A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And you are assuming that they will. Your assumption has no more weight than Lady Shea's. In fact, it has considerably less weight because it it rests on less actual evidence.

More unsupported assertions. Where is the money comeing from? Nowhere in the book or this thread is it specified what the source of the money is, Lessans just assumes that somewhere is an almost unlimited bank account.

Infrastructure is one of the things that is adversly effected by disaster, and takes time to cleanup and rebuild. Look at the power outages after Sandy. Why should people take any more precautions then than they do now. People want to live by water, for fishing or recreation, and then suffer with a flood or tsumani. People live on the side of a volcano, because the soil is richer and crops grow better, and then suffer during an eruption. Perhaps homes, roads, and other structures could be built to withstand disaster better, but who is going to pay for it, just saying money will be available does not detail where the funds are comeing from. Show me the money.

You are also counting on new discoveries of wonderful new technology, just as you are counting on different results of scientific experiments to prove efferent vision. An appeal to future unknown developments to prove your point, more empty promises, an appeal to the unknowable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What do you mean "what joke"? Where did I mention a joke?

The answer to your question is right there in the post you quoted. I was protecting his reputation from the damage that might be done to it by having his name associated with something I wrote.

Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor. Learn to read carefully. Doing so would save you a lot of time and trouble.

Angakuk, misunderstandings happen. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And you are assuming that they will. Your assumption has no more weight than Lady Shea's. In fact, it has considerably less weight because it it rests on less actual evidence.

Lessans' observations (this is not an assumption) actually do hold more weight, but there's no convincing you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What do you mean "what joke"? Where did I mention a joke?

The answer to your question is right there in the post you quoted. I was protecting his reputation from the damage that might be done to it by having his name associated with something I wrote.

Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor. Learn to read carefully. Doing so would save you a lot of time and trouble.

I do read carefully but the problem here is that there is a contempt for me, and it's getting stronger and stronger, so when you tell me you didn't mean it this way, that is not how it felt coming from my perspective. You stated a lot of things that were not neutral. And I feel you have given yourself permisson to attack me because you can.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1102064]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the same act can be both good and evil, depending on someone's point of view.

Who is saying otherwise? It always depends on someone's point of view, that's why it's not evil when seen in total perspective.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have already shown this is not the case: even if you assume you are right about how things would work without blame and the belief in free will, it is still eminently possible to hurt others. You can steal their bread when you are starving, for instance.

You can steal their bread only if you are justified in stealing their bread. But if everyone has a basic standard of living where they can buy their own bread, they would have no reason to steal in order to survive.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is circular reasoning again.

I'm not letting you get away with this comment. There is no circular reasoning in any of Lessans' work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We are examining if this idea of yours would lead to a perfect system. I say "No - look, there can still be theft". But then you say "Ah but there wont be any need for theft, because it will be a perfect system."

No, there won't be any theft because people will have the things they need to survive. You have it backwards: "It will be a perfect system because there won't be any need for theft", NOT "there won't be any need for theft because it will be a perfect system."

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now for all the sane people in the board it does not need pointing out that it is a giant leap of faith to assume thing DO work the way you think they would. But even if you did, a moments thought easily yields a dozen scenarios in which one could hurt another and still follow every precept you hold so dear.

Show me exactly where these principles cannot do what they claim to do instead of just spouting off what you believe is wrong with this discovery. I resent you saying "all the sane people in the board...as if I'm not sane. That's playing dirty as you are accustomed to doing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your system does not deal with the problem of evil. At all. It is far too shallow, to simple-minded.

It is not shallow Vivisectus, you're just not getting a complete picture of how this whole blueprint works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet the moment you try to apply it to anything more complex than deciding who should do the dishes tonight it falls apart. Look at the problem of the bread-thief: you need to have a world where no-one needs to steal anymore just for it to work, because it is a problem your idea cannot overcome.

Of course it's a problem that can be overcome. Have you read the chapter on the new economic system? Do you understand why it is now possible to bring everyone up to a basic standard of living where no one will be in poverty, and without any country going bankrupt in the process? You can't tell me what is wrong with this discovery when you only understand a small part which is why you think you are qualified to disagree. That's what I call a premature judgment, which has been a serious obstacle from day one.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans' observations (this is not an assumption) actually do hold more weight, but there's no convincing you.

