Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 0:59:06 GMT -5
Money is, and only ever is, "what is got by crime". Furthermore, it is a crime to possess or use money.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 30, 2016 2:41:59 GMT -5
Money is, and only ever is, "what is got by crime". Furthermore, it is a crime to possess or use money. That would make almost everyone in the world a criminal, then. Thank you for your irrepressible faith in human nature. Have you ever possessed or used any? As Shakespeare (albeit in a Bowdlerised version) noted: All the world's a bank And all the people in it merely criminals...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2016 3:31:15 GMT -5
"The Balinese attitude is tolerantly sophisticated. For them the charm of money lies in its novelty as a concept. It is a new foreign game, a conjuring trick: once you've mastered the knack a truckload of fruit is transmuted into a bundle of printed paper which in turn by a flick of the wand reappears as a hectare of farmland. Quite suddenly the money-game takes on. It becomes a fashion. It has the raffish chic of a cowboy film. It sweeps the island like a new dance-form."
- Donald Friend in Bali
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2016 10:05:11 GMT -5
Where you live, Sydney, can you do without money? Obviously, hunter gatherer societies have existed without money for millions of years. Do you hunt?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 5, 2016 11:07:31 GMT -5
Where you live, Sydney, can you do without money? Obviously, hunter gatherer societies have existed without money for millions of years. Do you hunt? Whether or not he does, it is almost certain that he does not and cannot do without money. Were the entire world's population hunter gatherers today, there'd be very little for most of them to hunt, even if thy possessed the means as well as the skill to do so. How long would anyone expect to live if their lives depended upon that? Where would anyone be able to live today without it? You can't buy or rent your home without it or even acquire land on which to build your own home without it. You couldn't have food without it unless you were able to rear and grow it all and even those who could do so would need money for land on which to do it as well as to purchase the necessary animals, plants, buildings, machinery et al. Where would you source and benefit from a potable water supply without it? (especially in many parts of Australia where there's not a lot of it about!). You couldn't travel farther than your legs would carry you without it. Of the many so many other money-dependent things in life, it would not be possible to be online without it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2016 18:38:37 GMT -5
One of the fundamental principles of life in society is the principle of fairness or equality. Money is a way to introduce unfairness and inequality into social life. For that reason it is evil and criminal, and some one who like Mr. H supports and encourages its use is not qualified to participate in social life.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 6, 2016 0:29:02 GMT -5
One of the fundamental principles of life in society is the principle of fairness or equality. Money is a way to introduce unfairness and inequality into social life. For that reason it is evil and criminal, and some one who like Mr. H supports and encourages its use is not qualified to participate in social life. Your assumptions as top what I recommend and encourage being entirely false, it is clear that you are unqualified to suggest that I am not "qualified to participate in social life"; I do not consider it unreasonable to take exception to that. I made no suggestion of "supporting and encouraging" many and its use; I merely pointed out the obvious in that almost everyone uses it and needs to use it. For the record, I have no doubt that you are one such user. The principles of fairness and equality, laudable as they may be, are by no means compromised by money and its use alone; they would be as much at risk without money are they are with it. Furthermore, were money to be abolished, something would have to take its place in order that society continues to function and develop; whatever that substitution might be and whatever form it might take, the principles of fairness and equality would be at permanent risk from it. Since it is the case that anything that is correctly definable and identifiable as "criminal" must of necessity breach the criminal law/s of the country/ies in which it takes place, it is self-evident that money, by virtue of being a phenomenon and not an act committed by humans, is not and cannot be "criminal" in and of itself. Whilst its use could and indeed can be "criminal" on occasion, it would be so only if it breaches the laws of both the countries wherein it is used and those affected by such use and, even then, it would breach them only by virtue of specifically, directly and unequivocally supporting and encouraging financial crime (as in money laundering, for example). Is it "criminal", for example, for the Performing Rights Society (PRS) to credit royalties on performances and broadcasts of my work to my bank account? If so, who's the criminal? - PRS as payer, me as payee or both? (pesonally, if anything's "criminal" about this it's the sheer paucity of such funds!). From what you have written here and elsewhere in the past, I might assume that you would consider it to be so by virtue of being remuneration in respect of intellectual property that has resulted from "work" in which, like money, you appear not to believe. Having said all of that, I conclude by noting that I do not consider it unreasonable to request that you withdraw your false and unwarranted statement that, by allegedly supporting and encouraging the use of money (which I have in any case said nothing about doing), I render myself "not qualified to participate in social life"; that is quite a serious accusation, if I may say so. Over to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 7:17:19 GMT -5
