Mary Therise Gleason wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Max More <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Perhaps, contrary to our current understanding, some kind of centralized
> >allocation system will one day be better than markets. I doubt it, but if so, I
> >will revise the principles then! For now, I want to retain an explicit
> >Extropian favoring of markets in the very open and flexible sense I've laid out
> >in the Principles.
> In other words, "how could *I* be wrong? The great god More has spoken,
> CAPITALISM IS IDEAL." Sorry, YOUR principles aren't open or flexible in
> any sense. There's no such thing as an "Extropian". That's just a word you
> made up to feel superior to everyone else.
I never saw the term "centralized allocation system" in Max's Principles 3.0 but I did read the term "moneyless allocation system". The terms aren't the same and to make them so is provocative. Even the U.S. military realize their forth coming omnisensorial data fusion systems offer no hope of "centralized planning". A neural (net) economy isn't a centralized system and yet can't be called a money system either, so any non-inflamatory discussion about allocation systems needs to include this new 21st century feature.