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

reply to post by Argyll


People will contribute because it is the society norm. Why do you dress, or dress as you do or why most people cut their hair, etc..

Have you tried to be intentionally idle ? All actions even those not seen as directly productive would have more value and necessities would continue to be satisfied, so people would have to cooperate or do without...

A lot of this idea seems to be based on equality, but it seems to be at the expense of fairness. However, I think that throwing ideas around about different ways to "do things" is great. Just tearing down new ideas before they get started, while based on our current economic system, does not seem to be the most beneficial approach. Starting an open discussion on "how can we do this better?" is something that I think needs to happen in a lot of ways. There will be a lot of different opinions, obviously, but by sharing them something may grow that changes all of our lives in a positive way.

Why should someone flipping burgers receive the same amount of "pay" as a bank CEO?

Which position has a shorter learning curve, and a higher percentage of success amongst individuals in the populace?

I think the amount that is currently received for either position to be completely absurd, however, I am not ready to say that every occupation should be paid equally.

"Minimum wage" might be better based on an openly shared equation that takes into account ways that we would like to see our society grow. Meaning that minimum pay is derived directly from how much daily positive impact an individual provides to the world around them. A modifier could be included that allowed for temporary increased pay in fields with immediate needs to better utilize transient workers. All modifiers and content of the equation could be even be set by individual communities in an open source manner.

So, instead of receiving pay for one occupation, individuals are compensated for their acts throughout the day. It may be solely in one aspect of one specific field, or it could be spread out over various different facets of manufacturing, sale, service, "volunteer" work, construction, etc. Someone who created an invention like the lightbulb would continue to be paid as the device has an ongoing positive impact the world over. They are also likely to use the finances to continue to create and do what they are doing (though it is obviously not a certainty, just a higher likelihood).

Now, I do feel that basic needs should be covered. If we want our world to operate at its best, I think that everyone should have equal footing on a strong foundation. Where we seem to differ though, is I think we should be able to reach different heights if we are willing to climb. But, we all should have equal access to the basic tools to build what we need and want. If we invest into providing strong footholds for people to start (housing, clean water, even the internet) then the entire society/economy has a much better chance to truly succeed and prosper. Currently, we just throw money at it (essentially), but if we were to directly provide hard goods instead of fiat money as these support systems it may not only be more effective in stimulating economic health, it also has the possibility of being a cheaper option overall.

The largest issue facing any economic or government model is corruption stemming from misguided greed. Unlike the other issues, this is one that can not necessarily be legislated or changed by a governmental system. It is something that will have to change on the individual level. Personally, I think that the greed could be satiated to an even greater degree through methods that also satisfy peoples needs. The degree of quality of life improvements that would come from everything from technology to art, over generations, would vastly exceed the real world value of some numbers in a bank account. But, that is an opinion that is not shared by enough to currently sway popular opinion or actions.

Originally posted by Argyll
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?

I guess you'll be the Porn star?

reply to post by filledcup


The system fails - because each persons labor has differing value. The value of labor is not time, it is a combination of factors including original thought, skills and learning, talents and abilities and so on.

Your system would fail because it is NOT equal. The great producers would be relegated to the same rewards as everyone else - so they would try and withdraw, or sell into a black market etc - or simply try and supplant the system with a new one by force.

Capitalism is the system that allows things to be exchanged freely and voluntarily - the problem with the modern world is not capitalism, it is state-ism and the impact and influence that the state exerts over markets and individuals.

IMO there is a utopia - but it is not where everyone is equal, but rather everyone has equal opportunity and is treated equally by the law and there is no large state.

In my utopia violence would still exist, but it would be limited to small groups and individuals - you need states to make wars. However, it would be based on laws, the non aggression and non deception principles.

Everyone would be expected to be armed at all times, and private property would be protected by a system of law and legal process that everyone agreed to. Basically to be in the society you would sign a contract which stipulated the system of law and legal processes.

The most succinct version of the private property law I know of as follows;

'Whosoever infringes the property of another human being without their consent commits an unlawful act.'

In reading this, property is defined as all things contingent upon the human being; body, mind, speech, public persona, labor and products of labor ect. Consent is defined as existing only in the absence of deception and coercion.

This of course leaves laws regarding common property to be determined. Common property includes everything that is not private property - and most notably includes real estate - also sunlight, air, water, the cycle of living things and so on.

