Marx's ideas were perverted by Lenin and the totalitarian mess we saw last century derived from that.

That doesn't change that Marx carries some responsibility for what happened.

Terry Pratchett wrote somewhere that one person writes an innocent book about political philosophy and then the people who read the book don't get the jokes and other people have to pay for it in blood.

People payed in blood for the revolution in Egypt and now the freedom of speech in Egypt is less than it was before the revolution.

Oh... I meant what would a single individual spend the money on, what would be the incentive to get more money for oneself.

If you would give me a million I would spend a significant part of that money on the project of defeating death. I would however spend that money in a very different way than the NIH.

A society that addresses both types of parasitism through some kind of mechanism is a society in which money can quickly become meaningless. If you have adequate shelter, food, clothing and free access to education, entertainment and transportation what would you use the money for?

What does free access to education mean? Having a personal tutor is often a very effective way of learning. On the other hand it requires another person to invest time and that person frequently wants to be payed.

I haven't proposed a totalitarian state. This is something that you inferred from what I've wrote.

Marx didn't propose a totalitarian state either. His ideas still lead to a totalitarian state. Ideas have consequences. If you don't know how the alternative will work to the status quo you want to destroy, than it makes sense to assume a bad outcome.

MIRI exists because Peter Thiel is a billionaire and has free money to spend on courses he finds worthwhile. No representative body funds the kind of work MIRI is doing.

The private money that goes into space exploration and mining asteroids seems to be much smarter than NASA money.

Plurality is an important concept. Decentralizing resources is useful.

Wouldn't be more useful to just provide a valid counter example

The success of capitalism is a valid counterexample.

fidelity to truth is making sure the details are coherent with the way reality works

So, a simpler word would be "realistic".

Science doesn't tell you if you should be a sociopath of a pro-social person.

That's an interesting choice of values.

science can point at what values have a track record of providing this pro-social outcome. Cooperation, compassion, forgiveness... this have documented outcomes.

Links?

Greed, altho a value to some... is not something that has pro-social outcomes (not to my knowledge)

Then the success of capitalism must be a complete mystery to you.

There are several confounding factors so it’s hard to know for sure, but I do think that Toastmasters has helped me improve at a specific sort of social interaction: having to talk when I don’t know a lot about a particular topic or when my thoughts aren’t well prepared. I’ve gotten a lot of practice at this with an exercise Toastmasters calls “Table Topics”. During Table Topics, each person goes up to the front, is given a prompt, and then gives a 1-2 minute impromptu speech on the given topic. Table topics force you to talk for at least one minute about topics you sometimes have no interest in or think you know nothing about, which has helped me develop some useful skills:

1. I usually know more about things than I think I do, and quickly accessing this buried information is something I’ve gotten better at. I think I know almost nothing about football, but if I actually take some time to think about it, that’s not true. I have a vague understanding of the rules, and know about brackets and betting, and know some things about head injuries. I can talk about these things.

2. I’ve gotten much better at taking a topic I’ve been given and transitioning to a related but more comfortable subject. I might be uncomfortable talking about the Superbowl for a minute, but I could transition to instead talking about other athletic competitions I know a lot about, like marathons and ultramarathons.

In non-Toastmasters settings, these skills have been useful when I’m trying to talk to people who have different interests, or when I’m put on the spot to talk about something I feel like I don’t know a lot about.

The truth I was referring in the previous comment is Scientific understanding.

I don't understand what these words mean to you.

Something like a reimagining of what life could be for the human race and the commitment to implement that vision as expressed by the people telling the story and living the story.

I still don't understand. What does "fidelity to the truth" mean in the context of ideology? Science doesn't tell you what your values should be.

Also, I lived my entire childhood in such a totalitarian state. I am aware of how bad state involvement in these matters can be.

Which makes it all the stranger that you propose, without seeming to have given it any thought, a totalitarian state that will somehow just work. Can you imagine no other way the world could work than as a totalitarian state somewhere on a spectrum of bad to good?

Which one, by the way?