The bottom line is this:

Today, if we had the capability to send every single human - every single one of us - to another planet, do we currently have the resources to do so?  Or have we already spent too much on ridiculously frivolous endeavors: wars, new cars and mobile phones every few years, etc.?

I contend that as soon as we no longer have enough resources available to us to send ALL of us to other star systems, no longer is there the political will to send ANYONE.  For a population will NEVER agree to work to send an elite few to another star system if by their labor they will render their planet desolate.  Therefore, for a civilization to ever expand to the cosmos it must do so BEFORE their population increases to the extent that they do not have the resoruces available to send ALL of them.

you made it separate posts.

""The caring, progressive, egalitarian state is not a vehicle for progress."

I TOTALLY agree.  Where do you get the idea that I am calling for a progressive, egalitarian STATE?  Give your head a shake.  I AM NOT.

I am calling for the values of progressiveness, egalitarianism, cooperation - those values which were rewarded in hunter-gatherer societies, those which provided for the evolution of our sentience to begin with, to be by fostered and rewarded by civilization rather than PUNISHED.  For let's be clear, we do currently PUNISH, breed OUT of our species those traits which originally led to the evolution of our sentience.  In fact, we, by how we have constructed our civilization are DE-EVOLVING."

If you don't want an empowered STATE then why talk of coercive means like TAX?  Do you expect us to form a voluntary association of forcible donations?  We take it in turns to act as chief executive, but all decisions of that executive must be ratified by a two-thirds majority?

you seem to be playing games with language.

You insist you don't have a problem with accumulation of wealth -- just how wealth is garnered and spent; it should be consumed with taxes.

You say you don't want a caring, progressive egalitarian state - you just want government to "transform society into one whose economy rewards cooperation, egalitarianism - a free market system without anti-trust activity"

I do not know what is the difference between a caring progressive egalitarian state, and one which transforms society into one whose economy rewards cooperation and egalitarianism.

Not to encourage you, but I don't think pointing out ignorance and idiocy is likely to be encouraging:

"Well, think about it: Fred, instead of sitting on his ASS all day collecting interest from his money in the bank, has to INVEST his income in a business (if he wants to continue sitting on his ASS all day), or, oh, I don't know, ACTUALLY GO OUT AND GET A BLOODY JOB LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.  Otherwise, his wealth will get taxed down to NOTHING.  He's got to actually WORK to KEEP his wealth."

Banks invest his money--that's where the interest comes from. The bank just serves as a money-manager so that everyone doesn't have to do research and become an investor. It also allows pooled risk so everyone gets some return and nobody loses (if the bank isn't run by morons--free markets provide many choices).

"Jason, on the other hand, gets ahead, because he DOESN'T have to pay taxes until he actually garners WEALTH: when his house is paid-off; when his basic needs are fulfilled, THAT is when he starts getting taxed."

At what, a 100% rate? Because that tiny tax-base can't possible pay the bills. Have you ever observed how hard people work for nothing? It's not very hard.

"Seriously, who would support such an inequitable system of taxation?  Maybe those who like sitting on their ass all day garnering interest from their hoarded wealth?  Maybe guys like Fred?
The VAST majority of people are like Jason; why do our systems support people like Fred?"

Our system doesn't support people like Fred; people like Fred support people like Fred. The vast majority of Jasons won't work very hard when they're promised massive taxation as soon as they provide for their basic needs.

"Progressive stance?  My stance is not to be affiliated with any political ideology other than liberal democratic, for it does not fall into the realm of communism or fascism; it is in total favor of the functioning of free market capitalism in a liberal democratic political system."

Except to tax the crap out of individuals with any assets and corporations. In your version of communism, the government doesn't own anything, it just has absolute control over everything: de-facto ownership. Wages? Regulated and taxed heavily. Wealth? Regulated and taxed heavily.

"Let me tell you what has destroyed the fortunes in the Western World: Fred (above) has no incentive to be productive because he can garner enough in low-risk investments held in banks. "

Nobody with wealth invests through banks. Get an education. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Furthermore, investments mean low-cost loans to businesses and have an integral role in wealth creation. It's 2012. How can you know nothing about capitalism? Taxing investments heavily means less availability of loans and higher costs of loans: Damaging business, productivity, and prices. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"He does not have to invest in the economy, nor does he have to work,"

Yes, he necessarily has to invest in the economy. That's how he earns interest. He has absolutely no way to make money without investing in the economy. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"Meanwhile, Jason (above) cannot garner any wealth.  He can't save for retirement; can't put his kids through uni, can't then buy much in terms of consumer goods, BECAUSE HE HAS TO PAY TAXES."

The solution is more freedom, less government, and lower taxes. I have no problem with the poor paying a very low tax rate. But you're not arguing for that. You're arguing for communistic wealth-stealing of everybody who's productive and successful beyond what you, wannabe communist overlord, decide they deserve. That's a huge restriction of freedom. That's communism.

