For the People of Earth: A solution

IcePointa

IcePointa

Active member
Socialist Democracy/Republic + Capitalism of Non-Essential Goods and Services = Government of the Ideal Future for Mankind and Earth.

In recent history we have been presented two main options for the structure of the civilized world; a false dichotomy. One one hand we have the Capitalist Republic. On the other we have the Communist Dictatorship. We have been conditioned to believe that these are our options; that capitalism goes with democracy, and that socialism goes with dictatorship. Why should this be so? Why not combine each society-type into a working compromise that combines the best aspects of each social structure?

Here is a world envisioned for the future:

Everyone enjoys a sustainable threshold at which they can live. Goods and services are ranked by priority. Food, clean running water, and shelter would come first. Electricity, basic technology, and Internet/communication links would come initially as well, but at a reduced rate. The level of infrastructure efficiency down the priority list would depend on how well the higher priorities are being met. Manpower in the housing development sectors (not to mention the Hello-Kitty industry), for example, would be scaled back while people were still dieing because they do not have access to clean water. Instead of having skilled construction workers building multi-million dollar personal residences at this stage, water desalination plants would be a higher priority. Resources would be allocated initially according to the needs of the downtrodden majority, instead of the whims of the super rich, so that a huge component of unneeded suffering is ridden from the world forever. This is the socialist component. We can provide comfortable living conditions for all mankind if resources are allocated appropriately. Priorities are the key here, and we must guide them carefully.

Next we have the capitalist component; the added incentive given to recruit workers and innovation. Those who specialize in a field through extensive schooling or give their time to provide labor are rewarded above and beyond the minimum threshold. Modern technology makes this possible. Man + machine accomplishes far more than is needed for man's mere survival, and has for some time. It is merely that the excess has been given and directed to the benefit of a fractional minority at the expense of others. These reward credits could be used on many of the same things the rich and middle class enjoy today: cutting edge technology, exotic foods, excess travel funds, temporary excess land grants, etc. The point is that people get something above the minimum. But people must provide real assets to receive these things. If there aren't enough plumbers or electricians, for instance, wages for these tasks are raised until the need is filled. Wages cannot fall to unacceptable levels, or else workers will be content with their minimum allotment until the rewards equal their effort input. This prevents abuses such as those faced in China, since you cannot enslave people in factories by threat of starvation. Instead you entice them with reward. Non-essential rewards are valued according to demand and availability at a level that can be maintained without destroying our Earth.

There will be no Paris Hiltons. There will be no entitlement to anything more than the minimum allotment except through what is actually earned. Parasitic industries are socialized (such as banking, insurance, and financial markets in general), so that a class does not form to merely leech and profit from the labors of others. Loans are distributed to good ideas and projects at marginal rates in order to promote wise investments. This interest is distributed back to the people in funding for further infrastructure advancements. Mere wealth does not provide more wealth to its owner in this society. Value must continue to be produced in order to maintain it. Innovation and invention are rewarded through limited royalties like an artist would receive, but the means of production is owned and operated for the benefit of everyone. The key here is value added through incentives above minimum consumption.

Essential services are very much socialized. However, mismanagement of socialized functions leads to termination of the elected government (or particular committee if an isolated incident), in which case these officials would return to their minimum consumption status. Government positions that warrant them have term limits, and democratic voting can be used for immediate replacement of an unfavorable government. Specific aspects of government best functioning as a representative republic are done as such. Broader authority is given to the people through DIRECT democracy. Campaigning is structured to represent the broad masses, and elected officials will have no incentive to cater to a minority interest. Truly, a government of the people, for the people.

Mechanization, automation, and productive efficiency in general has created a world in which human labor is no longer needed on a massive scale. Commercial farms produce food with a fraction of the effort previously required. Forcing everyone to work constantly to fight for a piece of the pie results in our civilization producing tons of generally useless trash and people performing pointless, menial tasks. Often in our current society, essential services for many are totally ignored in favor of non-essential services for the rich. Overall physical production would stagnate and possibly reduce, but that would not negatively affect this new economy, because it would be based on value instead of forced debts and coercion. As many people are forced to work despite adding no real value to the world, their freedom to pursue other interests would not lead to negative effect. Some people would lay back and relax at minimum consumption for some time, enjoying the lives we have to share on this Earth. Others would compete for the EXCESS value produced in our society, but value needed in essential services would not be taken. Most people would do a little bit of both.

