The Venus Project

We will be bettering ourselves. We were all created out of the big bang; from the same substance. We're all made of atoms, which are all made of the same things. In nature, there is no such thing as independence, as we are all dependent on eachother. Why? Because we are eachother. It is all one. Where would we be without the plants, the sun, or even scarrabs? By helping eachother, we are helping ourselves.

you put far too much faith in people...the fact is...if you're going to get the same things for doing nothing...as you would if you worked a neccessary but horrible job for a living..you would choose doing nothing

why would somebody do a sewer maintainence job when someone doing nothing would get the same?

why would someone put themselves through extremely mentally challenging or emotionally difficult jobs (paramedics at crash scenes etc) knowing that other people doing easier or no work at all will get the same?

why would someone work in a job where they could be subject to verbal or physical assault when they're aren't getting anything more than the people doing the assaulting?

they wouldn't

i understand the concept of a moneyless society from the resources POV...if the oil industry worked and extracted the oil for nothing then the processers could process it for nothing and give it to the companies who mine for minerals to make other things or to the companies to ship food etc etc...and eventually everything could be free

but how would you justify that someone still gets to live in a huge mansion and others live in tiny apartments when you're effectively saying that all jobs are worth the same

and if you're not saying that and merely giving out the resources on the basis of the contribution your job makes to society then how do you put a value on that?

science researchers should, in all fairness, be getting more than footballers...but they don't...and even in a cashless society it's doubtful that they would

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah, insulting me like that means dick in a debate.

Maybe you should actually point out these so-called idiotic conclusions.

Originally posted by lord xyz

In nature, there is no such thing as independence, as we are all dependent on eachother.

Incorrect. we are not all dependent on each other, we are dependent on a few things, many of the others might as well be totally different

Originally posted by lord xyz

Where would we be without the plants, the sun, or even scarrabs?

It would be a different universe. But since your point is we are all one, it wouldn't matter, cause it would still all be the same thing. You are not even thinking in your own belief.

Originally posted by lord xyz

By helping eachother, we are helping ourselves.

If you accept that there is a difference beteen us (i.e. us having different consciousness) then you must accept that one part of our "oneness" taking advantage or even destroying another part can have advantages to what we more commonly refer to as "self".

Originally posted by lord xyz

When a painter makes a painting he really likes, he'll show his painting to everyone.

That's your belief. There are cases where people made something and wanted it all to themselves. You just go by one sort of person, which might or might not even exist.

Originally posted by lord xyz

Imagine if all the ancients did was fight between small and tall people, and exchange rocks for jobs which were being a table, piggy backing people down the roads, cleaning streets etc. and then yell at machines that replaced there jobs because now they don't have enough rocks to get food and water, and will now die.

Would've hindered our society greatly.

Err, that's likely what they did. That's at least what Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Franconians, Europe of the 17th and 18th Century and the US of the 19th Century did...and they are responsible for most of the advancement in our society as well as some of the fastest. Your logic is broke there.

On the whole, as a sort of Utopia (a la Asimov's The Robots of Dawn) I like the idea. If we don't have to work anymore and can have all sorts of luxury it's a reasonable system (we'd need to be a lot less people really and it would be far, far in the future), but there's no reason to work on it now, a monetary system is, as of yet, the best way to advance society in the way you seem to want.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough on those, though I think you overestimate the ability of machines being able to do that many jobs as of yet.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What will happen with those? The need for those jobs will still be there? Who does them? Why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err what? You lost me there logically, why would they not exist? That seems to be a very fundamental need for this society to work.

Doing something for something in return, won't be evident. The argument is abundance, yet there are things that are not abundant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I think most professional athletes do practice quite a lot.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume he did it initially because he thought it was cool. Whether he ever had gone to such length as he did without the incentive of money, I doubt. Then again, footballer is also not the most standard or generic of jobs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
k

Incorrect. we are not all dependent on each other, we are dependent on a few things, many of the others might as well be totally different

Originally posted by Bardock42
It would be a different universe. But since your point is we are all one, it wouldn't matter, cause it would still all be the same thing. You are not even thinking in your own belief.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you accept that there is a difference beteen us (i.e. us having different consciousness) then you must accept that one part of our "oneness" taking advantage or even destroying another part can have advantages to what we more commonly refer to as "self".

