It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Working towards a new Global Society.

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Now I understand. As long as you work somewhere, does not matter how important, hard, or productive work it is for the society or, most importantly, how long you work there, every luxury item, regardless of resources needed to build it is freely available to you. All jobs and all luxury items are equal.


Right... Everything is free within the bounds of it's production. Necessities that nature provides freely are freely available, luxuries that require work are freely available so long as the work is given to make them available.


Dont you see the obvious potential of abuse here? Lets say someone lazy wants a private jet. He enlists in some easy job, gets the jet, then quits. Screw the system.


Good for him, now he has a jet that goes no where without fuel. Remember also that it's a resource based economy, so if there is enough resources for everyone to have their own private jet, then everyone can have one if they so choose. If there is not enough resources for everyone to have their own private flying vehicle then those resources and vehicles need to be controlled and managed properly to ensure the continuation of resources across the planet.

He could say screw the system, but then he isn't going to get very far doing so. The system says screw lazy greedy people.


Arbitrary forcing all jobs as equal, regardless of their contribution to wellbeing of the society


All Jobs are equal as they all contribute in their own unique ways. No one job is more important than the next in my opinion, from the maintenance worker to the HDTV builder.


and arbitrary forcing all items as equal, regardless of the resources needed to manufacture them is the ultimate form of demotivation to work harder and ultimate motivation to waste resources.


All items would be equal in value and would be equally obtainable as per resources dictate. If there are no resources i.e, wasteful management as in the system we are currently running then there will be a point where things are harder to produce for all. Or, as our current system has continuously shown us, the COST rises greater and greater till we reach a point that people can't afford even the basic necessities because some greedy prick decided to put value on human necessities.

Is that a better way to live?


It would not work for the advancement of mankind, but the other way around. We have real word empirical proof of that


Really? I don't see many tribal societies living under similar system as I'm proposing going to war within the tribe over who's spear is who's.


ompare the practical results of socialistic economy with results of capitalism - all jobs were not even equal, but the differences between wages were not big or enough to justify working harder, all items were too even not fully equal, altrough price spectrum was much more uniform than in current capitalism, work was too mandatory to get more than basic needs, actually if they found out you deliberately try to not work, you could be jailed - incentive to work was therefore even bigger than in your system - and after 40 years, the system collapsed on itself and the difference in average standard of living and inovation, and all measures of advancement of society was WAY lower than in capitalism. Because people simply hadnt worked enough, they were not forced or motivated to do so. My relatives told me stories about socialist work - 4 hours a day, the rest was practically rest The same, even more, will happen under your system.


You're attempting to compare a system of monetary exchange to a system of absolute freedom. The system I propose is not much different than current tribal cultures, the only difference being that rather than building wooden spears and huts, we're using the resources we obtain to build bigger and better things that all can enjoy.

Of course systems of monetary exchange suck, so let's look at those societies that do not have monetary exchange within them instead and see how they've managed to get by for the past thousands of years without need for money. The only instance of barter between tribal societies is when one tribe has a surplus of resources over another tribe. Pool resources together and that need to barter would disappear, allocate the resources equally amongst all members and no one would go without anything.

It's rather deceptively simple... it's called sharing.


I would rather live under socialism than under a system that does not get someone at least basic and lifesaving healthcare for free when needed, regardless if he works or not. That should be a basic human right. Saying that you wont get ill if you lead a healthy lifestyle is really ignorant (ever heard of for example cancer or appendicitis?).


It is not YOUR RIGHT to have SOMEONE ELSE care for YOUR health. Simply delusion garbage you're spouting there. Healthcare provided by others is not a right at all. It's your duty to care for your own body, you abuse it you suffer the consequences of that abuse, simple as that. No other human being is required to care for yours or my own health nor can they be forced to do so, regardless of whatever ailment should occur. You and I are responsible for our own individual health and well being. I can not force you to care for me any more than you can force me to care for you.


I dont understand the relevance of this. Should I eat plants when my appendix hurts? Or should I study last-minute DIY self-operations guide because noone around currently produces "luxury item" of appendix operations?
Just to get back to the original point - healthcare cannot work in the absence of human workers. Forget it.


Our appendix is not entirely needed anymore... What happens is what happens. Eventually people won't have an appendix, nature would have taken it's course, natural selection would have played out and a race of humans without that organ would continue existing. Nature is an amazing thing.


How many apples and oranges do you need? Unless you buy tons of them, the basic income would be enough. If you buy so much oranges that you cannot buy anything else, then its justified you cannot have more fruits - we dont want people wasting resources, thats the point and ADVANTAGE of BI over RBE. In your example, you have wasted tons of fruit (worth of entire basic income) simply because you can, and then decide to buy another mass of fruits, simply because you can. Talk about efficient resource allocation You consider inability to waste unlimited amount resources an advantage, I consider it a disadvantage. Resources are limited.


