Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

What do you think about my system ?


Recommended Posts

On 11/19/2017 at 10:02 PM, Altai said:


Yes there are things that in limited quantities and apportioning them based on money power is injustice. Lets imagine there are two guys, one is younger therefore have less working hours and therefore have less money. The older guy is just the opposite. There is one bread and both need bread. Do you think that the guy with more money have more right to have this bread ? No I dont think so, whoever need it has right to have it. Only necessity we want from them is to be working persons if they are physically and mentally healthy persons. Even if they are healty and they dont want to work, they still has right to have this bread, the only difference they have to make their bread themselves. 
 

If the problem is apportionment, the answer is to give them the same amount of money and allow the to buy the bread they need.  And have an economic system that will put enough emphasis on generating bread (and not put it all towards private jets or luxury yachts).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is communism.  It is Karl Marx 101.  I don't remember ever reading Marx/Engels saying religion needs to be banned in a communism system.  20th century dictators made that stuff up later.

I am open for additional ideas and positive-negative criticism about my aim to shape life in my country first and World life secondly. First, I want a World where all the people live fairly. All p

I work in Project Management and a big part of it is anticipating risks and mitigating them. But in this "system", every time you mention a risk, the dictator puts you on the ignore list.  

7 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

If the problem is apportionment, the answer is to give them the same amount of money and allow the to buy the bread they need.  And have an economic system that will put enough emphasis on generating bread (and not put it all towards private jets or luxury yachts).

So what is the aim of everyone having money enough to buy anything ? Its the same with everything is free.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 12:34 AM, Altai said:

So what is the aim of everyone having money enough to buy anything ? Its the same with everything is free.

It's not the same.  If everything is free, people will take more than they need and waste things.  You have a fixed amount of money, it forces you to make choices and be efficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

It's not the same.  If everything is free, people will take more than they need and waste things.  You have a fixed amount of money, it forces you to make choices and be efficient.


Nope, you should read my posts again. Everyone wont take more than what they need. Everyone will only take what they need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Altai said:


Nope, you should read my posts again. Everyone wont take more than what they need. Everyone will only take what they need.

This is an odd understanding of human nature, especially given the evidence (overconsumption? depletion of resources?) that humans always take more than what they need.. Resources are scarce, yet the want for them isn't. We always want more than we need and we want it immediately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ginsy said:

This is an odd understanding of human nature, especially given the evidence (overconsumption? depletion of resources?) that humans always take more than what they need.. Resources are scarce, yet the want for them isn't. We always want more than we need and we want it immediately. 


Yes and this is injustice. People do not have right to have more than whatever they need just because of they have more money. Its nothing different than saying you have more right to consume oxygen because of you have more money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Altai said:


Yes and this is injustice. People do not have right to have more than whatever they need just because of they have more money. Its nothing different than saying you have more right to consume oxygen because of you have more money. 

I'm not sure this is actually injustice. What if someone worked tirelessly and endlessly for their wage? Are they not allowed to be compensated for their labour? Then, are they not allowed to spend their earnings on whatever they like? Even if that means it's more than what they need? Regardless, they earned it. And I wouldn't dare say that everyone starts at an equal point; I acknowledge some face barriers that may inhibit their ability to access money and employment like others would, but if those who do earn a wage fairly wish to spend their earnings on more than what they need, then so be it. 

And, it is different from saying you have more right to something over someone else. Nobody is saying that those who are wealthy deserve more than others, of course they don't. However, the reality is that those who are wealthy have more access to certain things. We can have some control over equality of opportunity, but we simply cannot control equality of outcome. This is the reality of our situation. Now, it may not be a desirable one, and I'm sure this is not the highest point of human achievement. I do agree with you that human achievement would look something like all peoples having access to necessities, but it is unfortunately impractical. I do appreciate you thinking of solutions to this problem however. But, it is also worth noting that having a form of government where they are able to control equality of outcome is scary. Do you really want a government with this much power? 

Edited by Ginsy
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ginsy said:

I'm not sure this is actually injustice. What if someone worked tirelessly and endlessly for their wage? Are they not allowed to be compensated for their labour? Then, are they not allowed to spend their earnings on whatever they like? Even if that means it's more than what they need? Regardless, they earned it. And I wouldn't dare say that everyone starts at an equal point; I acknowledge some face barriers that may inhibit their ability to access money and employment like others would, but if those who do earn a wage fairly wish to spend their earnings on more than what they need, then so be it. 