"What has happened is the Freds in the world don't invest, don't wokr, don't produce ANYTHING"

That's freedom. When Fred or Fred's dad worked really hard for a really long time, they're rewarded for their productivity. That reward is why they're so productive. Without this reward, Fred wouldn't have worked so hard and made life better for everyone by competing in a free market to provide goods/services to millions of people who wanted what Fred did/produced. Your comments suggest that you have absolutely no understanding of capitalism. How can you hold such strong views in favor of massive restrictions on freedom when you do not understand how capitalism functions?

"I am calling for the values of progressiveness, egalitarianism, cooperation - those values which were rewarded in hunter-gatherer societies,"

Mankind has thrived by individuals serving their self-interests. The most successful societies reward productivity (aka capitalistic), resulting in more self-interested individuals producing more in order to attain more rewards. People are productive to the benefit of us all because it benefits them to be, not because of some intellectual ideals of progressiveness, egalitarianism, or cooperation. That's absolutely ridiculous.

The majority of mankind can't tell you what "progressiveness" or "egalitarianism" are. They're certainly not motivated by these supposed ideals.

"What do you think "It" is, exactly that I am suggesting.  Do you have any clue?  What are you assuming "It" is?  We are not on the same page, here."

Communism: High taxes through which incomes and wealth are stolen from people and supposedly used for the collective good by [communist] government. You ARE proposing massive restrictions of freedom. You ARE proposing massive taxes on what people have earned. You ARE proposing communism.

"that I, personally, have very little hope that we can, over the next 200 years or EVER, successfully launch our civilization to the stars."

So you think it's society that will prevent us from significant space-travel. It's not things like massive distances and absolutely no technology remotely capable of even beginning the feat. It's not things like light-speed travel perhaps not even being possible. It's society. Thanks for input. I didn't realize you were a physicist.

"Today, if we had the capability to send every single human - every single one of us - to another planet, do we currently have the resources to do so?  Or have we already spent too much on ridiculously frivolous endeavors: wars, new cars and mobile phones every few years, etc.?"

We don't have the technology, nor would we want to go to another planet. We're too busy fighting for our freedom from communists like you to be concerned with travelling in space. We're too busy fighting for the freedom to enjoy our lives and give better lives to our children to be concerned with travelling in space. We're too aware that the technology doesn't exist, and we have more important things to waste 90 trillion dollars on, to be concerned with travelling in space.

You don't even understand how basic economic transactions happen. You don't even understand basic human motivations: ie, free men are more productive than slaves. Your presumption that you understand even the most basic concepts involved in space travel is hilarious.

Other than under the law, people aren't and shouldn't be equal. They're not equally smart. They're not equally hard working. They're not equally moral. And they don't deserve equal reward for their unequal labor/production. The myth of egalitarianism--beyond under the law--has been used to justify slavery and horrible standards of living for the past century.

Tax wealth! So that a permanent underclass never strives to achieve or produce anything. You worked hard and bought a house? Work harder, you're now a slave to the state. You need to pay for the privilege of keeping what you own every year. That's not only a recipe for poverty and less productive people, it's called communism btw.

Communism does not call for "perfect equality of economic outcome either." But it does call for massive taxes on corporations, high incomes, and wealth. Which you call for as well. What a coincidence.

Your overly-broad definition of egalitarianism fits free markets well: It fits freedom and not the massive taxation and demotivation you advocate.

Egalitarianism in regard to law is what is embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Your calls for wealth redistribution (which is what taxing wealth is) are not this egalitarianism, and the writers of the Declaration of Independence would scoff at your implication.

The worker in agreeing to an absolute amount of money for his labor, creates an absolute minimum for the price. 

The cost of borrowing money for the business, is also a set amount, and is added to the absolute price.

To say these absolute costs are a better deal for the rich, because as a percentage, he can afford to pay them easier than the worker, is pointless, unless the working class agrees its wages shall be relative to the income of the customer.  A computer could probably help with that, but who wants to earn half as much for doing the same work, because the goods were aimed at lower class people?  Is that justice?

"If you see the need for temporary high taxes until the playing field is levelled then you are for big government since it collects the taxes."

Well, there is the need for high taxes currently since we are already paying high taxes, aren't we?  The coercive system of taxation we currently have is exploiting the poor and middle class, the wealth-LESS, to the extent that in spite of all their efforts they cannot gain wealth, while the wealthy garner more wealth.  We're redistributing the wealth the poor and middle class DO NOT HAVE to the rich when we should be redistributing the wealth the rich do have to sustain the poor and middle class, at the VERY LEAST in so far as they can fulfill their basic needs.  This would need current levels of taxation, current levels of wealth distribution; only the direction and echelons to which this wealth should be redistributed should be revised. 

"you invent a line between calling for a coercive system of wealth distribution and SUPPORTING such as system."

