4 ms·

"What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist communal

"What's most frightening to me is the pretense of personal property rights. It hangs out in the back of most people's minds, encouraging them to resist communal ideals like universal basic income and true public healthcare (at least in the US). So, once something incredible happens, like a house fire, cancer, unauthorized government seizure, etc., we're left to fend for ourselves when these issues would be minor if we were all working together." While that's a great utopian idea ... it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... if the outcome of doing as little as possible to get by is the same as the outcome of busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick... As much negative weight people put on property, ownership and just about everything anti-socialist/communist ... its the system of reward for effort that drives innovation. Profit drives change.

dvdhnt 10y ago
> While that's a great utopian idea I'm not describing a system without reward, quite the contrary. For one, basic universal income is cheaper than patch-work social programs because it ensures continuity in fiscal planning, ensures that a minimum amount of money is in circulation and being spent (as a result of additional monetary policy), and helps to curb loan defaults and unpaid bills (feeding back into the first point). > Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In general, most employees just get by. I've seen this in the military and private sector. Oppenheimer didn't do atomic research for monetary gains, nor did Einstein, because in the end, they didn't get it, especially O. Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Turing... most people who push the boundaries towards change do so because they want to. Change for the sake of money generally goes terribly wrong; the British empire, fracking, etc. Then again, we can pick and choose on both sides. > it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. And if we're being honest, this has never been tried. Yes, communism spread during the cold war, but it was opposed overtly and covertly from all sides, and from within, by capitalists. Plus, communism isn't true socialism; we've only seen the rise of greedy parties and dictators enforcing socialism for their own gain, profiting more than their people. The only true socialism/communism to exist comes in the form of insects, who consistently outnumber us by trillions.
- jmcdiesel 10y ago
  > Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In general, most employees just get by Exactly my point. Now imagine an entire country full of nothing BUT that. Imagine no Elon Musk driving electric cars forward, or space travel. Answer me this question about what you perceive as the ideal system: Why would you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a system that rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort.
  - dvdhnt 10y ago
    > Why would you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a system that rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort. Alright, so a couple of things. First, I think we're starting off with different evaluations of the current system, or at least, different valuations. Either way, let's agree to disagree on its value. I don't believe the current system rewards effort as consistently as we're led to believe. More so, it rewards workers according to the value they produce and to whom. For example, while a garbage collector's service is invaluable to me, he is almost always paid less than a marketing manager for say Coca Cola, who provides zero value for me. There's an obvious gap between private and public employment in terms of pay. Then, factor in entrenched biases such as gender and race, you'll find a lot more pay inequality there that disputes people being paid based on "effort". What the system does a great job of, as your comments actually do a good job of highlighting, is allow people to believe that most of the time, their effort can get them ahead regardless of their current circumstance. And, not to totally disagree with you, this is true if you're the marketing manager for Coke. However, this is unlikely to be true for the garbage man, as in his/her current course of work, there is an undisputed glass ceiling. Given that the top is far heavier than the bottom, then as long as I am classed somewhere in the plain 99%, I will always favor a more equitable distribution. Not only because it benefits me more directly, but because I just find it more ethical. I believe this because of how often chance plays into success. The most successful people often claim that their station in life was achieved through both luck and hard work. We have no control over where or when we were born, and due to existing laws, cultural phenomenons, and other external factors, it's not as simple as moving here or doing that. We really have to quantify the overall output rather than individual effort and doing so is difficult. There is no easy way to calculate the effects of stress and worry associated with an economy based on capitalism. So, while I believe universal healthcare, basic income, etc. would alleviate much of the stress associated with being a citizen, I can't really prove it because there is no answer as to how detrimental it is in the current system. However, I will say that we've seen articles written recently on how the rich go back to work because of x, y, and z; in my scenario, there really isn't "rich", so I hope that most of us would find the satisfaction in a job well done that was once indicative of community. Additionally, I just think that below the math it makes reasonable sense. Whereas we see averages distorting things. For example, 4 workers in a capitalist economy average an effort (or good job) of 75% because the one go-getter really wants a promotion. In reality 25% (his products) are awesome, but 50% of them are mediocre because of the 2 average employees, while the last 25% are horrible because the fourth employee knows he'll never be as good as the first resulting in 25% of the products being unusable. Yes, he'll be fired and replaced, but it doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem. I'm hoping that if all 4 employees are well taken care of, in the vein of Google, and are no longer worried about that promotion or raise, each can at least do an average job, some may even do a great job based on pride or skill level. In the end we have products that are about the same, if not better, in quality without the emotional distress. Finally, while it may not seem like it, there definitely should be some kind of consequence for those who refuse to contribute. My ideal system requires a hardline level of acceptability. There shouldn't be anything wrong with minimally-acceptable effort as long as we do a good job of setting that floor initially.

