user warning: Unknown column 'v.vote_source' in 'where clause' query: SELECT * FROM votingapi_vote v WHERE 1 = 1 AND v.content_id = 858 AND v.uid = 0 AND v.vote_source = '38.107.179.244' AND v.timestamp >= 1328750076 in /home/knapp/public_html/bostontea/modules/votingapi/votingapi.module on line 557.

Convention Resolutions: "Renouncing Government" (see http://bostontea.us/node/838)

No votes have been recorded for this poll.

Submitted by inDglass on Mon, 05/31/2010 - 09:01
»

Comments

1

VTV:

What do you intend to replace government with if we suddenly got rid of it? Are you suggesting Anarcho-Capitalism?

06/01/2010 - 09:05
2

southernpatriot:

I support a voluntaryist society. Society based on non-aggression which is voluntarily agreed upon. If people want to gather in one area and base a society on anarcho-capitalism they can do so; if others want to create a society based on socialism they can do so as well. As long as no one uses force or coercion to insist upon my involvement in their society.

06/01/2010 - 11:32
3

VTV:

That's what we propose as well.

06/09/2010 - 18:23
4

southernpatriot:

I thought you proposed people being ruled by a super-computer?!?!?

06/09/2010 - 19:45
5

VTV:

Ruled? No. All the computer does is help us keep track of resources, identify problems and respond to them. A great deal of the function of government could easily be automated. The computers won't be telling us what to do with our lives. The computers will just be maintaining the infrastructure according to our guidelines, and will advise us if there is a problem. On Wikipedia there was an entry called "Cyberocracy" that explains it pretty well. It also has a lot in common with Anarcho-Syndicalism.

The computer is just automating things that the beauracracy usually handles now. You don't need a "department of sewer" you need a computer system that automates the maintenance of that system. You don't need some pencil pusher taking tax money to do a job that for the most part could be highly automated.

06/10/2010 - 09:21
6

VTV:

Back to the sewer example, lets say that there is a problem with a drain pipe at X location.

In a normal situation the local sewer department probably won't even know there is a problem for a long time. Once they finally do get an idea there is a problem they will have to dispatch someone who is paid by the hour to look into the problem. It's not really in his best interest to fix it efficiently. The likelyhood is that the politician in charge of this set up a no bid contract for the services of this system. Probably friends with or owns stock in the company that does this. (See Dick Cheyney and Haliburton).

The parts used to repair the problem are generally designed to fail again within a certain amount of time. (Planned obsolesence). And in order to justify the inflated sewer department budget some jobs will be stretched out over time.

OR:

The infrastructure of the sewer system could be designed with sensors that detect problems as soon as they happen. Can be designed with parts that are easy to swap out, and are designed to last as long as possible. The computer system detects the problem, and sends out a robot to deal with it. No human needs to be involved. If a human wants to check it out that's fine. The computer system's activities will be transparent and anyone can access them. The resources saved in this way leave humans to do things they want to do, rather then slaving away in a sewer somewhere for enough hours to somehow "earn" the right to do what they actually want to do. Or what they need to do to survive.

The same sort of automation can be done to give people what they need. I know a NASA Engineer who works with us who is designing an automated hydroponic farm system as we speak.

We are not talking about being "ruled" by computers. We are talking about taking the need for anyone to be ruled out of the equation as much as possible. Administration tasks can largely be automated.

06/10/2010 - 09:30
7

VTV:

Also, it is all voluntary. We do not advocate coercion ever. If you don't like what we are doing, you don't have to be part of it.

We do believe however that in order to avoid conflicts you need to work on an environment that facilitates that. You can't just expect everyone to agree to be nice to each other. When there are conflicts they should be scientifically analyzed, and solutions given.

If a man stole some bread, find out what is going on with him, why did he do this? Was it malicious? Was it survival? Obviously we need more bread. So we make more bread.

Some people drive drunk. Design cars that recognize this and cease to function or have an auto-pilot to get people home when needed. Making a law in this regard is silly.

Just a couple of examples.

06/10/2010 - 09:40