It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Theory of gift economy

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:31 PM
Before I begin, I'd like to apologize if I put this in the wrong forum, The topic does contain elements which are relevant to US politics as well as global politics, or rather, global socio-economics backed by the political hand of the military industrial complex.
Before I begin, I would require all who wish to participate in this debate to watch the following videos, it'll make more sense this way due to the terms I will be using:
this is a 7 part video which explains the social problems we see today.
These tactics are used to this day, just try to debate anyone and you'll see that they're immune to logical and critical thinking, any proof presented is disregarded, etc.
It explains why the majority of the population is ignorant, they all have been subverted.
(I don't know how to post these links all too well, help would be appreciated)

Next video was posted here on ATS so I'll just give you the link outright.
the video is called Meltup, the US economic problems are presented well,
albeit the solutions are partially flawed.

If anyone has an open mind, having read Theodore Kaczynski's manifesto would be a plus. It can be found by a simple Google search. It explains, to a degree,
the social aspect of our failing system. Because it really is a collapse of the socio-economic and political structure we are witnessing these days, not only an economic destruction. The ones in power already have their solutions, everything is engineered well, but with crisis comes opportunity for something far better than a Distopian NWO.

So it begins.
There are many discussions detailing the many problems our society possesses, not one individual proposes a solution that would eliminate the one thing that we are all denied, choice. Choice is something some people are born into, others have no choice. What I mean by this. An person born in a poor family cannot succeed into becoming a debt free self serving individual, in other words, independent (free). Others, who are born into rich families, have the opportunity to go through extensive schooling and come out debt free. To some, the notion of being debt free with a comfortable life is independence, to others, having one's own land and working on that land for one's own goals is considered independence. But what we lack is choice. We have no choice but to part take in this society from the moment we are born. if an individual was born poor, they will likely not have the necessary resources to go to school, unless they take loans, even then they will have to work and go to school, hence, they will perform what I consider an inhumane task, to what goal? Survival. The rich individual has it easy, everything is paid for. So this is the Classist system I speak of. Where everyone does not have the same opportunities to succeed. A world in which a genius is forced to work at Walmart as a stock boy while an undeserving cretin tells him what to do. The idea here is, if you watched the videos and see what goes on around you, that even a university degree is becoming worthless, putting everyone in the same basket. (Unless of course your family has serious connections to the government or the Illuminati family business.) I could go on about the inequalities of life, but I'm here to offer solutions rather than a rant. One way to heal the world would be to give people choice. We cannot legally go out into the field and sow it, we'll get fined and thrown out of the land we worked hard on. There are too many regulations in place, too much licensing, too much government. The simple, yet only one of many to come, solutions to this problem comes in the form of choice. (Could make it a campaign slogan except I'd get the JFK treatment). If an individual were able to simply up and leave from the city and come back to the land, and work on this land, with no fear of repercussions, it would fix the "food shortage" problem. I say food shortage loosely for there will be plenty of food but money will loose it's value, when you make minimum wage and a loaf of bread is worth 150$, I think going back to the farmer's life style would be a good idea. The problem with today is that, not only do you need a whole lot of cash to become a farmer (buy land, tools and house) you need knowledge of how to work the soil, neither of which are easily accessible, unless you don't mind loitering in university libraries endlessly reading through tons of books, but as we all know, in today's world, time = money, so that's not an option, unless you plan to retire on a farm... which, at this point, is an impossibility due to the economic situation. One argument can be heard that groups of individuals can succeed where one fails, this results in independent settlements, what happens to those? Waco Texas. The government does not allow independence from the system, it will use it's military industrial complex to dominate and eradicate all oppositions, because independent villages become independent city-states, hence, their own governments. Separation from the system will not be tolerated, so it would seem. What do I propose as a solution to the world's socio-economic problems,
I propose a gift economy. Let's understand what money IS, money is a tool of trade, but it also holds another task, to divide people according to wealth, so, the more wealth you have, the more wealth you have. Money builds money. If you are poor, in the modern day and age, you are nobody, and you will remain nobody, no matter how many ideas you posses. You could be the Next Tesla, with no resources, you're the bagging boy at the local grocery store. To make it fair, where as in an individual earns his place in society via hard work, can only be achieved via true meritocracy, and to instill a true meritocracy the elimination of money must take effect.
This will eliminate the possibility for groups of individuals to consolidate power via finance and retake control over the world. Imagine a world where as long as you work, you can consume what you desire proportionally to production. Supply Demand. For this to work, factories would be brought back, things would be produced locally. The idea of a world government is flawed, so is the notion of federal and state/provincial/territorial governments, I propose City-State governments, with their own laws and punishments, but working along this economic principle.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
continued from top.