. . . he does not and cannot do without money. Were the entire world's population hunter gatherers today, there'd be very little for most of them to hunt, even if thy possessed the means as well as the skill to do so. How long would anyone expect to live if their lives depended upon that? Where would anyone be able to live today without it? You can't buy or rent your home without it or even acquire land on which to build your own home without it. You couldn't have food without it unless you were able to rear and grow it all and even those who could do so would need money for land on which to do it as well as to purchase the necessary animals, plants, buildings, machinery et al. Where would you source and benefit from a potable water supply without it? (especially in many parts of Australia where there's not a lot of it about!). You couldn't travel farther than your legs would carry you without it. Of the many so many other money-dependent things in life, it would not be possible to be online without it! Despite everything Member H. still maintains the necessity and even the desirability of money. 1) It is needed to acquire one's house he asserts. Yet he must know that from time immemorial houses have been family things and not the property of individuals. When the head of the family expires the family house goes to the oldest son. Younger sons went off in the past to the army - not recommended to-day - or they take orders or become school-masters or go to the Antipodes or become personal assistants. And every family house must have a wing for maiden aunts, sisters, and the like must it not. 2) The member asserts that the cultivation of food "from the land" is an impossibility. There for the second time he is simply misleading us, because it is of course eminently possible, and hundreds upon hundreds of books will explain how. 3) The member laments - falsely - the absence of a "potable water supply". Balderdash we say. The Isles are covered with rivers, streams, creeks and wells. 4) The member imagines that without money he will be unable to reach London or other places that are too far away to walk to. Nonsense! We cannot imagine that even he has never heard of horses - with or without cart. 5) And his final ridiculous objection has to do with computer communication. If he cycles down to his local library he will find available free of pecuniary charge every apparatus for which he could possibly wish - and of that too he must surely already be aware.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 6, 2016 9:14:58 GMT -5
. . . he does not and cannot do without money. Were the entire world's population hunter gatherers today, there'd be very little for most of them to hunt, even if thy possessed the means as well as the skill to do so. How long would anyone expect to live if their lives depended upon that? Where would anyone be able to live today without it? You can't buy or rent your home without it or even acquire land on which to build your own home without it. You couldn't have food without it unless you were able to rear and grow it all and even those who could do so would need money for land on which to do it as well as to purchase the necessary animals, plants, buildings, machinery et al. Where would you source and benefit from a potable water supply without it? (especially in many parts of Australia where there's not a lot of it about!). You couldn't travel farther than your legs would carry you without it. Of the many so many other money-dependent things in life, it would not be possible to be online without it! Despite everything Member H. still maintains the necessity and even the desirability of money. Really? I had thought that I was merely illustrating certain things as they are, not "recommending" them as such! Wnilst I do indeed accept (and could indeed not do otherwise) the "necessity" of it in an age in which so very much cannot be achieved without it, I made no reference to a view on its "desirability" per se... 1) It is needed to acquire one's house he asserts. Yet he must know that from time immemorial houses have been family things and not the property of individuals. When the head of the family expires the family house goes to the oldest son. Younger sons went off in the past to the army - not recommended to-day - or they take orders or become school-masters or go to the Antipodes or become personal assistants. And every family house must have a wing for maiden aunts, sisters, and the like must it not. "Family things"? Your opening salvo is very particularised. Not everyone has families or eldest sons and the ways in which inheritances of all kinds, including dwellings, are left will inevitably vary from person to person, just as inheritance and gifting laws change from time to time. Why in any case do you seek to assume that all families do the same with their residential properties? Why would only younger sons do any of the things that you include on your very limited list? And what of daughters, of whom you omit mention? I am not a "younger son" and "take orders" only for copies of scores and literary writings in my capacity as curator of The Sorabji Archive. It would not matter in any case whether a house, apartment or other kind of dwelling is or was owned by one or two individuals or a group of people (such as a family), its original owners will still have had somehow to acquire it at some point; yes, if your home is bequeathed to you, you'll not have had