Make everything 'Free': A Voluntegalitarian System (utopia)

Originally posted by Khaleesi
reply to post by filledcup

 

I agree in THEORY. The ideal is just that an IDEAL. It's a nice thought ... on paper. I just can't see a way to remove human nature from the equation. Maybe some time in the distant future .... maybe. At this point in time ... even if implemented the way you describe ... somewhere, someone will figure out a way to get around the system because of ... human nature. It's a nice idea though.

granted. but this capitalist system is no better. look what's going on around the world now. does it look good.

somewhere some how, we as humans must be able to improve upon the flaws of capitalism.. and they are abhorrent! and create an improved system. we have functioned on this Acceptedly FLAWED system from the get go. it was always flawed. crime came with it like a wife to the alter.

Ideal.. as you put it.. is supposed to be better.

yes there will always be ppl who find a way around the system.. but hey.. look.. ppl are finding ways around this one. in fact.. it's being raped left right and center from low straight on up. the system is so broken it's hobbling on one foot. u really plan on kicking the can down the road? for how long? till u reach a clockwork orange?

reply to post by filledcup

nonsense. this system is about fairness. that is it's objective. what's stopping the construction worker may be finance.. but it may also be he is not mathematically inclined. he has a different set of skills and talents. he should not be valued less because his skills are as much needed to construct the bank building as the banker to oversee banking practices are progressive. do u think u can go a year without garbage men and janitors in the world? these ppl are all necessary and important to a developing society. and should not suffer even tho they work so hard for long hrs. trying to circumvent the point is foolish. does hard work get one prosperity or not is the question... and the answer under capitalism is.. NOT ALWAYS! and again in response to ur last statement.. nonsense.

You've just described communism!

What is your definition of communism?

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by filledcup

 

nonsense. this system is about fairness. that is it's objective. what's stopping the construction worker may be finance.. but it may also be he is not mathematically inclined. he has a different set of skills and talents. he should not be valued less because his skills are as much needed to construct the bank building as the banker to oversee banking practices are progressive. do u think u can go a year without garbage men and janitors in the world? these ppl are all necessary and important to a developing society. and should not suffer even tho they work so hard for long hrs. trying to circumvent the point is foolish. does hard work get one prosperity or not is the question... and the answer under capitalism is.. NOT ALWAYS! and again in response to ur last statement.. nonsense.

You've just described communism!

What is your definition of communism?

tell me where in communism or in any communist country.. have you ever.. been able.. as a regular working class citizen been able to access ALL the files of your communist dictator's administration and scrutinize them for improper practices?

furthermore.. where under communism can you remove a dictator the next day after he is found to have committed a crime by bringing it to the attention of the public?

where under communism do the masses get to design the laws and vote on them themselves? with the ability to oppose the communist ruler's alignment and actually have it enstated in the manner that they wish?

provide historical accounts.

So what, we're supposed to rely on a few motivated people in a lazy ass world?

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
So what, we're supposed to rely on a few motivated people in a lazy ass world?

what if people are only unmotivated because their childhood dream was denied to them?

what if people are only lazy because the pay dont do anything for their goals for the hard work they do?

what then is their purpose? to work so that they can afford to pay travel fees to work for the next month and pay bills?

might as well be dead. what a purposeless existence. they have a right to be lazy and unmotivated.

Originally posted by filledcup
what's stopping the construction worker may be finance.. but it may also be he is not mathematically inclined. he has a different set of skills and talents.

Nowhere in your system yet have you provided for the idea that some people just simply are not good at their job. The construction worker turned bank CEO may not know enough about the banking industry to do a good job for the first few months or so, but since all bank CEO's are "paid" exactly the same, then for him, there is no problem.
Our hypothetical worker can safely say to themselves that it matters not even if it takes 10 years to become proficient at the new job, because doing a #tty job for a decade has no consequences.

Originally posted by filledcup
do u think u can go a year without garbage men and janitors in the world? these ppl are all necessary and important to a developing society. and should not suffer even tho they work so hard for long hrs.

Well its a big problem then.
If a bank CEO and a person who cleans toilets are paid exactly the same, then *nobody* is going to choose to be a toilet cleaner.
They will all simply declare themselves to be bank CEO's. And you know, it isnt even their faiult if socity doesnt have enough banks to fullfill the positions of these millions of CEO's, since they will merely put themselves in the queue, and become a "fisherman", or an "artist" in the meantime.