Minimum allotments would include birth control in order to stop population growth, and possibly somewhat reduce it entirely, so that the standard of living for everyone is increased. This should be an urgent priority, as it speeds the implementation of all others.

We need people to realize the potential we have in our ability to create a Heaven on Earth, for everyone. This is real, and it is our greatest duty to help bring it about. We need people to live for this lifetime, as it is all that is assured to us. We need people to hold fast to their rights as human beings, as sovereign minds. We need people to realize that we all share this Earth, and it is our only home. We are all brothers and sisters here, and if we at least created a system in which abuse is not encouraged, we could accomplish so much more.

If we want this, we have to stand up and fight for it. We have to take it. This is our right, to live on the Earth in a sustainable harmonious existence, but there is also a minority entrenched in the current establishment which holds more than is their right. Instead of working to produce value for the world, they work to take the world and its people as their own. They threaten insubordination with a withholding of resources which are not theirs to withhold. They enslave the labor of the masses to create instruments of war to solidify their hold. But we are many and they are few. They hold no power that is not given to them. If we stop building their instruments of war and oppression they have none. If we stop respecting the currency they bind and tax us with, their power is nil. A tide of awakening is rising through us. An awakening to things that should, and could be. Awaken to our collective power to shape the world as we see fit, and harness it for the benefit of us all. Rise up, take back what is yours. Together we will fulfill our ultimate destiny and purpose. We know that we are capable of so much more. Unite in our greatest purpose.

We are coming upon the dawn of a new age. Seize it.
 
i guess so but if i was going to go above and beyond regular work i wouldnt do it unless there was a huge incentive. Otherwise i would be a lifeguard or something
 
i want to be an astronaut so i could sneak some pot into space and then dome out looking back at the earth listining to my ipod. But thats neither here nor there. Im not sure what i want to be, maybe ultrasound tech or something
 
The medical services would be an important area to encourage people to pursue. Some time spent as a tech, or nurse would be very valuable, and would garner you much respect and excess value/production from your community. Doctors would likely be the most highly rewarded individuals in a fair society, considering the training and commitments they make at the service of others.
 
I guess I feel like society has enough to offer people now, that slavery (direct or indirect) and force are not required to get people to do stuff. Some of the greatest advancements of mankind came from people who were fortunate enough to have their lives to devote to their hobbies.

Think if Da Vinci had been employed in an ad agency instead of being a free spirit and mind. Sure, he'd have made some sick commercials, but he was capable of so much mor than that. But most people back then were needed to tend the fields and do menial labor. However, with production efficiency so high now, there is no need for that.

I know for a fact that people would drive delivery trucks around for a while or something to earn themselves a large flat screen TV. I think people could be enticed to work on their own initiative.
 
There are enough unskilled workers to drive snowcats and be lifties. It would be very easy to keep ski resorts open, the infrastructure is already there. Massive condo development around them would slow, however.
 
This system still has an outlet for greed.

People who want to keep up with/pass the Joneses can work hard or come up with an innovative idea of value. Then they can show off their new shit they earned from the stock of excess production.
 
are you sure? cause ski resorts used to rely on neanderthal snowboarders:

"you will work for minimum wage, but you get a free seasons pass" so they signed up en masse.

but then they wondered "if we worked all day every day, when do we get to ride?" so they revolted.

Crystal Mountain recently imported a bunch of Eastern Europeans with thick accents that have brokeass 80s rear-entry boots and skinny skis to be their lifties.

and your system sounds strangely similar to the Khmer Rouge.

money motivates. and thats why capitalism works.
 
Humans will never get rid of greed. The communist manifesto is very interesting reading and on paper sounds like a great idea but in practice it could never possibly work. A government that large is destined to become corrupt. Communism attempts to remedy our curse of greed but really greed just gets replaced by laziness. Capitalism may be greedy but at least it works.
 
if anything there should be a relative scale of pay to even out everything where teachers and doctors would make the same amount of money, (hard work, higher pay) athletes (lower pay), and service industry (mcdonalds-easier work, scaled pay vs. public servants- a littler harder work, a little better pay) once there is a relative scale of pay all our problems will go away.
 
