A conversation

A
To understand where I am coming from it would pay to watch Zeitgeist Moving forward. From there we should be able to discuss your concerns from a point of common understanding.
B
sure i have seen all 3 zietgiest docos btw
A
That's great, so now I am having trouble understanding your concerns of privacy and control.
B
the one thing i have not been able to understand about the venus project ideas is how do you ensure fair and just rations of resources without knowing what everyone has makes and consumes and without total control over those resourses...
please change my mind that resource based system is anything other that what I see it to be thus far
A
Well I think first we should understand The Venus Project is just a name, it is a good example of a resource based economy, but the idea of an R.B.E. transcends T.V.P.
We must also understand that for a R.B.E. to operate correctly requires us to embrace automation. Now what we monitor is the earth.
We start by first finding out what we have. Then we monitor extraction of resources and replenishment of resources.
We also make use of computing power and have all resources logged.
Now if say the resources for the production of cars is running low we are forewarned. Thus we can find a way to replace the resource that is running low or find a way to create that resource artificially.
It is not a matter of knowing that human x has two cars but rather keeping track of what is being produced and being used, not by who but simply how much.
We must also understand that in time we will go through a values shift.
There will come a time when we as a species do not want one of everything, but understand what we want is the functional utility of the things. Therefore we could see in the future a library style of distribution for certain objects.
Say golf clubs, why carry golf clubs around and have to care for, and store them, when we could simply go to the golf course and use a custom fitted set and then return them. Custom fit could be as simple as changing shafts.
Cars will go the same direction, why have a car sitting at your home not in use, when we could make use of automation (goggle has been road testing fully automated cars for several years now.)and call for a car if and when we require it.
B
first - Personally I do not want technology making decisions for me. I do not want technology deciding what I need and how much I should have. It is my right as a human to choose that which does not infringe on other humans rights.
Is technology capable of knowing what each individual needs? Each individuals needs are quite different from their neighbors.
Personally I do not want technology making decisions for me.
second - What action (punishment) is taken when someone uses more than the amount of resources a 'technology' has allocated them?
Using the example you have given about owning 2 cars - How do you know who is responsible for using more resources than allocated if only the amounts allocated and used are monitored?
Using the golf club example you have provided - this is removal of personal property, which is a fundamental human right.
But if objects like that were to be 'communal' what happens when someone breaks the objects?
As for cars, that is why we have (what should be public but are undemocratically privatised) transport systems...which work for well urban environments but not for rural areas..
Are property rights to be removed and people forced to live in urban centers so that automated communal transport can be viable?
That is not only ultimate control but an outright breach of the most fundamental human right - of choice.
A
Technology will not make decisions for you, I have no idea where that idea comes from. You will always have the right to choose what you want and how much you would like.
If you have a reference to information that states otherwise I would like to see it.
It is not up to technology to determine what we need, the idea is to use technology to produce good, and monitor earthly resources, so that we know what we can produce, in relation to the resources available.
Technology does not allocate resources to people, so there is no need to punish anyone when it comes to the use of resources.
Property rights are nothing more than a throw back to this outdated model, and is simply away to claim ownership of this or that, and allow any of us to sue another for things like wilful destruction of theft.
If the idea is to create abundance, and it is, coupled with no need for a price tag there becomes little to no need for so called property rights.
Why would you steal something if you could acquire it for free anyway. Why would you destroy something of someone. Even if something you had did break, why would you care if you could send it away to be recycled and simply replace it?
Remember a resource based economy is something we all create, so if you have concerns you can certainly get involved in the process of creating the system.
Nothing is set and stone, or unchangeable.
The beauty of an R.B.E. and science is that it is open to change, just as it should be as the only constant on our planet is just that.

Change.

