The idea of experts running society is sound in and of itself.
Jews or no jews, central planners will always run into knowledge problems, because no one has enough expertise to run society from the top down.
just like socialism, in a racially homogeneous society with high trust.
No. Socialism is fundamentally flawed. A high-IQ, high-trust society will make it work better than a low-trust low-IQ society, but only because they could make anything work better.
Imagine a purely white society. You could probably have things like "community bicycles" (just to make an example), that everyone could just grab one and ride to where they needed to go and then leave it as good as they found it.
Who maintains them? Who ensures there's a bike where you need one when you need one? Who pays for them all? Who recycles them when they reach their end of life? How does this person calculate how much should be spent on each bike and how much investment is justified?
I can answer all of those questions if we're talking about a market economy, wouldn't even know where to begin in some kind of socialist gift economy.
Poof! Now the white people have lost some trust.
Why does paying for the services you consume make you lose trust exactly? If something is very expensive I know to be very careful about using it. If I can't afford it I know I need to work harder to justify using/owning it. There's no loss of trust there unless you're a freeloader.
Jews or no jews, central planners will always run into knowledge problems, because no one has enough expertise to run society from the top down.
Having subject matter experts in government doesn't imply central planning.
No. Socialism is fundamentally flawed. A high-IQ, high-trust society will make it work better than a low-trust low-IQ society, but only because they could make anything work better.
That's what I mean by "work." It will never achieve what it promises, but a high iq, high trust society could make it work well enough that there weren't bread lines and people starving to death.
Who maintains them?
Whoever broke it.
Who ensures there's a bike where you need one when you need one?
Nobody. This isn't a government program to make sure you have a bike. It's a community thing. They're there if you want to use them, and if they're not, they're not.
Who pays for them all?
Again, you're imagining a government-style program. Who pays for them is irrelevant to whether people will steal the bikes and/or vandalize them
Who recycles them when they reach their end of life?
How does this person calculate how much should be spent on each bike and how much investment is justified?
I'm surprised at how statist this style of thinking is coming from you. It's a very centralized, top-down view of the world.
Why does paying for the services you consume make you lose trust exactly?
It doesn't. Stealing a community resource and then charging people to use what was theirs is what causes the loss of trust. I never would have taken you for a jew in all the years we've gone back and forth on voat.
I would like to hear back from you on this btw. Judging from your reply we may have been talking at cross purposes.
Hoppes9 is just a reference to the eponymous gun cleaner.
I wasn't talking about somebody creating a program of bikes to lend out. I was saying that people could leave bikes around for their neighbors to use in a high trust society. Having some centralized management is going way too far IMHO.
Having subject matter experts in government doesn't imply central planning.
Well, having a government implies central planning. Are you a hoppian? Or is the username a coincidence? Genuine question.
That's what I mean by "work." It will never achieve what it promises, but a high iq, high trust society could make it work well enough that there weren't bread lines and people starving to death.
Well sure, but why settle for socialism? It's a bit like saying "if I were a professional mechanic I bet I could get this lada to run almost as smooth as a western car."
Who maintains them?
Whoever broke it.
Maintainence is usually about upkeep and replacing things before they break. The point is that there's a lot of hidden costs and economic decisions that go into running a bike hire service. I see no reason why those decisions shouldn't be made through price signals, as opposed to guesswork.
Again, you're imagining a government-style program. Who pays for them is irrelevant to whether people will steal the bikes and/or vandalize them
But someone has to buy the initial lot of bikes, and replace the ones that wear out. They also have to decide what kind of bikes to buy and whether it's worth buying fancy super-light carbon-fiber bikes or shitty steel ones that feel like pedalling a tank.
I'm surprised at how statist this style of thinking is coming from you. It's a very centralized, top-down view of the world.
It doesn't matter how centralised or decentralised it is, someone still has to make those spending decisions and assess value. In a for-profit model they have thousands of consumers telling them how valuable the bikes are and they can adjust the resources they allocate to it accordingly. In a gift economy they're just guessing.
It doesn't. Stealing a community resource and then charging people to use what was theirs is what causes the loss of trust. I never would have taken you for a jew in all the years we've gone back and forth on voat.
How is it theft to buy a bike and rent it out?
Like... is there a free-bike tree growing in a commons somewhere? :P
(post is archived)