dvdhnt 10y ago

> While that's a great utopian idea I'm not describing a system without reward, quite the contrary. For one, basic universal income is cheaper than patch-work social programs because it ensures continuity in fiscal planning, ensures that a minimum amount of money is in circulation and being spent (as a result of additional monetary policy), and helps to curb loan defaults and unpaid bills (feeding back into the first point). > Because you have to justify why someone should work hard to contribute, or why anyone should work harder than the next guy... busting your ass every day - everyone will do the former and society would stagnate pretty quick Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In general, most employees just get by. I've seen this in the military and private sector. Oppenheimer didn't do atomic research for monetary gains, nor did Einstein, because in the end, they didn't get it, especially O. Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Turing... most people who push the boundaries towards change do so because they want to. Change for the sake of money generally goes terribly wrong; the British empire, fracking, etc. Then again, we can pick and choose on both sides. > it never works in practice, and it turns out pretty horrible. And if we're being honest, this has never been tried. Yes, communism spread during the cold war, but it was opposed overtly and covertly from all sides, and from within, by capitalists. Plus, communism isn't true socialism; we've only seen the rise of greedy parties and dictators enforcing socialism for their own gain, profiting more than their people. The only true socialism/communism to exist comes in the form of insects, who consistently outnumber us by trillions.

jmcdiesel 10y ago
> Busting your ass to get ahead is an American exaggeration at this point. In general, most employees just get by Exactly my point. Now imagine an entire country full of nothing BUT that. Imagine no Elon Musk driving electric cars forward, or space travel. Answer me this question about what you perceive as the ideal system: Why would you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a system that rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort.
- dvdhnt 10y ago
  > Why would you remove a system which rewards effort, and replace it with a system that rewards everyone the same, regardless of effort. Alright, so a couple of things. First, I think we're starting off with different evaluations of the current system, or at least, different valuations. Either way, let's agree to disagree on its value. I don't believe the current system rewards effort as consistently as we're led to believe. More so, it rewards workers according to the value they produce and to whom. For example, while a garbage collector's service is invaluable to me, he is almost always paid less than a marketing manager for say Coca Cola, who provides zero value for me. There's an obvious gap between private and public employment in terms of pay. Then, factor in entrenched biases such as gender and race, you'll find a lot more pay inequality there that disputes people being paid based on "effort". What the system does a great job of, as your comments actually do a good job of highlighting, is allow people to believe that most of the time, their effort can get them ahead regardless of their current circumstance. And, not to totally disagree with you, this is true if you're the marketing manager for Coke. However, this is unlikely to be true for the garbage man, as in his/her current course of work, there is an undisputed glass ceiling. Given that the top is far heavier than the bottom, then as long as I am classed somewhere in the plain 99%, I will always favor a more equitable distribution. Not only because it benefits me more directly, but because I just find it more ethical. I believe this because of how often chance plays into success. The most successful people often claim that their station in life was achieved through both luck and hard work. We have no control over where or when we were born, and due to existing laws, cultural phenomenons, and other external factors, it's not as simple as moving here or doing that. We really have to quantify the overall output rather than individual effort and doing so is difficult. There is no easy way to calculate the effects of stress and worry associated with an economy based on capitalism. So, while I believe universal healthcare, basic income, etc. would alleviate much of the stress associated with being a citizen, I can't really prove it because there is no answer as to how detrimental it is in the current system. However, I will say that we've seen articles written recently on how the rich go back to work because of x, y, and z; in my scenario, there really isn't "rich", so I hope that most of us would find the satisfaction in a job well done that was once indicative of community. Additionally, I just think that below the math it makes reasonable sense. Whereas we see averages distorting things. For example, 4 workers in a capitalist economy average an effort (or good job) of 75% because the one go-getter really wants a promotion. In reality 25% (his products) are awesome, but 50% of them are mediocre because of the 2 average employees, while the last 25% are horrible because the fourth employee knows he'll never be as good as the first resulting in 25% of the products being unusable. Yes, he'll be fired and replaced, but it doesn't do anything to actually fix the problem. I'm hoping that if all 4 employees are well taken care of, in the vein of Google, and are no longer worried about that promotion or raise, each can at least do an average job, some may even do a great job based on pride or skill level. In the end we have products that are about the same, if not better, in quality without the emotional distress. Finally, while it may not seem like it, there definitely should be some kind of consequence for those who refuse to contribute. My ideal system requires a hardline level of acceptability. There shouldn't be anything wrong with minimally-acceptable effort as long as we do a good job of setting that floor initially.