Birth of an ideology starting with a prize home. Input wanted

Ok, Sunday creativity has hit me with an idea. There was a thread in this forum discussing a new form of Capitalism where I voiced a thought of mine. Subsequently after posting it, I've been navigating the complexities involved in my mind whether this idea would fly. I've been meaning to post my idea for many months now but haven't really had enough creative juices flowing to make it worthwhile.

This is my idea. A society based on a merit system. The more you contribute to society, the wealthier you become. Call it "Philanthropism". So whenever you see someone driving up in a Lamborghini, you know they got it from being a good person and not off the backs of the poor. When you see the likes of Donald Trump, you know they made their money not off real estate, but from contributing to mas employment opportunities (which he does in the form of construction jobs) health, science and leading innovative ideas.

So where's the money in good deeds? Where's the profit you may ask. How does helping people with less opportunity turn a profit and make you rich? It's hard to get a capitalist head around making money from good deeds and that's because based on the current model, you can't. You must change the game plan. So how can "Philanthropism" make a return on investment? Simple. Well maybe not so easy at first but the concept is. Downsize the government and let the people dole out the cash cow.

Instead of sending in our PST to the government, we put it in a separate entity by the people for the people. Every single thing you do is categorized in a merit earning point system. The more points you have, the more money is earned. Clean up a street, earn x-points. Volunteer in a hospital, earn x-points. Design an infrastructure which aides the homeless, environment or creates jobs, even more points. You get the idea. The current system can still work too. You can continue your day job, punch in/ punch out, get your paycheck and carry on with your life like the rest of us slave zombies and do nothing. Or you can participate in the new system and collect a little gravy on top of what you normally make.

My guess is, seeing that world is made of greed, it won't take long for those hungry enough to earn more will go out and try to buy a $300,000 home based off pure x-points. Or go on that vacation earned from points from volunteering 1000 hours of community services. Volunteer work should be rewarded. Not just rewarded emotionally or on your resume, but rewarded on a merit system which can be cashed in. Within 10 years a dramatic change in society would not only be noticeable but would trickle down to the lower class. Self-entitlement would disappear among the youth and people will be biting at the bit to volunteer their time, mind, energy to assist in the merit system to buy that first home, new car or what have you.

The gap divide would change exponentially. The poor will be poor because they don't give a crap. The rich would be rich because they do. Roles would be diametrically reversed and when you see a "poor" person, the stereotype and stigma we use on them now, would be correct in the modern sense of "what we think about them". In reality, poor people are actually more giving than wealthy people as it is now with the current capital system we have. And rich people are tight. This is the unbalanced world we live in. Rich people should be rich because they do good/smart things and or work hard.

So after thinking, I realize something like this would never just be accepted right out of the gate. Some sort of "dry run" would be needed and/or perhaps a "water bucket challenge" hive mentality. So how could one implement such a system or do a dry run first? Then it occurred to me. Offer a brand new 4,000 square foot home, a vacation and a new car to the fist person who earns x-amount of points. Points would be handled with a tablet application and your smartphone. Each check in to a designated "zone" or area of volunteer works via the app and credits are applied by the administrator of each zone. Depending on the success of the dry run, players who did not win may keep their credits and apply them towards the next available game. What do you think? There's one problem. Who pays for the rewards. Advertising? Sponsors? Just to get the ball rolling. Just a start up event, something anyone can do anywhere, anytime.

Thoughts?

Except that kind of good person wouldn't be driving a lamboghini. They would have given most of it away to either not drive or drive something far more thrifty. Right?

a reply to: ketsuko

ah yes the paradox. I know thought about that too. The whole purpose of giving is not the expectation of receiving anything for it. right? However, this idea kinda uses that concept against itself and encourages the greedy in a positive direction

The best part of this idea is the stigma on the greedy. Capitalism has fooled us into calling greedy people "successful," instead of recognizing the vice for what it is.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Except the people who are best at what they do become successful. How is that greedy?

a reply to: FlySolo

Who would set the standards for these good deeds?

I think volunteering at the shooting range for youth gun safety and firearms training is a good deed, many others do not.

I could see a system like this being used to build a small army of 'yes sir' type people doing the deeds of whom ever is in charge.. could be disastrous IMHO.

a reply to: ketsuko I disagree that it is the person who does the best work that gets paid most. Anyone who's worked in a beauracracy can see how easy it is for megalomaniacs and morons with good connections to rise to the top. What I like about OP's idea is how all this gets turned on its head.

