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

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Amagnon

 

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.

It doesnt look like you read my entire post - just stopped when I mentioned capitalism.

Many like to bring up the US as a failure in capitalism - however the US has not been capitalist for almost 100yrs, so your idea's on capitalism are not mine.

When I talk capitalism I am talking strict capitalism, with hard money and zero regulation - with private and common property laws enforced. I am also talking about society based on a principle of non deception, this would require complete transparency from businesses.

The problems with so called US capitalism have nothing to do with capitalism, they have to do with laws that are not laws (principally that corporations are persons - a corporation is a folder of papers, it cannot feel fear when faced by prosecution - so it cannot be coerced to act lawfully) - secondly that govt regulation is purchased by these corporations, making fraud legal - and otherwise creating monopolies.

These ideas about 'what benefits society' are complete crap usually, because they do not offer a model that incentives that behavior - and people act for their own interests firstly, social conscience is something that is a luxury at times.

Some human beings have higher levels of social conscience than others, but to constrain the individual selfish nature of human beings and create a system that incentives cooperation requires laws, and a system.

If you have a proper look at my post you will see that my model eliminates the idea of real estate being property - it simply is not. This is another huge flaw in current models of capitalism, the idea that real estate is private property - it is not, it cannot be - real estate was originally discovered, like electricity for example - electricity cant be 'owned' by someone, and neither should real estate - doing so allows some people to gain rent from others by lending them something they already own - its fraud.

You also talk about intellectual property and make some assumptions regarding it. Intellectual property is not entirely private property - the information contained in intellectual property is common property - though the labor is private property. So intellectual 'property' is not a cut and dried case, and it is an area that falls more into common property than into private property - so laws concerning it would better be handled by democratic law than private property law.

You want to incentive's for research and discovery, so reward those who create new idea's - however to lock away ideas as private property has a social cost. My method would have new idea's go into the public domain immediately, with a percentage of profit being paid by all users to the discoverer for the term of their life - the percentage determined by a democratic policy.

The other issue that you did not register in my post was that use of common property is controlled by laws that are created democratically. This means that capitalism must be restrained by law in its excesses and abuses.

For example, there will be laws regarding what can be done to animals in experiments (because living things are common property), there will be laws controlling how much pollution can be put into water and air (all these laws are created by democratic process - the whole of the society will get to decide what is reasonable, not some bureaucrats who can be bribed) - the lawful use of common property will be decided by everyone, and transparency will happen, because corporations wont be the target of lawsuits - individuals only will be targeted - and fear of going to jail is a greater incentive to do the right thing than losing some company profit

i see people on both sides of the debate here slowly suggesting the same thing.

the only way to create a better system or to at least fix a broken one, is to destroy everything. be very drastic. it requires to be almost purposely done, as letting the world go under through waiting things out till the end, would be even more destructive and hard to come back from.

seems like we need a dictator and world conqueror.
but i thought we are all supposed to hate that concept XD

Originally posted by Bisman
i see people on both sides of the debate here slowly suggesting the same thing.

the only way to create a better system or to at least fix a broken one, is to destroy everything. be very drastic. it requires to be almost purposely done, as letting the world go under through waiting things out till the end, would be even more destructive and hard to come back from.

seems like we need a dictator and world conqueror.
but i thought we are all supposed to hate that concept XD

Because it won't work. Humans are humans, and they will always seek to "rig the system" in their favor. Always. So long as the sun rises and sets.

A single generation can realize and then make changes. Their children will forget a little. A couple of generations later, we are right back in the handbasket headed for hell.

With something cars, sure it might be plausible to give out the top level product to everyone. Material stuff.

But what about things that involve a human interaction where one professional is better than another. Who gets to see the best psychologist, surgeon, teacher, lawyer, etc.

I really think the free market and money concept is brilliant. There is nothing wrong with the theory, all corruption comes from abuse and unethical behavior.

How would your system address bad behavior any better than the current one?

One point to make is that within 100 years ago we may have sufficient technology so that unlimited material wealth for all is achievable and it will be interesting to see how society adapts if it does happen.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
With something cars, sure it might be plausible to give out the top level product to everyone. Material stuff.

But what about things that involve a human interaction where one professional is better than another. Who gets to see the best psychologist, surgeon, teacher, lawyer, etc.

I really think the free market and money concept is brilliant. There is nothing wrong with the theory, all corruption comes from abuse and unethical behavior.

How would your system address bad behavior any better than the current one?

One point to make is that within 100 years ago we may have sufficient technology so that unlimited material wealth for all is achievable and it will be interesting to see how society adapts if it does happen.