Because everyone has an interest in the common property - then it is reasonable to determine fair use of common property using two principles - one, the economic principle - this divides the common property into finite sections to be controlled (not owned) and charges rent which is divided among the owners (everyone), using the economic principle allows anyone to purchase things in a market and control them if they are willing and able to pay for them. So some good examples would be real estate, where you purchase a lease from the Real Estate Office for example. You pay rent, and the way that rent is spent is decided democratically - it could either be distributed, or used for public works. Another example would be a fishing license - the amount of fish that can be taken from a certain area without disturbing the system could be determined independently - then fishing licenses could be leased annually.

Secondly, rules for the use of common property would be determined democratically. Where systems are completely continuous and not discreet or easily divided - air, or water, or micro organisms for example - then perhaps the economic principle might be harder to design.

The idea behind creating laws, or rules for use of common property democratically should be easy to understand - if everyone is a joint owner with an equal share, then everyone should have a vote on what rules are put in place to control the use of common property. So things like how much pollution is acceptable, in what ways can livestock be treated, how much water can be diverted from a river and so on.

This society would have basically no government per se, but would have different institutions, probably distributed geographically, and by specializing in different types of common property. They would take in common revenues and either distribute them back to the population, or spend them for the common good - as determined by pure democratic processes.

They would be non profit organizations - and of course great care would need to be taken to ensure they did not become corrupt. Because these organizations would be private, then they could compete by buying things like fishing grounds, or roads or whatever and offering different ways to spend the money that people might like - so even though not for profit, running your own would give certain advantages - so there would be some competition. However - bad, corrupt institutions could be divested of property by democratic processes.

This is about my best idea for a society - it would not be utopia, but it would be fair - and there would be no rent seeking/plundering of common property - banking for example would be a non profit activity.

I read your post and have been very anxious to come back and comment. I purposefully took time to think on your proposal and try to work out a sufficient answer to address everything that I think is valid and important and therefore deserves a well thought out reply. So here it goes,

". ".

reply to post by filledcup


There was one such large-scale experiment in the USSR. It started in 1917 and lasted until cca 1953, although it took almost 40 years more to be abandoned completely.

If anyone is interested in seeing how such things work out, do have a look at this one. (Orlando Figes' books are a good place to start, if you're in a hurry.)
It was, for all intents and purposes, identical to the proposed "utopia".

reply to post by Amagnon

Your system would fail because it is NOT equal. The great producers would be relegated to the same rewards as everyone else - so they would try and withdraw, or sell into a black market etc - or simply try and supplant the system with a new one by force.

History proves you wrong by large measure. Look at cashless societies and to per-industrialization and art and crafts was everywhere and no copyrights or IP (intellectual property laws). The above mindset is what the US government and the corporate cronies attempt to pass the first because it is now the largest part of the exports the second because the first allowed corporations to extend and uphold IP beyond natural terms... Look at youtube as an example of free creatives...

reply to post by Amagnon

Capitalism is the system that allows things to be exchanged freely and voluntarily - the problem with the modern world is not capitalism, it is state-ism and the impact and influence that the state exerts over markets and individuals.

Capitalism is an economic model not really a political model (it can't be applied to a society as it would be complete hell, a dog eat dog world, beyond what we already got). Liberalism to the left or neo-Liberalism to the right seems to be what you are defining as capitalism.

The only social aspect that can be imparted to capitalism is individualism and individualism does create stable societies or move us out of this gravity hole, communal collaboration does, thinking in the befits of all especially future generations something that a "capitalist" will discard for increase in present profits, especially if inserted in a high competitive "capital" oriented society.

This fail, is best represented by the US in its present situation from outsourcing, desindustrialisation and highly litigious individualists that live in an make believe reality of credit where it is ok to feed corn to juiced up cattle and other crap just ot make a buck more.

reply to post by filledcup


See the thing is OP, many people will laugh at you and contribute nothing to this thread as if this site is now some yahoo message board. Don't listen to them, they are wage slaves to the bitter end, and they are also a cancer running through this website.

What you are saying is of course possible. But will never probably happen because the fat little piggies will always want more.

The funny thing about all these posters ridiculing you for communism is hilarious. If people honestly believe capitalism is the way to go with a central bank holding the supply and printing an unlimited supply of fiat money, they really need to stop posting, take a break, and look at the US without the blinders on.

See everyone, the system that OP talks of of would eliminate money.

