Brainstorming: M vs N, not M vs M

The goal of this exercise is to brainstorm ideas to create an economic and or government system that serves the purpose of rewarding behavior and actions that benefit mankind as a whole, promoting improving life for all mankind by rewarding those who best achieve the furthuring of this cause while discouraging or outright punishing those who work against said ideals.

The idea behind this is that man formed society to help each other survive and succeed against the harsh environment that surrounds us. That it is man vs nature not man vs man that society was built for.

The idea is not to discourage innovation, to reward it, those who do more deserve more, those who benefit society most deserve the recognition and perks that such actions accomplish.

The other idea is discourage or limit greed. It's good to strive for more, it's good to achieve, but not to the point you harm society or leave other contributing members struggling.

Typing this on my phone is annoying, will leave it here.

Get started.

This is not a place to argue for infinite greed or anything outside the scope of the exercise. It's to brainstorm if this is even possible or how.

a reply to: Puppylove

While I applaud your effort to come up with a better system, something that has eluded the greatest historical minds, I think your basic premise that civilizations rose due to a M v N situation is wrong.

Most studies I have seen say hunter gatherer individuals had an easier life than those working from dawn to dusk in fields.

The reason that clans banded together was primarily for defense against other clans, thereby making it a M v M situation.

On the other hand human nature, and mother nature are not that different. Both can be quite nice, and forgiving, but both can be ruthless and brutal as well.

a reply to: Mach2

Regardless we have a goal here. The survival and success of the human species as a whole.

Tired or R vs D, Conservative vs. Socialism, etc.

Clearly none of this is working to truly accomplish a better world for man as is. Not in the way we keep hoping for.

I want people to put their thinking caps on and offer ideas.

So many just accept that what we have is all there can be.

I say we can do better.

Asking for a brainstorm, good luck!

The early phases of M v N are over. We've conquered the physical aspects of nature, we can survive in space, re-engineer the entire planet... But we have mastered nothing. Our conquest has, inevitably, unfortunate consequences, many unintended in our haste to move forward. And now (like Paul Harvey) on to page 2.

The challenge ahead seems still M v N - not so much physical nature, but human nature - we've chosen along the path to pit M v M rather than face our OWN human nature. I believe the conflict is still M v N - we're 'battling' from within to strive in a culture of our own creation of chronic cognitive dissonance. This isn't the mud pit so I'll just refer to Religion and Morality as examples without further discussion. As a culture, we have no agreement on the basic tenants of civilization in the modern context, sans primal motivations for subsistence against the elements and cohabitation for protection (this is pretty well covered for most of the world, there's some social order in place).

I think what you're asking (what I hear) is a societal model that's evolving (or should be evolving) and what the elements necessary for advancement are (or will be or should be).
Maybe my brainstorm is more of a fart.

ganjoa

a reply to: ganjoa

Dunno about a fart but not sure how to respond to it.

a reply to: Puppylove

It is possible, and IMO probable, that mankind will "do better" in the future with respect to bettering the standard of living overall.

It isn't going to happen on a planetary level any time in the near future though.

One needs to look no farther than the EU "experiment" to see that mixing widely separate ideologies is not workable.

Religious fanaticism doesn't lend itself to different ideas getting along peacefully either.

I think maybe you are looking at things from a purely "western" perspective.

Until there is worldwide respect for other human life, irrespective of ideology, there can be no unification.

In the world you aspire to, there would be no need for military spending, for example, which would free up immense resources to the benifit of mankind, as a whole. Alas, that is not even a remote possibility at this point in time.

There is nothing wrong with theoretic thought exorcises, but you are trying to remove reality from the equation, in search of a utopian world that we are far far away from.

Now, if you want to look a few centuries into the future, thats fine, but that gets into the realm of science fiction, rather than realiatic solutions.

a reply to: Mach2

Eventually the shackles of current systems will need to be torn assunder. Is better we have a system prepared ahead of time rather than trying to throw one together while things are chaotic and desperate.

Is like grocery shopping, is better with a full belly rather than while hungry.

I would guess it would be the main sayers here on ATS that would tell you how to run the world.

Think like they do or you a traitor.

Anybody of the opposing party should be shot.

They have one dear leader and he can do know wrong.

a reply to: Puppylove

Great topic

I think there are several ways to achieve a mostly inclusive and diverse marketplace, including the use of government regulation and legislation that encourages and enables nondiscrimination.