So... who's doing all the cleaning? Those who do it because they love their job? Those to whom cleaning toilets was their childhood dream?

Originally posted by filledcup

tell me where in communism or in any communist country.. have you ever.. been able.. as a regular working class citizen been able to access ALL the files of your communist dictator's administration and scrutinize them for improper practices?

furthermore.. where under communism can you remove a dictator the next day after he is found to have committed a crime by bringing it to the attention of the public?

where under communism do the masses get to design the laws and vote on them themselves? with the ability to oppose the communist ruler's alignment and actually have it enstated in the manner that they wish?

provide historical accounts.

AHHHH! There's the rub! Current and past 'communist countries' do not practice TRUE communism. The systems are/were corrupted. So asking for historical accounts relies on a history of 'communist countries' that are not staying with the true definition of communism. They call themselves 'communist countries' but they really aren't because they have developed an elite class which should not exist in true communism. That's not to say that it's never happened but they are rare and usually fell apart because of ... human nature. Or destruction through outside forces.

Originally posted by alfa1

Nowhere in your system yet have you provided for the idea that some people just simply are not good at their job. The construction worker turned bank CEO may not know enough about the banking industry to do a good job for the first few months or so, but since all bank CEO's are "paid" exactly the same, then for him, there is no problem.
Our hypothetical worker can safely say to themselves that it matters not even if it takes 10 years to become proficient at the new job, because doing a #tty job for a decade has no consequences.

and that is exactly what you have now. then i expect you will be all against capitalism. because ppl are doing #ty jobs today all over the world in every field. why? because they dont care. they just work to pay the bills. there is no passion. and thus we will never see the true expedient productivity that humankind can achieve whilst still under this capitalist system.

Well its a big problem then.
If a bank CEO and a person who cleans toilets are paid exactly the same, then *nobody* is going to choose to be a toilet cleaner.
They will all simply declare themselves to be bank CEO's. And you know, it isnt even their faiult if socity doesnt have enough banks to fullfill the positions of these millions of CEO's, since they will merely put themselves in the queue, and become a "fisherman", or an "artist" in the meantime.

one problem with this assertion. there wont be any more banks. there wont be any more money. there wont be any more inflation. these things are capitalist structures. some of which will need to be reformed for new tasks. the bank.. will simply log hrs worked in a secure system and oversee it from tampering. they wont have any interest to collect.. no dividends to trade.. or any of these things. all done.

So... who's doing all the cleaning? Those who do it because they love their job? Those to whom cleaning toilets was their childhood dream?

edit on 26-8-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

it will not matter at that point. ppl will want to do any job to rack up hrs. there will be no more prideful jobs and degrading jobs.. no more lower income jobs, no more poor ppl jobs. there will only be.. Jobs!

so if there's enough bank ceos.. i really dont care, i wanna keep my hrs racking up to meet my goal, heck ill clean toilets today if that's what's available. i just want my hrs. but ill do it properly.. recognizing that even tho it is a toilet cleaning job, it is an absolute requirement for society.. and so i am still important.

it takes a social psychological restructuring of thinking. a de-materialization.

the administrative bodies will be aware of any shortage of workers in the sanitation sector. and if that grows they will market the need for these people as an urgent matter. if the society cares about thriving, the town or city people would need to get their act together or risk losing all the prosperity they currently enjoy.

yes there will be some #ty jobs that noone wants to do. but there are ways that the attitude towards those jobs can be turned around in the mind of the masses. for all you know the ones that take up those unwanted jobs out of the necessity may be viewed as heroes.

reply to post by filledcup


Or they can get off their dead ass and work like the rest of us.

Originally posted by Khaleesi

Originally posted by filledcup

tell me where in communism or in any communist country.. have you ever.. been able.. as a regular working class citizen been able to access ALL the files of your communist dictator's administration and scrutinize them for improper practices?

furthermore.. where under communism can you remove a dictator the next day after he is found to have committed a crime by bringing it to the attention of the public?

where under communism do the masses get to design the laws and vote on them themselves? with the ability to oppose the communist ruler's alignment and actually have it enstated in the manner that they wish?

provide historical accounts.