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's your belief. There are cases where people made something and wanted it all to themselves. You just go by one sort of person, which might or might not even exist.

(Incase you get mad and yell at me for being stupid)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err, that's likely what they did. That's at least what Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Franconians, Europe of the 17th and 18th Century and the US of the 19th Century did...and they are responsible for most of the advancement in our society as well as some of the fastest. Your logic is broke there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On the whole, as a sort of Utopia (a la Asimov's The Robots of Dawn) I like the idea. If we don't have to work anymore and can have all sorts of luxury it's a reasonable system (we'd need to be a lot less people really and it would be far, far in the future), but there's no reason to work on it now, a monetary system is, as of yet, the best way to advance society in the way you seem to want.

Originally posted by jaden101
you put far too much faith in people...the fact is...if you're going to get the same things for doing nothing...as you would if you worked a neccessary but horrible job for a living..you would choose doing nothing

Originally posted by jaden101
why would somebody do a sewer maintainence job when someone doing nothing would get the same?

Originally posted by jaden101
why would someone put themselves through extremely mentally challenging or emotionally difficult jobs (paramedics at crash scenes etc) knowing that other people doing easier or no work at all will get the same?

Originally posted by jaden101
why would someone work in a job where they could be subject to verbal or physical assault when they're aren't getting anything more than the people doing the assaulting?

Originally posted by jaden101
they wouldn't

i understand the concept of a moneyless society from the resources POV...if the oil industry worked and extracted the oil for nothing then the processers could process it for nothing and give it to the companies who mine for minerals to make other things or to the companies to ship food etc etc...and eventually everything could be free

Originally posted by jaden101
but how would you justify that someone still gets to live in a huge mansion and others live in tiny apartments when you're effectively saying that all jobs are worth the same

Originally posted by jaden101
and if you're not saying that and merely giving out the resources on the basis of the contribution your job makes to society then how do you put a value on that?

Originally posted by jaden101
science researchers should, in all fairness, be getting more than footballers...but they don't...and even in a cashless society it's doubtful that they would

Originally posted by lord xyz
Nothing will be forever scarce, but it'd help if you named something that is scarce.

I did. The best example are things like the mona lisa, antiques, and other things that are "one offs".

The Mona Lisa cannot be distributed among all the people who might want it, so some form of price is needed. Using money to set that price allows all people more access to it.

Scarcity can also be caused by general choke points in production of raw materials or the product itself. Like, regardless of demand, oil can only be pumped out of the Earth so fast. Scarcity then can also refer to labor and skilled service. Something can be scarce if there are not enough people who know how to make it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
If the land fills up, we'll build space stations.

I see a few major problems with this.

the first, lets assume that in a system with no money, an individual who wants land brings people together voluntarily to make a space station. This does not change the scarcity of land, because even though there is more available, it is privately owned and distributed at the owner's whim. The only way it would eliviate the scarcity would be if the owner gave away pieces of the land.

If you propose a government will create these stations, you are essentially proposing slave labor (gvt rounds people up to make a space station and they don't get any money for their work. Then, the government gets to distribute this land as they see fit.

neither of those situations are desireable, imho. They certainly do not find a solution to limited amounts of land for people to live on.

I also kindof want to point out that "We'll make space stations" is, well, a little like appealing to God or Magic. A space station that can support long term habitation, not just for research or exploration, but for day to day living, is so far in the future its like saying "oh, we will teleport and have replicators". Its like saying we will train the world's greatest wizards.