Why is this important? Money is the root of all evil. It creates wars. It makes the doctors start treating the problems rather then curing them. It turns your fellow man into an abomination. It creates world hunger. And pretty much every problem in the world can be associated with money.

Money enslaves the whole planet, especially with a central banking system that's controlled by a few.

Here's another great thing about money. One of the reasons why the Fukishima plant wasn't up to par with the highest safety standards was because of money. They could have built the plant better but decided to save on costs.

And now there's tons of radiation leaking into the pacific and god knows what's going to happen to Japan.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I bet most of these blatant immature, ridiculing posts are made by people well at least in their 30's. Play ground bickering bull#. Grow up and try to look at life differently.

S&F.

reply to post by Skjord


I never ridiculed the OP. So we are cancers? Some of us were just pointing out the similarities of the OP to communism. Communism at it's core was based on equality, which is what the OP wants to present as a solution. Discussing the pros and cons of ANY idea can only improve it. If we refuse to discuss the cons of a proposal, we do the OP no favors. Yes money is the root of evil, but making wholesale changes without looking to history to see results from past similar endeavors will only repeat the mistakes that were made. Don't be so quick to judge us all as 'cancers' when you are obviously not listening to reasonable discussion of what has happened in the past.

What about if you have certain requirements like say, each person has to wash toilets for 8 hours out of 365 days? How many toilets need to be washed? Really 6 billion people times 8 hours, is a lot of toilet washing. I'm pretty sure most would be willing to do this for say a plane trip to their destination for vacation.

Originally posted by lightmere
What about if you have certain requirements like say, each person has to wash toilets for 8 hours out of 365 days?

This was mentioned earlier but perhaps needs addressing in full.

1. Its not just about cleaning, sanitation and toilets.
The truth is that not enough volunteer workers will be found for a VAST number of unpleasant, boring, and dangerous jobs, many of which (like mining, smelting, slaughterhouses, oil rig worker, or tedious paperwork jobs, etc ) require skilled workers.
The idea to force the totally inexperienced general public to just dive in and do this job for a few hours will not only not get the job done, it will also kill many people. You seriously think forcing mr.average citizen to be an underwater welder or high voltage electrician for one day wont end in disaster?

2. Quality of work.
One of the many reasons that people do a good job is that they know they'll eventually be sacked if their work standard isnt good enough. And some jobs arent even immediately obvious if the work is done right. eg. the example of somebody doing a mind numbingly boring job of final testing of products before they get packed for shipment, or getting exactly the right amount of lubrication on a precision part, or making sure the welds on that boiler are done perfectly, or making sure that stupid paperwork is filed correctly.
But this doesnt apply to the "one day" crowd. They can do a job that merely pleases the inspector on the day. "Good Enough". They wont be expected to have the standard of work that a full time person has.
Result: The utopian society has a lot of jobs done in a half-assed incompetent lazy "near enough" mostly adequate way... with no consequences.

I'm not saying you would not need skilled trade and schooling to do these jobs, some people are artists in their jobs.. take for instance a landscape brick layer, who designs a backyard on what he envisions. He see's it on paper and in real life...what it can be...but for some one not trained in this they can not see the outcome, they just see lines on a paper. This person works hard digging and filling the base to instal the bricks, this is not something that anyone can do, without practice of some sort. And they are good at it. And for all you know, they enjoy digging, rather than dressing in a suit, going in the rush hour to a downtown job, that is meaningless, but pays the bills.

I would not be happy with a system that just took anyone and everyone for a job that they were not qualified for. If you wanted to be a pilot, you would need qualifications, you would not just fly with any Joe Blow, since Joe decided he wanted to be a pilot. Or a brain surgeon for one day Just as you would not hire a landscape contractor without qualifications.

And say you and your spouse decide one of you is to stay home with the kids, needed some extra hours so the spouse cleans toilets, washes streets what ever in the free time to help out the family so they can have a nicer vacation, if that's what they choose. Some may choose not to go to fancy resorts but to go say camping.
Some people like to do jobs that do not require brain strength, i very much doubt there would be a shortage especially if people got to choose what they want to do. Really can you imagine waking up one day and saying im going to be a brain surgeon just for 12 hours, knowing that you know nothing about it and your patient is at risk of death cause you decided to be a doc for a day.