If everything is produced locally, it eliminates dependence.
Each city can survive on it's own, so if there are economic problems,
(which I cannot imagine, say natural disasters affecting production) it will only be localized and will not spread. Help would be obviously provided by other city-states, because after all, we all live on this planet, and we all strive to help one another. Indeed, this system is based on altruism, personal goals and aims would no longer remain in accumulating money, but rather in developing the self. As long as one works or goes to school, one is given everything one needs (again, proportional to production, obviously food and shelter are primary factors which will be taken care of, the rest (such as comfort items) revolves around city-wide production, as you can imagine factories would be very important in maintaining a reasonable standard of living) The original aim is a middle class standard of living, improved via robotics and AI in the future, as technology expands, manual labor, and hence factory work, becomes more and more obsolete. And as the theory of this economic system goes, the more the city produces, the higher the comfort level of all it's citizens. Schools would be built in such a way that there would be condos for students, isolation from the outside would be predominant, entertainment brings laziness, people begin to take their studies less seriously, of course, if you wish to not go through the educational system, that is your choice, and you can leave whenever you want. Some people are fine doing basic labor, others prefer becoming mathematicians, teachers and doctors, it's all about perspective and choice. Obviously there would be benefits to going through school, 6 hour work day rather than 8. This seems like an adequate form of compensation, beyond obvious prestige and social status. If one chooses not to participate in this system, one could easily leave for the rural farmlands. This can be done in two ways. Either as a farmer for the society, in other words, receiving a house and everything one can think of (again according to production) for his labor on the fields. City must eat something after all. Or the individual has the choice of starting his own farm and live off his own labor, he could then barter his goods away for technology or whatnot. Such an individual would obviously be granted basic tools to start his enterprise by the system.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:04 PM
Continued from top

The way society would function would be far different from today.
There is too much antagonism now a days, people hate on each other for no particular reason. Everyone is quiet, reserved, there is no openness out of fear of social repercussions, either legal or because people will look at you crooked. Every side of each argument would be viewed, and hence arguments (definition: where people yell at each other not listening to any arguments nor making logical ones in order to be the sole benefactor in the end) would turn into debates (definition: where people make logical arguments and seek middle ground, but most of all, common understanding, where as in both parties benefit). Most crime stems from the socioeconomic perspective, as in, either due to poverty or due to social constraints, people become frustrated that their needs are not being met and begin fulfilling them via force. There's obviously the odd ball who kills and rapes just because he has an unsatisfiable need for power and dominance, such individuals would regrettably not be part of this system, punishment would depend on the society, I'm still debating between exile and capital punishment. As you see, crime would be reduced due to the fact that most people can achieve their goals and feel empowered. This brings confidence in each individual, hence higher production, a happy worker is a good worker.
As you see, choice predominates this system.

Difficult to tell who would run such a system, best thing to do is to write up a constitution which, and I cannot underline, CANNOT BE AMENDED. Amendments made to constitutions only serve the purpose of consolidating power. Preferably, and undeniably, I'd love to be part of such a government, but only to maintain it alongside other individuals, a council rather than a sole ruler is preferable. There's not much ruling to be made under such a system beyond maintenance. The members of government would have to be altruistic and extremely intelligent, problem with this is that as we see in today's world, democracy and republics don't work, this is why the idea of implementing a computer as the central governing force seems the only solution, because men have agendas, a robot only maintains what is already in place. Again, amendments to the constitution or the robot should not be possible, and any attempt deemed as treason.

