Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Thanks much! Hope you got something out of it.
I found it funny that either nobody really read it, or they missed the point. Nobody has called you a socialist yet
It was inevitable this interpretation would turn up.
For the record I'm a centrist. When I was younger I had a more right-leaning ideology. As I got older and became disenchanted /w party politics,
watching Republicans move away from principles of a minimalist government, I started to empathize more with the Democratic viewpoint. I quickly
realized Democrats weren't much better. Now I simply look at the issues on a case by case basis and evaluate the individual merits of each given
proposal. It's not as fun as the spectator-sports-attitude towards politics, "my team won!
," but it is satisfying to know I have an
understanding of the nuance that goes in to each piece of legislation, the details surrounding the issue, and a grasp of the compromises involved.
But getting back to the point, the idea as it's presented in the chart represents all possible power structures. True self-empowerment exists in the
realm of Q2, because at that stage there's no observed interdependence between things. To try and go from Q3 to Q2 would be similar to advocating
that humans would be in a better position if we were still monkeys. This isn't a natural progression as shown by historical record.
simply attempts to combine the data of what has been, what we're currently working towards, and then evaluates the extreme ends of civilization to
see what sort of behavior (geometric & human) falls out of that.
So to say I hold a socialistic view would be akin to saying when we're in Q4 - plenty
that if I were to advocate aligning ourselves to
individual identity, to allow for the rebirth of self (1 exig, 0 value, 0 good), that I'm then a Nietzschean capitalistic pig.
If I have a dogmatic philosophy it's that we should follow, to borrow a phrase from the Tao, "The Way." This graph is simply a better formalization
of what "The Way" actually is.
Anyhow, I found your post well thought out in a scientific manner. I agree with almost every point you make. We are indeed on the verge of a
major stepping stone with humanity. The question is will we throw off our old ideals and dream a little bit? Using robots to provide our basic
necessities is absolutely ideal for me. I think all of our labor should be done with robots personally. The question becomes well then what will
people do if robots take their jobs? Well this is where we need to realize the whole system needs a makeover.
No disagreements there!
Though it's understandable this would scare those who have more than the average man because how is it one person earns more than another in a world
where no person does more
than anyone else? Do those who already have excess get to keep it? This isn't a trivial problem.
This is why I believe it's fundamentally important that there be three categories of economic activity. One where there's still competition
(capitalism), the notion of societal goals that provides for the betterment of ourselves & our children (voted for by all people), & a social minimum
(in a world /w a robot labor-force all people should receive at a minimum food, water, & housing where universal health-care would be a secondary
minimum not come before the basics).
If I had to identify the leading problem in the world today it's that people don't have a direct vote on how money is used.
Imagine a system where people not only vote for their representatives, but they also vote on their funding priorities.
For gaming aficionados simply envision a 4X turn-based strategy game like Civilization and how money is allotted by the player in percentage buckets
for research, culture, religion, manufacturing, and military. In effect the standard citizen would, finally, have a direct say in determining how much
of the budget could be used for military expense over say education or helping to rebuild infrastructure.
Obviously a large bulk of money would be needed to keep basic government functions running, but any excess money would be directly limited by the
ratios and volumes as directly specified by the citizenry. The power of such a system is that it doesn’t involve the citizens in the details it
simply allows the people to express priorities in terms of financial limits in relation to other high-level budgetary priorities.
So if the people voted for more spending for the Department of Education over say the Department of Defense and the DOD required a minimum of $400
billion (and an average of $500 billion) to operate while the Department of Education needed a minimum of $30 (and an average of $35) billion. Then
the $664 billion DOD budget chosen by the President and his cabinet, that without voter opposition would be allocated to the DOD, would be reviewed by
the Department of Education less $400 billion. If the Department of Education could offer a compelling reason for using a portion of this extra $264
billion, and assuming the DOD couldn’t convince the American public it would be better spent on their programs, then a portion of the money would be
redirected to the Department of Education.
The process would continue for every other Department in order of least priority evaluated first up to the dollar limit of the “average budget.”
Should the “average budget” be exhausted across all departments then more rounds would follow perhaps dividing the difference from the average and
the minimum so as to not over-penalize the lowest-ranked department.
If less than 50% of the voting population could come to agreement on a given policy the President’s budgetary position would override the public’s
indecision, but as a matter of good faith there would be the expectation that as a public servant the voting data would factor in to the decision
Obviously there are many other considerations that need to be factored in, but this illustrates one way that all people could be directly involved in
policy making without having to lobby those with power.
I designed a monetary system that works in reverse of our current system that would support the system you describe. In the system I designed
the government pays the people taxes. How do you like that? Anyhow, the system needs a rework to support a system such as you describe.
Sounds interesting, I'd love to read the details of your proposal. Is it online?
[edit on 8-11-2009 by Xtraeme]