This is where it all kinda falls apart. The assumption is that there is parity in the skill and capability. This is what the whole system kind of depends on. "You can get the exact same thing over here.....", and that is how you control volume.

But when it comes down to skill, capability.....bottlenecks occur.

If you go to a school where uniforms are put in place (ostensibly to "make things equal" among students), you end up with elitism based on watches, or underwear. There is always something that will be done no matter how same everything is made.

It is part of that human nature thing I referred to earlier.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
Great! I'll take my Free mansion, with plenty of room to park my free BMW's, Alfa Romeos & Bently's.

Oh, and a place to keep my Free Yacht.

When can I expect delivery?

Thank you, signed,

The Proletariat.

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.

your reward will not come in the form of money, but accounted in the banking system based on Hrs contributed to society. in effect, those who work more can get more stuff, bigger stuff, better stuff. those who work less gain less.

equal in that no ceo giving 8 hrs by sitting in an office meeting will get 24hrs worth of payment. an hr is an hr. and for each hr you work accounted for a by timeclock system will go into your account.

levels will be set. example..

those who work the 1000-5000hrs at 4hrs per day bracket will be privy to a certain group of goods.

those who work the 5001-10000hrs at 8hrs per day bracket total will be privy to a higher group of goods.

and those who work 10001+ hrs at 12+hrs per day will be privy to higher quality good and so on.

so you will have to meet quotas. and productivity is measured in the return of resources based on the contributions of the working masses. basically.. GDP without the cash flow. and all are equally paid for equal time worked.

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

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

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

So instead of money, you will have a method of accounting for labor that can be exchanged for goods and services? We already have that...it is called money!

Quotas, work brackets that give people different access to goods based on their labor--I'm sorry you get back to the "greedy capitalism" again, just with different names.

Sorry I have not read this entire thread but form the initial post there is an old Sci-Fi story with a similar concept.

In theory the concept is sound but it has weaknesses.

www.simpleliberty.org...

reply to post by Amagnon


I choose what I disagreed more...

Many like to bring up the US as a failure in capitalism - however the US has not been capitalist for almost 100yrs, so your idea's on capitalism are not mine.

I do not. But we can look to the US as the nation that more closely adopted capitalistic ideals (as we could look to the USSR for Communism, even if I prefer Cuba as the imperfect example model). I've repeatedly said that the US has never implemented a capitalistic economy as proposed by Marx (at best it evolved the society around the concept of capital but it is not the same).

Capitalism is capital driven anarchism (deregulation, individualism), no morals no social considerations beyond increased profit (exploitation) and production (resource consumption, including humans that are simple units of work).

When I talk capitalism I am talking strict capitalism, with hard money and zero regulation - with private and common property laws enforced. I am also talking about society based on a principle of non deception, this would require complete transparency from businesses.

That is it, something like what would have happened if NAZI Germany had won WW2 as a society that orients itself around capital will never respect human liberties and nature, that is why all capital oriented societies tend to
dictatorships. It was not by chance that Hitler got much support from the US and even from aristocratic England as to jump start the power grab and why fascism ideals spread so fast in post industrialized societies (Spain in its civil revolution was the first conflict).

These ideas about 'what benefits society' are complete crap usually, because they do not offer a model that incentives that behavior - and people act for their own interests firstly, social conscience is something that is a luxury at times.

No they aren't, it is even interesting that you in the same phrase equate ideas that benefits society to luxury. That even you see them as something of worth. The basic disagreement is that you see all people as less valuable than yourself and all greedy egotistical self centered individualists, but look around you and you have plenty of examples that reality is not that way people like to collaborate and share (we are the only animal that enjoys that capacity), in nature the most stable model is not parasitism (capitalistic biology) but symbiosis (communal collaboration) .

Some human beings have higher levels of social conscience than others, but to constrain the individual selfish nature of human beings and create a system that incentives cooperation requires laws, and a system.

All human beings have the same general potential and have had it in equal share since we arose there has been no drastic change in our capacities, all the changes have been the result of our brains (ideas) and collaboration. To contain exacerbated individualism we must provider basic security and education we need almost no laws if we drop concepts of property and no one attempts to impose their will on others, and so we also need no enforcers.

If you have a proper look at my post you will see that my model eliminates the idea of real estate being property - it simply is not. This is another huge flaw in current models of capitalism, the idea that real estate is private property - it is not, it cannot be - real estate was originally discovered, like electricity for example - electricity cant be 'owned' by someone, and neither should real estate - doing so allows some people to gain rent from others by lending them something they already own - its fraud.