Ask questions, I'm sure you have many.
Obviously this computer would

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Radekus

Difficult to tell who would run such a system, best thing to do is to write up a constitution which, and I cannot underline, CANNOT BE AMENDED.

Ask questions, I'm sure you have many.
Obviously this computer would

Sounds logical,but nope.-Spock

[edit on 18-5-2010 by RRokkyy]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:39 PM
Your system has been

Yes, it would be nice to go back to the land, where everyone lives communally providing a product/service in exchange for a product/service.

Problem is in practice, and you can go through the history yourself, corruption and greed always begins the proccess of socio-economic class seperation. Someone will always, inevitably, figure out a way to have more than someone else, causing the eventual strife between the haves and have-nots. Additionally, someone will figure out a way to "game" the system by not contributing as much as others but recieving the same.

There is no social/government/political system that will give everyone everything they need.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by indianajoe77
Your system has been

Yes, it would be nice to go back to the land, where everyone lives communally providing a product/service in exchange for a product/service.

Problem is in practice, and you can go through the history yourself, corruption and greed always begins the proccess of socio-economic class seperation. Someone will always, inevitably, figure out a way to have more than someone else, causing the eventual strife between the haves and have-nots. Additionally, someone will figure out a way to "game" the system by not contributing as much as others but recieving the same.

There is no social/government/political system that will give everyone everything they need.

Agreed, the "Tragedy of the Commons" would kick in:

Take a look at how well this has served our international oceanic waters. There is always an incentive to take more and less incentive towards stewardship. Nice idea but wouldn't work without a dictator in charge who ultimately owns it all,... and we all know where dictatorship leads.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by slane69]

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:45 PM
You should be very proud of yourself , you will have some detractors saying this is not possible .Wether possible or not is not the point here , it is the principle you put forward .In principle this is sound . You have put a lot of time and thought into this and it is a credit to you . You are not alone in your thoughts . Flag and new friend for you , well done .Wish there were more like you !

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:57 PM
hell communism, and socialism are damn near perfect in theory, the problem is the human element.

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:48 PM

Sounds logical,but nope.-Spock

[edit on 18-5-2010 by RRokkyy]

Care to elaborate?


I'm whole heartedly opposed to communism,
just like all other systems based on the theory of money.

Yes, it would be nice to go back to the land, where everyone lives communally providing a product/service in exchange for a product/service.

A choice, I was mainly describing a high-tech city-state environment, rather than an agrarian one. besides, better than the misery we live in today, wouldn't you agree?

As for corruption, rather than counting your chickens before they hatch, it would be appreciated if there would be input regarding methods of preventing the exact thing. Methods like giving everyone a weapon as mandated by LAW, as you can imagine, I'm not much of an anti-gun activist, quite the opposite.


I’ll answer from your link with a quote:

“there is no foreseeable technical solution to increasing both human populations and their standard of living on a finite planet.”

Space is infinite and we have much technology, a lot of which is being kept from the public. Inventors are known to vanish and their blueprints bought out by energy companies. Humanity has much potential, you are limited by the system that you serve, open your mind. Look at the pyramids and gasp in awe, how "primitive" man could've built such things.

Besides, we never had a benevolent dictator have we now? It's been the same bloodlines over and over again, I think it's time for a change.
It could be discussed how the government would be formed, I'm quite open to ideas.

13th Zodiac,

You should be very proud of yourself

I am, I'm also the guy who picks up garbage on the street.
(ok, used to as a job, you get the idea)
We're not all endowed with rich families, life isn't fair for we not make it so.

I appreciate your support, I wouldn't mind you debating my theories,
thinking to myself becomes boring after a while, I overlook certain things,
others may not.


hell communism, and socialism are damn near perfect in theory, the problem is the human element.

