Barter vs Money ... and End to Evil?

Speaking of doing, why not start with what makes your opinion so special? Obviously, you are full of it, so why not share your mental knowledge on why your opinion is so salty?

So what's Frank's big understanding? What's Frank's contribution to Religion and Spiritualaity?

Besides his name?

Light, what do you perceive a Freudian? The 'freudian slip' comes to mind. What is Jungian about my philosophy? I'm unfamiliar with his area of expertise. Maybe once you describe what you perceive to be so nightmarish about my philosophy, then we can get pass the assuption that my goals somehow alienate you.

Fruedian could be that your mother never toilet trained you but then I would be continuing to be facetious in something that cannot be taken that seriously. Anyway, some time back even though I relented to participate, the thread was hijacked and pulled into the realm of your little pet philosphies. Please start your own threads (although as we type, it may be in the control panel now being split off into a discussion in Philosophy where it belongs and where I will likely abstain from further comment. I hope that's clear.

If you would learn to read or have someone read my comment to you, you would see that I did not say that "money is not the problem."

What I said was that your statement "Money is the reason for all life's woes" -- is just plain wrong.

And it is.

I also said: "The love of money and the search for money indeed are part of many of the woes with which we humans deal -- but money is not the reason for all life's woes -- not by a long shot. "

I also responded to your quip "Show me a person were money is not somehow invovlved in the problems of their life, and I'll show you someone who has absolutely no idea what 'money' is or what it's for"...

...by saying "...very, very few of the problems in my life (few that there are) derive from money or the lack of it -- and I absolutely have a idea of what money is and what it is used for. "

Fact is, Doctor, you are a purveyor of very trite, simplistic philosophy -- and you really don't like it when people point that out to you.

Tough!

This is the Internet. Live with it.

You also seem to have a habit of not dealing with what a debating opponent actually says -- and instead you distort it in paraphrase -- and then arguing against the paraphrase.

Tactics like that marks you as a chump.

Portal Star
Enthusiast



Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 262
Location: www.marikofrost.com
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:01 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartering would ruin my career. I would only be able to sell my art to people who had somthing I wanted. Then I would have to figure out how many pieces of cow were worth a painting. Anything I wanted, I would have to go find someone who had it, and try to get them to buy what I had. There probably wouldn't be any computers, or any internet (like these forums on which you so like to post). Also, cars couldn't be sold, because no one person would have enough things to trade for an entire car and car manufacturers. There would probably be no restaurants, as there would be no standards for the cooked food. Inexpensive shoes and well made clothing would also be out. There wouldn't be recorded music for sale.

The only thing money does is provide a common standard for which to barter. Some tribes still use seashells as this common value go-between. Because everyone believes in it, it has value. I like that I can buy things without the tremendous complication involved in bartering.

To have a bartering society, we would have to go back to being farmers and raising livestock. Maybe also producing simple machines and simple goods and services which one or a very few people could make. There would be no mass production, and probably not a lot of art. I doubt our overcrowded land could support everyone on subsistence farming. I know I would rather be painting for my living then farming, or blacksmithing.

I think bartering should be allowed, tax free, but it definately shouldn't replace money. I'm shocked that you would make such a ridiculous argument, soul doctor.

soul_doctor73
Enthusiast in Training



Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 86
Location: Florida
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:29 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Star wrote:
Bartering would ruin my career. I would only be able to sell my art to people who had somthing I wanted. Then I would have to figure out how many pieces of cow were worth a painting. Anything I wanted, I would have to go find someone who had it, and try to get them to buy what I had. There probably wouldn't be any computers, or any internet (like these forums on which you so like to post). Also, cars couldn't be sold, because no one person would have enough things to trade for an entire car and car manufacturers. There would probably be no restaurants, as there would be no standards for the cooked food. Inexpensive shoes and well made clothing would also be out. There wouldn't be recorded music for sale.

The only thing money does is provide a common standard for which to barter. Some tribes still use seashells as this common value go-between. Because everyone believes in it, it has value. I like that I can buy things without the tremendous complication involved in bartering.

To have a bartering society, we would have to go back to being farmers and raising livestock. Maybe also producing simple machines and simple goods and services which one or a very few people could make. There would be no mass production, and probably not a lot of art. I doubt our overcrowded land could support everyone on subsistence farming. I know I would rather be painting for my living then farming, or blacksmithing.

I think bartering should be allowed, tax free, but it definately shouldn't replace money. I'm shocked that you would make such a ridiculous argument, soul doctor.


The reason money is the problem is because of need. For EXAMPLE: basic needs cost money. I.E. if you have no money, you go without. Now my whole pretense to destroying money would be to destroy the structure of need. If all needs are provided for equally among all men, then you could ,theoretically, sit in your home and paint all day from sun up to sundown. And then barter your paintings away for WHAT EVER YOU WANTED. And not what you, like every other human being alive, NEEDS to SURVIVE.

Now paint that picture. All I care about is the ones who can't survive. The ones who can't eat when they want. The ones who can't go where they want, when they want, to do what they want. Cause not everyone lives like *we* do. And apparently I am the only one who notices, or cares to.

Oh and destroying the structure of need would eliminate the wasted occupance of leaders. They do nothing now, they could do even more of nothing then.

When people have no needs, they have no motivation. They get lazy. And, if you look at the fall of the soviet union, and the horrors of communist China, applied socialism in large countries doesn't work.

Let's say you don't have to go to work, and you'll get money whether or not you go to work, would you go to work?
Who would grow all this food, if they get paid either way?
Who will build the machines, if they get paid either way?
Who will be the janitors?
Would -you- go to work, if you got paid whether or not you worked? If you did go to work, knowing you couldn't get fired, what would be the quality of your work?

Many (not all) homeless people are homeless because they don't want to get jobs, and can make pretty good money sitting around begging. Are they productive members of society? Are they beneficial to other members in a society?

I know more than one woman who lives off of welfare, doesn't work, is violent and rascist, and has children so that she (they) get more welfare (who one of which occasionally beats, both are uneducated). Do we want to contribute our labor to give them that paycheck at the end of the month? That keeps them making more babies, who will perpetuate the cycle of debt, live off welfare, and make even more babies?

Also, by providing for everyone (if that was actually possible) there would be no selection, and humans would overpopulate. Then they would run out of food, or room, and there would be chaos and much death.

Not to mention that high population densities cause epidemics. The more people one comes in contact with each day, the more chances there are to pass on a contagious disease. Ex: the bubonic plague, cholera.

Since we've covered materialism already I'll say that No money, means just that. No Money. Not 'free' money.