I only perform a quick read especially if the posts are huge, I have stopped reading the last one in the above section. As it really does not compute. You seem to be mixing the creation of concepts with physical discoveries that represent those concepts and the bit about electricity is just, well wrong (energy).

This utopian idea reminds me of a tract written by a rich guy in Denmark who claimed alien contact.

Personally I think it was his excuse to present a new economic system to the world... but then again one would think he'd pick a more believable medium for his ideas.

Anyway, regardless of where the info/ideas really originated it has some novelty and the thread is buried in the UFO forum, but I posted the free book here...

www.galactic.no...

And the thread is called (something) planet Iarga (something) .

As far as utopian ideas go, and I too think we have to try as a species soon, it has a few ideas I haven't run into before, but then I'm no economist (as my cruddy rental would attest to).

The ideas of ditching planned obsolescence for lasting quality and embracing non ownership... just borrowing from your society/world while you're alive- which amounts to the same thing but presents a different mind set, is interesting.

Using pride of work and a sense of competition to produce superior products for the enjoyment and betterment of all could work, too. Of course, higher tech and a broader resource base never hurts, either.

There are corporations in his system, but instead of existing to generate wealth, they exist to produce excellently. Peoples' time is considered precious and the garbage processor is appreciated precisely because nobody really wants that job, which one would only have to do a few hours a week as everyone pitches in for those undesirable but necessary jobs.

The killing off of social deviants... not so great a solution, a little too final and I would be in some trouble.

The only thing keeping goods and services from reaching each and every individual is the price one has to pay...

Everyone has the ways and means, economics got us to cooperate with 'outsiders'.
Economics is why everyone is so cutthroat now.

Economics is no longer needed, we now know how to cooperate, and why we should.

Before you want make any system, might be wise to read into human psychology, especially the nature part.
Frans de Waal says that human nature isn't what most people think and his findings say empathy is human nature. See: www.time.com...
[As a counter to Frans de Waal, I wanted to mention the monkey sphere on Cracked and David M. Buss but I'm not going to bother. The monkey sphere can be found here: www.cracked.com...]

Human nature can be a obstacle but it does not mean we have to obey to it. Some call staying true to our nature the Naturalistic fallacy.

The biggest issue I see with this system is that very few people would want it anyway. You'd have to take baby steps. Another problem is that all countries would need to have this system installed, no?

We are influenced from the times we were a little kid. That's what scientists call nurture which is almost equal to culture. Nietzsche says:

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Lies can be unproven. However try to do this, convince a Jew or Muslim that eating pork isn't that bad based on scientific reasons. This isn't meant anti-religiously, but I like this example of a strong conviction. The same applies to the modern populace and a different system.

Capitalism and democracy are such genius systems because they work great on people, not necessary because they are good, even though these systems have some positive sides, but because they work great on the minds of people.

In theory it is a very good idea, but in practice I dont think its workable.

What will motivate people to do some the worst or hardest jobs?

Who will fix the waste pipes?

I think the motivation given by having to earn something or save for something is much more valuable to mankind than just being able to have whatever they want, when they want it. I think it will stifle creativity and technological advancement. Simply because people will not want for anything, I think people will become lazy and unfit.
People are already becoming lazy and unfit in this capitalist world.

If you want to see what being able to have what you want when you want it does to people, just look at our ruling classes. It doesnt look good.

reply to post by OneManArmy


So, what are your ideas to minimize those issues?

I think that "discussion" is important on things like this. Just poking holes in the ideas is incredibly easy, but approaching problems with actual solutions is the way we will make real progress.

I think that the idea of "utopia" is not realistic, however, I do not feel that means we should give up on trying to improve on current systems. That defeatist attitude seems to always come into play when proposing ideas to make things better, but I have yet to see a real answer to the question "why arent we at least working towards a better world?"

In my post I addressed the very issues you bring up though.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

So, what are your ideas to minimize those issues?

I think that "discussion" is important on things like this. Just poking holes in the ideas is incredibly easy, but approaching problems with actual solutions is the way we will make real progress.

I think that the idea of "utopia" is not realistic, however, I do not feel that means we should give up on trying to improve on current systems. That defeatist attitude seems to always come into play when proposing ideas to make things better, but I have yet to see a real answer to the question "why arent we at least working towards a better world?"

In my post I addressed the very issues you bring up though.

I dont have a defeatist attitude, Im just pointing out some obvious failings.

You will probably find the answer lies somewhere between the two ideologies.

Heres a possible solution, education not indoctrination.
Get rid of the hypocritical power structure that confuses peoples minds and can cause mental issues.
Things like killing people being wrong, but yet our "leaders" find it necessary to kill millions in the name of saving lives.

