to agree with each other it seems

Barnfish wrote:
It's already been demonstrated in reality that whatever happens in a money system the end result will be the same.
Either you have an authoritarian gvt to regulate it (evil) or it just goes off on its own thing & you'll get even worse results. (evil)
There wouldn't be a need to enslave people - everything is done for you as best as possible with regards to the earth's resources using technology. As I've pointed out above, removing structural abuse from society will actually create a better quality of person especially with better education, but there'll probably always be people who try & spoil everything by being "evil" so I don't really see the relevance on whatever paradigm is operating.

Space Bandit wrote:
I work for pay. That is not slavery. Wage slave is a contradiction peddled by people like you who want to force others to work for free.

andyh wrote: This is terribly incoherent and tangential.

Money is a means of exchanging use values, that is it's intrinsic value, it's universal acceptance as a means of exchange, if you give a shoesmith money he will mend your shoes, he will use the money to buy more leather and pins from a tanner and a pin maker who will use the money to procure more raw materials or services they need to produce their commodified service or product, it's an ongoing cycle.

Barnfish wrote:
That isn't what SB has said at all and I don't understand how you've gotten that from what he said?

psketti wrote:
Mikey said it, and SB and andy are advocating the same true slavery based system.

SilvaRizla wrote:
Yes... I've just described it but you've ignored it for your own convenience and ideological one-upmanship. It creates vast inequality by favouring the rich which leads to more or less all the worlds biggest problems.
That is unarguable.... because it's a matter of fact.


What happens if money doesn't change hands? In the society envisaged it would no longer be relevant. Whatever you believe it is achieving now simply doesn't work for the majority of the world. Face it... because it's undeniable truth!

Space Bandit wrote:
How is your plan better than the existing set up when you have no way of preventing abuses and will allow millions to be turned into slaves?

SilvaRizla wrote:
Absolutely yes.
If I ask for my wages in such payment though it will be refused, not only that but taxes can only be paid by law with such legal currency as stipulated.
And absolutely yes its an exchange of services or items, assuming that such items actually have value and what were asked for in contract of trade, if not then fraud is involved which is criminal act. If said fraud leads to labour under false pretences then it is slavery is it not?

Barnfish wrote:
^Translation, slavery != slavery...LMFAO!!

psketti wrote:
It is exactly what he has said. he wants no money and people to exchange goods and services. But what about the people with no goods or services to exchange? They will have to work for the other person instead at a rate determined by the other person. So just as with the present system some will get very rich and others will be poor. The difference is that the poor are now slaves to the rich.

Space Bandit wrote:
Money itself and the movement of it doesn't create inequality in itself. It is the corruption of certain bodies in the system that does this. You said these numbers changing hands isn't relevant to GDP. This isn't true. It boosts GDP as people do more work, which is something you seem to understand anyway as you know that it becomes worthless if it totally ceases to circulate.

Money as an entity is ESSENTIAL if you don't have a skill that EVERYONE needs ALL THE TIME.

Barnfish wrote:
You work for pay. That pay is exchanged for other people's work for pay. (wage slavery)
I've never suggested forcing others to work for free..... feeble strawman.

Barnfish wrote:
How does the existing plan NOT do that already?
Do you work for goldman sachs btw?

SilvaRizla wrote:


Struggling?

andyh wrote:
Being paid is not slavery. Not being paid is slavery. You promote slavery. That is vile. The term wage slave is peddled by those who want to enslave others in the true sense of slavery. People like you who want others to toil for nothing.

SilvaRizla wrote:
What I actually advocate is an anarcho-syndicalist co-op system which makes use of the present economic system and sabotages it by making use of its own loopholes via self employment and ltd companies within a corporation and ownership of its own resources,labour and equal division and recycling of pay and equal voting controlling rights by the workers for the workers instead of for rich shareholders.

I would then and only then out of such a system propose some sort of transitional system towards what TVP is like and even then not exactly like TVP because I believe some of Fresco's proposals are very wrong.

Bear that very strongly in mind because myself and many others on the forum feel exactly the same way, I don't know anyone who supports TVP exactly as it is now or somehow expects it to magically happen