to pay for it yourself, but someone before you will have had to do so - and then who's going to pay for its maintenance and the taxes levied on it and the supplies of water, sewerage service, domestic fuel and other utilities to it - and with what? As to the need for "every family house [to] have a wing for maiden aunts, sisters, and the like", that's nonsense! Not everyone lives in houses anyway, most don't have such "wings" and not many of those who do live in houses have family members (other than partners or their own children) residing in them. Speaking personally, I don't even have - and indeed never have had - any "maiden aunts" or "sisters" in any case, so might knowledge of that fact suggest to you that I am not only "not qualified to participate in social life" (as you have previously sought gratuitously to assert) but also not entitled to live in a house? In any event, ever more people today rent their homes, some because this happens to be more convenient for them but almost certainly many more who simply cannot afford to buy them. You try to argue your case by writing of "time immemorial", yet most of us do not live in houses or other kinds of dwelling that have been around for that long; indeed, most of us live in places that have only been built during our own lifetimes or those of the immediately previous generation. By what means might you suppose that the original owners of those older properties acquired them? You write as though all residential property has been around since prehistoric times! What might that say about (or to) those who have built dwellings much more recently and continue to do so in order to go some way towards meeting the ever-increasing housing needs of a burgeoning and longer-living populace? 2) The member asserts that the cultivation of food "from the land" is an impossibility. There for the second time he is simply misleading us, because it is of course eminently possible, and hundreds upon hundreds of books will explain how. The member asserts nothing of the kind, nor therefore does he mislead anyone here other than those determined to be misled! Of course most food can be and indeed still is cultivated "from the land", but that land cannot be acquired without money, nor can the plants grown and animals reared thereon be respectively grown and reared without money. Not only that, many people do not live anywhere near farmland and, in any case, how would everyone acquire his/her own piece farmland to provide food for him/herself? 3) The member laments - falsely - the absence of a "potable water supply". Balderdash we say. The Isles are covered with rivers, streams, creeks and wells. Not everone lives on an island or mountainside where such water might be sourced; there are many places on earth where there's no such thing, notably large parts of Australia as I would have assumed you to know better than me. In any case, living by mountain streams and or near wells is hardly the same thing as having a potable water supply from which hundreds of thousands of people can benefit! Furthermore, well and mountain water from such sources cannot be guaranteed as potable; what about all sorts of chemical and biological pollution? There happens, for example, to be a borehole supply (albeit an erratic and unreliable one) on land neighbouring where I now live; its compulsory annual tests by the local authority (which are chargeable) frequently reveal an excess of nitrates above the acceptable threshold and this has to be rectified by its owner at her expense. So - the member once again does not "lament...the absence of a "potable water supply""; he merely points out that such supplies do not all occur naturally and conveniently for the safe use of everyone and that they and their maintenance and distribution have to be paid for. 4) The member imagines that without money he will be unable to reach London or other places that are too far away to walk to. Nonsense! We cannot imagine that even he has never heard of horses - with or without cart. Next time I see horses illicitly charging down the M4, accompanied or unaccompanied by carts, creating no end of havoc and causing danger to motorised traffic, I'll be sure to let you know! (although I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you). That said (and I wasn't in any case merely referring to London), how many horses do you suppose would be required to ensure that everyone in UK has his/her own in order to be able to get about? Can you seriously envisage some 50m horses in UK? And how much would each of them cost? (you can't just acquire a horse or a cart without paying for it, unless you steal it, in which case you're merely taking illegal possession of something for which someone else has paid). Anyway, where would you park a horse in London or any other city or town? How and with what would you pay to take care of one and feed it (including vet bills, burial costs when it's dead, etc.)? What kind of state do you suppose the nation's roads would be in if permanently covered in horse dung, as they surely would be if most people of horse riding age each had one. What about disabled people who cannot ride horses? And how would horses be capable of drawing commercial vehicles for distribution of goods, including fully loaded 45-tonne trucks? 5) And his final ridiculous objection has to do with computer communication. If he cycles down to his local library he will find available free of pecuniary charge every apparatus for which he could possibly wish - and of that too he must surely already be aware. I do not possess a bicycle and, due to a visual disability, would be unable to drive one even if I did; I would in any case expect to pay for one - and for its insurance - if I wanted and could use one. And who pays for the building, operation and maintenance of the "local library" and the books and other materials that it acquires? Who pays to insure those buildings and contents? By what means other than money can any and all of these things be funded? That most public library materials and facilities are offered to customers free of charge at point of use - just as are many of the facilities and services offered to theirs by UK's NHS - is neither here nor there; they all have to be paid for with money (taxpayers' money, in these cases), otherwise they simply wouldn't be there in the first place! I had thought that you live in Australia but it would seem from your increasingly bizarre assertions that you actually inhabit another planet altogether!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 19:28:31 GMT -5
