Everyone Gets What They Want by AnthonyT

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Everyone Gets What They Want

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Thursday, August 13, 2009 18:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4088
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:03 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I felt that this warranted its own thread, and so am transplanting it from a thread dealing with racial inequities.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hello,

Of course, it behooves me to point out that not everyone can have a nice rewarding job, or one that pays a decent wage. It inevitably occurs that some people are so unskilled or inexperienced that they must endure for a time in occupations that are sub-par.

One might consider the people who stand with signs on the street corner, holding up advertisements for shops. Or those who hand out pamphlets about a cheap oil change. Or the now apparently nonexistant paperboy who used to bicycle around the neighborhood tossing newspapers at houses.

Not one of these provides a living wage, or probably much job satisfaction. In each case, however, they are jobs that exist for the objectively least skilled and desirable employees. While we may all frown at these sub-par occupations, they are sometimes the only sorts of occupations available to the people who have them. Without these sub-par jobs, and their ugly wages, the people who hold them would be even worse off.

I consider it a fantasy that everyone should be able to get a good living wage and job satisfaction. There will always be people at the abysmal bottom of things. The hope is that they will eventually be able to work their way up as they accumulate job experience and seize opportunities.

I think the only place I've seen where everyone has a rewarding job experience and enough resources to meet all their needs and desires is in Star Trek, as a citizen of the Federation. Not coincidentally, it is a socialist ideal. The Federation is the model society for those who would give to each according to their needs, and require from each according to their ability.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Of course, it behooves me to point out that not everyone can have a nice rewarding job, or one that pays a decent wage."

Hello,

Rue replied to this asking 'why not?'

I would maintain that there are some jobs that are so shite that only people who have shite skills and experience will fill them.

I can't think of anyone who says, "I want to be the guy who hands out oil change pamphlets when I grow up."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:20 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'll also add that some jobs only exist while the wages are low. It is worth it to the pamphlet advertising man to pay you a penny per page to hand out his pamphlets or attach them to windshields on a hot summer day.

It is not worth his while to pay you a quarter per page, which might make the job a lot more attractive, but ultimately makes the expense of the advertising more than it is worth.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

You are basing your ideas on one vital assumption: that people exist to support profit.

Change that assumption and the problem goes away.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

Are you suggesting that with a different goalpost, all shite jobs would cease to exist, and all jobs would be of equal worth?

I would like to hear a description of such a society.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No. But everyone would be able to survive.

"Not one of these provides a living wage, or probably much job satisfaction."

You are arguing for a system that intentionally, deliberately, unfailingly puts some people in a position where they will not be able to survive.

Think about it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:50 AM

The foundations of capitalism can be a scary place indeed.

Although I also read this and think about people inventing robots to do those jobs and want to hide. <_<

I think that maybe jobs like these, where not enough money is made for a living, I think they should be in a category of voluntary jobs. Like, for example, friends of the oil guy doing a him a favour and passing out those pamphlets, maybe for some agreed upon monetary reimbursement, or maybe a person volunteering to deliver the papers as a side job because they feel it's important to keep society informed.

That removes some of the distasteful slavery tang to those jobs with very poor wages. But then again, that might prevent people who really need those jobs and that money from being able to get them.

Hmm. All things being equal, in an imaginary society that's not build to support a very rich few, who does the menial jobs?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The problem with the system is that there are not enough paying jobs at any level to go around.

We are indeed in put an arena where there is not quite enough for everyone to live, and we are pitted against each other to get it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:58 AM

Is this in regards to the fallow fields and destroyed crops to keep up demand for food supply?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No, it is in reference to intentional scarcity of resources for a few. In order for wealth to concentrate upwards it ultimately comes from someone not having quite enough to live.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am less arguing for A system than I am arguing that it is The system. As in, the only system I can envision that can continue in perpetuity. It is the only system that accounts for the basic nature of mankind. It's a system that allows people to survive collectively, even while accommodating the individual desire to make decisions that benefit them personally.

It is something of a fallacy to imagine that every job is worth a living wage. If 'living wage' is set as the bar for jobs, then there will be fewer jobs, not greater wages. The people who would have been able to earn some money will now have no money, and no chance to fill their resume with reliable work experience that might encourage someone to consider them for a job where an investment of training may be a requirement.

Neither my early job at Radio Shack as a salesman nor earlier unofficial jobs mowing lawns and such earned me enough money to constitute a 'living wage.' But neither was a living wage a requirement at this point in my life. I was an unskilled laborer with no job history who was living at home. Earning five dollars to mow someone's front lawn was never going to make ends meet for an average person, but I was not average and my ends were much closer together than most.

Some people who fail to acquire marketable skills after they leave the nest and enter adulthood adjust their standard of living to accommodate their wages. You may see four or five working persons sharing a 2 bedroom apartment in such a case. It is obviously the dream of each of these people to have a house of their own, and a rewarding occupation with a good wage. However, it is simply a fact that not every job or worker is worthy of that situation.

The only way I can imagine to change that is to reward people disproportionately for their contributions.

Let us say that there is a man who stabs trash with a stick at the public park. You could pay him enough to maintain a house with a yard and a dog and a cat and cable television and a car. He would certainly feel somewhat better about stabbing trash with a stick. You could further market propaganda pieces that hold up trash-stabbing as a noble profession, on par with computer programming and rocket science. You could order the state-run media to air stories on trash stabbers, perhaps intercut with children running through clean, trash-free fields.

Thus, you would have elevated not only the payscale of the job, but also the prestige associated with it. The trash-stabber's job satisfaction might now be on-par with the job satisfaction of a doctor. With every stabbing of trash, he helps to create a wonderland that all can enjoy. Without him, the world would fall into ruinous condition, and society would grind to a halt.

But none of that would be true. Or at least it would be a gross exaggeration. And the trash-stabbing man would be costing society much more than the value he added to it.

So how do you create a society where this works? Where it doesn't become mired down in gross inefficiency that is an overall deficit to the society it claims to serve?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I am less arguing for A system than I am arguing that it is The system. ... It is the only system that accounts for the basic nature of mankind."

Two big errors of assumption there. Capitalism is neither more nor less inevitable and natural than socialism. Or feudalism. Or the culture of the Aztecs. It is a human invention. As other systems have come, and gone, so will capitalism.

And I would argue it is LESS natural in that it is, ultimately, unsustainable. Like the deer of England whose whose overlarge antlers ultimately proved to be the cause of their own extinction (though they were favored by evolution for many thousands of years), it it possible to get on a path that appears favorable short-term, but ultimately is fatal.

Compare Cahokia, which was a wild party that lasted for a short while and winked out, to Caral:

Cahokia

At its peak in the 12th century, this settlement along the Mississippi River bottomland of western Illinois, a few miles east of modern-day St. Louis, was probably larger than London, and held economic, cultural and religious sway over a vast swath of the American heartland. Featuring a man-made central plaza covering 50 acres and the third-largest pyramid in the New World (the 100-foot-tall "Monks Mound"), Cahokia was home to at least 20,000 people. If that doesn't sound impressive from a 21st-century perspective, consider that the next city on United States territory to attain that size would be Philadelphia, some 600 years later.