Not to get onto a soap box, but I'd say you should check out Technocracy, especially technocracy.org. Like, I think people who like technology always focus on the wrong parts. You are thinking about how sci-fi tech could change the world, why not promote the efficent use of technology we already have? I could list off lots of things, but the idea that farming is not entirely mechanized or that schools are still these brick and mortar institutions that only teach those physically located in its geographic area. Technology that already exists could solve many problems. Getting rid of money and dreaming about living in the stars is a little fantastic, and not really rooted in any pragmatic reality. At the very least, it offers no policy options to get there other than "make space stations".

Originally posted by lord xyz
We can determine that without money.

I disagree. By paying someone in an abstract but universally accepted currency gives a person the ability to trade their labour for whatever they choose, as opposed to a barter system where you need to provide something that I need before I can work for you.

I'm open to other suggestions though

Originally posted by lord xyz
The thing is, would we want to?

I don't think so, money has worked very well for hundreds of years. I think policies aimed at eliviating the negative effects of poverty would be better than policies aimed at eliminating money.

Originally posted by lord xyz
We don't have the freedom to be in a dictatorship. Is that a problem?

the government tells you that you don't have the freedom to live in a dictatorship.

that seems rather... ironic?

Originally posted by inimalist
I did. The best example are things like the mona lisa, antiques, and other things that are "one offs".

The Mona Lisa cannot be distributed among all the people who might want it, so some form of price is needed. Using money to set that price allows all people more access to it.

Originally posted by inimalist
Scarcity can also be caused by general choke points in production of raw materials or the product itself. Like, regardless of demand, oil can only be pumped out of the Earth so fast. Scarcity then can also refer to labor and skilled service. Something can be scarce if there are not enough people who know how to make it.

Originally posted by inimalist
I see a few major problems with this.

the first, lets assume that in a system with no money, an individual who wants land brings people together voluntarily to make a space station. This does not change the scarcity of land, because even though there is more available, it is privately owned and distributed at the owner's whim. The only way it would eliviate the scarcity would be if the owner gave away pieces of the land.

Space stations are an abundance. We have the technology to create it.

Originally posted by inimalist
If you propose a government will create these stations, you are essentially proposing slave labor (gvt rounds people up to make a space station and they don't get any money for their work. Then, the government gets to distribute this land as they see fit.

Originally posted by inimalist
neither of those situations are desireable, imho. They certainly do not find a solution to limited amounts of land for people to live on.

Originally posted by inimalist
I also kindof want to point out that "We'll make space stations" is, well, a little like appealing to God or Magic. A space station that can support long term habitation, not just for research or exploration, but for day to day living, is so far in the future its like saying "oh, we will teleport and have replicators". Its like saying we will train the world's greatest wizards.

Originally posted by inimalist
Not to get onto a soap box, but I'd say you should check out Technocracy, especially technocracy.org. Like, I think people who like technology always focus on the wrong parts. You are thinking about how sci-fi tech could change the world, why not promote the efficent use of technology we already have? I could list off lots of things, but the idea that farming is not entirely mechanized or that schools are still these brick and mortar institutions that only teach those physically located in its geographic area. Technology that already exists could solve many problems. Getting rid of money and dreaming about living in the stars is a little fantastic, and not really rooted in any pragmatic reality. At the very least, it offers no policy options to get there other than "make space stations".

Originally posted by inimalist
I disagree. By paying someone in an abstract but universally accepted currency gives a person the ability to trade their labour for whatever they choose, as opposed to a barter system where you need to provide something that I need before I can work for you.

I'm open to other suggestions though

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think so, money has worked very well for hundreds of years. I think policies aimed at eliviating the negative effects of poverty would be better than policies aimed at eliminating money.

Originally posted by inimalist
the government tells you that you don't have the freedom to live in a dictatorship.

that seems rather... ironic?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Or it could be shared among people. Though, I'll have to admit, you caught me off-guard.

That sounds dangerously close to the loss of private ownership... Would I not be allowed to own something that there were only one of if someone else wanted it? Their desire to use what I have supercedes my right to that which I own?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Which is why oil isn't used. We don't need it.

actually, as far as the world works today, we do need it.