So, Lessans observed future conditions? That is quite a trick. What did he use, a crystal ball or a ouija board?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, Lessans observed future conditions? That is quite a trick. What did he use, a crystal ball or a ouija board?

Angakuk, where have you been? It does not take a crystal ball. It only takes having certain facts that allow you to come up with the answer. I already gave this example but I'll give it again.

p. 337 As we continue to be guided by the corollary,
Thou Shall Not Blame, we will observe wonderful changes that must
come about as we put God’s law into practice. With this in mind I
shall demonstrate, in a completely undeniable manner, His infinite
wisdom as we observe how the most perfect relations between married
couples offers them the very happiness they are desperately seeking.

Someone asked me in the course of conversation, “How can you
know this when years hence their feelings might change towards each
other?”

I answered by asking him a math problem. “How long would it
take a car traveling at 60 miles an hour to travel 98 million miles?
Sixty times 24 hours equals 1440 miles; 1440 miles, which represents
one day, will divide into 98 million 64,583 days; 365 days will divide
into that approximately 176 years.”

“But how can you know this when the car wouldn’t arrive until
176 years later? Supposing the car broke down, had a few flat tires,
and maybe the driver wouldn’t live that long?”

We’re assuming that the car travels at an average speed of 60 miles
an hour, so even if there were several flat tires and several drivers had
to be changed it would still take approximately 176 years. You are
able to do this simply by extending mathematical relations. I am
going to do the same thing with this married couple. I am going to
set up mathematical conditions that will force them (of their own free
will or desire) to prefer traveling the full length of their lives together
without ever desiring to commit adultery or get a divorce, and they
will be given no choice because they will want what they see. Is it
possible for a person not to want what he wants or, to phrase it
differently, not to desire what he desires? But in order to accomplish
this we must first uncover the irreparable harm that can occur when
couples see each other through a distorted lens which creates the
illusion of reality. So, once again, let us return to Chapter Four,
Words, Not Reality.

[Vivisectus]

I'm not letting you get away with this comment. There is no circular reasoning in any of Lessans' work.

I think you just demonstrated some.

No, there won't be any theft because people will have the things they need to survive. You have it backwards: "It will be a perfect system because there won't be any need for theft", NOT "there won't be any need for theft because it will be a perfect system."

round and round she goes!

So if I said "My system will eradicate murder!" and you say "Hang on, there can still be situations where murder is possible" and I then say "No, that would never happen, because murder would be eradicated!"

Then that makes sense?

Show me exactly where these principles cannot do what they claim to do instead of just spouting off what you believe is wrong with this discovery. I resent you saying "all the sane people in the board...as if I'm not sane. That's playing dirty as you are accustomed to doing.

Already done - just read back a few posts. The theft scenario, the problem that people would still be able to disagree about what is a harm due to their consciences developing differently, the fact that some actions can be seen as good from one point of view and evil from another...

Of course it's a problem that can be overcome. Have you read the chapter on the new economic system?

Yeah that was funny. Economics was another thing he really did not know anything about.

Do you understand why it is now possible to bring everyone up to a basic standard of living where no one will be in poverty, and without any country going bankrupt in the process?

A ban on raising prices and a strange type of quasi-communism seems to be the main ingredient. I shudder to think about the kind of economic meltdown would follow if anyone were foolish enough to follow such simpletonian advice. Truly there was no limit to his ignorance.

You can't tell me what is wrong with this discovery when you only understand a small part which is why you think you are qualified to disagree. That's what I call a premature judgment, which has been a serious obstacle from day one.

I have spent ages pointing out the flaws in great detail.

[peacegirl]

I'm not letting you get away with this comment. There is no circular reasoning in any of Lessans' work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think you just demonstrated some.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We are examining if this idea of yours would lead to a perfect system. I say "No - look, there can still be theft". But then you say "Ah but there wont be any need for theft, because it will be a perfect system."

No, there won't be any theft because people will have the things they need to survive. You have it backwards: "It will be a perfect system because there won't be any need for theft", NOT "there won't be any need for theft because it will be a perfect system."

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

round and round she goes!