In a number of critical ways, Cahokia seems to resemble other ancient cities discovered all over the world, from Mesopotamia to the Yucatán. It appears to have been arranged according to geometrical and astronomical principles (around various "Woodhenges," large, precisely positioned circles of wooden poles), and was probably governed by an elite class who commanded both political allegiance and spiritual authority. Cahokia was evidently an imperial center that abruptly exploded, flourished for more then a century and then collapsed, very likely for one or more of the usual reasons: environmental destruction, epidemics of disease, the ill will of subjugated peoples and/or outside enemies.

But beginning in the late 1950s, a series of gruesome archaeological discoveries have left little doubt that during Cahokia's heyday -- which began with an unexplained "big bang" around the year 1050, when a smaller village was abruptly razed and a much larger city built on top of it, and continued for roughly 150 years -- its ruling caste practiced a tradition of "ritualized killing and ceremonious burial." As Pauketat details, few excavations in the archaeological record can match the drama and surprise of Melvin Fowler, Al Meyer and Jerome Rose's 1967-70 dig at an unprepossessing little ridge-top construction known as Mound 72.

It's possible that the ritual brutality of Cahokia's leaders ultimately led to their downfall, and Pauketat clearly hopes to be among the archaeologists who resolve that mystery. But for a century and a half this fascinating and troubling state seemed to function pretty well, and the reasons for that, he suggests, are not mystical but material, and not mysterious but recognizably human. Cahokia forged a new sense of community out of these rituals, one that merged church and state, and Cahokians "tolerated the excesses of their leaders," as most of us do, as long as the party kept going.

Caral

Caral was inhabited between roughly 3000 BCE and 2000 BCE, enclosing an area of 66 hectares.[1] Caral was described by its excavators as the oldest urban center in the Americas, a claim that was later challenged as other ancient sites were found nearby. Accommodating more than 3,000 inhabitants, it is the best studied and one of the largest Norte Chico sites known.

The urban complex is spread out over 150 acres (607,000 m²) and contains plazas and residential buildings. Caral was a thriving metropolis at roughly the same time that Egypt's great pyramids were being built.

The main pyramid (Spanish: Pirámide Mayor) covers an area nearly the size of four football fields and is 60 feet (18 m) tall. Caral is the largest recorded site in the Andean region with dates older than 2000 BCE and appears to be the model for the urban design adopted by Andean civilizations that rose and fell over the span of four millennia. It is believed that Caral may answer questions about the origins of Andean civilizations and the development of the first cities.

No trace of warfare has been found at Caral; no battlements, no weapons, no mutilated bodies. Shady's findings suggest it was a gentle society, built on commerce and pleasure. In one of the pyramids, they uncovered 32 flutes made of condor and pelican bones and 37 cornets of deer and llama bones. They also found evidence of drug use and possibly aphrodisiacs. One find revealed the remains of a baby, wrapped and buried with a necklace made of stone beads.

Caral spawns 19 other pyramid complexes scattered across the 35 square mile (80 km²) area of the Supe Valley. The find of the quipu indicates that the later Inca civilization preserved some cultural continuity from the Caral civilization. The date of 2627 BCE is based on carbon dating reed and woven carrying bags that were found in situ. These bags were used to carry the stones that were used for the construction of the pyramids. The material is an excellent candidate for dating, thus allowing for a high precision. The site may date even earlier as samples from the oldest parts of the excavation have yet to be to be dated.[3] The town had a population of approximately 3000 people. But there are 19 other sites in the area (posted at Caral), allowing for a possible total population of 20,000 people for the Supe valley. All of these sites in the Supe valley share similarities with Caral. They had small platforms or stone circles. Shady (2001) believes that Caral was the focus of this civilization, which itself was part of an even vaster complex, trading with the coastal communities and the regions further inland – as far as the Amazon, if the depiction of monkeys is any indication.

***************************************************************

Which one of these is more natural ? Which one of these would you prefer to live in ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:51 AM

AnthonyT said:

Quote:
I would like to hear a description of such a society.

Well, you already did:

Quote:
I think the only place I've seen where everyone has a rewarding job experience and enough resources to meet all their needs and desires is in Star Trek, as a citizen of the Federation. Not coincidentally, it is a socialist ideal. The Federation is the model society for those who would give to each according to their needs, and require from each according to their ability.

For a modern example, check out the Mondragón system in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n

I also recommend the film "The Take" about the worker occupation of factories after the collapse of the Argentinian economy: http://www.thetake.org/

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

One would doubtless prefer to live in the peaceful society, right up until someone came along and ate it. But then, at least you could die knowing you'd never performed a human sacrifice.

It is obviosuly possible to construct a society based on any principle and have it endure for a time. Almost anything can be used to bind a people together. I do feel, however, that Capitalism has predated any capitalist society. It springs up even where it isn't wanted. Even in the heart of socialism. People seem predisposed to it, in my opinion.

But you have yet to describe to me how an 'each according to their needs/abilities' works in the long run. How elevating the trash stabber creates an efficient sustainable society. I really want to be able to imagine such a society, but the only examples I can think of in my world are rather dreary. What would Rue's world look like? How would it work, in nuts and bolts fashion?

Does everyone live in a 12' by 12' apartment cube, filled with all of the essentials and none of the perks? Does everyone get a nice house with a yard and all the perks? How is it sustained? How are people motivated? How does it WORK?

We know how Capitalism works. Some people live shite lives in shite jobs. Generally these are people with shite skills or shite experience or shite ambition. Some of them doubtless have had shite luck, as will sometimes befall people. There will always be some degree of shite in capitalism. Always. But there is also mobility based on merit, productivity, and good ideas. My gradfather started in this country by washing dishes. He retired as a welder. My father started as a garbage man, and retired as a computer analyst. My sister and I started our first 'real' jobs working at retail outlets. She's now a school teacher and I am working for a bank. We are, all of us, minorities who had no built-in advantages when we were introduced to the ruthless American Capitalist system. I should point out in fairness that my sister and I have tenuous holds to our jobs in the current economic climate, and that I have already lost my house. I am confident, however, of reversing the misfortunes of the moment.

So I can see how Our system works. But I can hardly imagine Your system. How does it work? How does it actually materially work?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:03 AM

Quote:
The only way I can imagine to change that is to reward people disproportionately for their contributions.

Let us say that there is a man who stabs trash with a stick at the public park. You could pay him enough to maintain a house with a yard and a dog and a cat and cable television and a car. He would certainly feel somewhat better about stabbing trash with a stick. You could further market propaganda pieces that hold up trash-stabbing as a noble profession, on par with computer programming and rocket science. You could order the state-run media to air stories on trash stabbers, perhaps intercut with children running through clean, trash-free fields.

AnthonyT, I have discovered the source of the problem: you believe that society is a should be a meritocracy. The problem is that meritocracies don't actually exist. We're not just rewarded for our work and skills, but for our race, class, gender, etc. I am no more entitled to make a good wage with a job I like (both of which I do and have) because I was born a smart girl or because I am a white Westerner. But I know these thing bear immensely on my place in society.

