6 ms·

Things you need to live: food, dwelling, energy, transportation, healthcare. (And necessary for a thriving economy/government: trade skills, education, military

Things you need to live: food, dwelling, energy, transportation, healthcare. (And necessary for a thriving economy/government: trade skills, education, military) Self-sustaining would be very plausible on extremely modest amounts of income if the government subsidized the dwelling, energy, transportation, and healthcare. It may be unnecessary for large portions of a nation to work if people produced their own goods and services (most of which could be done by individuals, not even necessitating cooperative work except for a few difficult tasks). What occurred to me, though, is that this would never work in a traditional society because the government would be responsible for too much of people's lives. So as an alternative, a split model may work, where people can choose between a competitive libertarian model and a cooperative socialist model. You either work hard to earn a living that you fully control, or you sit back and let someone provide you with your requirements, and the model you choose determines what things like your taxes or labor go towards. This may be an incredibly stupid and shortsighted idea, but I would love the opportunity to live in a commune subsidized by the government - with the choice to leave for a different model if it sucked.

fxj 9y ago
I would call food, dwelling, healthcare, communication(internet) the four basic necessities. So why not providing these for free and for the rest, just tax other sources of income by a fixed rate depending on how much is needed to provide the free ones?
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  For the first two, humans are pretty capable of providing for these themselves. Having the government provide it alone is a single point of failure, and simply adds cost and complexity where it isn't necessary. Healthcare is definitely something which could benefit from subsidy, considering how advancements in it often require large coordination of R&D, manufacturing, schools/practice, etc. Communication is just not necessary at all to live. Transportation, energy, and education are also necessary to enable a means of production, trade, and basic self-sufficiency of living. Paying for these individually is not only less efficient, it hampers the ability of the economy to grow by limiting who has the means to contribute to it. If you can't get to work, you can't do work, and you're basically a burden on society. And having to pay for the energy needed to do things like cook your food and heat your home is just another thing which is inefficient, especially considering different parts of a country may have different access to energy resources. I'm not well read on tax policy so I don't know the best way to fund these ventures, but it would be obvious that one group would need to be taxed heavily while the other was taxed lightly, due to the difference in the use of or contribution to subsidized resources.
Regardsyjc 9y ago
If you're interested in this issue, you might like the book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. They talk about the rise and hegemony of neoliberalism- how it makes it seem capitalism is and always was the way societies should work. They also mention the proletariat. I'm reading the book now and don't have a good grasp on all its complex ideas but one big idea was that capitalism works by displacing peasants. At least peasants were self-sustainable. But in countries that are industrializing, you start taking away the land, and the means to be self-sustainable.

fxj 9y ago

I would call food, dwelling, healthcare, communication(internet) the four basic necessities. So why not providing these for free and for the rest, just tax other sources of income by a fixed rate depending on how much is needed to provide the free ones?

peterwwillis 9y ago
For the first two, humans are pretty capable of providing for these themselves. Having the government provide it alone is a single point of failure, and simply adds cost and complexity where it isn't necessary. Healthcare is definitely something which could benefit from subsidy, considering how advancements in it often require large coordination of R&D, manufacturing, schools/practice, etc. Communication is just not necessary at all to live. Transportation, energy, and education are also necessary to enable a means of production, trade, and basic self-sufficiency of living. Paying for these individually is not only less efficient, it hampers the ability of the economy to grow by limiting who has the means to contribute to it. If you can't get to work, you can't do work, and you're basically a burden on society. And having to pay for the energy needed to do things like cook your food and heat your home is just another thing which is inefficient, especially considering different parts of a country may have different access to energy resources. I'm not well read on tax policy so I don't know the best way to fund these ventures, but it would be obvious that one group would need to be taxed heavily while the other was taxed lightly, due to the difference in the use of or contribution to subsidized resources.

Regardsyjc 9y ago

If you're interested in this issue, you might like the book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. They talk about the rise and hegemony of neoliberalism- how it makes it seem capitalism is and always was the way societies should work. They also mention the proletariat. I'm reading the book now and don't have a good grasp on all its complex ideas but one big idea was that capitalism works by displacing peasants. At least peasants were self-sustainable. But in countries that are industrializing, you start taking away the land, and the means to be self-sustainable.