No, I am not going round and round. You are making an assumption that there will be theft, and then conclude that therefore the system will not work. I am telling you that there will be no theft so the system will work. I said the economic system will be so different that everyone will be brought up to a basic standard of living, which means that to steal would be to gain at someone else's expense, which a person could not justify under the changed conditions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So if I said "My system will eradicate murder!" and you say "Hang on, there can still be situations where murder is possible" and I then say "No, that would never happen, because murder would be eradicated!"

Then that makes sense?

But that's not what I'm saying. I have a rationale for what I am saying. You can't be serious.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now for all the sane people in the board it does not need pointing out that it is a giant leap of faith to assume thing DO work the way you think they would. But even if you did, a moments thought easily yields a dozen scenarios in which one could hurt another and still follow every precept you hold so dear.

Show me exactly where these principles cannot do what they claim to do instead of just spouting off what you believe is wrong with this discovery. I resent you saying "all the sane people in the board...as if I'm not sane. That's playing dirty as you are accustomed to doing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Already done - just read back a few posts. The theft scenario, the problem that people would still be able to disagree about what is a harm due to their consciences developing differently, the fact that some actions can be seen as good from one point of view and evil from another...

Not true. There is a mathematical standard that can determine what is a hurt in human behavior. There could be exceptions to this, but this does not change the fact that a general standard exists. For example, someone might not think it's a hurt to be whipped during sex. If they like this, then it isn't a hurt to them. But in the majority of cases, I don't think there is a person in the world that wants to be murdered, have his car stolen, or be the victim of a home invasion. If someone knows they are taking advantage in any way, they cannot do it in the new world because their conscience will not let them. If they are unsure whether something is a concrete hurt, they will have ways to find out.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet the moment you try to apply it to anything more complex than deciding who should do the dishes tonight it falls apart. Look at the problem of the bread-thief: you need to have a world where no-one needs to steal anymore just for it to work, because it is a problem your idea cannot overcome.

Of course it's a problem that can be overcome. Have you read the chapter on the new economic system?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yeah that was funny. Economics was another thing he really did not know anything about.

He knew just as much if not more then today's leading economists.

Do you understand why it is now possible to bring everyone up to a basic standard of living where no one will be in poverty, and without any country going bankrupt in the process?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A ban on raising prices and a strange type of quasi-communism seems to be the main ingredient. I shudder to think about the kind of economic meltdown would follow if anyone were foolish enough to follow such simpletonian advice. Truly there was no limit to his ignorance.

Quasi-communism? Where did you get that idea? There is open competition and everyone will have the opportunity to improve his standard of living. His profits are his profits, so how can this be communism?

You can't tell me what is wrong with this discovery when you only understand a small part which is why you think you are qualified to disagree. That's what I call a premature judgment, which has been a serious obstacle from day one.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have spent ages pointing out the flaws in great detail.

That's the problem. You have done no such thing, you only think you have.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, where have you been? It does not take a crystal ball. It only takes having certain facts that allow you to come up with the answer. I already gave this example but I'll give it again.

p. 337 As we continue to be guided by the corollary,
Thou Shall Not Blame, we will observe wonderful changes that must
come about as we put God’s law into practice. With this in mind I
shall demonstrate, in a completely undeniable manner, His infinite
wisdom as we observe how the most perfect relations between married
couples offers them the very happiness they are desperately seeking.

Someone asked me in the course of conversation, “How can you
know this when years hence their feelings might change towards each
other?”

I answered by asking him a math problem. “How long would it
take a car traveling at 60 miles an hour to travel 98 million miles?
Sixty times 24 hours equals 1440 miles; 1440 miles, which represents
one day, will divide into 98 million 64,583 days; 365 days will divide
into that approximately 176 years.”

“But how can you know this when the car wouldn’t arrive until
176 years later? Supposing the car broke down, had a few flat tires,
and maybe the driver wouldn’t live that long?”