A good example of the opposite phenomenon: in the USSR, there was an attempt made to equalize the sexes - women were encourage to go into what were traditionally considered "male" professions, like banking, business, etc. What they found was that rather than women becoming more respected for their professions, those professions became less respected, as they became more "pink collar" and less "white collar." The idea that a person picking garbage in parks, along the roads, etc, is contributing less than I am, or that it should be less respected, is ludicrous. All that garbage creates non-source point pollution, which is a huge environmental issue.

Put a different way: I am able to contribute quite a bit, because I hold a pretty priveleged place in society and because I have a good brain. None of this has much to do with me, really. It's genetics and circumstance. Why shouldn't I use my gifts to the best of my ability? Why is someone else, who is doing their best, worth less than me because their best isn't as good as mine? You assume a level playing field where none exists.

The idea that a capitalist society is the best way to prevent inefficiencies is nuts. What's efficient about a world where 40% of people live a subsistance life, while there are others with billions of dollars - more money than they can even spend? That's what makes no sense.

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Vixen,

Sadly, while Star Trek shows socialism working, it never bothers to express how exactly socialism works. It is as fantastical a depiction of socialism as can be imagined, with no one ever being unhappy, or wanting something they can't have, or being dissatisfied in any respect. It may be that Star Trek imagines that with the advent of the replicator and cheap energy, anyone can get everything they want. That's very nice but hardly realistic.

I remember there was a restaurant owned by Commander/Captain Sisko's father. Nice place, looked like. But in all the scenes where they showed the place, they never thought to answer even the basest questions of how Sisko's father came to own a restaurant. Or how customers came to eat there. Do they have government issued ration cards? Is it related to the mysterious Federation 'credit'? Do people perchance get an allowance for 'extras' from the government? Do they all get the same amount? Are some jobs given an extra allowance incentive? What about the proprietor of the restaurant? Does he get some kind of bonus if he runs a successful restaurant? Can he lose the restaurant if it is unsuccessful? How does he get the groceries? How does he 'hire' employees? How does he advertise?

How does any of it bloody work?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Vixen,

The problem is that I envision Socialism as a world where everyone gets a subsistence life, regardless of merit or effort or anything.

Let's return to the example of the trash-stabber. He is not worth 'less' than you as a human being. But if you are, say, a Doctor, he is worth much less than you to society.

A Doctor must go to school for, what, 8 years? Followed by some years of internship where they get their hands-on training? Something along those lines, I'm sure.

That is a massive investment. Of both time and resources. Absolutely huge. If you live to be 80, then a full 10% of your life has been devoted to learning your profession. I don't think anyone can argue that the investment is anything but colossal. This is multiplied even more when you consider that you must continue training for the rest of your life. Medicine doesn't stand still, or at least we hope not. You will have to be reading journals, attending conferences, and maybe even taking additional classes to stay at the cutting edge of your profession. This is what it means to be a Doctor.

By contrast, the trash-stabber can begin his work directly our of Elementary school. This is hardly what we'd like, because we would enjoy the whole populace to have good reading, writing, arithmetic, and civic skills. But honestly, if the bloke dropped out of school after the fourth grade, even, he could still be a trash-stabber. There is no real investment in training. The investment in this profession is as close to nil as you can get. Further, while we all would enjoy trash-free parks, we can agree it is much easier to find a candidate qualified for this job than it is to find one who can be a successful Doctor.

So, objectively speaking, the jobs are so far apart that you can barely see one from the other. They both contribute to society, but the investment in each is astronomically different. If the Doctor and the trash-stabber receive the same rewards for their efforts, then the investment in the trash-stabber is grossly inefficient.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 8:57 AM

Quote:
So, objectively speaking, the jobs are so far apart that you can barely see one from the other. They both contribute to society, but the investment in each is astronomically different. If the Doctor and the trash-stabber receive the same rewards for their efforts, then the investment in the trash-stabber is grossly inefficient.

How? You have to define efficient and inefficient here. I think it's totally efficient that someone society has invested very little in (as you say, a trash picker doesn't even need much schooling) to give little back to society (if I accept your premise, which I don't, but we'll get to that in a minute). In contrast, a doctor's training costs a lot - and less than a quarter of it will be borne by the doctor him/herself (at least in Canada, I think it might be a little higher in the US - but then, you also have better financial aid for students. But I digress). So the doctor then contributes more to society. Works for me.

Efficient: 1. Productive with minimum waste or effort. 2. (of a person)capable; acting efficiently (Oxford concise English Dictionary)

Quote:
The problem is that I envision Socialism as a world where everyone gets a subsistence life, regardless of merit or effort or anything.

Well, not be a jerk, but that's your problem. How you envision a socialist society, and how it would actually be, are two different things. If you're unwilling to change your perspective on socialism, then this debate is pointless. I think it's also of utmost importance to define what we mean by socialism - it's not communism, as you seem to think. Did you look at the Mondragon system I posted? This is a co-operative movement that exists within a capitalist economy.

I think the issue here is that it's not a decision between socialism and capitalism, anyway. It's a debate about what kind of society we want, and how we can get there. I want a society where everyone is valued, regardless of their "merit," and where everyone chooses to contribute because it's the right thing to do, and not strictly for material gain. I look around me and I see people every day choosing to give up some of their material (money, time, etc) to others who need it. I choose to do a job I think is really important, and I make a living wage. But I could make a lot more working in the private sector. I choose not to because I think being of service is important. And lots of people think that way. "Human nature" is not cut and dried. A hundred years ago white men felt that women didn't merit the vote. Attitudes changed. "Human nature" changed. I think we're becoming better as a species, not worse. If that trend continues, why won't we someday decide that everyone can contribte what they can, and take what they need?

The idea of scarcity of resources is a conceit of the capitalist system. We think the choice is between living the North American model or living like the developing world. There's a happy medium. We can have more than we need but less than everything we want. That's the balance we haven't found yet - but that doesn't mean we can't or won't.

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Vixen,

Well, not to be a jerk myself, but I've been practically begging for the nuts and bolts of the other kind of system so that I CAN envision it. Something more than pretty propaganda pieces, which is essentially what Star Trek is. (Bloody entertaining, much of the time, I admit. I am a Trekkie, after all, of the original stripe.)

The fact is that there are a significant percentage of individuals who do work so that they can enjoy a particular lifestyle. For instance, I have no interest at all in banking. Nor do I have any interest at all in data entry. I have some peripheral interest in police work, but this is more than anything because I'd enjoy the prospect of using the police shooting range free of charge. To a lesser degree, I quite enjoy the thought of stopping bad things from happening... But I have my doubts that modern policework is primarily concerned with this end. In any event, you have no idea how disappointed I was to learn that despite working for the police department for a period of time, I was not allowed to use the shooting range. It was right next door. *sigh* But at least everyone got to use the on-site gym, and that was right nice.

None of the jobs I've held in my entire life have been enjoyable to me. Or at least, they haven't been more enjoyable than they have been discomfiting. I 'enjoy' my current job insomuch as it causes me the least possible amount of discomfiture for the maximum possible amount of monetary reward. I could 'happily' retire from this job in 20 years, having seldom done anything I actually enjoyed, but similarly having seldom done anything I actually despised.

