> In essence, Marx was right...the most efficient way of doing things is for
> each person to do what they are good at and consume only and as much
> as they require. In such a system there wouldn't be any need for a "state"
> ...etc.
>
> The question is how to institute such a system.
>
> And the answer is, I think, to have a population so well educated
> and connected that it is more productive to do your job than to take
> advantage of you neighboor...that it is more productive to be
> sincere and honest that to be cagey.
Would a "state" not need to be in effect to conduct this education?
> And the only way to do that right now, it seems, is to keep playing the
> game.
>
> It's like that big computer finally learns in "WarGames" by playing
> Tic-Tac-Toe against itself.
>
> "The only way to win is not to play"
As an idea it's good, but I think by our very nature as humans we play
because we are competitive, and we play because we think we might win,
whatever the odds (See: National Lottery, and: Hell, Snowball's Chance
in...). The other problem is that the game has already begun. The dice
have been rolled, and the players are in action. To sit out is to lose
out. It's too late to suggest another game. We have to wait 'till the
current players have all lost before it's over, and before we can
suggest some alternatives. Only the alternative has to be preferable to
the original, otherwise they might just start again.
> or in other words:
>
> "Cooperate, don't defect"
You're always going to find people who disagree, possibly quite
strongly, with this.
> But how can you make such a system stable?
Eliminate Greed. It's the only way. How to eliminate greed? I can
only think of one way: Eliminate the human race.
> Think, think, think.
No, it makes my brain hurt!
--Drakir
"We are the New Breed, We are the Future."