It was also only an example. Pretend you have a star trek style replicator. The speed at which it is able to replicate things would be the limiting factor in how well it is able to provide for people. If the demand for things is more than the fastest rate of production of those things, a scarcity is created.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm not following.

Space stations are an abundance. We have the technology to create it.

abundance, in the way I am using it, means that there is more supply than demand. Switching from a scarcity based system to an abundance based one is one of the prime goals of technocracy.

Currently, there is more demand for space stations than there are space stations. They would only be in abundance if there were more available on the market than people who wanted to use them.

also, the scarcity wasn't space stations. Those were your solutions to the scarcity of land. Making space stations does not mean that land will ever become abundant, because the person who made the space station will still own it. That land is not necessarily available for the market, only if the owner plans to distribute it. With no money, you are depending on charity of those capable of organizing a post-21st century space program to just hand out what they have invested, at the very least, years of their time and huge resourses on. In fact, with no reward for making such a station, it is highly unlikely that anyone who could do that, would.

To explain that last part, investment into the infrastructure of a society is done because there is profit to be made from it. Build a road and you can ship materials better. Now, someone who is designing a space station would have to have a large staff of people who they are supporting. They would have to invest huge resource wealth into the project, which would likely cost them status in society, or at the very least, decreases their individual ability to enact change in the world.
But, given there is no payoff, they never gain any of that back. The people who you are expecting to build the future would be on the losing side of any investment equation.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Technicians create space stations, allowing us to live in space. No government involved.

I think you underestimate the scale of the project you are describing.

There are no technicians on the planet who would dedicate themselves, especially en mass as a space program requires, to building endless amounts of space stations for no personal gain, especially given it would be at a personal loss.

The only way a technician might be rewarded from the construction of a space station is through them being given ownership of some of it. Then you have really only proposed a tehno-barter type system, which does not address the scarcity of land (still privately owned). It also would seem to promote technicians only building one station, then retiring.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think we already can. It's just a big shuttle, but it's a station.

I think you are underestimating the necessary breakthroughs at almost all levels of science that would be required to build something that you describe.

A "big shuttle" for instance, would have no gravity.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Venus Project does use technology that already exists, and by abolishing the monetary system as well as religious and political institutions, technology can evolve unimaginably.

this is sort of what I mean. You are concerned with money as a concept, and religion and the abolition of politics in order to help humanity by releasing technology from the clutches of those things.

I'll even accept the premise (I think you would be hard pressed to show money, religion (in general), or political institutions prevent the evolution of technology, and you would be a fool to argue that technology should be allowed to progress with no moral grounding), none of these things are mutually exclusive with technological advancement. You are missing the trees for the forest.

Politics, greed, religion, they are such scapegoats in the way you are using them. If you focused your attention on, say, technological integration of people at all class levels, and the opening up of education through the internet to make available the best teaching in the world to all people, you would have so much more of an effect on the world than through telling people God doesn't exist, or through trying to make people equal by taking away their freedoms.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe.

well, its pretty simple. Do I have more personal freedom if I can choose the payment for my labor, or if someone else chooses it for me?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Money hasn't worked. The top 10% own 80% of the world's wealth whereas billions die due to poverty. That, is just not right. We can save these people, but the first question asked is "How much will it cost?"

you really believe that without money all humans would be equal?

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's an example of one of the freedoms we don't need.

you can presume to tell me which freedoms I need?

Originally posted by inimalist
That sounds dangerously close to the loss of private ownership... Would I not be allowed to own something that there were only one of if someone else wanted it? Their desire to use what I have supercedes my right to that which I own?

TVP probably thinks that as well, I don't know, but I see your point.

As for getting something in return for that, moneyless trade isn't exactly a bad thing. Not as bad as the monetary system.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, as far as the world works today, we do need it.

Originally posted by inimalist
It was also only an example. Pretend you have a star trek style replicator. The speed at which it is able to replicate things would be the limiting factor in how well it is able to provide for people. If the demand for things is more than the fastest rate of production of those things, a scarcity is created.

Originally posted by inimalist
abundance, in the way I am using it, means that there is more supply than demand. Switching from a scarcity based system to an abundance based one is one of the prime goals of technocracy.