A resource based economy is the careful management of resources. Under your system of basic income, if people were so inclined, they could pool their money together and stockpile up on one particular resource and resell it at an inflated price doubling, tripling, quadrupling their initial purchase cost and then split that profit equally amongst themselves. Money breeds greed.


Tribal societies work because if you dont work for the tribe and abuse others, then you will get expelled.. Also, everyone knows everyone else, so its easy to track contributors and resource sinkers without currency.


Hence why I outlined what I outlined in my first post. Those who don't contribute to society or participate in some form can still live freely. Whereas those who do contribute and participate can live within the confines of modern amenities and enjoy the fruits of collective labor. It's a global tribal society.


Nothing which requires human work or other limited resources to appear is or can be made free without limit. But I agree that making the basic necessities for human life (including healthcare!) available for everyone in quantities which wont lead to abuse and wasting of resources would be a big step forward in changing human behavior in the right direction, and it would not potentially compromise efficient resource usage by lazy, selfish, and greedy people, compared to your system.


That's exactly what a resource based economy is! It's the proper management of resources so that everyone is equal. Geesh! You agree and bash at the same damn time...




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




Right... Everything is free within the bounds of it's production. Necessities that nature provides freely are freely available, luxuries that require work are freely available so long as the work is given to make them available.


Nature provides almost nothing for free, everything requires more or less amount of human work, and not every necessity is provided by nature, or does not require human work. You seem to think everything that requires human work is a luxury (not necessity) and all necessities are provided by nature for free. Thats not true.



Good for him, now he has a jet that goes no where without fuel.


Of course he would stockpile on everything which the jet needs with it, I took it for granted, dont argue semantics. Probably in largest amounts he can while he still can, and everything at least in double of actual necessary quantity, so he does not have to enlist to work again soon to get permission to leech from the system again. You see, its YOUR system which actually encourages resource hoarding, not mine.



If there is not enough resources for everyone to have their own private flying vehicle then those resources and vehicles need to be controlled and managed properly to ensure the continuation of resources across the planet.


So with limited resources (everything in practice) luxuries will be rationed, so there would be a limit how much of given product can an individual get. Im OK with this, thats what I wanted to hear, but it still only treats extreme cases of wasting of resources on luxuries, and not great hit to work incentive represented by easy leeching and not contributing, which is easy to perform, as described above and in my previous post.



He could say screw the system, but then he isn't going to get very far doing so. The system says screw lazy greedy people.


I would say it says exactly the opposite.



All Jobs are equal as they all contribute in their own unique ways. No one job is more important than the next in my opinion, from the maintenance worker to the HDTV builder.


Thats not true in that way. All jobs are equal in the sense that value of work of ALL plumbers added together is equal to value of work of ALL doctors together, or any other professions, because society would not function if any profession was absent. But since there is more people performing one profession than the other, value of work of ONE INDIVIDUAL worker in each profession is different. If value of all professions products is x (value of all workers in a given profession added together), then value of individual worker in one profession is x/y, where y is number of workers. And y is almost always different. If society loses one working doctor, economic damage would be higher than losing one working plumber, or any profession where y (number of workers) is higher. If society gains one specialist in very needed profession, its more valuable than gain of another specialist in overcrowded profession. The more workers are able or willing to perform a profession, the more "diluted" its constant value is between individuals, and contribution of one individual to the common x is lower. Its simple and logical fact that all people do not contribute to the society the same, because people are obviously not uniform.
Notice I am talking about ECONOMIC value of an individual, not inherent human value, human rights, entitlement to basic income under BI system, or other things. In that sense, we are all equal.



Or, as our current system has continuously shown us, the COST rises greater and greater till we reach a point that people can't afford even the basic necessities because some greedy prick decided to put value on human necessities.


If you adjust for monetary inflation, the prices of all necessities such as food, wheat, etc. have actually steadily declined a bit since 1950. Dont confuse inflation (rise of prices AND wages, does not influence buying power of the wage) with REAL commodity price. Availability of necessities to average individual increases due to both steady lowering of the real price of wheat and steady increase in real wages (real - inflation adjusted), even if world population QUADRUPLED from 1950! If anything, data shows that very high population growth (and lack of education and healthcare) in the third world is the problem causing their hunger. So what are you talking about?
Where are those stockpiles of hoarded unused necessities hidden?

Just to clarify, there can easily exist monetary systems without excess inflation, that is only artifact of our current faulty monetary system.



Is that a better way to live?


For a moment, your way would be maybe better for all. But it would be not long-term sustainable, at least not in a way you propose and define it.



I don't see many tribal societies living under similar system as I'm proposing going to war within the tribe over who's spear is who's.


Tribe wars dont exist? Conflict within individuals in the tribe doesnt exist? Why tribe society changes to another form when the population is sufficiently large, if you claim its better for all?



Of course systems of monetary exchange suck, so let's look at those societies that do not have monetary exchange within them instead and see how they've managed to get by for the past thousands of years without need for money.


How? Compared to current societies, very poorly. Why one tribe never grew past certain size? Why Tribal society disappeared when other types of societies appeared? If its really that advantageous in terms of human advancement over other types, societies having it should emerge victorious. Evolution.



