Thank you for the replies.
I would like to clarify a few answers
Corporations in a truly free market have to win daily elections. Voters(customers) vote (buy their product) or they don't. If they don't there's no authority that can force them. If no one can force them to buy from a corporation they don't like, the corporation goes bankrupt.
Monopolies in other words will simply lose power because of competition so long as the competition offers a product/service of equal or better quality (and are known/available)?
Capitalism is necessarily sustainable. The concept of capital requires continued positive cash flow. Unsustainable practices simple do not occur with private ownership in a capitalist society in the same manor as collective ownership. Looking at tree farms there is no monetary incentive to clear cut and salt the earth. But, in communal fishing estuaries there is no incentive for husbandry and we see overfishing. The 2009 Noble prize win in econ, Elinor Ostrom, provides some intriguing free-market and local governance alternatives to common pool resource problems.
So would companies that create air pollution or water pollution be forced to own the air or water (so to speak)?
Repressing technology to save a particular special interest sector is wealth destroying. Imagine if the carriage maker had successfully lobbied the government to ban the automobile.
It’s kind of how the EV1 (electric car) was “killed” in California a few years ago.
What job sectors are most available right now?
How will the current corrupt financial/corporate powers most likely be held accountable?
Now to explain why I’m asking these questions as a member of TZM
There are many misconceptions about how values would most likely be assessed within a Resource Based Economy.
The people would still ultimately determine what is best. The difference is that subjective values would have to be BASED on scientific proof. It’s like saying “I prefer eating fish over chicken” vs “I prefer eating fish over chicken because it is healthier”. While both may be interpreted as subjective, you can test and falsify the second claim. The current field of medicine is grounded in scientific proof so while medical practitioners may have different opinions they must PROVE their claims. A better example would be somebody claiming Ron Paul is insincere. His actions would disprove this claim.
And while computers may not assess EVERY problem we do rely on them heavily today for tasks such as directing airport traffic (to prevent midair collisions), weather forecasting, EMR’s (electronic medical records) and communication. Why isn’t there concern that computers directing airline traffic or computers holding ‘confidential’ patient records won’t suddenly shut down and lead to chaos? Trick question. People are concerned, which is why backup systems and preventative measures are put in place.
Since a resource based economy is global it can only come about by meeting the demands of the people. If it can’t then it won’t exist. That is, human emotional needs must be explored as much as the physical needs of survival. That also means the taboos of society, what people don’t want, must be explored and addressed in a humane way.
I’m not fearful of a Free Market nor a Resource Based Economy. Rather I am curious how the ‘fears’ (individual TZM members have) of technology limitations, helping the poor, and maintaining environmental sustainability will be addressed in a free market.
I honestly believe both systems could work but I’m particularly interested in the ‘checks and balances’ each system uses to ensure the $$$$ won’t hit the fan, again. Both systems could work as long as self interests don’t subjugate humane principles.
Like it or not, both groups are heading in the same direction. Think about it, both groups are strongly opposed to present day corruption and must limit the power of current financial powers before ‘their’ system can be implemented. Yet conflicts between both keep arising about future scenarios. Scenarios based on false assumptions from both sides.
An RBE will not come out of nowhere. It will be grounded in the scientific research and testing done at a demonstration city which will either prove or disprove the feasibility of an RBE. And this can only happen within a free market.
Regardless, the political and financial powers of the country must be stabilized before the collapse of the current monetary system otherwise we are all looking at massive suffering on a global scale. A free market addresses this problem. So while I will continue to support the creation of an RBE I realize the necessity of supporting a free market first. TZM can be a great ‘ally’ to your cause if you can address their concerns about the free market which are sustainability, pollution, coercion, technology, poverty, and most importantly human suffering.
I’m all for the peaceful competition debating the merits of an RBE and a free market after the current system is reformed.