Why should I choose to endure perpetual mediocrity of this kind? Why, because the paycheck allows me to maintain a roof over my head, food on my table, medicine in my body, and the few extras that make life a bit more comfortable at home. Every improvement to my job station in life has been to seek out either a greater amount of money or a lesser amount of discomfort in my working life. Usually, improvements have come with both ends. I admit I've stumbled and taken a few steps backwards. The time period between my losing the dispatcher job with the police department and gaining my job with the bank was a kind of 'dark age' where I worked as a security guard, security dispatcher, and then horribly as a telemarketer.

My aspirations in life are few- primarily to remain safe and comfortable while I pursue my hobby of writing. If I lived in a society that rewarded me equally no matter what I did with my life, I'd probably still be working a security desk in a condiminium on the midight shift. Terribly simple job. I got a lot of reading done. It was hardly discomfiting at all. But it didn't make ends meet very well, and so today I work for a bank. I do what is in every objective sense a more important job than sitting at a desk in an empty lobby.

Don't get me wrong. I take pride in my work. I like to do a good job at whatever I happen to be doing. But the prime source of my ambition to do job X over job Y is based on a formula involving pain and money. Minimum pain for maximum money. Without such an incentive as money, I fear I might be the universe's most colossal underachiever.

While it would be nice to believe that everyone who suffered through 8-10 years of schooling to do a really tough job did so out of the pure orgasmic joy of practicing medicine, I am quite sure that a significant portion of doctors got into the business because it pays very well. I am sure there are accountants who similarly do not have a quivering spasm of ecstacy upon the completion of a mathematical table, but rather do the job because they are good at it and get paid well. In short, lots of people who are qualified and talented enough to do something only do it because it gives them the cash to do what they wish to do outside of the workplace. There are doubtless lots of people who excel at their jobs in order to earn bonuses and promotions and pay raises, and not out of a simple isolated work ethic.

Without that incentive, what happens to your workforce? How do you keep people motivated?

If the trash stabber and the Doctor have the same house, car, and cable television, what inspires a man to go through 8 to 10 years of effort to become a Doctor? Why shan't all of us unambitious souls be trash-stabbers, or sit in empty condominium lobbies, reading science fiction books as we wait for the dawn? What inspires me to do better, if society is going to invest in my living circumstance identically no matter what it is that I do?

This is where, as I see it, the investment in the trash-stabber is too much. Not in the training, obviously, but in the house and yard and car and dog and cat and cable television. What is the incentive for him to excel? What incentive for the Doctor to endure his difficult process? What incentive for either of them to be very very good at their jobs?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:08 AM

Quote:
Well, not to be a jerk myself, but I've been practically begging for the nuts and bolts of the other kind of system so that I CAN envision it.

Well, I'm not going to do all the work for you.

Quote:
For a modern example, check out the Mondragón system in Spain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n

I also recommend the film "The Take" about the worker occupation of factories after the collapse of the Argentinian economy: http://www.thetake.org/

You're begging for the nuts and bolts of another kind of system? Do some basic reading - I've already supplied the links.

Quote:
Without such an incentive as money, I fear I might be the universe's most colossal underachiever.

Well, that's you. It has not been my experience that it's everyone, or even a majority of people.

In terms of motivation, the point I was trying to make in my post is that people aren't solely motivated by self interest. Lots of us choose to do jobs for less pay than we could get, because we think the job is important (see: Army). I work to keep a roof over my head too - but if I had a roof, that wouldn't mean I would just quit working and lay around. Most people, given a choice, would rather fill their days doing something productive than doing nothing. In fact, most people who do fill their days doing nothing report far higher than average levels of things like depression. That's "human nature" for you.

Quote:
If the trash stabber and the Doctor have the same house, car, and cable television, what inspires a man to go through 8 to 10 years of effort to become a Doctor? Why shan't all of us unambitious souls be trash-stabbers, or sit in empty condominium lobbies, reading science fiction books as we wait for the dawn? What inspires me to do better, if society is going to invest in my living circumstance identically no matter what it is that I do?

If the only thing that inspires us is money, we'd all be investment bankers or stock brokers or magnates of some kind. People choose to become doctors because they want to be doctors. They want to heal people. No one who does a job just for money is going to be happy for very long. Maybe people would be more ambitious if they felt they were contributing in a positive way. I mean, clearly money hasn't motivated you to do much beyond the basics.

As an aside: you're in England, yes?

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:18 AM

A world without sin...without poverty...without crime...where everyone is equal...it's a nice dream, isn't it? I think the reality of it is slightly uglier. Human nature being what it is, that whole "free will" aspect, guarantees that it cannot be.

Sure, we could all be implanted with chips to make us happy, law-abiding little robots...but where's the fun in that? I personally would fight against it, as would anyone who values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Wow, you know what I just realized? The founding fathers never guaranteed anyone success in life; they were more interested in the freedom to try!)

I resent being told how to live my life. I do what I think is right and I take responsibility for my actions. I am even more resentful of those who feel that I am somehow supposed to carry them on my back when they don't even try to do for themselves. You climb on at your own risk, first chance I get to scrape you off on a tree, you're gone. I'm tired of paying for you. I'm tired of people thinking I should.

You can't have it both ways. A government strong enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take everything you have. I think Thomas Jefferson said that. I agree. I will struggle and fight on my own, thanks. It's about time the rest of the people out there wake up and smell the paxilon-d-hydrochloride...

Wow, I'm angry this morning...

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

Well, I have to say that you don't just 'think' capitalism is inevitable and natural in a neutral descriptive way - you PREFER it !

But to get to your posts:
"One would doubtless prefer to live in the peaceful society, right up until someone came along and ate it."

Oddly enough, it is the non-violent societies that ended in natural disasters - and not violence. Caral - which lasted over 1000 years - ended in a mega-drought of roughly 500 years. Best evidence is that Mohenjo-Daro, which lasted 600 years, was swept away by a flood that scoured the entire river valley, leaving nothing behind. The peaceful Mediterranean civilization (whose name I forget) which flourished for about 500 years seems to have fallen to a volcano.

I think I would prefer to take my chances on surviving in a peaceful, equitable society, as both my individual survival and society's survival seem more likely.

"But you have yet to describe to me how an 'each according to their needs/abilities' works in the long run."

I didn't argue for that. Perhaps It is a dualism in your thinking that made you assume that.

"I really want to be able to imagine such a society, but the only examples I can think of in my world are rather dreary. What would Rue's world look like? How would it work, in nuts and bolts fashion?"

How about ... Caral. You don't have to imagine. It is there for you to think about.

"We know how Capitalism works. Some people live shite lives in shite jobs."

And some people die of hunger, lack of water, lack of shelter, lack of medical care. And 40% of the world lives on less than $2 per day. Is that what you are trying to portray is that just an inconvenience of capitalism ?

How does such a system work ? People are rewarded FULLY for the work that they do. No one at the top is skimming the rewards off their labor. You could have government redistribution of wealth (though that merely takes the edge off of capitalism and doesn't remove the eventual day of reckoning - which usually comes as an economic crash). You could have a production system of cooperatives. You could have a society focused on something other than getting more than others - like pleasure and commerce. You could have the Linux community. Perhaps you can come up with others. There's probably more than one way to get there.

"But there is also mobility based on merit, productivity, and good ideas."