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by abeverage

 

the only aspect that can be meagerly compared to communism, is in the fact that certain instituted bodies (government) will be responsible for the fair and orderly allocation of resources, products and services to all who make a request for say an iphone. These bodies working inter-connectedly, will place each request in a queue, and each person will receive their request based on availability and their position in the queue for that particular item. if iphones are out of stock in your region, then you will have to wait until they are restocked and if u are at the top of the queue u will receive yours first upon restocking. and that's pretty much where any aspect of communism stops.

the government would consist of elected officials. as much of how society operates today will stay fully in tact. in effect this can be an overnight change. or instituted in as little as a few weeks across the entire globe. the turn over of elected officials will be swift.. as fast as every 6 months to a year or faster. those who do good work may get re-elected. but they will also adhere to the protocols of their position which lies more in resource accounting, outsourcing, and resource allocation. with each process guided by strict protocols to follow.

Something tells me that there will be allot of corruption when it comes to this queue system. Some people will always try to cut corners and get things faster.
What if someone is tired of waiting, would i be possible to "buy" the thing from someone else? Using goods for currency.

Though all in all (as a Star Trek fan) I have always believed in a system like this or at least similar.
The driving force in life should be self improvement and experiences and not material things.
But dear good things and gadgets can be really fun sometimes!!

reply to post by Skjord

See everyone, the system that OP talks of of would eliminate money. Why is this important? Money is the root of all evil. It creates wars. It makes the doctors start treating the problems rather then curing them. It turns your fellow man into an abomination. It creates world hunger. And pretty much every problem in the world can be associated with money. Money enslaves the whole planet, especially with a central banking system that's controlled by a few.

Sorry, what? How is money the root of all evil?
It's something that gets repeated a lot - most often by people who don't have any because they scorn the concept of being gainfully employed - but I don't get the impression that many people REALLY think about what it means.

If we're going to be philosophical, then let's go all the way: FEAR and its mother, ignorance, are the root of all evil.
But in this context, let's just say that GREED - again, the natural by-product of fear - is the root of the misuse of money.
Tell me how to get rid of THAT. In practice, not in theory and/or wishful thinking.
If you can do that, then money will stop being a problem all by itself.
If you can't, a moneyless society would only amount to reinventing the wheel all over again.

Any system that does not take into account the realities of human nature, for better and for worse, is doomed.
The problems is, utopias tend to take a whole lot of people down with them - and that after inflicting a LOT of suffering.

Sorry, DP.

Unfortunately, one of the definitions of utopia is an unattainable ideal. Ideals are one of the major problems of the world, everyone that has one takes a side, taking a side creates an opposition... the exact opposite of understanding and tolerance of an opposing view point, or one that brings each other together, which is very far from Ideal, this creates a philosophical paradox. The idealistic could be said to be pessimistic in outlook, and one with tolerance optimistic. An optimal functioning society would have to operate optimistically, I don't think it coincidence that they share the same root... Opt; which is choice, when ideal removes the possibility of choice.

Wonder where we will find people who have a passion for, or a childhood dream of working at sewage treatment plants?

Originally posted by filledcup


a system like this would:-

-make available to all education, food, clothing and basic needs

- will eradicate poverty and allow all to walk the streets with dignity, not to be looked down upon.

- it will facilitate the goals and dreams of the children of future generations and snatch them away from a future of destitution and possible enslavement.

There are countries who have this NOW (I won't mention any names but look in the general direction of Scandinavia); they have had it for quite some time.
And the thing that made it possible was their CAPITAL (plus a constructively minded political and social attitude, of course).

Originally posted by TheWrightWing

Originally posted by filledcup
as soon as you work for it. you will not get all these things from working for a week and then retiring. besides, you will need resources such as paint to upkeep your mansion and gas for your cars, someone to trim your lawn, access to get new clothes at the department stores etc. for these things you will need to keep working and contributing.. even if it is just to be a janitor or garbage collector or dog catcher etc.

Great, so No retirement for anyone ever? Work until you drop?

Sounds like Utopia to me, komrade!

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

Not only that but I would have to be shot, as I can't do any 'labour' because I have M.E. I have a degree in Neuroscience and lots of work experience but nowadays, even talking for a lengthy amount of time will have a bad effect on me. I also used to be a hairdresser, but again, I could not do it enough to earn food for myself...only healthy young people come up with ideas that totally ignore the elderly or the disabled.

I have always loved a society based on barter. However it also means that some won't be able to contribute or can only contribute small things. If you include these things OP I like the idea.