The problem is the monetary element, and if you think communism is such a good idea you need to do some reading. By the way, we're entering an eco-communist one world government, not something I particularly look forward to. This is why I share my theories in the hopes of escaping this misery known as the system.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Radekus]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by RRokkyy

Are you honestly nitpicking at my typing error?
When I write out an essay form text, I reassemble my ideas
via copy paste, then add to that. granted I should've
proofread more, but seriously, comment on the topic at hand,
not the errors I overlooked. Beyond this being a waste of time,
it brings no informational value to the conversation. I have to admit though,
keeps the thread going, so, sure, keep trolling, I welcome all trolls,
the more responses I get the more serious people I can debate.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:47 PM
It seems most people are too lazy to read through my essay,
but eager to argue that they are right regardless of facts.
ATS is filled with self proclaimed intellectuals, yet none wish
to debate this important issue, nor show detailed problems within it.
I wish I never posted this, would be nice if a moderator could


because it's going nowhere.

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by Radekus

I did read through it and I do understand exactly what you are proposing.

What I'm trying to point out is that any socio-economic theory that ends in a harmonius utopia is not possible. Human error and human desires will always break the best designed system.

I guess what I'm saying is that you could never eliminate the human condition.

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by indianajoe77

you can via mass drugging, instead of putting fluoride in the drinking water (which is poison) throw in herbal extracts that affect directly the human way of thinking, making people more altruistic and empathetic towards one another.
that is but one solution. The next is to indoctrinate the youth into becoming more in tune with people's feelings, make them feel others. This can't be imposed outright in plain sight, people tend to oppose that which is imposed on them, rather use the modern methods of brainwashing, such as television shows, movies, art, people will act accordingly to how they perceive the world, you might wonder why we live in a messed up dog eat dog world, look at all the mindless drivel we are shown on television and in video games, there is no debt to anything, just meaningless vengeful death and destruction. All we see now is pain. Kids are being drugged with Ritalin and Prozac, they feel depressed and suicidal. Is this the world we want? Or rather, a world of peace, prosperity, common understanding, nonjudgmental acceptance of one another, living life for the self and for others.
What I propose is a choice, only those willing would form this city state, I'm not forcing those who do not wish to participate, nor would I want them to.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:01 AM
Followed you over from

While I appreciate the attempt, I think that it is not even money that is the root problem. I grant that just about any alternative, even something as simple as wresting control over the money away from the banksters would alleviate a great number of problems in human suffering. At some point human failings will corrupt the system. A tiny problem like the natural psychopaths in society will end up in one way or another in gaming the system. I spent a great deal of time pondering a way to make things work. I even managed to come up with an internally regulating governmental system that would survive mostly intact for approximately a thousand years. Please no comparisons to the Reich. My statistical modeling showed that it was functional with no serious divergence to between 572 years after implementation and 636 years. A moderate crisis would be resolved at this point would be weathered but quality of life would decrease at a small rate. Things would limp along for a couple of more centuries, but eventually a major crisis would appear somewhere in the eighth century. This would fragment things into a semi working, but no longer self correcting system where the system would eventually collapse from its multitude of of expanding iniquities.

It was at this point that I discovered something in our shared culture that is not discussed. God can't create a system that works. God himself lost a third of the populace of Heaven to armed insurrection. What hope do humans have? Assuming that the whole God notion is fallacious, how do you carrot and stick usefulness out of people who would concoct such stories? Although money is the most corrupted of humanity's tools, it is still the few who destroy it for the multitude.

A few years back I was smacked in the face with the reality of the situation we face. I grew up in an area where fireworks were no big deal. I never saw the point of large cities outlawing them. I didn't see why "people" couldn't be trusted with simple fireworks. I saw the debate on safe and sane fireworks as moot. Who needed bottle rockets after all? The fire hazard was perhaps too great for something that was essentially uncontrolled. With safe and sane why not just let people be? Then I saw idiots actually handling lit cones and tossing ground flowers at each other for laughs. I had never encountered such blatant idiocy. This did not change my view on the legality of fireworks, but it did open my eyes to the reality of the situation with the idiots we hear about on the MSM. Those they need to protect us from. I don't believe that there are that many, nor do I believe that we need those who say that they are protecting us from them. Sadly however any system we design would need to not only account for vanilla villainous mass murderers, and the super villains from the likes of WTO/IMF World Bank et al, but also a certain degree of stupidity that is not capable of realizing that the fire that is literally burning them is hot.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:10 AM
I agree with the goal of a totally voluntary state. It is at the core of the system I came up with. (Again it is a flawed plan on my part, and a very boring read, just an explanation of how I got to where I am. Back to something constructive.) At some point though any voluntary system will fall victim to its own success. The benefits and wonders would multiply exponentially from the beginning. The downside is that the benefits would be visible to all outside the system. Aside from a massive immigration problem that would totally dwarf the present US/Mexican situation, the main problem would be external systems. When you're picking up the dregs of a society no one cares. When you're grabbing the likes of other nations' Teslas, Rembrandts, and Clemens you've got problems. Those mental resources would be a serious loss, and can you think of a nation that presently exists on the planet that wouldn't wage all out war to not only get their own talent back but a few others as well?