AHHHH! There's the rub! Current and past 'communist countries' do not practice TRUE communism. The systems are/were corrupted. So asking for historical accounts relies on a history of 'communist countries' that are not staying with the true definition of communism. They call themselves 'communist countries' but they really aren't because they have developed an elite class which should not exist in true communism. That's not to say that it's never happened but they are rare and usually fell apart because of ... human nature. Or destruction through outside forces.

so then your point is baseless, unreferenced and unproven.

great contribution.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by filledcup

 

Or they can get off their dead ass and work like the rest of us.

yeah.. but this time.. there wont be any unemployment due to a company's inability to financially compensate so many workers.

that's right.. instead of 5 ppl on a production line there could be 20.. easily.. increasing manufacturing output.

who knows.. maybe we can institute a turn by turn basis for the crap jobs. so even tho you work assembling iphones.. ur turn comes a day you have to contribute in sanitation. it really doesnt matter at this point. ur getting everything u need and have nothing to complain about. u could be provided with proper sanitation suits like hazmats and all the necessary gear for your job.

Originally posted by filledcup
so then your point is baseless, unreferenced and unproven.

great contribution.

That was really unnecessary. You asked for something that can't be given and I just pointed that out to you. So it is a valid contribution. No need to get snarky. You want information to back it up? Here, read this article.

people.howstuffworks.com...

It's about 8 pages long. Read the whole thing. I stated your idea is a nice one, just VERY problematic in practice. You have continued TRYING to rebut people's stating the obvious problems with your idea instead of looking at the reality. For every problem you have fixed, you have created more. and now you are just taking a swipe at the people that point out the problems instead of admitting you can not remove human nature from the equation.

1.

Nowhere in your system yet have you provided for the idea that some people just simply are not good at their job.
> that is exactly what you have now.

Yes that is what we have now, but I wasnt talking about now, I was asking about how your proposed method is supposed to be better than now. Do I assume from your avoidance, that you dont have an answer for this?


2.

Well its a big problem then. If a bank CEO and a person who cleans toilets are paid exactly the same, then *nobody* is going to choose to be a toilet cleaner.
> one problem with this assertion. there wont be any more banks.

Ok pedant, it doesnt have to be a bank CEO but how about instead a mining company CEO or some other well paying job.
Your whole reply to this question avoided the question but instead talked about how banks wont exist, so I ask again, why would anyone choose to be a toilet cleaner?



3.

So... who's doing all the cleaning? Those who do it because they love their job?
> it will not matter at that point. ppl will want to do any job to rack up hrs.

So I will ask again, who's going to do the unpleasant jobs, when they can just decide instead to be an artist, or any other job other than the nasty ones?

the administrative bodies will be aware of any shortage of workers in the sanitation sector. and if that grows they will market the need for these people as an urgent matter.
for all you know the ones that take up those unwanted jobs out of the necessity may be viewed as heroes.

So thats the answer? People will clean toilets and do all the other nasty dangerous jobs because the government has let people know those jobs exist? Or the deluded fantasy that they might be viewed as heroes???

Its not going to work. You have children growing up being told "all the following jobs pay the same, do the one you like:"
1. Mining company CEO
2. Porn star
3. Fisherman
4. Rap singer
5. Artist
6. Racing car driver
7. Toilet cleaner
One of those isnt going to get many applicants.

reply to post by Khaleesi

Centralized Government = Communism

False, you have today centralized government in all nations you even have some degrees state planed economies (Socialism From Sweden to China).

Please read Animal Farm by George Orwell. You are describing an IDEAL. It sounds great, in theory. In reality, it doesn't work.

You understand that Animal Farm is a parody (the animated movie was even subsidized by the CIA). It reflects only one point that class differences must be fought and no one should ever be put in a position of power over others (something that you also have in capitalistic economies, just look on how the pigs on the US control the government and abuse the rest of the farm animals).

Your examples of "protocols .protocols protocols" is the IDEAL. So you break it down in small groups ... controlled by a larger group which is in turn controlled by an even larger group.

That is the main issue that there mustn't be any groups. I have come to think by my experience as a collaborator in Wikimedia projects that consensus (to the US citizen: it means strict consensus, no standing stated opposition) is the only way to avoid the formation of groups (that will form as soon as opinions can be discarded or ignored, what happens at times even on Wikimedia projects due to the lack of will to enforce policy or simply by badly written protocols). This form of governance is workable (even if it is conservative in nature, resistance to changes and slow), the Quakers did use it successfully.. There is power in diversity of opinions and a danger in single mindedness or forcing of hegemony.

To the Op, you sound very much like a super idealistic young person. I once heard someone say, "If you are not an idealist when young then you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when old then you have no brain". Your idea is admirable, but it's simply not based on reality.