Thats why you use capitalism to compete for non-essential goods and services just like we do now. Its just that you're not competeing to direct essential labor to non-essential tasks. There is plenty of labor in the world to keep us all comfortable + excess. Food might be a problem with 6 billion people, but honestly I think alot of starvation has to do with it just not being PROFITABLE to ship it to them. That is why essential goods and services are socialized.
 
I'm pretty sure this system is nothing like the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, from the little I know about them, looks like totalitarian Stalinist Russia.

From wikipedia:

"The Khmer Rouge is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people (estimates range from 850,000 to two million) under its regime, through execution, starvation and forced labor. Following their leader Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge imposed an extreme form of social engineering on Cambodian society—a radical form of agrarian communism where the whole population had to work in collective farms or forced labor projects."

The point of my system is that there is no forced labor at all, so I don't see the similarity.

Also, back to the topic of ski resorts. Lets take these lifties as an example. Thousands of people use a ski resort every day and pay $50 to do so if not locals with a season pass. Why make a small group of people work like 8 hours a day almost every day to get their free pass? Why not have a larger group of people work 1 hour a day every few days? Out of all those thousands of people, I'm sure you could get enough people to donate an hour or two every week to keep the lifts running and keep the slopes accessible. It doesn't keep that much manpower to keep the lifts running.
 
Again, greed has an outlet in the form of competition for non-essential goods and services.

In ages past, people had to be forced to work on farms because it took so much manpower, and there was not much motivation for them to do so besides staying alive. With modern technology we have agriculture on lock down, but people are being forced to support non-essential tasks as if they were just as important. Non-essential tasks do not warrent the threat of death and starvation to keep people laboring for them. Just offer them the reward of that labor, but keep them alive regardless.

Also, I believe that the corruption in government lies more in its structure than its size. A government where 1 man can sieze control and direct the nation to his whim and benefit is destined to become corrupt. This is why dictatorship is so obviously flawed for the people.

A governement where our lawmakers can be bought by a class of exceedingly rich people is destined to become corrupt and cease functioning for the good of its people as a whole. This is America.

The ill function of government stems from poor structure and organization, not merely from the amount of people working to support it.
 
Those are all good things and worth striving for, but never underestimate the speed at which a revolution can sweep over a nation.
 
Yes, it would have to be based on the amount of people qualified to do the work, and how many of those people would be willing to perform it, and for how much increased standard of living above the minimum.

I do think doctors would still make more than teachers. Though they both do hard work, there are much fewer people actually qualified to be doctors, and they require more schooling.
 
Because investing time and training for these people would outweigh any advantage to such a system. Ski lifts can kill people, I dont want some fucking Texan on a ski weekend running the chair when I'm on it.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of locals. How long would it really take to teach someone how to operate the ski lift? I know how, and I've never even used one, just know people who have.
 
Also, as now, when you train someone for a job, reward them with enough excess production and benefits so as to where most of them stick with you. That way you're not losing trained workers all the time. It works in this system too.
 
Safety and experience is a major flaw in such a method. Who would you rather have running the lift if something went wrong, a dude that does it every weekend or someone who's had five hours total in that position? Its a cool idea, but only feasible on a very small scale or for privately owned and accessed areas. Public ski areas would get sued so fast.
 
Sure, in our example you don't have a guy that runs a lift 8 hours a day whos been roboticized to perform the function reliably day after day. He's alot more than a lifitie. Does that make it safer? In such an easy job, I'm not sure thats the case. The guy that works 1-2 hours a week instead of 40 is probably more alert in those 1-2 hours that he's there. An hour or so training on the first day or two would suffice, and thats not a very big investment. There are many jobs that would fall into a similar category. For those jobs that actually DID involve a significant schooling/training period or extreme risk, the workers would be more highly compensated, but would work somewhat longer hours due to the lack of available qualified/trained workers. I can't think of a proffesion outside the medical industry in which even specialists would be working anywhere near 40 hours a week.

If a liftie did something utter retarded and manged to get someone hurt, the victim could file a complaint, and the person responsible (whether blame lay on the liftie, the person that trained him, the person that created the training procedure, the general manager, etc) would be removed from their position, and some sort of note would likely be left on their record.

