4 ms·

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our econo

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them. The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another, is true Liberty, which rightly terrifies our ruling class. I know this is a bit abstract, but I hope it makes sense.

aswanson 9y ago
It is, but a good point of departure for discussion. Can you elaborate on how that alternative can evolve from the present way of doing things?
- js8 9y ago
  I am not PP but I think a decent basic income is a good alternative. Effectively, it is splitting of fruits of economic production into two portions. One portion is redistributed to everybody, and the other is subject of free competition. So you can get the best of both worlds, capitalism and socialism. If you want to compete for the other portion, you can. If you don't want to compete (and be dominated by people who do compete), you live on the basic income.
- twoquestions 9y ago
  Not easily, I'll admit. We've been working for so long at dealing with scarcity that when presented with abundance we don't know what to do. I'm at least glad that people are at least starting to understand that our economic system while better than it's predecessors by a mile, should be improved. This kind of question is better answered piecemeal, like how do we get the homeless into one of the 4-5 empty homes per homeless person, or how do we avoid throwing away 40+% of the food we grow? Correcting horrific market failures like this is a wonderful way to start.
jules 9y ago
The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.
  - jules 9y ago
    Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      You could also take a look at Europe or the US in the 50s. More income distribution than the current state doesn't mean that Stalin's successors will take over immediately.
      - jules 9y ago
        Europe or the US in the 50s didn't guarantee the necessities for people who choose not to work either. I'm not even necessarily opposed to flattening the income distribution by government intervention, but guaranteeing all the necessities is a radical change. Let's try it on a small scale first.
    - baursak 9y ago
      Communism does not imply totalitarianism, and capitalism does not imply democracy.

aswanson 9y ago

It is, but a good point of departure for discussion. Can you elaborate on how that alternative can evolve from the present way of doing things?

js8 9y ago
I am not PP but I think a decent basic income is a good alternative. Effectively, it is splitting of fruits of economic production into two portions. One portion is redistributed to everybody, and the other is subject of free competition. So you can get the best of both worlds, capitalism and socialism. If you want to compete for the other portion, you can. If you don't want to compete (and be dominated by people who do compete), you live on the basic income.
twoquestions 9y ago
Not easily, I'll admit. We've been working for so long at dealing with scarcity that when presented with abundance we don't know what to do. I'm at least glad that people are at least starting to understand that our economic system while better than it's predecessors by a mile, should be improved. This kind of question is better answered piecemeal, like how do we get the homeless into one of the 4-5 empty homes per homeless person, or how do we avoid throwing away 40+% of the food we grow? Correcting horrific market failures like this is a wonderful way to start.

jules 9y ago

The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.

maxxxxx 9y ago
We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.
- jules 9y ago
  Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    You could also take a look at Europe or the US in the 50s. More income distribution than the current state doesn't mean that Stalin's successors will take over immediately.
    - jules 9y ago
      Europe or the US in the 50s didn't guarantee the necessities for people who choose not to work either. I'm not even necessarily opposed to flattening the income distribution by government intervention, but guaranteeing all the necessities is a radical change. Let's try it on a small scale first.
  - baursak 9y ago
    Communism does not imply totalitarianism, and capitalism does not imply democracy.