We’re assuming that the car travels at an average speed of 60 miles
an hour, so even if there were several flat tires and several drivers had
to be changed it would still take approximately 176 years. You are
able to do this simply by extending mathematical relations. I am
going to do the same thing with this married couple. I am going to
set up mathematical conditions that will force them (of their own free
will or desire) to prefer traveling the full length of their lives together
without ever desiring to commit adultery or get a divorce, and they
will be given no choice because they will want what they see. Is it
possible for a person not to want what he wants or, to phrase it
differently, not to desire what he desires? But in order to accomplish
this we must first uncover the irreparable harm that can occur when
couples see each other through a distorted lens which creates the
illusion of reality. So, once again, let us return to Chapter Four,
Words, Not Reality.

Yes, you have trotted out this same bit of Lessanity before. It is no more convincing now than it was on the previous occasions. Lessans' can accurately calculate how long it will take for the car to reach its destination becauses he assumes an average speed of 60 mph and discounts the possibility of there being any unpredictable obstacles during the trip. However, there is no reason to suppose that his assumption is correct. His calculations fail to take into account events which might curtail the trip altogether. Suppose that, in addition to several flat tires and engine failures, the car is completely demolished in a collision with a freight train. Not only will it not arrive at its destination in 176 years, it won't even arrive in 176,000 years.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is actually very true koan. Why did you just take one sentence out of context so that it would look like a stupid comment?

I took one sentence out to show how piss poorly this book is written. It's a terrible sentence. It shows a lack of skill on multiple levels. You might as well just summarize The Book of Awesomeness as:

We know that you know we know you only do what you want. You know that we know you know we won't hurt you. Therefore we know that you know we know you know and you know we know you know we know that no hurt will happen... unless one of us hurts the other first which won't happen because we all know doing so would make us all feel bad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they are unsure whether something is a concrete hurt, they will have ways to find out.

We have that already, it's called the legal code, or something similar.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the economic system will be so different that everyone will be brought up to a basic standard of living, which means that to steal would be to gain at someone else's expense, which a person could not justify under the changed conditions.

Unless, of course, there is some sort of castrophic disaster and concomitant economic collapse. Then all bets are off and it's a case of I am going to get mine and the rest of you can go suck on a dry tit. Like I said before, welcome to Lessans' Brave New World - red in tooth and claw.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Yes, you have trotted out this same bit of Lessanity before. It is no more convincing now than it was on the previous occasions. Lessans' can accurately calculate how long it will take for the car to reach its destination becauses he assumes an average speed of 60 mph and discounts the possibility of there being any unpredictable obstacles during the trip. However, there is no reason to suppose that his assumption is correct. His calculations fail to take into account events which might curtail the trip altogether. Suppose that, in addition to several flat tires and engine failures, the car is completely demolished in a collision with a freight train. Not only will it not arrive at its destination in 176 years, it won't even arrive in 176,000 years.

I understand that. But the exceptions are tripping you up. All he is trying to show here is that under the changed conditions the chances for a successful marriage are greatly improved when the factors that are responsible for the majority of divorces are eliminated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Unless, of course, there is some sort of castrophic disaster and concomitant economic collapse. Then all bets are off and it's a case of I am going to get mine and the rest of you can go suck on a dry tit. Like I said before, welcome to Lessans' Brave New World - red in tooth and claw.

I am asking you, once again, to please refrain from jumping to premature conclusions. An economic collapse doesn't come out of thin air? There are causes that lead to economic downfalls. Those factors will be removed in the new world so how can there be a collapse? That is what I call putting the cart before the horse. And the irony here is that in order for the economic system to work, we all have to depend on each other. This is the opposite of red in tooth and claw.

p. 166 Now the question arises
at this point, “How can we create an environment that would remove
the conditions which make it necessary to select the lesser of two evils
as a solution to our problems?”

“I really don’t know, especially since you already said that the basic
principle cannot be used here.”

It can’t be used in a positive, but it can in a negative sense.
Obviously, before the removal of all blame can prevent man from
desiring to strike a first blow which is to gain (to improve his standard
of living) at the expense of others, it is absolutely necessary to remove
the possibility that an individual is necessarily hurting others in order
to prevent himself from becoming a loser (from going below his
standard of living), and there is only one way this can be
accomplished. Let me explain what I mean.