It would be a good idea to test the system on a smaller scale before a full implementation, but it would probably still have to be a small nation to test it effectively.

And I do appreciate you bringing up potential concerns so that they can be thought through in an effort to minimize any negative effects.
 
perhaps but there's also a 95% drop in output

and so doctors will only be at hospitals for 2 hours per week instead of 40? are people going to stop getting hurt or sick......or will there be a need for 20 doctors to perform the same job as 1 doctor?

 
From the post you quoted:

"For those jobs that actually DID involve a significant schooling/training period or extreme risk, the workers would be more highly compensated, but would work somewhat longer hours due to the lack of available qualified/trained workers. I can't think of a proffesion outside the medical industry in which even specialists would be working anywhere near 40 hours a week."
 
mea cupla on the doctor example

do you want an engineer putting in 1-2 hours a week instead of 40 and having the texan liftie double checking the calcs?

your plan still has each worker outside the medical industry dropping his/her output by 95%......who is going to pick up the slack?

and with 38 more hours per week of idletime people are gonna start doing waaaaaay too many drugs.

 
I didn't mean to suggest that everyone outside the medical industry would be working 1-2 hours a week. What I had in mind was more of a scaling system. Easy, unskilled labor for which many people would sign up for would have very low hours (lifties as little as 1-2 hours peer week perhaps). But they would be compensated very little. On the other end we have heart surgeons who would be working long shifts because of the commitment they made to service in accepting extensive schooling and compensation for their services. Most everyone else would fall somewhere in between. We don't need everyone working full time to get everything we need to get done, done. We don't need millions of people in marketing and sales campaigns trying to figure out an advertising scheme so that people needing a product buy their brand and profit their boss over the other guy's boss. We don't need teams of engineers working around the clock designing Tickle-Me-Elmo dolls. We need quite a few, but if they were correctly allocated to important tasks we might even have an excess even without considering all the people currently in undeveloped nations. People would tend to choose a career and make it their hobby as no one is forcing them to be there, and many would be advancing their field on personal initiative as well as for the added compensation.
 
if people only work 1-2 hours per week how will they afford their taxes? or are we just adding to the welfare state?

and i wasn't referring to engineering gimmicks. i was referring to those involved in infrastructure. its those underappreciated fields that only shine through on their 1% failure that would take the biggest hit from your decreased laborforce. and i bet before Hurricane Katrina no politician in New Orleans was like "oh hey lets spend less on Mardi Gras this year and more on levee inspection".

and your example of the heart surgeon; thats how our military works. they give you a little money and pay for college.....you give multi-year commitment.

and on your marketing and sales example, i agree. over consumerism is killing us. but thats because we are greedy and fail to make good financial choices. same with Rome when imports massively outweighed exports.
 
This system would inherently increase the welfare state, because it supports the welfare of the people before profits and capitalism, without removing the capitalism on any non-essential goods or labor in general. All labor is still market based, so if there aren't enough engineers who are willing to work enough to support infrastructure, you raise the compensation level until you have enough, while also diverting engineers from non-essential to essential tasks until a balance is reached.

Basically all this is doing is giving everyone a minimum comfortable existance and encouraging them to work to increase their standard of living and rewarding them with all these technological goodies and excess production that modern civilization has produced. While still being able to vote for your representatives and directly on certain issues of course. Its a democratic semi-capitalist welfare state.

I'd like to see if Obama moves us closer to something like this if he's elected. It could happen somewhat.
 
you seem to be singing utopia.

i havent read the thread, i am after i post this but it seems you forgot a huuuuuge componit of everything which is.......

human nature.....
 
as if politicians and political theorists have time to consider such minor pittances as human nature

icepointa, your idea about raising wages when people aren't being compensated enough? ummmmm unions and strikes already waste away on that every day. thanks jimmy hoffa junior.

teachers and engineers who do a good job should be paid more than a CEO who fucks up a company and still gets a huge severance package.

and some quick latin for your utopia: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

WHO WILL GUARD THE GUARDS?
 
So is canada to a degree. A few countries seem to be moving in that direction. The EU especially so. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
There is a reason this Socialist/Communist/Marxist stew couldn't work.

The great flaw in your model is the disregard for basic economic principles. Namely supply and demand coupled with the relationships of marginal benefits verses marginal cost.

