These people are our future

[CoccoBill]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

All of this seems to be close to correct.

"The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses."

Not quite sure what you mean by this part. I believe that the only way to evolve human beings is through learning, and learning can only be achieved when a person must use a decision making process. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "choosing against their own values." Can you explain this sentence more?

The goal of the system is to maximize the happiness of every individual and to maximize the evolution of every individual.

I will also say that I emphatically agree with the two basic assumptions that I am making.

[CoccoBill]

"The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses."

Not quite sure what you mean by this part. I believe that the only way to evolve human beings is through learning, and learning can only be achieved when a person must use a decision making process. I'm not sure what you mean by someone "choosing against their own values." Can you explain this sentence more?

E.g. self-destructive behavior or other choices leading to less value for the individual. I'm assuming you don't suggest that all choices made by people are always "beneficial" for them.

I'm not sure I understand your statement about learning. Do you mean learning just as a personal process, each individual's personal learning process. Do you think such a thing exists as society's knowledge and do you think it's more or less important than the personal knowledge?

The goal of the system is to maximize the happiness of every individual and to maximize the evolution of every individual.

What are your thoughts on society and it's importance?

I will also say that I emphatically agree with the two basic assumptions that I am making.

I think both of them are false, but I don't know how to prove either, nor obviously even make a convincing argument about them. Why do you agree with them?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another

Do you think this is true?

[Lyric]

Since this is moving nowhere, let's try another angle.

ISF, your basic argument and philosophy is that the only thing the system should strive for is creating value for its individuals, and any values or morals upheld by its individuals will automatically ensue. The well-being or direction of progress of the society as a whole, or of any nonfunctional individuals (those that choose against their own values) are either non-consequential or acceptable losses.

The functioning of the system rests on 2 basic assumptions:

1) the system is non-zero-sum, that is, the gain of one is not automatically the loss of another
2) the value generated by the system for each of its individuals accurately represents the value they provide for it

Before I say anything else, please correct any mistakes, omissions or misrepresentations I made.

I only have one question: what is the goal of this system?

If two men are on an island and one makes 10 wheels of cheese and the other makes 10 gallons of wine. They trade 5 wheels for 5 gallons so that each has wine and cheese. Who lost? How is the exchange making anyone worse off?

If you go into a forest and build a house from the trees, mud, and rocks and then you have created wealth and no one has lost any wealth. If one man builds a home and another trades 1,000 gallons of wine for the home, who lost?

A man's wealth is directly related to what he brings into the world. If he builds a home from trees he has created a home that did not exist before, and if he trades that home for cheese and wine (that didn't exist until the men that made them brought them into the world), he now has cheese and wine that is directly proportional to the value (wealth) that he brought into the world when he made his house.

Point one is the number one reason that people cannot understand economics -- they continue to think that the only way to be rich is at the expense of another person. The reality is that valued things can be created from raw materials, which brings more and more valued things into the world through work and intelligent organization of materials that end as a more valued product.

A car is worth much more than the metal is was built from, and a home is worth much more than its raw materials as well. In this way new wealth is created and no one on earth is hurt when one man become wealthy -- it is the opposite. When a man makes cheese and trades it for wine, both of them are better off (richer) because they have both products and neither of them has harmed the other and both have been creating food and wine for selfish reasons. Organized cooperation to divide labor and specialization is not needed to create a healthy and wealthy society.

[CoccoBill]

If two men are on an island and one makes 10 wheels of cheese and the other makes 10 gallons of wine. They trade 5 wheels for 5 gallons so that each has wine and cheese. Who lost? How is the exchange making anyone worse off?

If you go into a forest and build a house from the trees, mud, and rocks and then you have created wealth and no one has lost any wealth. If one man builds a home and another trades 1,000 gallons of wine for the home, who lost?

A man's wealth is directly related to what he brings into the world. If he builds a home from trees he has created a home that did not exist before, and if he trades that home for cheese and wine (that didn't exist until the men that made them brought them into the world), he now has cheese and wine that is directly proportional to the value (wealth) that he brought into the world when he made his house.

Point one is the number one reason that people cannot understand economics -- they continue to think that the only way to be rich is at the expense of another person. The reality is that valued things can be created from raw materials, which brings more and more valued things into the world through work and intelligent organization of materials that end as a more valued product.

A car is worth much more than the metal is was built from, and a home is worth much more than its raw materials as well. In this way new wealth is created and no one on earth is hurt when one man become wealthy -- it is the opposite. When a man makes cheese and trades it for wine, both of them are better off (richer) because they have both products and neither of them has harmed the other and both have been creating food and wine for selfish reasons. Organized cooperation to divide labor and specialization is not needed to create a healthy and wealthy society.

Is there an endless supply of cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks? If you create something out of them, there's less of them for other people to create wealth with, right? Cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks are not worthless, they are resources and goods, neither of which are infinite.

And when the man die's and his son inherits the house, what value did the son generate the earn the house? Or do you think the son is just some continuum of the man, essentially the same person?

Creating products from raw resources raises their value, but its not a net positive, resources are used to create them, resources that are away from the others.

[Lyric]

Is there an endless supply of cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks? If you create something out of them, there's less of them for other people to create wealth with, right? Cheese, wine, trees, mud and rocks are not worthless, they are resources and goods, neither of which are infinite.

And when the man die's and his son inherits the house, what value did the son generate the earn the house? Or do you think the son is just some continuum of the man, essentially the same person?

Creating products from raw resources raises their value, but its not a net positive, resources are used to create them, resources that are away from the others.

There is an endless amount of trees, wine, and cheese. All of them come from the sun and the world will literally never run out of them. Cows eat grass which is made of sun and air and less than 1% earth. After the cheese is eaten the minerals return to the earth. Wine grapes are made of sun and air as well. Trees are the same. Farming them doesn't hurt anyone and only takes from the sun which is effectively infinite.

Are you ready to admit that society is not needed to generate wealth and that one working man on an island can become wealthier over time even without societies historical knowledge?