If someone was hurt and yelling ‘Help! Help! Help!’ and you were
in a position to render assistance without hurting yourself while
knowing that you would never be blamed if you didn’t, is it humanly
possible for you to find satisfaction in ignoring this cry especially if
you know absolutely and positively that all mankind, should you ever
find yourself in a similar position, would never fail to help you?
“Under such conditions I believe that my friend and I would desire
to help this individual.”

Well, believe it or not this is the key to the economic solution.
Since we have already established the two conditions that strike the
first blow of hurt, and since those who fall below their standard of
living along with those who cannot acquire the necessaries of life are
hurt (drowning so to speak) and yelling for help but will never blame
us if we don’t, although they know we can if we want to (for over this
I will demonstrate that we have mathematical control), we are given
no choice but to unite in such a way without blaming anybody for
anything (because everything developed out of mathematical necessity)
that all mankind notwithstanding will be guaranteed against the
possibility of this hurt. By allowing everybody complete freedom to
improve their standard of living without the slightest fear of
punishment or retaliation, they will be compelled of their own free will
to prefer good, that is, not starting anything evil (striking a first blow)
because no satisfaction can be gotten otherwise...under the changed
conditions.

[Vivisectus]

No, I am not going round and round. You are making an assumption that there will be theft, and then conclude that therefore the system will not work. I am telling you that there will be no theft so the system will work. I said the economic system will be so different that everyone will be brought up to a basic standard of living, which means that to steal would be to gain at someone else's expense, which a person could not justify under the changed conditions.

And there will be hovercrafts, and ice-cream swimming pools, and ponies for everyone!

Not true. There is a mathematical standard that can determine what is a hurt in human behavior. There could be exceptions to this, but this does not change the fact that a general standard exists. For example, someone might not think it's a hurt to be whipped during sex. If they like this, then it isn't a hurt to them. But in the majority of cases, I don't think there is a person in the world that wants to be murdered, have his car stolen, or be the victim of a home invasion. If someone knows they are taking advantage in any way, they cannot do it in the new world because their conscience will not let them. If they are unsure whether something is a concrete hurt, they will have ways to find out.

Oh please stop using the word "mathematical" in that way. That is not what that word means, and it makes you look like a moron.

If there is an objective standard for right and wrong, then tell me: is it OK to torture someone? What about if the torture saves dozens of lives? What if the people whose lives are saved by the torture will cause untold suffering to thousands of others? What if those people that will go on to harm thousands do not know that they will and are unaware of what they are causing?

Where is your standard now? Is it not a matter of perspective, where each of us need to choose where we stand?

He knew just as much if not more then today's leading economists.

Quasi-communism? Where did you get that idea? There is open competition and everyone will have the opportunity to improve his standard of living. His profits are his profits, so how can this be communism?

I think I would have to teach you what the different economic applications of communism are before we can even get in to this. And economy 101.

Competition is not free in the system: raising prices is banned, for starters.

Look, every time you examine this idea even briefly, it is full of holes. You think that is just me being difficult or objecting on emotional grounds, or whatever. So why not submit it to the Philosophy board I pointed out for a neutral, professional opinion? Your complaint in the book is that your father "was unable to reach the Scientists who could validate the work"... so what is keeping you now? Experts in the relevant field can have a look at the basics. If they agree, you can move on from there.

But I guarantee you, they will say the same thing. The problem is that the book is poorly written by a man who was severely hampered by his lack of knowledge and intelligence. He meant well enough, I'm sure, but he was not very bright.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I dont need to change, nor do I want to. If I was having a problem that caused me to be maladapted, that would be something else. But I think I'm pretty adjusted to my life's circumstances.

You just agreed that you have an experienced compulsion that makes you unable to make new choices. How is that well adjusted rather than maladapted? It sounds much more like a problem you should be trying to overcome.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm game. Let's go for it. I'm actually tired of talking about the book.

Great. You've agreed that you are wasting your time here talking about Lessans on this forum, but you've stated that you wish to remain here anyway because it's your social outlet. So abandon these threads, and start a new one on a different topic. That way you may even make some friends here instead of constantly having to fight against everybody you talk to. Wouldn't that be more satisfying?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

I took one sentence out to show how piss poorly this book is written. It's a terrible sentence. It shows a lack of skill on multiple levels. You might as well just summarize The Book of Awesomeness as:

We know that you know we know you only do what you want. You know that we know you know we won't hurt you. Therefore we know that you know we know you know and you know we know you know we know that no hurt will happen... unless one of us hurts the other first which won't happen because we all know doing so would make us all feel bad.