B
You will always have the right to choose what you want and how much you would like are you saying the planets resources are infinite? as for your response re: property rights
It is a fundamental human right!
People have for a long time proven that the cheaper the objects the 'own' or use are the less they care about them which would use even more resources than currently. The throw-away society now is bad enough
this seems to assume that the planets resources are infinite which it is mathematically obvious that they are not
A
You will always have the right to choose what you want and how much you would like. are you saying the planets resources are infinite?
No, not at all. In fact we clearly understand that we live on a finite planet. A R.B.E. is nothing like our current economy, and as a result creates a society that is nothing like our current social design. Think about it this way, while we will continue to produce say T.V.s we will only produce the best T.V., so there will not be a massive stratified range that results in an aberrant waste of resources. The best we can build includes functionality, parts that are easily replaced or upgraded, and using materials that are easily recycled.
And of course importantly things will be built to last.

Product obsolescence : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTdseBKbWAE

Understanding a R.B.E. : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ej3k5kzvmw&feature=related

We have arrived at a time when new innovations in science and technology can easily provide abundance to all of the world's people. It is no longer necessary to perpetuate the conscious withdrawal of efficiency by planned obsolescence, perpetuated by our old and outworn profit system. If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and our fellow human beings, if we really want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty and hunger, we must consciously reconsider the social processes that led us to a world where these factors are common. Like it or not, it is our social processes - political practices, belief systems, profit-based economy, our culture-driven behavioural norms - that lead to and support hunger, war, disease and environmental damage.
The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centred goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfilment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.
as for your response re: property rights
It is a fundamental human right!
Property: anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property" which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personalty") which is everything else. "Common property" is ownership by more than one person of the same possession. "Community property" is a form of joint ownership between husband and wife recognized in several states. "Separate property" is property owned by one spouse only in a community property state, or a married woman's sole ownership in some states. "Public property," refers to ownership by a governmental body such as the federal, state, county or city governments or their agencies (e.g. school or redevelopment districts). The government, and, in particular, the courts are obligated to protect property rights and to help clarify ownership.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/property

Personal property: A type of property which, in its most general definition, can include any asset other than real estate. The distinguishing factor between personal property and real estate is that personal property is movable. That is, the asset is not fixed permanently to one location as with real property such as land or buildings. Examples of personal property include vehicles, furniture, boats, collectibles, etc.
It's tough to have a precise definition for "personal property" as it is very much a legal term. The concept is perhaps best understood with a comparison to real property. Under common law systems it is possible to place a mortgage upon real property. Because the lender has rights to the property it makes the extension of credit relatively safe and easy. After all, it's tough to flee the country with your house. On the other hand, it's tougher for a creditor to secure personal property. While common law systems do allow liens to be placed on personal property (such as vehicles) to protect the rights of creditors, there is obviously much more risk that the debtor simply drives away with the collateral if fleeing the country.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/personalproperty.asp#axzz1cbRywTDr

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 - SECT 20

Property rights

20. Property rights

A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law.

http://www.austlii.org/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/

Your so called property rights are nothing more than a throwback to an outdated, outmoded monetary system. You only have so called property as a resource to accumulate credit.
If you fail to pay your bills, then your property can be taken.
People have for a long time proven that the cheaper the objects the 'own' or use are the less they care about them which would use even more resources than currently. The throw-away society now is bad enough this seems to assume that the planets resources are infinite which it is mathematically obvious that they are not.
This fails to understand the basic premises of a R.B.E.
It is not about producing objects in a cheap fashion, but rather in a sustainable manner. Why would we even consider producing anything that could be found in let us say a 2$ shop? There is simply no point in producing junk or materialistic garbage. The idea is to produce only the best, and using strategic practices to do so. High quality materials, ease of upgrade, and of course being easily recycled.

Project Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyj4edQk9Aw&feature=related

The Venus Project F.A.Q.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/faq
Zeitgeist orientation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5zCfn4NyyU
Economize
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ9rYuh4-jg&feature=related
Economists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNWGZEF6CAM&feature=related
Where are we now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O67AZfUMXw
Where are we going?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdk3z7scPYk