Incorporation Charters: Corporations are fictional legal entities given government privileges and entitlements. Just as the government must serve ALL equally and equitably -- due process and equal application of the law -- we can and should require corporations receiving special entitlements and privileges to do the same. If they want to exercise their free will and autonomy to discriminate, okay... but no entitlements and privileges.

Tax Code: We give all kinds of tax breaks to businesses/corporations for acting and/or performing in certain ways, we can do the same for those businesses/corporations that practice nondiscrimination in both their hiring and customer service. If you don't want to hire a man who identifies as a woman, okay. But those businesses/corporations who do choose to do so will get some perks in the form of tax credits/deductions.

Truth in Advertising: If a business chooses to discriminate, okay, but will be required under truth in advertising laws and regulations to disclose this fact to their customers. And then customers can choose whether or not they wish to patronize that company, or take their hard-earned dollars elsewhere. The customer has the right to discriminate as well. We also have the right to decide that if, for example, "Cakes R Us" doesn't want to bake a cake for our sister's lesbian wedding, then we don't want them to bake a cake for our mother's birthday. Create a symbol or glyph or something that must be used on all advertising, storefronts, etc., clearly stating that they will not serve XXX.

Small Business Loans: If there is a need for more businesses to serve consumer interests, use the Small Business Administration to grant loans, etc., to develop and establish businesses that will refuse to discriminate. Perhaps prioritize those loans, or offer lower interest rates.

There should be some exceptions though to nondiscrimination practices. For those businesses that provide life-sustaining services or products, such as healthcare, then non-discrimination laws are appropriate and proper.

a reply to: Puppylove

If we're also talking about primitive human societies, you have to realize that they regularly left others to struggle too. When there wasn't enough for the group, the very young and very old or the crippled regularly starved to death so the strong would survive.

I would also posit that greed while it can be an issue is less of one than envy. Envy is the impulse that seeks to destroy what others have that it doesn't, and it can bring down whole communities, rich, poor or otherwise.

Most truly successful societies have institutions that curb envy.

Why don’t you educate us all with a less Baffling post and tell us who these bastards are! Then we can put on hoods and infect our black wearing social justice brand of hunting the natzi’s reply to: tinner07

a reply to: ketsuko

Both are bad, no point pretending one is more bad to excuse the other.

Both extreems need to be curbed for a society to truly flourish.

So sick of bs defending one extreem and bemoaning the other. Both are wrong.

It's both possible that one part of society has greedily claimed too much and are a burr on one cheek of societies ass and many on the poorer side want more than they deserve as a burr on the other cheek.

So sick of the one side is wrong the other is not delusion. There are bad eggs on both sides and in order to fix things we need to stop defending the bad aspects of both, not pretending the side we support most should be allowed to go unchecked.

There's such thing as too little and too much and anyone who refuses to recognize that is dishonest. There's also such a thing as what can be reasonably expected and demanding more than you deserve, anyone who refuses to recognize that is equally dishonest.

Can we not ignore the problems on one side and deal with both ends of the spectrum please?

Battles of tribalism is and will continue to be problematic. The goal would be to achieve a one tribe mentality, but barring that, significant reduction of multiple independent tribes. In the US there are divisions between urban and rural, to Ohio versus Indiana, to Cleveland versus Cincinnati, back to rural versus Cincinnati, to Preble County versus Darke County, to Camden versus Eaton, back to Camden versus rural, and on and on until family versus family and then men versus women within a family to brother versus brother.... And you can do this anywhere in the world with their equivalents.

It’s all self identifying tribalism. That’s the part to beat.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ganjoa

Dunno about a fart but not sure how to respond to it.

Sorry, please permit me to expand:

The goal of this exercise is to brainstorm ideas to create an economic and or government system that serves the purpose of rewarding behavior and actions that benefit mankind as a whole, promoting improving life for all mankind by rewarding those who best achieve the furthering of this cause while discouraging or outright punishing those who work against said ideals.

Paraphrase: Let's think about a socio-economic-government model that rewards beneficial behavior while punishing non-beneficial behavior:
* There's a global arbiter of what benefits/improves life for mankind as a whole - and what does not.
* There's a proposed meritocracy to reward those pursuing activities arbitrated as beneficial.
* There's power-of-the-state enforcement mechanism punishing those arbitrated as acting against policy.
You don't see a problem here with this problem space?