Your utopia has been dreamed of by many and attempted by a few. Just ask some who were in hippy communes in the 60's and find out what really happened to the free love and we all work together peace and love movement. Man's ego always gets in the way. Some are always more equal than others.

What about those who can no longer contribute? Guess what happens to them? Ever see "Logan's run" or "Soylent Green"? It's fine to appeal to all to work together, but as long as someone is leading and others have to follow then not everyone is going to be happy. What about those who don't like the direction things are going? Is it democracy where 2 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner?

You are living in a fantasy idea. Name one society that this has worked. Name 1 society or group that has espoused this ideal you seem to believe can be reached and you will find abuse. You will find debauchery and suffering. I dare you to find one that has been seriously tried and run it's course.

You say eventually the power group will leave? Says who? By who? They always entrench themselves and convince themselves they know what is best. Animal Farm lays it out, but I guess you are smarter than all the world and if we only made you the leader you could do it? Ever watch "Lawnmower Man"?

Take the simplest and nicest person in the world, give them power and watch them convince themselves they know more, have more information, see things more clearly and you just need to sit down, shut up, and do as you're told.

You sir are either a young person with a good heart who has not lived long enough to see the real heart of man or an old person who is stupid and living in a fantasy world. Either way, it never works.

reply to post by Khaleesi


That happened more form pressure form outside that from a will from inside. In fact Stalin's revolution was supported by Germany. Communism can't compete with capitalistic societies (rewarding of individualistic supremacy over others) and we live in a competitive world.

Society changes need to be performed in degrees, it comes by steps not radical reforms. Consider for instance how the simple change to agriculture permitted not only a demographic explosion but time for cultures to become more complex, the time to create structures that permitted dedicating time to the pursuit of knowledge.

reply to post by filledcup

tell me where in communism or in any communist country.. have you ever.. been able.. as a regular working class citizen been able to access ALL the files of your communist dictator's administration and scrutinize them for improper practices?
furthermore.. where under communism can you remove a dictator the next day after he is found to have committed a crime by bringing it to the attention of the public?
where under communism do the masses get to design the laws and vote on them themselves?
with the ability to oppose the communist ruler's alignment and actually have it enstated in the manner that they wish?
provide historical accounts.

Exactly!........communism doesn't work!

Please explain how your system would work differently from communism?.....who's going to run it?.......in your "Utopia" I want to run it!.....and I'm not going to clean toilets!..............I'm going to get someone else to do it, but what happens when that person doesn't want to do it?

When the masses have designed the laws.....who gets to designate the jobs?

Originally posted by Khaleesi

Originally posted by filledcup
so then your point is baseless, unreferenced and unproven.

great contribution.

That was really unnecessary. You asked for something that can't be given and I just pointed that out to you. So it is a valid contribution. No need to get snarky. You want information to back it up? Here, read this article.

people.howstuffworks.com...

It's about 8 pages long. Read the whole thing. I stated your idea is a nice one, just VERY problematic in practice. You have continued TRYING to rebut people's stating the obvious problems with your idea instead of looking at the reality. For every problem you have fixed, you have created more. and now you are just taking a swipe at the people that point out the problems instead of admitting you can not remove human nature from the equation.

my apologies.. u are right. that was unnecessary. i had mistaken you for one of the previous rather arrogant posters.

i am a bit tired. and as a result i will need to resign from the discussion for a while. a bath could do me well too.

ill rejoin the discussion later or tomorrow where we can continue. u have made a number of meaningful contributions to the thread topic and i thank you for that. i will review what you have presented.

once again my apologies.

reply to post by alfa1

Its not going to work. You have children growing up being told "all the following jobs pay the same, do the one you like:"
1. Mining company CEO
2. Porn star
3. Fisherman
4. Rap singer
5. Artist
6. Racing car driver
7. Toilet cleaner One of those isnt going to get many applicants.

Well I'm not doing a desk job, I get sea sick, I can't sing, I can't draw or paint, I'm a crap driver and I'm not cleaning toilets!

Got any jobs going?

reply to post by Panic2k11


The OP is the one that alluded to centralization and guess what? Communism uses a form of centralized government. I never said it was the only form. Yes I understand Animal Farm is a parody. I was using it as an example. As for protocols? I was pointing out to the OP that just throwing that out there as the solution still ignores the problems inherent in his Utopic Society. Saying you have protocols and enforcing them are two different things. Your Quaker example is a good one, but they reached a peak and then declined. Yes they are in existence but no longer at the height they once were.