You don't seem to understand what he meant. I love that sentence. You are the kind of person that gets a thrill in criticizing. It probably makes you feel superior. If your criticisms were valid that would be a different story, but they aren't. Your whole demeanor is very insincere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I was joking Spacemonkey. I thought that this is what you were thinking. I'm beginning to understand how you evaluate people.

Great. You've agreed that you are wasting your time here talking about Lessans on this forum, but you've stated that you wish to remain here anyway because it's your social outlet. So abandon these threads, and start a new one on a different topic. That way you may even make some friends here instead of constantly having to fight against everybody you talk to. Wouldn't that be more satisfying?

It probably would, and then you wouldn't think I have a compulsion.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: Tribute to Queen Elizabeth

Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II (morph sequence) - YouTube

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was joking Spacemonkey. I thought that this is what you were thinking. I'm beginning to understand how you evaluate people.

You didn't seem to be joking, and if you were you shouldn't have been. Let me remind you of your behaviour:

You are lying to yourself when you say you are only here because of me, and you are deluding yourself to think that people are talking to you because they think Lessans might be right. You know full well that I am convinced both that Lessans is wrong and that you are seriously mentally ill. I've made no secret of this since well before I first found you here at FF. Yet you still manage to delude yourself into thinking that I am just trying to understand his work so that I might accept it. How many times are you going to keep on rediscovering that posting here is a complete waste of your time and that you have no reason to continue? Five more times? Ten more times? A million? If you don't get help you will be here until you die, still without a single book sold or a single person convinced.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It probably would, and then you wouldn't think I have a compulsion.

So are you going to do it or not? You've agreed you are wasting your time here talking about Lessans. You've claimed you want to stay anyway because this is your social outlet. So if you're not going to stay to talk about something else, what does that say about you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

More unsupported assertions. Where is the money comeing from? Nowhere in the book or this thread is it specified what the source of the money is, Lessans just assumes that somewhere is an almost unlimited bank account.

Infrastructure is one of the things that is adversly effected by disaster, and takes time to cleanup and rebuild. Look at the power outages after Sandy. Why should people take any more precautions then than they do now. People want to live by water, for fishing or recreation, and then suffer with a flood or tsumani. People live on the side of a volcano, because the soil is richer and crops grow better, and then suffer during an eruption. Perhaps homes, roads, and other structures could be built to withstand disaster better, but who is going to pay for it, just saying money will be available does not detail where the funds are comeing from. Show me the money.

You are also counting on new discoveries of wonderful new technology, just as you are counting on different results of scientific experiments to prove efferent vision. An appeal to future unknown developments to prove your point, more empty promises, an appeal to the unknowable.

I took you off of ignore, but be careful what you say or right back you go. All I'm asking is for you to be respectful to Lessans and to me. I can't even begin to get into how the economic system will work because it's involved. Here is just a little preview:

Since this is an extremely crucial point I shall clarify it.

At this moment of time throughout the earth, everybody has
attained a certain standard of living which can be measured in dollars
and cents. It is the amount of money we consume from week to week
on an average in order to maintain our particular way of life, but it
does not include taxes, business or job expenses, insurance premiums,
donations or any money invested for the purpose of improving our
standard. The reason we do not include insurance premiums in
estimating our guarantee is because these do not have anything to do
with our standard of living. We hope we will never have to use this
emergency coverage, but while we work we can afford the premiums.
When we lose our job or business and cannot sustain our standard of
living, it is obvious that we must drop our policies. However, should
an emergency arise during the time that we are receiving money to
sustain our standard such as an accident, operation, fire, etc., we
would be able to receive the additional money since we are guaranteed
against going below our 100%. This means that if we were earning
$300 a week, as an example, but were paying out $60 a week on taxes,
$20 a week on job expenses, $35 a week on insurance premiums, $10
a week on donations, and $25 a week on investments, our standard
of living would be $150 a week. We shall call this 100%.

