If man cannot quantify progress its possible man is chasing his tail in ever increasing rapidity such that centrifugal force will cause his entire enterprise to self-destruct.

How can you say life is absurd when we can spend it making money or growing our Instagram account? We have the freedom to vote for the politician of our choice and pick any gender we choose. If this does not give meaning to a persons life, what could?

Belief in a physical reality dependent on causality had only one place it could end up. I guess one could sum up the last 6000 years of human thought by the acronym GIGO.

I prefer to understand the moral problem as being one in which morality and duty are incompatible. But in freedom we claim rights and rights cannot exist unless duties are imposed on others. All regulations and laws are duties imposed on us by those with the right.

I agree we cannot have morality without freedom but the barrier to freedom is duty and duty in the way i see it is another mans freedom. A plain example is the duty of the slave is the freedom of the master.

Freedom is not moral and in fact is a nonsense (meaningless) term. To start with it is relative and often incompatible. My free speech is your hate speech. This is why every nation pays lip service to freedom while bounding it and containing it with innumerable laws.

If you wish to argue freedom is an average state of a population, you are faced with the moral dilemma that those who allocate and distribute the freedom packets must be superior in freedom compared to the average.

Ought may imply can but you would have to convince me duties can be moral and that might be a task you would prefer to forgo. You have no duty to attempt it and no moral obligation to demonstrate ought is a moral factor.

NOTE: My argument is not restricted to or by known social systems. In a system in which administrative hierarchies exist, moral duties must exist and be free to exercise.

Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist FOR ATHEISTS.

You give me a picture of your personality and i will share one of my God.

I cannot explain what is in your mind or why, sorry.

I certainly was not commenting on an invisible, thing that does not exist.

I never said that.

Am I to understand from this you did not read the essay or you do not know how an experiment is conducted?

You guys getting me drunk and having me sign a social compact when i was not fully conscious of what i was doing.

How about if I told you that you all agreed to send me $100.00 next week, how would you feel about that. And do not tell me you do not remember. I said you did and so that is that, case closed.

You must have gotton me drunk. How could you have tricked me like this? Its not fair.

Am I to understand you think people edit a book they write to deceive the reader? Can you not conceive of any other possible reason why editing might occur? I actually number my edits so i can keep track of all the versions, this year i edited my webside 107 times, yep just this year. Believe me, I do not edit to deceive. But of course you have your reality and I have mine.

(Warning: this is an edit) .. I may go back to a post three to five times because to do otherwise means the later addition comes before the previous or original comment. So while conspircy theories are fun the truth is usually simpler if more boring.

Technically yes but personal ownership is not the issue. The issue is owning a forest or waterfall or mine and robbing it of all its value. But even owning a factory and making money off the labor of workers is only justified because the employer was given the right to own the factory in the first place. But where does this right come from, who has the right to give anyone this right? Do you think a person has a right to claim a continent for his own or his monarch? Do you think a people have a right to say they own it, they can but the only way they can prove this is through killing anyone who challanges their right, as in war. But if they can do this why cannot a criminal do the same thing? Its precisely the same kind of behaviour.

You mean like physicists when they create a model of the atom and discuss its merits and weaknesses?

You think a system is created by one person on a computer, the theory is but the system if you mean a place, requires people.

You assume you can defeat any system. Why? Because you think you can outsmart any barriers to freeloading. Everyone likes this system because it permits cheating and everyone thinks they are winning more than losing... the house always wins in case you are wondering.

If I said lets cut the pie and pick a slice blindfolded you would agree because you assume you could peek, if i said you cut the pie and will will take turns choosing a slice with you being the last to pick, you would not agree because you could not cheat. Am I right?

About as good as starting from the wrong ones in the first place.

And if you go back to my original comment you will note i did not specify for you to change your wrong assumptions into other wrong assumptions, there are an unlimited supply of them but that is no reason to keep choosing them.

But I am sure this is far too complex for you to understand so let me provide an illustration, you assume truth is not simpler than lies when logically it has to be, but you base this assumption on looking at the lies made about the structure or nature of reality and because the more you look the less you see that matches the original assumption about what reality looks like, you think truth is getting more complicated, no. What is happening is that you are covering up one misrepresentations with more complex misrepresentations.

Have you read about Ptolemic picture of the universe and how it made truth look more and more complicated. It was based on a lie.

As to your last point, all you need to do to find a way around this is to change your assumptions.

I do ehy? Interesting. But then you do not know i am past 70 and i started working on a theory when i was 17. My first intellectual insight i remember is realizing poeple were irrational and if you gave them a chance they would corrupt and destroy everything they were given. My entire life has been spent devising a system than no one, regardless how evil they were, could circumvent and corrupt it, but you are right, an evil person creating a system designed to allow him to freeload off of others will never become a utopia except for him. That much we can agree on.

Irrelevant, but you seem intelligent enough to know that already. I did not even preclude the possibility the statement was not a lie, as you also well know but that is what you are evading. I have played these games a 1000 and more times before. I do not care you will not answer questions, atheists never do. Everything they do is based on making sure they are not accountable for anything they say or do.

You can keep playing your games all i am saying i am fully aware of what you are doing, i just do not care.

IMO what is often referred to as the market is the only other option. We either force people to align with our agenda, or we permit each person to work and spend. It may seem overly simplistic but there is no other option.

I might be. I claim 4 is the answer to 2+2 if you can prove you have a different viewpoint and it is more credible we can move over to the tautological and analytical claims of my theory.

bTw you did not offer a different viewpoint you merely evaded the question .

Of course.

If a society can say a man is a slave and he is a slave the obverse is obviously true.

Is that the answer you are going with or would you like to ask the audience if they have a better answer?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can figure out the answer to this question yourself.

The purpose of man is to create value. There is only one way to do this, through specialization. Equiton is a model community without duties. It is represented by an accounting system using equity in the form of preferred shares contracted to prefers, as a type of currency. Adding value to assets creates equity which represents a credit to the persons account.

Since Equiton is a creation of its citizens it is owned by its citizens who work to add value to the city though specialized activity. Because all persons benefit from the work of adding value there is no benefit to anyone being idle or prevented from working, which means there is no poverty and everyone is well able to pay for the things they need.

(And I am well aware that a two paragraph summary does not exhaust every issue and question regarding a new model of society).