There really are NOT enough jobs to go around for all the merit, productivity, and good ideas out there. There are even NOT enough jobs to go around for people who desperate. Hard work does not guarantee success.
What do you say about the many people who are working two - or more - jobs and barely staying afloat ? Are they not ambitious enough ? Hard working enough ? Desperate enough ? What do you say about the woman who worked for 18 years at a Chevy dealership - and got laid off ? Did she not put enough time and effort into her work ? What about the guy who worked for 14 years as a diesel mechanic who got laid off ? What did he do wrong, in your opinion ?
How did those two (people I personally know) fail ? What was their fault ?

***************************************************************

Your problem is, that you cannot imagine a world without a hierarchy. Without owners and bosses. You think THEY are the ones who make the world go 'round. Nothing could be further from the truth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:33 AM

PlainJayne: Do you feel that way about family members, or members of your local community who have supported you in your endeavors?

I appreciate the feeling that you shouldn't have to owe anyone anything, and no one SHOULD have to owe anyone anything. That just makes people slaves.

But I also think every person might want to consider taking a good look around their community, and see if they can't find anything they don't WANT to improve, nor anyone who they don't WANT to help. I think this, not a government program, is how we really improve the world around us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue and Vixen,

You know, it's hardly productive to the discussion if I ask how a society might work, and I'm told to figure it out for myself or if I'm referred to an ancient civilization whose precise nuts and bolts are largely unknown. Nor is it particularly helpful to be told that there are a dozen different ways the problem could be approached. Doubtless there is a different way to approach a problem for every person on the planet.

For instance, I have spent a great deal of time trying to occupy my mind with how Star Trek Federation socialism might function. I'm a details man, and my fantasy of enjoying Star Trek is sadly subject to my ability to suspend disbelief. I can only go so far, as it turns out. My imagination is vast, but it seems to be pinned down by the need for the things that I imagine to be somewhat realistic. The more fantastical one part of a premise is, the more I want the other things to make sense. In Star Trek, I have to accept the premise of warp drive and transporters and all that, because such fanciful nonsense is essential to the universe. However, this gives me a greater expectation that the mundane things be grounded. This forms a kind of anchor to satisfy my reasoning brain so that my fantasy brain can enjoy itself at Warp 8.

So, here is how I imagine the economy of the United Federation of Planets, nuts and bolts:

Every citizen has a minimum guarantee. The minimum guarantee includes the concept that everyone will be provided a small amount of housing, say 150-200 square feet per person. They will have utilities provided, so that they can stay cool, shower, cook, and read at night. They have access to public transportation that is quite sophisticated, and free admission and use of libraries and parks and other public recreational facilities. They also can apply for free schooling in the subject matter of their choice. If they get sick, they get free health care.

Minimum Guarantee: You will be maintained as a healthy person and given all the opportunities you need to succeed. Even if you do absolutely nothing.

However, I imagine that while the minimum guarantee is exactly what it claims to be, it is distinctly lacking in luxury. You get the state-selected apartment with the state-selected paint job and the state selected appliances and carpeting and whatever free entertainment they decide to pipe into your living space. You'd get state-selected food for your state-selected refrigerator, and it will keep you alive, but it may not be what you'd really like to eat. They won't arrest you for being unproductive, but they won't really give you much enjoyment, either. Just that minimum guarantee.

Now, the central planning office has some kind of picture of the economy, and knows what sorts of jobs they wish to create incentives for, and how much incentive they wish to give them. Any job at all will earn you a certain quantity of 'credits' which you can spend at your discretion. This is the 'bonus' you get for being a productive citizen. These credits let you go to the store and buy widgets and gadgets and mabobs that you may want in order to personalize your life and customize your entertainment. In essence, a touch of personal luxury. You may use a portion of your credit allowance to upgrade your living condition and get a bigger apartment or house. Or buy exciting new designer clothes. Or go out to a restaurant to eat.

If the government finds that they don't have enough data entry personnel, but that there are too many librarians, they may reduce the allowance for librarians and boost the allowance for data entry personnel, thus creating an incentive for librarians to take jobs in data entry. Perhaps this works to convince nurses to become doctors, or doctors to become nurses. Or clerks to become trash-stabbers. Whatever. You might also provide quota-based bonuses. Have you stabbed more than 100 pounds of trash this week? Good, an extra 100 credits for you, then. This creates an incentive to work hard.

Presumably, some people save a percentage of their credit allowance for retirement. After investing 20-30 years in a job that you may marginally appreciate, you can take your accumulated credits and buy that storefront on main street, and become a Business Owner, fulfilling your lifetime ambition. "Sisko's" is born in New Orleans. Now people can take their credit allowance to Sisko's and buy some sort of crawdad dish. If Sisko's is successful, then Old Man Sisko will have even more credits to spend on upgrades and advertising and whatnot.

This sort of system would combine aspects of capitalism and socialism so that people are given all that they need and work towards what they want. It would explain the Federation credit, it would explain how Scotty could buy a boat, and how Sisko could own a restaurant. It would also explain how investment banking and portfolios could be alien to Picard, and why the Feds look down on the Ferengi as un-empathic money-grubbers.

Nuts and bolts, as I imagine they might exist.

Now, not because I'm lazy, but because I want to know what YOU imagine...

What would your system look like?

And no. I am absolutely, positively, not British. I am a U.S. citizen, born in Hialeah Hospital, and am the child of Cuban immigrants.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:51 AM

Actually, if you don't mind me saying, Anthony, I think in general that IS the system that most supporters of a centrally controlled economy envision.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I've ever seen Rue argue that her vision of a government is that everyone can only have whatever the government issues them, and it's a crime to have personal possessions beyond that. I think most straight-lace socialists at this point do argue for some kind of mixed economy. I think socialism has come to represent the idea of taking care of every citizen's most basic needs, as opposed to the old definition of an economic system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

Not to be tedious, but you ARE stuck on an argument no one is making. You keep demanding - demanding ! - that we address your concept of communism. GIVE IT UP ALREADY !

We BOTH have already told you that that is not what we are talking about !

And here is a system that Vixen did find for you to read. Nuts and bolts, as it exists today. PLEASE READ IT !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n

It IS one mode of eliminating the concentration of capital that comes with a capitalism.

But then there are other systems as well. The Linux community is one such system. I mentioned it earlier. Surely you have heard of it ? Perhaps you even know how it works ? If nothing else, it should prove to you that people do, indeed, work for reasons other than money.

I have a vision - it is that people share an ethic of 'just enough'. Now where have I heard something similar ? Oh yes, a poster from long ago said that Sweden had a similar cultural ethic.

Would you take Canada as an example ? You have an invitation to visit Ottawa.

It's not like these things don't exist for you to learn about. But if you insist that they don't count simply b/c you haven't taken the time to go in the direction you've been pointed to, then I will simply bow out of this discussion.

***************************************************************

And not think very well of you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:49 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

I read the thing. Twice. And perhaps I'm dull but I didn't see a single nut or bolt in it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Arrasate or Mondragón (Basque and Spanish official names, Mondragoe is an unofficial Basque name) - is a town and municipality in Gipuzkoa province, Basque Country, Spain. Its population on 31 December 2007 was 22,112.