Now if we,
due to circumstances beyond our control, are forced to go below this
100%, then we become a loser, and the law of self-preservation, the
constant fear that this could happen, compels us to do any number of
things to prevent or recoup our loss. But when it becomes impossible
for us to be hurt by going below this 100%, which removes the first
blow, then we cannot make matters worse for ourselves by not hurting
others, which means that any hurt considered by us to them can be
prevented by the basic principle because there is no way we can find
greater satisfaction in gaining at their expense when we know they will
never blame us.

This means that if any citizen ever found himself in a position
where he could not find a job or one paying the amount needed and
had absolutely no cash reserve or potential to help himself (this
includes bonds, cash from his life insurance and anything that can be
converted to cash but which does not play a role in his standard of
living such as a car) then we, those of us in a position to help without
hurting ourselves, that is, without going below our own guarantee,
would desire to offer him this money by contributing an equal share
to maintain his standard or raise him to the basic level so that he
would never have to take away from others what he needs by resorting
to strikes, price increases, war to control foreign markets, taxation,
crime or anything else done to hurt others as the lesser of two evils.

Then when our basic principle is introduced as a permanent condition
of the environment it will be impossible for him to desire taking
advantage of us in order to gain at our expense because the
justification (the possibility he could go below his standard of living)
has been removed, although he will be completely free to take certain
risks that could hurt us, if he wants to, just as the truck driver was free
to speed up if he wanted to, but under the changed conditions he
didn’t want to. This does not mean he will be denied an opportunity
to exert his initiative for the purpose of improving his standard of
living (going over his 100%), but only that he will prefer finding ways
and means of doing this without taking any risks that could hurt us
because he knows we must turn the other cheek for our satisfaction.
It also means that he will desire to do everything in his power to
sustain his own standard without having to take from us, because the
realization that we would never blame him for taking advantage to get
money that otherwise we could use to improve our own standard
denies his conscience the necessary satisfaction to consider this in any
way.

Now I am going to demonstrate (once again in an undeniable
manner) that when man is guaranteed to be given the money needed
should he be forced, BEYOND HIS CONTROL, to go below his
standard or to be without the necessaries of life and then guaranteed
never to be blamed no matter what he does — WAR, CRIME AND
INFLATION will come to an end out of absolute necessity —
TAXES AND PRICES will be forced to come down, and everyone’s
standard of living will be improved beyond their wildest expectations.
All these changes will take place without hurting one single individual
and of one’s own free will (or desire). You will understand this much
better as we continue, so don’t get discouraged or assume this is
impossible. Just bear in mind that I cannot put everything down at
one time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't seem to be joking, and if you were you shouldn't have been. Let me remind you of your behaviour:

You are lying to yourself when you say you are only here because of me, and you are deluding yourself to think that people are talking to you because they think Lessans might be right. You know full well that I am convinced both that Lessans is wrong and that you are seriously mentally ill. I've made no secret of this since well before I first found you here at FF. Yet you still manage to delude yourself into thinking that I am just trying to understand his work so that I might accept it. How many times are you going to keep on rediscovering that posting here is a complete waste of your time and that you have no reason to continue? Five more times? Ten more times? A million? If you don't get help you will be here until you die, still without a single book sold or a single person convinced.

So are you going to do it or not? You've agreed you are wasting your time here talking about Lessans. You've claimed you want to stay anyway because this is your social outlet. So if you're not going to stay to talk about something else, what does that say about you?

It all depends on the people in here. You say no one is interested. Well that's not what I see. You might not be interested but that does not mean others aren't interested. I just answered thedoc and his question was a good one, so why shouldn't I answer him? And more importantly, why does this mean I have a compulsion?

[The Lone Ranger]

It is a simple fact that when moving parts come into contact, the result is frictional wear. Thus, mechanical devices inevitably wear out with use. And that's ignoring the fact that atmospheric oxygen and road salts cause slow corrosion even if a vehicle is sitting idle.

Even a well-built and well-maintained automobile is in less-than-optimal shape after 100,000 miles of wear, and will typically have had several major components replaced. Very few cars survive to 200,000 miles, even with regular maintenance.

Is there anyone on the planet stupid-enough to think that any automobile could possibly be driven for 98 million miles without literally being ground to dust in the process?

A rhetorical question, I know.