they all have to be paid for with money (taxpayers' money, in these cases), otherwise they simply wouldn't be there in the first place! I had thought that you . . . but it would seem . . . that you actually . . . Oh no, Mr. H appears still to be greatly deluded; there is no "have to" about it. May we also take the opportunity to remind him that here on this forum we look disapprovingly down upon this kind of use of the word "you"? Above all it is the duty of all of us to maintain a healthy tone in the forum and a manly bearing in each fellow. We should should we not discourage both effeminacy and roughness, but foster a frank and hearty comradeship.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 10, 2016 1:53:47 GMT -5
they all have to be paid for with money (taxpayers' money, in these cases), otherwise they simply wouldn't be there in the first place! I had thought that you . . . but it would seem . . . that you actually . . . Oh no, Mr. H appears still to be greatly deluded; there is no "have to" about it. Perhaps "the member" (if you prefer this mode of address/reference to the use of the second person singular) might care to enlighten other members here as to what could be used in place of money to fund all aspects of these public services and facilities; until and unless said member does so convincingly and credibly, this member (if you prefer such address/reference to the use of the first person singular) will continue to maintain what he has written on that subject which, incidentally, is the consequence of no "delusion" whatsoever; while such response is awaited, it might be as well to point out that, had there ever been a viable alternative to money as a means of funding such things, someone somewhere would have thought of and implemented it well before now, especially given how desperately cash-strapped the provision of so many of these services and facilities are so well known to be. May we also take the opportunity to remind him that here on this forum we look disapprovingly down upon this kind of use of the word "you"? Not knowing - yet again - who "we" are, this member would politely but firmly respond to this question by countering that "they" may not do so, given not only that such use is not obviously incorrect gramatically but also that it clearly identifies to whose post this member is responding; indeed, this member would look perplexedly down at said member's frequent recourse to the vague and imprecise use of the word "we" - and disapprovingly, too, to the extent that its use appears to imply the writer's claim that an unspecified number of others wholeheartedly agree with his stances and viewpoints, irrespective of the absence of any corroborative evidence to the end. If said member preferes that other members refrain from identifying either themselves by the use of the first person singular or others by the use of the second person singular, it might be prudent to excise all reference to which member has posted what; this member believes that adopting such an anonymised principle would be plain daft, yet it might at least appear to be consistent with said member's apparent disapproval of the use of certain pronouns here. Anyway, this member (and perhaps others too) look forward to a post about the alternative to money for the purposes discussed (as well as for many so many others) that's really "on the money"! This member also looks forward to some credidle answers to his many questions that so far remain unanswered; he does not consider that this is too much to ask. Above all it is the duty of all of us to maintain a healthy tone in the forum and a manly bearing in each fellow. Who decides what is a "healthy tone"? (might this imply exclusion of "mi contra fa est diabolus in musica"? and, if so, why - perhaps Brahms would have known). What in any case is a "manly bearing" and, whatever if anything it might be, why should female members of this forum be expected to adopt it (assuming that there are such members and that women are not excluded from membership). We should should we not discourage both effeminacy and roughness, but foster a frank and hearty comradeship. "We" - whoever they are - should first identify what "they" mean by "effeminacy" and "roughness". Next, whilst the fostering of a "hearty comradeship" is no bad thing in itself, it should not be expected to discourage due "frank"ness or firmness, provided that all expressions here are couched in civilised terms; there should always be sufficient room to accommodate diversity of viewpoint, without which no "discussion" could really be possible, which would be rather silly on what is supposedly a discussion forum!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 3:55:26 GMT -5
"Perhaps 'the member' might care to enlighten other members here as to what could be used in place of money to fund all aspects of these public services and facilities; until and unless said member does so convincingly and credibly, etc." said Mr. H.