It is known mainly as the place of origin of the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation (MCC), the world's largest worker cooperative, whose foundation was inspired in the 1940s by Father José María Arizmendiarrieta. In 2002 the MCC contributed 3.7% towards the total GDP of the Basque Country and 7.6% to the industrial GDP. The valley of the High Deba where it is located enjoyed a high level of employment in the 1980s while the rest of the Basque industrial areas suffered from the steel crisis.

Noted poverty expert and sociology professor Barbara J. Peters (Southampton College, Long Island University) has studied the incorporated and entirely resident-owned Basque town of Mondragón, Spain. "In Mondragón, I saw no signs of poverty. I saw no signs of extreme wealth," Peters said. "I saw people looking out for each other…..It's a caring form of capitalism.”Spanish Town without Poverty, Newswise Jan 2000

The spa at Santa Águeda (now a psychiatric hospital) was the location of the 1897 murder of Spanish politician Antonio Cánovas del Castillo by Michele Angiolillo.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

It sounds wonderful, with the whole 'caring capitalism' quote, but I don't have the slightest idea what it is. I'm sorry if my pathetic grunting for specifics has angered you. It seems I'm being terribly ignorant about something you must think is abominably obvious.

I don't want you to address my idea of communism, or socialism. The best conception I've ever been able to come of it is right up there, in my musings about the United Federation of Planets.

I do want you to address your conception of these things, if you have one. As for Linux, I know it only as some kind of operating system or programming platform, and am not familiar with it as a community of people.

Maybe you consider me particularly lazy or uncouth for not knowing more about Basque corporations or computer operating systems, and maybe you don't want to actually explain them. Fine, then. Sorry to have bothered you. I thought we might have a nice chat about it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sigh -
Click the links:

The Mondragón Corporation is a group of manufacturing, financial and retail companies based in the Basque Country and extended over the rest of Spain and abroad. It is one of the world's largest worker cooperatives and one important example of workers' self-management.

The sovereign body is the 650-member Co-operative Congress, its delegates elected from across the individual co-operatives. The annual general assembly elects a governing council which has day-to-day management responsibility and appoints senior staff. For each individual business, there is also a workplace council, the elected President of which assists the manager with the running of the business on behalf of the workers.

The group companies give preference to fellow co-operatives. Co-operative workers manage their finances through Caja Laboral, hold health insurances and pension funds at Lagun Aro and have discounts at Eroski markets and on Fagor appliances. Eroski stores are furnished by co-operative trucks. Members may have studied at a group ikastola (college) and extended studies at the Mondragoón University while having a labor stage at a co-operative. The reference research centre is Ikerlan, which is focused on applied research since 1974.

When a cooperative has got in economical trouble, workers have preferred to take pay cuts over layoffs. If the situation deteriorates seriously, redundant workers are provided with positions in other group co-operatives.

A worker cooperative is a cooperative owned and democratically controlled by its worker-owners. This control may be exercised in a number of ways. In 'pure' forms of worker co-operative, all shares are held by the workforce with no outside or consumer owners, and each member has one voting share. In practice, control by worker-owners may be exercised through individual, collective or majority ownership by the workforce, or the retention of individual, collective or majority voting rights (exercised on a one-member one-vote basis)[1]. A worker cooperative, therefore, has the characteristic that the majority of its workforce own shares, and the majority of shares are owned by the workforce.[2]

Worker self-management (or autogestion) is a form of workplace decision-making in which the workers themselves agree on choices (for issues like customer care, general production methods, scheduling, division of labour etc.) instead of an owner or traditional supervisor telling workers what to do, how to do it and where to do it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

It seems from this that you advocate a system whereby businesses are comprised of corporations where each employee owns a share in the business, and all leadership positions in the business are elected democratically.

Is that it, then?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That is ONE answer. It happens to be one that exists, as per your requirement, with (thanks to Vixen) all the specifics spelled out, again, as per your requirement.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, can we get past the notion that it's IMPOSSIBLE ! to do anything differently ? That we NEED capitalism or the world will fall apart !

Have we got past that ?

Can we now move on ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:46 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

This seems to me to be an exciting description of a corporate structure. I suppose if I ask for additional details about how it works, I would, you know, be chastised. So I guess I should go to the library and see if I can't find a book about it.

And then perhaps after I've completed my research I could convince you to tell me how this corporate structure could best be scaled up to encompass an entire government and all of its people.

On the other hand, it seems it's not something that actually interests you as a topic of conversation. One can almost hear the heavy sigh in this silent medium- perhaps because you actually condescended to write the S-I-G-H as a preable to your response.

It must be a heavy burden to bear, being knowledgeable on a topic, and having people ask you about it. Then, when you refer them to an article that branches out broadly into a wide category of study, to have them bother you again for more details, or worse, to ask you what you think personally, as a well-read individual in a vast discipline.

The whole exercise in discussion must seem a tedious one, as unenlightened ignorants seek some kind of distillation that will help them to grasp the essence of a thing without making it the subject of serious study. They ought to devote at least a percentage of their lives to a thing before they deign to discuss it with you. You have, after all. If you'd wanted to spend your life distilling things that you'd learned into digestible bits, one supposes you might have taken the profession of school teacher or college professor. If you cared to be bothered to express your individual opinions on a thing, one imagines you'd have become a political commentator.

I can imagine some hapless individual approaching you at a party and asking your thoughts on a good way to depart from Capitalism. I envision that you tell them to read Keynes, and when they look puzzled, you saunter off to a quiet corner, or find a niche filled with better-read and informed individuals who won't force you to rehash the details of learnings that you actually bothered to spend time absorbing.

Who invited them to this party, anyway? Shouldn't they be discussing America's Next Top Model or some such? Who hasn't read Keynes? I mean, really!

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I am very, very busy at work. I am regularly donating 20 or more hours a week just to keep up. This will be over in a few weeks, but for now my posts will have to be short (save where I quote articles). I will have to be back here at midnight for an hour or so, and then again a six ayem. In addition, I am having work done and doing work myself on my house. If you want a tutor you will have to find someone else.

"I could convince you to tell me how this corporate structure could best be scaled up to encompass an entire government and all of its people ..."

It could be scaled up to encompass an ECONOMY - different from a government.

It IS an exciting possibility. But not the only one.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:57 PM

With worker collectives and anarcho syndicalist/socialist communes, I think the point is to keep the main body of government local and community based, and a broader sort of confederacy between communities. However, the broader confederacy likely would not have much power over decisions made at a local level.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
PlainJayne: Do you feel that way about family members, or members of your local community who have supported you in your endeavors?

I appreciate the feeling that you shouldn't have to owe anyone anything, and no one SHOULD have to owe anyone anything. That just makes people slaves.

But I also think every person might want to consider taking a good look around their community, and see if they can't find anything they don't WANT to improve, nor anyone who they don't WANT to help. I think this, not a government program, is how we really improve the world around us.

The difference being that they support me in my endeavors to help myself. Support doesn't mean "do it for me." Nor does it mean "you have to give it to me because I'm ____(fill in the blank with anything you want, it's still the same statement)" It means you stand for the people who stand for you.

My mom has done a lot of helping, and when she needs anything I'm the first in line to do it. Same goes for my close friends, my husband, etc. Its not even so much about reciprocity as it is about charity begins at home. Take care of your family, your friends, your crew, whatever. As far as the people sitting back on their asses collecting money for nothing, they can suck it.