I think a true solution would be limited capitalism, with limits on what any one person can own and keep for themself. Maybe a 500 million dollar limit on wealth. A limit on land ownership, a limit on multinationals.

We should also ban big business from having anything to do with government. The revolving door has to be stopped.
There are some ideas, Im not trying to poo poo the idea, just trying to be realistic.
My bad for not reading the whole thread, I will go back now and continue reading.

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
Great! I'll take my Free mansion, with plenty of room to park my free BMW's, Alfa Romeos & Bently's.
Oh, and a place to keep my Free Yacht.

If something would be available in sufficient quantities it would be available to all, without further ado. So, yes, if there were plenty Bentleys produced to go around, we all could use one and it could even sit unused in a garage, because nobody wanted to use it anyway, they would have their own. In the end, in such societies the quality of a Bentley (or better) would be the standard for all cars. There would be variations, as some would like the shape and colour of one type of car, others would like other shapes and colours, as we see today. But they all would be of very high quality and would be build so that they would last, and could be adapted to newer standards and technologies, or at least fully recycled if the need arose.

Only when there would be (temporary) scarcity, people would probably decide to grant rights to those most in need to (temporary) uniquely use such items or goods, based on what society deems necessary. If disputes arise, courts would test the case according to Law and people would honour the decisions of the courts - voluntarily, like the overwhelming majority of people already do now. The concept of "ownership" would survive, I guess, but would probably be limited to personal stuff, like diaries, photo's, your clothes, food etc.

So, yes, you could have a yacht too, given there were plenty. If there weren't, you could simply use one on a first come first served base, comparable with hiring a yacht nowadays, but you would not pay for it, simply be given the right to use it for a short while, after which it had to be returned so others could use it. And like always, there would be items that would be scarce. So, first come, first serve or a decision of a court to allow you (temporary) (unique) user rights.

reply to post by filledcup


As much as I LOVE the idea you were sharing, which sounds completely natural to me I must say, the change humanity really needs is a change of consciousness, rather than a change in system. A change in a system prior to a change of one's consciousness will be doomed to fail.

Currently most of humanity is driven by capitalistic values so it's quite typical (unfortunately) to hear opinions such as "ok so I want my bentley, ferrari and porsche in my new mansion ASAP" because they haven't evolved themselves into the principles of oneness and got rid of their desires for bodily and materialistic satisfaction.

This Utopian world would be GREAT, if humanity have already evolved to the point people are ready to downgrade themselves for the sake of all. Sadly people are too greedy, too needy, and too much self-concentrated and self-important to be in such a world and roll on.

Sadly, most of humanity isn't more evolved from our other brothers and sisters, the primates. Most of humanity are still somewhere in between, they look like human and can talk, express, evolve ideas and so on, but they are really driven by the same principles of apes, which is alpha-maleism, survival of the fittest, kill whatever is in your way and take whatever you need regardless of others.

For a real humanity, this world you are talking about would be great, and it's probably an ideal one for many of us. But when and if we'll try to welcome everyone to the voluntarism idea, i'm afraid it won't work since most people are still willing to take from more than to give to. And this principle is what holds us back the most imo.

Sorry that my poor belief in humanity ideas, I can't say i'm favoring our specie too much lately, but S&F for a great thread, know that you are not the only dreamer here.

reply to post by loveguy


I think you intended to say money is no longer needed, economic may or not be needed but it is a science about transactions (not all about capital itself) and wherever there is a society some economics has a place in it even without money, or we couldn't make anything work beyond basic survival...

AHHHH! There's the rub! Current and past 'communist countries' do not practice TRUE communism.

Is this a parody?
This is EXACTLY what the USSR said about everyone else, including their own satellites.
Meanwhile, it was certain socially progressive but capitalist countries who introduced true prosperity AND dignity for its citizens - not the USSR.

Listen, I appreciate idealism, I really do. But there is a good reason why the Romans of yore used to say historia magistra vita est. Because it's the truth.
In political/economic systems there is nothing that hasn't been tried. Whatever failed, failed because it didn't take the realities (as opposed to wishful thinking) of human nature into account.

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.

I don't know about the other contributors to this thread, but this little piggy isn't a "wage slave"; I work independently, when I want to, and I mostly want to because I adore my work.

I would say all people so far have, in fact, contributed a lot; but some people simply prefer to ignore what they have to say because it's a tune they don't like to hear.
Then again, as history has proved, such an attitude goes with the territory proposed.

This will not happen, too many want too much for too little

reply to post by filledcup


What happens to those who do not contribute? Do we simple turn them into solentgreen? Why should those who are getting a free ride on the backs of the tax payers go to work now?