What about the jealousy factor? Assume that everything is going well in voluntary utopia. Further assume that some place like Israel isn't bothered in the slightest at losing a few hundred top scientists. Top it off with the truly ridiculous assumption that the other nation states aren't interested in the pure plunder made possible by this new utopia. What do all of these nations leaders do when their remaining populace sees how well things are going in New Utopia after a very short time, and how badly things are still going where they live? Wouldn't the shortest route to heading off reform/revolt be to destroy the example?

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:43 AM

Those were some of the most beautiful words I have ever read on the internet.
It is quite refreshing to finally be able to converse with someone in a coherent and analytical language. I noticed much thought from your part, we share similar worries. How to found such a system, how to keep it from being annihilated by the outside forces, and how to maintain it in perpetual balance so that it doesn't go sour... so to speak.

As I read though your analysis, I noticed your calculations into the future, counting centuries before problems would arise with the society. How did you go about this, and what kind of governing method did you use?

I agree with there being a minority of degenerates who will commit inhuman crimes, technology will ultimately localize them, no one is on the run for ever. As for evil egomaniacs who will wish to rise at the top and corrupt the entire system, the only way I can see this done is through the control of trade. The system by which goods are produced and moved for consumption, if there is any outside force beyond the government which keeps an eye on this, there will be problems, noted that government civil servants might also be in on the plot to seize control of trade. At this point, it should be worth describing what roles the government would have on trade, beyond verifying factory production outputs and making sure the goods arrive where they are supposed to, of course. One must think, how can I gain control of this system, then make countermeasures. Beyond this, when it comes to human stupidity, it is a factor in today's world, I blame the media. One thing is for sure, we cannot continuously protect 99% of the population from the other 1%, there must be choice and allowance for individuals to make their own mistakes.
Another question, why would your model collapse due to growing iniquities?
You planning on legalizing every potential sexual fantasy a person can come up with?

I'll now analyze your second post.
I agree with immigration, to which all I can say is, if you wish for freedom, go back where you came from and fight for it. A world wide civil war would be a beautiful thing to see. Mind you, immigration can be incorporated if the individuals are willing to work for their lives. New cities can be built, with the new technology that will be invented, I wouldn't be surprised in seeing domed like cities built all around "inhospitable" areas of the world. Tundra, deserts, etc. Really, it all depends what territory you hold.

Admittedly, if you only begin with one city, war is almost a certainty, this is why one must need the military industrial complex of a modern nation state, with a large army (into the millions) in order to wage any kind of war. Say a large nation like Canada, lots of possibility of expansion. Massive immigration could prove to be a good source of manpower in this case, both industrially and militarily, that is, if the Utopia nation does not get it's ass handed to it by all the other nations under the UN banner before this process bears fruition. Only one thing can make this succeed, if the governing theory spreads globally and begins in multiple areas at the same time, this increases chances of at least one city state surviving such an apocalyptic ordeal.

I wouldn't mind reading some of your essays, I'm sure you wrote a few on the topic. Personally I have trouble writing essays, my ideas improve too much, I find myself updating everything weekly, sometimes even daily...
Can't hold something on paper when it constantly changes...