Firstly, it comes with the assumption that the need for certain goods or services will be equal everywhere...an assumption that is totally wrong for a great number of reasons. It also comes with the assumption workforces will be evenly distributed...another idea that really could not work. If peoples jobs are "adjusted" to the needs of the country, an obvious consequence is forcing people to move to location where the "need" is greater. Not everybody wants to be a pediatrician in Mott, North Dakota...income is not the sole reason people take jobs, lifestyle and family also play a major role.

Second is your capitalist model. The idea of innovation and technology in capitalism results in greater efficiency...a greater efficiency that can often mean less need for workers, this is called a layoff. What happens to the now displaced workers? Their skills sets that they went to school for could largely be null and voided. A capitalist economy with your Marxist model is incompatible. It also places need above gain, a concept that results in marginal cost outweighing marginal benefit thus condemning the economy to a slow and painful death.

Also, where does all the money come from to pay for all of the comprehensive socialized institutions you talk about? From profits? That kills the incentive to do anything because all the headway we could make with technology in Silicon Valley...it will always be held back because we "need" to over pay for plumbers in South Tampa.

For your model to work, there also must be an accurate way to calculate numbers, supply, demand, and personal into a mathematical model...a feat that is impossible because a model as comprehensive as yours would certainly incorporate things that do not have a tangible worth attached to them.
 
I'd rather have the freedom to do what I want for work, spend money how I want to, and then give the extra to my children.

Instead of being mad that you don't have money like Paris Hilton, why don't you work hard in school, go to a good college, start a business or something and make a shitload of money. Then you can have a good life and give the extra money to your heirs too.
 
I do like the idea, for the most part, in that it gives everybody a fair chance at success and happiness. But I don't think there is any way to get people to get people to all adopt these ideals. People want excess, and as much of it as they can have. not everybody, but enough of the population. And people want to be better than everyone else. It's instinct. I think it would be wonderful if a system like the one you described worked, and I, for one would definitely be in support of it. But i just don't think that everyone would, which is what it would take.
 
Ya man, thinking about stuff other than ESPN and school homework is worthless.

I think I might go have a lobotamy so that I can be retarded too.

Have you finished your creme pie yet?
 
And you can suck my arrogant prick.

I don't tend to hate on people unless they come at me first. If that makes me arrogant, then fuck it, I am. But if someone offers a reply that disagrees with me but is well thought out and respectful, I try to answer in kind.
 
you talk a lot about semen

you spelled lobotomy wrong... which (in case you didn't already know) don't make you retarded, they can be used to help cure cancer, but cancer is probably a scheme the government is using to get all of our tax dollars
 
Thanks for the spelling lesson jackass. But if you're going to bother, you might try doing it with proper grammar.

And you're the one that heard creme pie and immediately thought of semen. But there's a good reason for that and thats because I explained me cremeing your mom's vagina and you eating the pie she baked with it and crushed nuts in another thread.

I know exactly what the hell a lobotomy does, and it doesn't cure cancer unless you have a brain tumor in the prefrontal cortex. They give some terminally ill patients lobotomys because it dampens their ability to feel painful emotions and other psychological effects that would go with inevitable death.

Lobotomist P. MacDonald Tow wrote in 1955:

"Possibly the truest and most accurate way of describing the net effect on the total personality is to say that he is more simple; and being more simple he has rather less insight into his own performanace. The mental impairement is greater in the higher and more peculiarly human functions. Deprived of their autonomy, initiative, or willpower, their performance is considerably better in a structured situation".



-Personality Changes Following Frontal Leukotomy
 
for once you had something interesting to say. however how would you get not just our country but all the countries to switch to this idea. if this did not happen then it seems the rest of the world with its free markets and etc would continue to advance at a much faster pace. well time to get back to class. 
 
A solid B paper. Might gt a 6.5/9 on the AP Lang test.

Though the writing is slightly above mediocre, you're ideas stem from such an ignorant naive brain. After you have taken economics and xomparative politics come and tell me that your system will work.

how come you wont respond to Quinny's post? Is it because he pokes humongous gaping holes in your theory? Stop avoiding him and i want to see you make a fool out of yourself trying to tackle modern economics.
 


flash_video_placeholder.png

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top