Originally posted by inimalist
Currently, there is more demand for space stations than there are space stations. They would only be in abundance if there were more available on the market than people who wanted to use them.

We can make space stations, pretty easily I think.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, the scarcity wasn't space stations. Those were your solutions to the scarcity of land. Making space stations does not mean that land will ever become abundant, because the person who made the space station will still own it. That land is not necessarily available for the market, only if the owner plans to distribute it. With no money, you are depending on charity of those capable of organizing a post-21st century space program to just hand out what they have invested, at the very least, years of their time and huge resourses on. In fact, with no reward for making such a station, it is highly unlikely that anyone who could do that, would.

Originally posted by inimalist
To explain that last part, investment into the infrastructure of a society is done because there is profit to be made from it. Build a road and you can ship materials better. Now, someone who is designing a space station would have to have a large staff of people who they are supporting. They would have to invest huge resource wealth into the project, which would likely cost them status in society, or at the very least, decreases their individual ability to enact change in the world.
But, given there is no payoff, they never gain any of that back. The people who you are expecting to build the future would be on the losing side of any investment equation.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you underestimate the scale of the project you are describing.

There are no technicians on the planet who would dedicate themselves, especially en mass as a space program requires, to building endless amounts of space stations for no personal gain, especially given it would be at a personal loss.

Originally posted by inimalist
The only way a technician might be rewarded from the construction of a space station is through them being given ownership of some of it. Then you have really only proposed a tehno-barter type system, which does not address the scarcity of land (still privately owned). It also would seem to promote technicians only building one station, then retiring.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you are underestimating the necessary breakthroughs at almost all levels of science that would be required to build something that you describe.

A "big shuttle" for instance, would have no gravity.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is sort of what I mean. You are concerned with money as a concept, and religion and the abolition of politics in order to help humanity by releasing technology from the clutches of those things.

I'll even accept the premise (I think you would be hard pressed to show money, religion (in general), or political institutions prevent the evolution of technology, and you would be a fool to argue that technology should be allowed to progress with no moral grounding), none of these things are mutually exclusive with technological advancement. You are missing the trees for the forest.

Politics, greed, religion, they are such scapegoats in the way you are using them. If you focused your attention on, say, technological integration of people at all class levels, and the opening up of education through the internet to make available the best teaching in the world to all people, you would have so much more of an effect on the world than through telling people God doesn't exist, or through trying to make people equal by taking away their freedoms.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, its pretty simple. Do I have more personal freedom if I can choose the payment for my labor, or if someone else chooses it for me?

Originally posted by inimalist
you really believe that without money all humans would be equal?

The hell are you talking about? Oil is only needed in "economics"?

Also, you are gone insane mate. You your "TVP would make it" is no better than "A wizard done it" or "God did it"...why would TVP magically solve problems? What the **** do you base that on?

He knows what he's talking about. He mastered the piano in a few weeks, for Christ's sake.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell are you talking about? Oil is only needed in "economics"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, you are gone insane mate. You your "TVP would make it" is no better than "A wizard done it" or "God did it"...why would TVP magically solve problems? What the **** do you base that on?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He knows what he's talking about. He mastered the piano in a few weeks, for Christ's sake.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The only purpose for oil is money. There are pleanty of other better energy sources.

Just that that's all hypothetical. We don't have sufficient working alternative energy. We are still dependent on

Originally posted by lord xyz
Maybe you should actually look into TVP. We have the technology for lots of things, had we not be hindered by money, our lives would be so much better.

Sounds like a illogical assumption to me. Totally taking human nature out of the equation. As far as I see, hardly anything would be done in your society, and someone would probably create money immediately upon realizing that he could live much better if he got stuff according to his ability and not according to...well...nothing.