When was the last time you saw somebody living off the government who was out doing something for somebody else? (Anybody not of the greatest generation, that is) When have they done anything to improve their lot in life? Their children's? I know one example. ONE. There's alot more than that out there needing a reality check to go with that government one. I'm tired of paying for it.

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:35 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"As far as the people sitting back on their asses collecting money for nothing, they can suck it."

Now here, I thought you were talking about the big wigs at Enron (remember Enron ?) and the tax-money bonuses that went to AIG, BofA et al.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Quote:
I suppose if I ask for additional details about how it works, I would, you know, be chastised. So I guess I should go to the library and see if I can't find a book about it

Look, I don't like to be mean, especially in relative anonymity, but you are whining because you we're not giving you exactly what you want in a baby sized spoon. Maybe you think that no one will be motivated to do anything because you don't seem motivated to do this elementary research yourself. If you are going to engage in this type of debate on a regular basis, please do a bit of work in educating yourself on basic premises. You can't throw the words "socialism" and "communism" around without defining them a bit - giving them some nuts and bolts, as it were. When you say communism - do you mean Marxism, Leninism, Stalism, the type of "communism" they practice in Cuba and Mexico, what?

And socialism is an even bigger can of worms.

What we're trying to say here, if I may speak for a few others, is that the assumption that capitalism is the only/best system under which to organize ourselves is demonstrably false - and we've provided examples of this. You, on the other hand, have not provided nuts and bolts examples of how capitalism is more effcient, works better, etc. Affirming something to be doesn't make it so.

I'm tired and I've been debating this all day, so I'm sorry for being a jerk (I know I am). But I hope you can understand my frustration right now.

Rue and Bytemite - thanks for chiming in while I did some actual work at work :)

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:07 PM

Anthony T

I finally get where you're coming from. You've put thought into it, and tried to state it in a clear and well designed manner.

That said, I think it's probably insufficient to say I disagree, but rather, I think this will take a lot more thought. It may take a long time, but the points be made here are decent ones even if I may disagree with them.

Simply put:

Consider a mouse who lives in an old rug rolled up in the attic. He turns and explains to the other mice everything there is about the rug, and why it is that some mice might have better spots on the rug, while some get rained on, some spots are more snug, but everyone has a place on the rug. Other mice may argue for some sort of regime of forced equality, or a different merit based system or other. Then one mouse says "But there is also not-rug"

"What is not rug?" asks another, elder mouse.

"Not rug is a vast land," begins the dissenting mouse, but then he is at a loss, for the concepts of not rug are so varied and complex that they cannot be described in terms of rug.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:09 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If I can reciprocate, my understanding of Capitalism in a Free Market comes from my reading of Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, with emphasis on 'Free to Choose.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Choose

This is not, I stress, the flavor of Capitalism we have in this country (the US) but it seemed to me like a very efficient means of getting on. Prices and Wages seem like a dastardly clever means of transmitting information about supply and demand. Interesting to note that the authors predicted financial maladies like the one we find ourselves in, but unlike Keynes and current economic commentators, they attribute the problem more to missteps of intervention rather than to the missteps of insufficient intervention.

There, now you have my nuts and bolts, to the degree that I have yours.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:11 PM

Okay, didn't mean to sound like a lecture, I was just curious. :)

I'm kind of hoping someday, everyone in my community will be kind of like family. I think it's a good way to build a society.

But definitely, people who want to go it alone should be respected for that choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:11 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dream,

To quote a movie...

I like the way you talk.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:57 PM

Milton Friedman was a clever guy.

We've met before. I'm on my semi-annual tour of the carnage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

It is important to note that while many of the principles in Mr. Friedman's work make a good deal of sense to me, I actually advocate slightly more government than he would be comfortable with.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:48 PM

Well, I can get behind decriminalization of prostitution and drugs, but I'm not so sure about eliminating the licensing of doctors!

Fundamentally, this argument boils down to the age old divide: individual rights vs. collective rights - when they conflice, which one rains supreme? I tend towards collective rights.

However, saying his ideas make a lot of sense to you is not an argument. You have to say why his ideas make a lot of sense, how they would work in the world, why they are better than the other options.

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:48 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

For real world examples of Friedman's principles of economy, he himself indicates that Hong Kong comes closest to his ideal.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Hong Kong is one of the world's leading financial centres.[55] Its highly capitalist economy has been ranked the freest in the world by the Index of Economic Freedom for 15 consecutive years.[56][57][58] It is an important centre for international finance and trade, with one of the greatest concentration of corporate headquarters in the Asia-Pacific region, and is known as one of the Four Asian Tigers for its high growth rates and rapid industrialisation between the 1960s and 1990s.[59] The Hong Kong Stock Exchange is the sixth largest in the world, with a market capitalisation of US$2.97 trillion as of October 2007, and the second highest value of initial public offerings, after London.[60] The currency used in Hong Kong is the Hong Kong dollar, which has been pegged to the U.S. dollar since 1983.

The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role in the financial industry, mostly leaving the direction of the economy to market forces and the private sector. Under the official policy of positive non-interventionism, Hong Kong is often cited as an example of laissez-faire capitalism. Following World War II, Hong Kong industrialised rapidly as a manufacturing centre driven by exports, and then underwent a rapid transition to a service-based economy in the 1980s. Hong Kong matured to become a financial centre in the 1990s, but was greatly affected by the Asian financial crisis in 1998, and again in 2003 by the SARS outbreak. A revival of external and domestic demand has led to a strong recovery, as cost decreases strengthened the competitiveness of Hong Kong exports and a long deflationary period ended.

The territory has little arable land and few natural resources, so it must import most of its food and raw materials. Hong Kong is the world's eleventh largest trading entity,[61] with the total value of imports and exports exceeding its gross domestic product. Much of Hong Kong's exports consist of re-exports, which are products made outside of the territory, especially in mainland China, and distributed via Hong Kong. Even before the 1997 handover, Hong Kong had established extensive trade and investment ties with mainland China, and its autonomous status now enables it to serve as a point of entry for investment flowing into the mainland. At the end of 2007, there were 3.46 million people employed full-time, with the unemployment rate averaging 4.1%, the fourth straight year of decline.[62] Hong Kong's economy is dominated by the service sector, which accounts for over 90% of its GDP, while industry now constitutes just 9%. Inflation was at 2% in 2007, and Hong Kong's largest export markets are mainland China, the United States, and Japan.[63][2]

As of 2009, Hong Kong is the fifth most expensive city for expatriates. Hong Kong is behind Tokyo, Osaka, Moscow, and Geneva but beat Zürich. Last year, Hong Kong was ranked sixth, and in 2007, Hong Kong was ranked fifth. [64]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Special thanks to wikipedia.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:51 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I guess, as you said, it has to do with the importance you place on personal freedom.

Which is something I categorize as Very important.

It is no coincidence that I first picked up Friedman's work, not because I was interested in economics at the time, but because the title captured my heart.