Einstein said it best: "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

This is evolution of the economy, societal structure / culture AND human nature in this brainstorm.
Time to step into a few more dimensions in the problem solving matrix.

ganjoa

a reply to: ganjoa

Yeah not a fan of the punishment part. I personally only consider punishment for extreme issues. I mean what can you do deal wirh the extreme problems besides punishment?

Some things are so extreme they just cannot be allowed to continue and no amount of encouragement will prevent it.

a reply to: Puppylove
What you are looking for is capitalism. If I come up with a great idea that helps all of society I make a lot of money selling my product. If it is less helpful then I sell less, but still earn what the product is worth. If the product is useless or harmful I am 'punished' by losing my business to bankruptcy.

Our tax structure is based on what percentage lawmakers believe the innovators deserve and how much profit they have to contribute back to society.

Something that might be a problem for future generations is corporations can theoretically run for hundreds and thousands of years. Inheriting a business with a thousand years of success will give those people a level of wealth unachievable even in 10 lifetimes.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

None of that's true. Success in capitalism comes from how much you can manipulate a situation or others to help you profit. Capitalism is all about the perfect con. It's about how much you can get away with and manipulate things in your favor and how you can maintain that benefit.

It places no emphasis on actually helping anything, it all about responding to needs and desires in a way that benefits yourself. It is perfectly happy if it can get away with manipulating people into a bad situation and then profiting off their need.

a reply to: Puppylove
You can't profit without a good idea or service at an economically feasible price. If you cannot provide either then the competition will.

My business thrives specifically because I'm NOT a manipulative con. Many in my industry are. I'm absolutely not the cheapest in town but everybody knows that before we agree on a contract. I have more business than I can handle.

I have 'manipulated' my business by hiring good employees. The good employees work for me because I pay them more than my competition. None of us are making millions because our work only benefits a relative few people at a time. We don't have a product to promote nationally.

I have access to a patent that could potentially be lucrative but so far has cost 10's of thousands in development with 0 units sold. If it makes it to national distribution I will be insanely rich and millions of lives will be better. No con involved, only win-win for everybody.

Exactly what kind of manipulative cons do you think go on? Are all of the businesses taking turns conning each other back and forth? You are debating like you think it is a systemic problem..

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

I'm not saying there are no honest capitalists. It's however not necessary to success. Capitalism is all about filling a need or want for profit. How you go about that is up to the individual capitalist.

Those who succeed do so based on how well they succeed at fulfilling a need or want.

Where it falls apart is the best way to profit on capitalism long term is to find a way to create dependance on your product, and that creates predatory practices.

Why create a cure when you can create a treatment. Why create an object that will last a lifetime when you can profit more from repairs or replacements. Why find ways to help people become independent when you can profit more by fostering dependance?

If a capitalist who sold wheel chairs could with a push of a button, remove everyone's legs and get away with it, no one the wiser, it would be by capitalistic standards the best choice he could make. Other than his personal morality stopping him, he'd be insane not to. As such capitalism promotes at it's core sociopathy, as the most success possible comes from sociopathic type choices.

People who aren't sociopaths can succeed but the biggest gains come from those who's morality is not so restricted.

a reply to: Puppylove
I think the exercise you ask for is a moot point. Unless you are looking for a synopsis for a book. As long as there are 2 people on the Earth there will be dissension. Sooner or later one WILL want what the other has got.
Now to the real world. To enable anything you envisage would take more wherewithall (money, power) than any government is willing to give. Todays system is run and owned by BIG money people. You can say corporations if you want but behind them are the controllers, big money people. Now these people also own their governments so they are definitely NOT going to "rock the boat". They have the power and apart from a very major insurrection (which WILL fail because they own the armed forces) nothing will change in centuries.
The rich, they have the power of choice to have whatever they want. The poor can want as much as they want but they can only have what the powerful will let them have. And in that sentence there shows the majority of people have absolutely no power to affect any change at all. If you want a prime example look at SouthernForkways post. Notice his patent to change the world for millions of people, yet his priority first is it will make him insanely rich before the bit about better for the people. And in answer to SF if your patent disrupts the money people (oil people, big industry, pharmaceuticals etc.) I'll guarantee you will see nothing, nada.