The alternative is to call for NO for all  taxation NOW!  That's crazy.  Let's be realistic here.

"moral authority of the government with the duty to rob Peter to pay Paul it will soon become "immoral" to argue that it's time to stop robbing."

We are already robbing.  Most people just don't know it because the means of the thievery is not transparent: a "free market system which isn't really free, and which effects such tremendous inequalities in wealth that while 1/3 of humanity starves / suffers malnourishment, the next 1/3 afford new junky cars, mobile phones, laptops, TVs every 2 to 3 years without wondering why their stuff keeps breaking just when their warranties run out, not really 'owning' their own junky home, but thinking they do, but really the banks own it all because they 'bought' it all on CREDIT, thinking they are somehow well off enough to pay 30 to 50% or more in taxes every year and think nothing of it; while the next 1/2.99999 don't know what is going on and don't care, just as long as their favorite sitcoms keep popping up on the TV from time to time and the liquor cabinet stays stocked, with the remaining .00001 % of humanity are already halfway to other star systems to establish their palaces of concubines to populate their very own planets (they're getting away early before the rest of humanity figures out what is going on).

You are talking about a permanently repressive society that will impose taxes, not to fund government operations, but simply to steal from any citizen who gets "too far ahead".  I say permanently because as we see with Apple and cell phones and computers, any innovation that results in broader services and goods to a massive number of citizens will create "unfair" distribution - as you define it, because you wrongly measure the price of goods as relative to the purchasing power of the customer, so that fruit, coffee, housing, utilities provided at a set price to all consumers is relatively harder on the poor -- necessitating "distribution".

There is no distribution from those who never had the money to begin with.  You are complaining when any individual through their own efforts secures more wealth through services or goods to a broad enough spectrum of customers, or acquires ownership interest -- with millions of other lower class people! -- in ventures that do so. 

Every person who owns stock, directly or through a pension, in a company traded on the NYSE, owns part of a company worth $75 million, cause that's one of the requirements to get listed.  is that more exploitation?

I'm not going to read all of this so this may have already been covered. You assume we'd be intelligent enough to comprehend an advanced universe-wide civilisation. They could literally be all around us right now observing the advancement of our species, monitoring every neural fart in your brain ... but we're just simply just not capable of conceiving them. Like ants in a man-made ant farm .

> Pixies wrote:

> I'm not going to read all of this so this may have already been covered. You assume we'd be intelligent enough to comprehend an advanced universe-wide civilisation. They could literally be all around us right now observing the advancement of our species, monitoring every neural fart in your brain ... but we're just simply just not capable of conceiving them. Like ants in a man-made ant farm .

Hmm.... could be....  If you make contact with them, or if they start talking to you in your head, please see a psychologist.  ;P  All joking aside, there's no proof of alien civilizations out there, when, if you think about it, there really ought to be.  That there isn't any sign of any other intelligent, sentient life is evidence that evolving sentience and developing space-faring civilization is exceptionally rare if not impossible.  Perhaps because civilization tends to de-evolve sentience to the extent species never develop the cognitive characteristics, technologies, etc. necessary to become space-farers is the cause.  Perhaps wars ensue which destroy said civilizations or even the species themselves when the majority of a sentient species realize only a few will be permitted the opportunity to launch themselves to the stars and the vast majority will necessarily be left behind with a barren, exhausted planet.

It's quintessential, then, that we find a way to utilize our resources wisely: create a civilization in which everyone will have the opportunity to be launched to the stars and that we do not exhaust the planet by doing so.  Could this be possible?  Maybe it is for the current 6 or 7 billion people we have now, but will it be possible for the 200 billion we will have in 200 years?

200 years is not a lot of time.  We have to get started before its too late.  Besides, creating a society where we could all potentially be launched to establish ourselves on other planets would be good for the economy: it would solve our economic woes, wouldn't it?

It's certainly a hard pill to swallow.

It's not the physical qualities I argue devolve.  It is the cognitive qualities which initially give rise to sentience which devolve as civilizations rise.

Early in a sentient species evolution, they develop cognitive abilities (theory of other minds, cooperation, language, morality, ethics, intelligence). These abilities could potentially allow them to develop a space-faring civilization if they continued to evolve these very qualities.  As centralized forms of civilization arise, however, due to more base motivators of greed and lust. Within systems of civilization, it is the greedy, more lustful individuals who then become more biologically successful, which, over time, diminishes the very cognitive qualities of the species which gave rise to their sentience in the first place. 

It's like this: sentience wanes as civilizations rise, while as civilzations fall, sentience resurges.  The question thus arises, does sentience ever resurge to the extent that a sentient species successfully develops a civization that does not reward base motivators of greed and lust but, rather, higher ones of theory of other minds, cooperation, etc., and thus is able to launch said civilization to the stars?  Apparently not (look to the stars and see for yourself).