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:53 AM
My outlook is that we're moving into an age when most scarcity is artificial, and with sufficient automation there's not too much reason why people have to be stuck with the crappy or redundant jobs... (Unless for some odd reason they want to.) Once people get enough education and have a comfortable standard of living, the population curve should be able to balance out with recycling and management of resources. (You don't need more than 2 kids if you'll know they've good odds of survival, and aren't needed to cover your retirement.) So in the future people should be able to do mostly whatever they want and have all their needs met.

But there's still that problem that's ingrained into a percentage of the population that has to ruin it for everybody else.

A small but real world example:
Years ago, I served in the military. It is supposed to work as a commune of sorts, and ideallistically it functions as an authoritarian meritocracy. So for everyone to have some comfortable standard of living and work effectively, everybody should be a team player right? But if you've ever had cleaning or head detail you know this is not the case. There's always going to be some clown that intentionally tracks in muck or unrolls all the toiletpaper on the floor and smears you know what all over the toilet stalls, etc. Instead of making a minimum effort and going along in a way that would boost the overall morale and standard of living, they waste resources and make life more difficult and created work that shouldn't be necessary in the first place. It seemed to me that those people even made a game doing that kind of nonsense. (I wouldn't also be terribly surprised if the difficulty they incurred helped to keep others from advancing. Ruin morale, raise stress before tests, cause inspections to fail, etc. Maybe it was particular to a command, but it was a major factor in my decision to leave.)

The same types I had to put up with then still exist at various levels in society at large. Until we can figure out what it is that really makes that percentage of the population tick, and how we can do something to isolate or remove their type of behavior from humanity... Making civilization jump to a more prosperous economic system based on equality will rather difficult to say the least. Not to mention when it's preferable to make such change happen in a live and let live free and open society. Now if only somebody could figure that one out...

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:08 AM
This is an amazing thread one of the reasons I joined ATS. This is something Ive pondered since childhood because it became obvious at around 12 the inherent failure built into our divide and conquer system.

Elimination of money, and communal means of production would be manditory, as well as the smaller city state construction you speak of.

After that, education is paramount. We've had a devaluation of the educational system in this country that has led to the so called "human condition".

If you don't train people to be idiots,murders,rapists,terrorists, etc. you'd find you no,longer have those elements in society. A true healing could take place

Our present situation is placing all sides agaist the middle trying to squeeze the last drops of blood money from a stone.

Your system seems viable. As long as punishment was swift, fair and sure for any greedy acts, it could be maintained.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 07:40 AM
OP congrats this is very thought out,

The only way we could make it work would be,
Have a global government that is only incharge of keeping 2 laws,
1 If Anyone phyisically harm someone you are sent to hard labor camp for a specified time 1st offense, double first specified time 2nd offense, and life(from the day you enter til the day you die) for 3rd offense
(killing someone is life (from the day you enter til the day you die) 1st offense.)
2 Maintain OSHA laws.

Now society rules,...These are the basics but more can be added.

Food will be the money system.To eat you must work.You pick whatever field you want but you must work.
Noone owns anything.This eliminates theft and hoarding.
All houses are designed with all luxuries.You can come and go as you please.(Think boarding house rules).If a house is full it has a sign NO VACANCIES.
Everyone can travel to whatever part of the world they want without restrictions.
Clothing stores are set up like a recycle center...You go in, Change into whatever you want and leave the clothes you entered with at the drop off point.(think salvation army).

This is the basics ....I know it sounds crazy but it would run forever.

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by pauljs75

I agree with automation paragraph, you banged that nail straight on the head.

Comparing the military to a meritocracy? I'd rather compare it to a #ty job that has 10 different managers giving you crap for every little thing you do, half the time they're in the wrong. So people on power trips in authority positions, erm, not cool. Unless you mean post training, all I can say about the stalls is, boys will be boys. Don't forget that you still live in a society, some people feel alienated, that's why they do these things, either that or they think it's funny.
but seriously, I doubt a utopia would have alienated individuals in it, when everyone supports everyone to excel, and there's no office politics, there shouldn't be a reason for anyone going McVeigh on anyone.


I Agree with everything you mentioned. I have nothing to add.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by Radekus]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in