We are not quite sure what he means by "to fund" - perhaps he will explain - but what we have already done is to provide in post number three an example of how to get on without. The people of Bali neither have need of nor make use of "money". It is like a new dance-form, for them. And that is just one example; for another consider the crude country people of England before 1750 or so.
By the way when will Mr. H. be starting another thread? We need one with oomph. Perhaps he will post a recording of a composition, even?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 10, 2016 9:11:55 GMT -5
"Perhaps 'the member' might care to enlighten other members here as to what could be used in place of money to fund all aspects of these public services and facilities; until and unless said member does so convincingly and credibly, etc." said Mr. H. We are not quite sure what he means by "to fund" - perhaps he will explain If he has to (which it appears that he does at least for the benefit of the member to whom he is now replying), he will, although the need to do so seems no clearer than does the identities of those other people who purportedly require such explanation. By "to fund", the member now responding meant and means "to pay for by some means" in order that whatever it is - public libraries or health services, houses or apartments, horses or bicycles, books or computers, water or food (no list is "endless" but this one's bound to be exceedingly long) - may be provided for their users; given that the only accepted means is money he means paying for whatever it is with money. The member now responding asked the member to whom he is so doing what he would put forward as an alternative means to pay for all of these things but, unsurprisingly, none has been forthcoming; the reference to "the people of Bali" (by which it is abundantly clear that only certain Balinese people are meant, not the Balinese populace as a whole) is therefore a southeast Asian red herring, if there can be such a thing; why would the Indonesian Rupiah be the currency in Bali and why are other currencies accepted and exchanged if there's no need for any of them? consider the crude country people of England before 1750 or so. Whilst it is far from clear why anyone here should consider them and what enlightening benefit might be derived from so doing in the present context, those people neither had nor expected to have many of those things to which the member who invites others here to do so has drawn attention, for example public libraries and healthcare services, bicycles, mains sewerage services, apartments and the like, or motorways or planes or audio equipment or the internet, &c. However, they would have expected to have somewhere to live, some food and water and some horses; how would they have acquired most of these? Not without money, that's for sure and, if it wasn't for sure, how come money had been around in England for many centuries before the year of Bach's death? That said, how in any case would you seek to distinguish between the allegedly "crude" country people of England and the others? - specifically, to what particular cridities do you allude here and why are they of supposed pertinence to the context? Lastly, why is the word "money" placed between ""s here? By the way when will Mr. H. be starting another thread? Not before all of the questions that he has asked here have been credibly answered and, so far, hardly any of them have been! In any case, is it really appropriate for the member to whom I am replying to wonder when or why the member now doing so - by reason of being deemed unqualified to participate in social life and whose family background makes questionable his entitlement to live in a house - might start a thread of his own?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 6:02:50 GMT -5
Mr. H. keeps on asking the wrong questions, and then he is astonished when they receive no answer. No answer to them is possible, only explanation.
Let us try another approach: is it not better to give something to some one who wants it, rather than to demand payment of money in return? And is it not better to assist some one who needs assistance, rather than to demand money in return for help?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 12, 2016 9:09:48 GMT -5
Mr. H. keeps on asking the wrong questions "Wrong" to you, no doubt, but to who else and on what grounds? and then he is astonished when they receive no answer Oh, no, not at all; why would I be "astonished" when this is par for the wearisome course for the member to whom I'm now responding and whom I describe as such following his having recently made no secret of the fact that he prefers not to be addressed by means of the second personal singular pronoun, for reasons best known only to himself. No answer to them is possible Again, for you, evidently - so perhaps someone else might like to have a go, based upon their own take on and responses to said questions? ...which you have nevertheless omitted to provide. No - just one at a time, please! another approach: is it not better to give something to some one who wants it, rather than to demand payment of money in return? And is it not better to assist some one who needs assistance, rather than to demand money in return for help? When either or both is possible, it/they are of course laudable, but the whole of life cannot be run or even predicated upon charitable actions; considering the former of your two examples, one cannot in any case give anything to anyone unless one has first acquired it - and by what means would such acquisition have in most cases been possible without the expenditure of money?
|
|