It is not YOUR RIGHT to have SOMEONE ELSE care for YOUR health. Simply delusion garbage you're spouting there. Healthcare provided by others is not a right at all. It's your duty to care for your own body, you abuse it you suffer the consequences of that abuse, simple as that.


It is not YOUR RIGHT to have SOMEONE ELSE care for YOUR necessities. See? Why do you see others caring for your health as wrong, but others caring for your other necessities, even in unlimited quantities, as right?
There are human necessities (things and services which human needs to have sufficiently good life to succeed and contribute to the society, that includes healthcare, education.. etc., we are not in the middle ages), AND there are products of nature which require only small amount of human work (never zero) to produce. These 2 groups are distinct and seldom overlap. So by "necessities" do you mean the first, or the second group? I thought you meant the first definition, but from the paragraph above it seems like the criterion is not human need, but amount of human work needed to produce the commodity, which is entirely different thing, and the term "necessity" is then entirely misleading, you mean nothing about its "necessity“ to productive human life, but only work needed to produce it.
Define what you mean by "necessity". You see why I said your definitions are vague and uncertain?



No other human being is required to care for yours or my own health nor can they be forced to do so, regardless of whatever ailment should occur.


Motivation is not force. "They" are free to choose whether they become state payed doctors and get the payment, or not, and get only BI.



Our appendix is not entirely needed anymore... What happens is what happens. Eventually people won't have an appendix, nature would have taken it's course, natural selection would have played out and a race of humans without that organ would continue existing. Nature is an amazing thing.


Wow.. Now you must be joking..

We are HERE, not tens of thousands of years in the future. We still have appendix. So you say that such people would be doomed to die, even if evolution provided us with empation (maybe not you..) and with brain to use and society to organize and provide care to those of us in need of urgent help?
I think I need nothing further to add, just leave here your quote for the others to see..


I will just add that your example makes no sense even from evolutionary or eugenic standpoint, because what human race obviously needs now is more INTELLIGENCE (moar brainz), NOT appendix disappearance, or any other health increase, we have „evolved“ healthcare for that to handle. Evolution gave us brainz to USE them. Leaving intelligent person to die of easily fixable health problem because of absence of effective public healthcare for no logical reason, which we can easily provide as past 100 years have shown us, would be great and UNNECESSARY damage to the society, both short-term and longterm (evolutionary).
You are perfectly fine with evolution even if it brings suffering to humans, but using evolution to advance human society (capitalism works like evolution - concurrence and success of the ones best adapted to provide for others) is suddenly somehow wrong, even if it would be assured that it would not bring too much suffering even for unsuccessful ones (through BI). Why?



A resource based economy is the careful management of resources. Under your system of basic income, if people were so inclined, they could pool their money together and stockpile up on one particular resource and resell it at an inflated price doubling, tripling, quadrupling their initial purchase cost and then split that profit equally amongst themselves. Money breeds greed.


Show me one instance when something like this has happened with at least moderately easily produced resources. It has not, because as long as someone in such a diversified market (and nowhere in basic services or resources sector we have situation that even remotely resembles monopoly or cartel) starts stockpilling and selling at inflated price, the others selling that resource will immidiately ensure he is DONE on the market. Noone would simply buy from him unless he lowers the price again, as long as there is some way to produce and sell the resource cheaper than he is selling it. Concurrence is the word. There is simply NO WAY you could have monopoly or cartel in oversaturated and subsidized market of food or basic service production. The price raise of 20 % is sometimes enough to ensure market failure, as we have witnessed here in Slovakia with some of our wheat and milk producers. And continually falling REAL prices of “necessities” for at least 50 years show that your fears are simply irrational.



That's exactly what a resource based economy is! It's the proper management of resources so that everyone is equal. Geesh! You agree and bash at the same damn time...


Thats not what I said. I said: “making the basic necessities for human life (including healthcare!) available for everyone in quantities which wont lead to abuse and wasting of resources would be a big step forward in changing human behavior in the right direction..”

Not that everyone is equal, because people are NOT equal, everyone is different. Everyone is only provided with equal “start line”, or basic conditions under which they cant fall, by BI, and it depends on the individual if he stays at that level or works for the society, and in turn gets more material wealth as a reward and motivation.



Money breeds greed.


Greed itself is not a problem, noone was ever hurt from abstract feeling of greed from others. It only becomes a problem when it is allowed to bring povetry to others. That wont happen with BI. And in addition, if the system is able to channel this inherent greed to motivate contribution to the society (through mechanism which allows the greed to satisfy only if the greedy one in turn contributes to the society in some way - currency), then greed becomes a POSITIVE force, working for the overal advancement of humankind. Laziness and greed are mother and father of many inventions in capitalism. In your system, greed and laziness would be in effect purely negative forces, and easily capable of bringing it down or severely hinder progress, at least in current specifications of the system.
edit on 18/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join