And, it is different from saying you have more right to something over someone else. Nobody is saying that those who are wealthy deserve more than others, of course they don't. However, the reality is that those who are wealthy have more access to certain things. We can have some control over equality of opportunity, but we simply cannot control equality of outcome. This is the reality of our situation. Now, it may not be a desirable one, and I'm sure this is not the highest point of human achievement. I do agree with you that human achievement would look something like all peoples having access to necessities, but it is unfortunately impractical. I do appreciate you thinking of solutions to this problem however. But, it is also worth noting that having a form of government where they are able to control equality of outcome is scary. Do you really want a government with this much power? 


Being a working person justifies someone's right to have all their needs. Being a "more working" person does not justify that someones can have more than what they need. For example there are two persons and there are 20 apples and we will apportion it between these two. The Person One (PO) is working in accordance with working hours, the Person Two (PT) is sleeping less and working more. This does not justify that PT can have more apples. Because if we want to give him/her more apples, we have to take it from the PO's apples. Therefore PO will have less apples despite he/she received more. PO met all his/her responsiblities. He/she dont have to work more because of PT want to work more, its PT's personal choice, if PT wants to work more, he/she should do it for the benefit of people, not to have more goods personally.

Edited by Altai
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Altai said:


Being a working person justifies someone's right to have all their needs. Being a "more working" person does not justify that someones can have more than what they need. For example there are two persons and there are 20 apples and we will apportion it between these two. The Person One (PO) is working in accordance with working hours, the Person Two (PT) is sleeping less and working more. This does not justify that PT can have more apples. Because if we want to give him/her more apples, we have to take it from the PO's apples. Therefore PO will have less apples despite he/she received more. PO met all his/her responsiblities. He/she dont have to work more because of PT want to work more, its PT's personal choice, if PT wants to work more, he/she should do it for the benefit of people, not to have more goods personally.

Whether it's justifiable or not doesn't change the fact that those who have more money than others can simply buy more of what they need or want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2017 at 12:06 AM, Altai said:


Nope, you should read my posts again. Everyone wont take more than what they need. Everyone will only take what they need.

I have read your posts.  You seem to think that people will simply take what they need. 

In fact, if there is no mechanism to limit consumption (and that's what having a fixed amount of money does), people will consume wastefully.  This is basic economic fact and observed behavior, not only in humans but in animals also.  Watch grizzly bears feed when the salmon are plentiful.  They eat the most nutritious parts and leave the rest for scavengers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

The Economist publish an article and defends the similar things with me. One day in the future the World will come to same point with me. Logic does not vary from person to person, its the same for everyone.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-world-should-adopt-a-basic-income?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 12/13/2017 at 12:44 AM, Altai said:


Being a working person justifies someone's right to have all their needs. Being a "more working" person does not justify that someones can have more than what they need. For example there are two persons and there are 20 apples and we will apportion it between these two. The Person One (PO) is working in accordance with working hours, the Person Two (PT) is sleeping less and working more. This does not justify that PT can have more apples. Because if we want to give him/her more apples, we have to take it from the PO's apples. Therefore PO will have less apples despite he/she received more. PO met all his/her responsiblities. He/she dont have to work more because of PT want to work more, its PT's personal choice, if PT wants to work more, he/she should do it for the benefit of people, not to have more goods personally.

 

I do like your suggestion of encouraging a free society, but I have a feeling such a system is not based in the real world. 

For instance, in a virtual world where everything was digital, everything would be "free" to all for all, with an infinite amount for all. Imagine a system where you would be able to craft your own "digital sandbox" world in every way, shape or form. Your world would be among the millions of other worlds available to people like yourself to experience.

Once food, shelter and safety are guaranteed, the only thing that is desired is experiences.

If you find yourself hungry for a juicy steak, there is infinite amount of digital steaks available. You would be able to have a mansion or a cabin. In case of accidents, you would be able to turn down the simulated pain. If you find yourself enjoying hyper cars, you could go and experience one without any cost or wear associated with the experience, much like a gamer does in a racing simulator, although near visual and physical reality.

The only real value to objects in this type of system would be creativity and availability of new experiences. In such a system valued creativity would become the only form of currency. The only damage you would sustain from such a system would be psychological from personal interaction with others, which already exists today. 

Keep in mind  a system like this would required complex automation and technological advancements that probably would take a century to acquire at our current rate. Pretty much a fantasy looking at it in 2019? yes, but possible given enough time.

In conclusion, although the idea of true freedom is sought after by many, the only logical way I could see such a system work, is with infinite supply of resources not dependent on human activity. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...