It is interesting but there are a lot of problems IMO

Innovations will be hard to make, because you just not come up with something new by default. It takes years of small things, failures and influences before you can get at a point like that. All those years of preparing gain you nothing in that sense, so less people will follow that path.

Art, music and the likes is something similar. Everybody knows van Gogh now. He influenced a lot of artists with his style and we could argue that some of his progress has influenced the art to where it is now. Now what would he have gained in your proposal? Nothing. Nobody recognized his individuality when he was alive. Music is the same, of course there are some high selling artists but most are not, but the unknown influence the future artist too. But in your proposal they wouldn't be recognized in my opinion.

I guess your proposal is not really rich like capitalism is today? You give the example of a really great guy having earned his Lamborghini by being good for the community but how good for the community are you when you design and build a Lamborghini as it is not for the community?

I could give a lot more examples. But I got only one question. Is the proposal intended globally or in a tiny island we call country?

a reply to: doompornjunkie

I could see a system like this being used to build a small army of 'yes sir' type people doing the deeds of whom ever is in charge.. could be disastrous IMHO.

How so? In terms of defrauding the system or just using it for nefarious purposes?

What do military people rate after a war?

a reply to: Dumbass

Very good points. What is argued worthy of credits would be a contentious one.

Is the proposal intended globally or in a tiny island we call country?

Within any current system, like a side gig on weekends.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: doompornjunkie

I could see a system like this being used to build a small army of 'yes sir' type people doing the deeds of whom ever is in charge.. could be disastrous IMHO.

How so? In terms of defrauding the system or just using it for nefarious purposes?

Yes nefarious, your OP reminded me of the Hitler youth. I know you didn't mean that in any way at all, but I could see such a system being perverted to become into something similar.

The source of the income for these prizes would end up being who decides who gets the prizes. People like George Soros could inject their ideology into your system and corrupt it unless there was oversight.

If there was oversight into the system, either people wouldn't donate because it didn't suit their cause, or those who did donate would want their cause to be supported. Think lobbyist in DC.

I just can't wrap my head around implementing this and not having perversion in the long term.

Your system revolves around money, prizes are still money. Money corrupts..

a reply to: doompornjunkie

Yeah you're right. Dumb idea. People would exploit its flaws to no end setting up dummy accounts and funnel credits to the mafia. Ok never mind...

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Dumbass

Very good points. What is argued worthy of credits would be a contentious one.

Is the proposal intended globally or in a tiny island we call country?

Within any current system, like a side gig on weekends.

. Well that explains it perfectly

No-one needed a computer, in fact the head of IBM thought there was only need for less then 10 computers in the world.

No-one needed a mobile. And most of us need them now.

What I think is that in your scheme populism will run high and real geniuses will get ignored as they are not backup by the masses when they are young.

Not to offend you but my last statement made me remember the movie Idocracy.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Yeah you're right. Dumb idea. People would exploit its flaws to no end setting up dummy accounts and funnel credits to the mafia. Ok never mind...

Not necessarily dumb, maybe just needs to be polished. Isn't that why you asked for opinions?

As a scientist, we rarely get it right on the first try. We just keep on tweaking the recipe until it works.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: ketsuko I disagree that it is the person who does the best work that gets paid most. Anyone who's worked in a beauracracy can see how easy it is for megalomaniacs and morons with good connections to rise to the top. What I like about OP's idea is how all this gets turned on its head.

No, re-read what I said.

I didn't say it was always the person who does the best work gets paid the most.

I said that people who are best at what they do become successful. That's not exactly the same thing as getting paid the most, but it does often equate to making quite a bit of money depending on what profession we are talking about.

If I have the drive to be the best brain surgeon in the world, I am going to make quite a bit of money, but that doesn't mean I only set out to be the best brain surgeon because I am greedy. It doesn't even mean that I am necessarily making the *most* money at brain surgery, but the simply fact that I am the best is going to bring a lot of clients my way.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Yeah you're right. Dumb idea. People would exploit its flaws to no end setting up dummy accounts and funnel credits to the mafia. Ok never mind...

No, it's not a dumb idea, but I do think you have two competing notions going on.

If you are working on an economy that prizes people who give away the most, rewarding them with material goods may not be the best way to go. If they are truly wanting to give away the most, then they ought to have the impulse to turn around and give away their rewards too.

Sounds like a form of communism and a bit naive.

People have careers and should be qualified for the jobs they do and pay should reflect their ability and constructive input. Such a system doesn't seem to factor such things.

a reply to: ketsuko

yeah, can see that flaw as well. And are those rewards really yours to keep or do they belong to "the system'"?

HEY it only failed THIS time,it will take a lot more thinking ,that's all.