You are not logged in.
clark, the market is self-regulating, at least under semi-government-regulated capitalism. Yes, wages would go up, but this would increase the standard of living-allowing them to get a better education, and so on. They can then produce more, invent more, and so on.
Improving conditions allow the market to continue, even at higher wages.
Or is it ok that because we have higher living conditions, Cambodians should get paid $10 a month? The global market will eventually balance itself anyway, to the point where the Cambodians make similar wages to first world countries, as they unionize, and repeat the actions of 19th and 20th century Americans and Europeans. Labor is a resource just like anything else, and as demand increases, so will the cost. So bringing living conditions to parity will just speed up the process, not spiral it out of control. We need not drop our standards, just bring other countries' up to ours!
and clark, you still need police (which was what i meant by military) to enforce laws.
Alright, one thing I have to disagree with:
I simply don't see that. We just aren't advanced enough, technologically speaking, to go into space. We'll get their eventually.
We have the technology, it's just the willingness to spend the resources and effort to use it that's holding us back. We've had the means to get to Mars for a few decades-people just lost interest in the Space program somewhere between Apollo 11 and 13. There are still flares of interest, Challenger, Pathfinder, and Columbia come to mind-but not the sustained interest that would allow us to get somewhere.
We *need* a world government to unify humanity, bring an end to wars, pool resources for the betterment of humanity, bringing third world countries to parity with first world countries, and push to new frontiers.
my whole point wasn't about adam smith helping us-it's about the cultural awareness people at that time had. We have no more Adam Smith's, no more Voltaire's, no more Da Vinci's, and so on.
Sure, we have our inventors, but our fire seems to be going out for pioneering, as regulation and technology makes life easier.
So America or Mexico (the most populous nations) get to decide, poor Canada is to small to matter. And then there is China, with the largest population, always getting its way- so much for India, Japan, Russia (or is that considered Europe? another problem I suppose), the middle east, etc.
No, their votes get counted just as heavily as the American vote, or Mexican vote.
perhaps there is a better way to divide the political boundaries-at this point I don't see it. I'm just throwing out what I think can help form an effective government.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the youth, in particular, has become lazy. They ignore anything outside their field, and they don't do anything outside of what's required. The few that do are the ones you read about.
Besides for a select few space pioneers, we're about documenting Earth. Nobody wants to find that new frontier-it's all about making life easier, and sterile.
Josh, you still haven't gotten around the problem of Europe actually having a military if we cut ours. Closing bases overseas, yes, cutting our military capabilities, no. I think we can trim about $50 billion off without harming our capabilities.
Scramjet is unreliable, as is ramjet, ramjet to a lesser extent. It would take a lot to refine it to a scramjet to the point where its reliable enough for use on aircraft or spacecraft.
I think that we have to pursue other launch vehicles, my personal inclination being NTRs like NERVA. However, I think that even with a significantly cheaper chemical launch vehicle, our capabilities will be improved. Our overall goal should be more efficient launch systems-we should at least do R&D on nuclear vehicles, so we can use them down the road. Only using a more efficient method of propulsion will we significiantly reduce the cost of space travel, and develop orbit.
Great, 270 million americans make a decision, that is represented democratically- while some two bit dictator in some god forsaken country matches our voice with just theirs.
Ah, and I mentioned that we only have 7 representatives, one from each region (most likely the continents). That way the countries are balanced in representation, and the best interests of the region are met. Delegate election would be by popular vote (not an electoral type system).
And on the World level, each delegate should have equal say. If say, the European delegate thinks North America is in the right, well, they put their word to North America. And South America can do the same!
No, I wasn't being derogratory- I meant that society as a whole just can't compete with the minds of our ancestors. For the time, it wasn't really archaic language-how many people can understand Kant, or Locke?
To an extent, society just builds on what it sees and has in front of it, and does not seek to explore for itself.
I'll cut and paste what I said over at space.com:
"In my view, if you make it safe enough so that the real experts in the field, be they from NASA to Princeton, are confident enough in their safety that they come out to support it, people will trust the experts over the protesters.
The problem is, we have a reactor, now we have to integrate it into a system. In integrating it, we have to plan for each contingency, which I've tried to do. If we do this, it will be accepted by the experts, who will then convince the public. A bunch of protestors couldn't stand up to the intellectual capacities of NASA engineers, or university doctorates."
The concept was in theory, and in a time much different from our own. Like I've said, I don't forsee this happening in the next 50 to 100 years. I was projecting for a time when the petty disputes of today are dead, and people are educated beyond their ignorant hatreds.
Josh- touching on what you said before, what is a country but a political boundary? But, no, what I was proposing was EU style unions of continents, wherein free trade and movement would occur. The only trade barriers might be between continents. I was in no way suggesting that we hegemonize Earth! Unfortunately, if we don't find a new home, it will happen!
Right, so you could get around 25% of the launch mass to orbit, according to my estimations and calculations. This gives it an 18x efficiency edge over the Shuttle, and opens up some amazing RLV and HLV possibilities.
And what if the labor-based capitalism continues to rule the marketplace-because it flexes on human nature? I see no reason, and I've been to about half the states of the country, and many foreign countries-to believe that capitalism is at all faltering. In fact, I think with the global economy, it's expanding to add another layer of supply and demand.
And your comment I believe shows a problem. I'm no purveryor of culture, but _The Wealth of Nations_ is regarded as one of the greatest books in history. Why has it come to a point where only an exclusive few will look at it?
Whoa, wait a minute. He said he would go...he didn't say the mission has a 1 in for chance of failure :laugh:
Suicide mission? It's sound from an economic, practical, and engineering standpoint-I see no reason to call it a suicide mission. It has science aims, production aims, and colonization aims.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to judge society based on fact. In fact, I would have to say anything other than an analysis is based on opinion--any attempt to create a new system, that is. Which is why I say Adam Smith was ojective--he was observing what was, not creating something new.
No, the second there is no government authority, is when you should worry, because your local criminal has nobody to answer to.
That's exactly opposite of what I just said Josh. What I said is that there are representatives from all regions, and force is only used to put down violence. Freedom of dissention should be allowed, but not violence. I am all for freedom, just not freedom to destroy. Cultures should be preserved, nothing in what I said goes against that Josh.
Because it is a representative government that actually governs the world equitably, and pools the resources of the world. It allows free trade and movement. Its laws would be equal around the world.
The UN has no governing powers beyond emergency management and diplomacy. It is not a real government so much as a negotiating agency.
Oh, and on my last post, I am not trying to spark the debate again, just trying to make a point about perspectives... :angry:
The point was to record this data en-route to and on Mars while doing a Mars Direct style mission!
Josh, perhaps people simply don't regard Proudhon highly enough to rebut him? Or they point to Adam Smith? Who knows?
And on people not seeing it, maybe they simply disagree because from their view, their basis and logic is either just as sound, or more sounds than yours?
Sure, from Karl Marx's position, capitalism might have sucked, and maybe the system caused his problems. But not from my perspective!
Any research into nanotubes is good research! But as research progresses, they will become more refined, its just a matter of mass-producing the nanotubes (so basically, a nanotube is a nanotube, its just the length in question. We just need to extend the length of a nanotube to fit our design!).
You still need the abilitiy to enforce laws, stop terrorist groups, and so on. It doesn't have to be some huge force, just a mobile force. Use of that force would have to be approved by 75% of the "Senate." (7 regions+1 leader=8 so, 6 have to approve). This ensures that lawful protests aren't squelched.
The Senators also don't have a political motive to put down dissention arbitrarily, because they have term limits. Oh, and legislation would have to be in plain language, with no pork, and no under the table dealings.