Sorry, but "Wizard done it" will not convince me. I might as well go believe in Christianity then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that that's all hypothetical. We don't have sufficient working alternative energy. We are still dependent on

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/geo/geo.html

Way to prove your ignorance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sounds like a illogical assumption to me. Totally taking human nature out of the equation.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As far as I see, hardly anything would be done in your society, and someone would probably create money immediately upon realizing that he could live much better if he got stuff according to his ability and not according to...well...nothing.

"We need money...I want my money"

People work for their own self interest, and then by choice introduce it to other people. No one works for anyone either, they work for themselves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sorry, but "Wizard done it" will not convince me. I might as well go believe in Christianity then.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah we do.

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/geo/geo.html

Way to prove your ignorance.

Way to prove....nothing. What's up with all those horribly designed sites you visit?

Originally posted by lord xyz
There's no such thing as human nature. There's human behaviour, and that's always been changed.

Hahahaha. You fool.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Aha. I expected that retort.

"We need money...I want my money"

People work for their own self interest, and then by choice introduce it to other people. No one works for anyone either, they work for themselves.

Again. It's stupid. There won't be any cars (at least not nearly enough to supply the demand) made. The whole production line of a car is so huge and includes such shitty jobs that you won't get enough people to VOLUNTARILY do it. It's idiocy, but you are the guy to fall for some stupid scheme every other day, so I guess it makes sense.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Once again. Actually look at the site.

I did. But I refer to things you said. The site is hardly surfable. There are illogical walls of text, pictures made to look futuristic by putting on the maximum amount of black windows, and advertisements for their plans and programs and cds, and shit. If you want to argue it, produce the texts that support it, not say "look at the site, look at the site" ... that's very Deano of you. Then again, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? (rhetorical)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Way to prove....nothing. What's up with all those horribly designed sites you visit?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahaha. You fool.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again. It's stupid. There won't be any cars (at least not nearly enough to supply the demand) made. The whole production line of a car is so huge and includes such shitty jobs that you won't get enough people to VOLUNTARILY do it. It's idiocy, but you are the guy to fall for some stupid scheme every other day, so I guess it makes sense.

First of all, I would, and I'm sure others would.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/multimedia/welcome.htm

This vid might give you more insight.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did. But I refer to things you said. The site is hardly surfable. There are illogical walls of text, pictures made to look futuristic by putting on the maximum amount of black windows, and advertisements for their plans and programs and cds, and shit. If you want to argue it, produce the texts that support it, not say "look at the site, look at the site" ... that's very Deano of you. Then again, you are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? (rhetorical)

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah we do.

http://www.oilgae.com/energy/sou/ae/re/geo/geo.html

Way to prove your ignorance.

there are no alternative fuels that will be able to replace oil in our infrastructure for at least a decade, and that is provided we invested spcifically into eliminating it from the equation.

Geothermal, solar, wind, nuclear, none have the requisite industry built around them to meet the demands of the energy market, at this point. Most are still in such initial stages of the technology that they still don't come close to oil as far as wattage per dollar is concerned.

These are things even environmentalists on the far left agree with. They propose a slow process toward sustainable, renewable resources. None think we are not dependant on oil.

This also ignores the plethora of other petro-chemical products which probably compose 80% of the things you are sitting close to now.

Long story short, if we ran out of oil tomorrow and there were no financial or labor constraints, the basic infrastructure surrounding any alternative fuel does not exist to meet our needs. It will take years of specifically targeted industrial growth to get any of the ones you might mention to the point of being able to replace oil in our society.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Of course, it'd have gravity. THere are loads of scientists working on trying to kill people. TVP would change that, make them work on ways to help people.

That has to rank among the most illogical and poorly informed things ever said.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That has to rank among the most illogical and poorly informed things ever said.

what I see as problematic is that, sort of underlying most of the arguments XYZ is making, is the tacit assumption that people must work for eachother's common good.

That scientists would be FORCED to study anything for the common good is, frankly, fascist.

Orwell's "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know fire is hot" I think is highly appropriate here. Even if it wasn't the equivalent of "wizards done it", underlying all of this is some form of overly dominant central organizational establishment that appears to dole out resources, which only it has access to, in a way that it sees fit.