Free to Choose is the philosophy upon which I would build a society if I were able. The idea that everyone should be free to do what they wish as long as doing so did not harm someone else.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:54 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Let us say that there is a man who stabs trash with a stick at the public park. You could pay him enough to maintain a house with a yard and a dog and a cat and cable television and a car. He would certainly feel somewhat better about stabbing trash with a stick. You could further market propaganda pieces that hold up trash-stabbing as a noble profession, on par with computer programming and rocket science. You could order the state-run media to air stories on trash stabbers, perhaps intercut with children running through clean, trash-free fields.

Thus, you would have elevated not only the payscale of the job, but also the prestige associated with it. The trash-stabber's job satisfaction might now be on-par with the job satisfaction of a doctor. With every stabbing of trash, he helps to create a wonderland that all can enjoy. Without him, the world would fall into ruinous condition, and society would grind to a halt.

But none of that would be true. Or at least it would be a gross exaggeration. And the trash-stabbing man would be costing society much more than the value he added to it.

So how do you create a society where this works? Where it doesn't become mired down in gross inefficiency that is an overall deficit to the society it claims to serve?

Dang it - lots of catching up to do, again.

Okay, Let's say that there's a man who sits at a desk high atop a skyscraper, and he pushes figures around for an investment bank. You could pay him enough to maintain a dozen houses, each with a golf course, a lake, and a zoo, as well as a fleet of ultra-luxury cars. He would certainly feel somewhat better about pushing numbers around, and you could then further market propaganda pieces that hold up number-pushing as a noble profession, well above such menial tasks as rocket science or computer programming. You could air stories of number-pushers and show children running through clean, well-lit offices.

Thus, you would have elevated not only the payscale of the job, but also the prestige associated with it. The number-pusher helps to create a wonderland that all can enjoy, but none quite as much as him. He starts to feel that without him, the world would fall into ruin, society would grind to a halt.

But none of that is true. Or at least it's a gross exaggeration. The the number-pusher is costing society much more than any value he adds to it. MUCH more.

So how do you create a society where this works? Where it doesn't become mired in its own inefficiency, where it doesn't eat itself in a fit of unbridled greed, where it doesn't become an overall deficit to the society it claims to serve?

Maybe we COULD find a little room at the bottom of the pay scale if we shaved a little off the top of it, eh?

Curious little figures I heard today: Between 2000 and 2007 (the "golden years", according to some around here), the insurance industry watched their profits grow 478% - nearly QUINTUPLING. Last time anyone made that kind of money on an investment, Congress demanded an investigation into the Whitewater development, certain that there must have been a crime behind it all.

And while the profits were going up, 19% fewer Americans had health insurance. And we saw several of the most expensive disasters in American history befall our nation. How did the insurance industry profit so much if they were paying out claims on these horrible disasters such as Katrina, Rita, 9/11, and more?

And while the economy was diving into the ground like an airliner into a Pennsylvania field, Blue Cross/Blue Shield gave their CEO a 200% pay raise. Then raised health insurance premiums an average of 18-24% on policyholders.

So it's not that we, as a nation, don't believe in giving certain jobs or certain workers payment or compensation far in excess of any possible benefit they could ever contribute to society. It's just that we only seem to believe in doing that for those who are at the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. In other words, we love giving the most to those who need it the least.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mike,

That's a very fair assessment of how things can go wrong in the other direction.

And there are those who would argue that the government has done a fair bit to support such nonsense.

But I do not want to replace nonsense at one end of the scale with nonsense at the opposite end.

There was an interesting tidbit up there about some kind of worker-owned corporation that seems to do well. I do not understand how this can be expanded to encompass an entire economy, and I'm afraid to ask. There are other things I don't know and am afraid to ask.

It's become something of a difficult topic to discuss because I am too ignorant to know much, and the people who know much are too impatient or busy to explain it. So it may take a great deal of study to understand the other end of things enough to even open my mouth around some people here.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 5:58 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

It's become something of a difficult topic to discuss because I am too ignorant to know much, and the people who know much are too impatient or busy to explain it. So it may take a great deal of study to understand the other end of things enough to even open my mouth around some people here.

I hear ya, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, except to maybe look at it from a little bit different perspective. What I *DO* know is that doing what we've been doing has gotten us where we are - take that as you will. I think it's time to rethink a few things.

Here's a novel twist of an idea:

I hear insurance execs blaming "frivolous" lawsuits for increasing healthcare costs and rising premiums (their net loss of service provided and near-quintupling of profits raked in and massive pay raises and bonuses tend to put the lie to that myth, but let's give it to 'em just for hypothetical's sake...). They say they want tort reform - an ironclad cap on money that can be awarded for malpractice, negligence, or malicious indifference. One of the most common figures I hear bandied about is anywhere from a $150,000 payout to $500,000 payout.

So here's the twist. Let's let 'em have that. And let's tie insurance executive pay to that payout cap. If they honestly think a human life is worth no more than $150,000-500,000, then let's cap executive pay for insurance execs at that level. They don't get to make more than they think a life is worth when they fuck it up completely.

Sound fair?

Or, barring that, let's say that they can't pay their top execs a combined salary greater than the amount they pay out in lawsuit awards. If lawsuits are really costing them that much, then that restriction won't hamstring their executives in the least, will it? After all, if they're paying out SOOOOO much money in lawsuits, then they'll be able to pay out an equal amount in executive salaries for their top execs (say, CEO, CFO, and board of directors).

Just a few ideas. We seem to be locked into this culture that swears that you can't get good business leaders for under about $145,000,000 per year, and I'd like to challenge that notion. (Yes, that figure was a joke, BDN. Let it go...) Other countries do it quite easily, and are quite competitive. Some would even say that in many areas, they are MORE competitive.

As for a "living wage" - I take it you're against paying people a minimum wage, as well?

Mike

PS: DO NOT stop opening your mouth around here. You're a breath of fresh air. We don't agree on everything, but with any luck at all, we're hopefully working towards educating each other (and maybe one or two others) by talking all this mess through.

If the world's problems were easy to solve, everybody would be doing it, and it wouldn't even be a good-paying job! :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:29 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mike,

I actually am against a minimum wage. Not, mind you, because I like to see people struggling to survive. (It seems sometimes that any free market supporters are perceived to be cackling monsters rubbing their hands with glee as the 'little people' scramble about.)

I am against a minimum wage because it outlaws two people coming to mutually agreeable terms of employment if those terms fall outside a certain approved range.

I similarly am against maximum wages, for identical reasons. I can not begin to imagine someone doing a job that is worth tens of millions of dollars per year. It's absolutely beyond me. But if people are willing to surrender such a sum, who am I to interfere?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Elections; 2024
Mon, April 29, 2024 17:23 - 2325 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, April 29, 2024 17:10 - 3579 posts

Storming colleges with riot cops to keep them ‘safe’ should scare America about what’s next
Mon, April 29, 2024 16:17 - 2 posts

Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Mon, April 29, 2024 15:42 - 26 posts

14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Mon, April 29, 2024 14:45 - 15 posts

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, April 29, 2024 11:15 - 6331 posts

Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, April 29, 2024 10:14 - 805 posts

Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Mon, April 29, 2024 00:31 - 17 posts

Another Putin Disaster
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:09 - 1514 posts

Russia, Jeff Sessions
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:07 - 128 posts

Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:10 - 2 posts

You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:06 - 294 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL