3 ms·

Another possibility: eliminate private ownership of land. This is actually not as radical as it sounds. Historically, what follows this is mass poverty. The m

Another possibility: eliminate private ownership of land. This is actually not as radical as it sounds. Historically, what follows this is mass poverty. The mindset shift is to go back to the native american idea that all land is collectively owned by the people. Native Americans tended to go to war when one group infringed on another's territory. The government is the "management company" that administers it, and one of the things it can do is offer long-term leases. The government struggles administering drivers licenses. And wherever they've been the landlord, the results have almost universally been impoverished ghettos.

lisper 8y ago
> Historically, what follows this is mass poverty. Yes, but historically capitalism has worked. That's the whole point here: things are changing. Not all of the lessons of history apply in a post-scarcity world.
- nercht12 8y ago
  > Not all of the lessons of history apply in a post-scarcity world. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I'm not sure what you mean by "post-scarcity"? Things may be "available", but that doesn't mean people have access to them. While it's nice to think of land as "unowned", in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind. Besides, I've found that people tend to treat property better when they consider it theirs and have space AWAY from people. Going along with your point though, it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land (large enough to build a small family residence on at least). Yes, there would be competition, but in competitive areas, the land plots could be smaller. In "unwanted" areas (Kansas, Wyoming), plots could be large enough for profitable cattle and farming industry. The good thing would be that no one would be without land to built on; they would have their own space to "be them" and live as they wished without rubbing shoulders with their neighbors (which tends to make Americans rough around the edges, regardless of age/sex/political views). Currently, many people struggle just getting an apartment, let alone a house. Notably, the mechanics of a new system would need to be worked out, and would likely be abused, manipulated, and ruined because of selfish people, but it's a nice thought.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind Yes, that's why I'm advocating leases. This allows you to separate short-term control from long-term control more easily. The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control (the sink needs to be fixed now) but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control (we need to tear down this single family house, which made sense 50 years ago, and replace it with a multi-family unit). > it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't.
    - nercht12 8y ago
      > The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control ... but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control. Sounds nice, but good luck finding politicians and leaders who will exercise just (as in "justice") decisions in this manner. More generally: The problem right now is a people problem, corruption. The system isn't the primary problem. If everyone were benevolent, sharing, kindhearted individuals, then we'd work together to see everyone had a home, regardless of whether the system was capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. Instead, we live in a world of selfish people. sigh It's nice to talk about theories though. :) > That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't. True, but there is plenty of unused land. Just that people tend to crowd the coasts. EDIT: I didn't finish my thought. I meant to add that there's still enough earth for people to occupy for years... and we can build vertical realestate too.
      - lisper 8y ago
        > The problem right now is a people problem, corruption No, I don't agree. I've done a lot of traveling in Africa so I know what corruption looks like, and what we have in the West ain't it (yet). The situation we're in is a result of people acting rationally within a set of rules that were predicated on some assumptions that are no longer true, like that the demand for labor is essentially infinite. The rules are also based on some assumptions that were never true, like that societal well being can be objectively measured in terms of GDP or ROI or something like that, and that infinite growth is possible. To fix this problem we need to fundamentally change the rules of the game to better align with today's reality, and more importantly, tomorrow's likely reality: machines can do pretty much anything that humans can do, so the market value of labor is almost certainly going to plunge. That's good for buyers, but bad for sellers. But sellers are people too. We can't just discard them the way we do excess horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply).
yelloweyes 8y ago
"Historically" is not an argument. In 2005, historically, Myspace was THE social network and Facebook was basically nothing.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  You look at historical trends, not a single point in time. It's not historically Myspace was the social network, it's historically social networks are displaced by others, of which Facebook is only the latest incarnation. And the future of Facebook is Myspace, ideally sooner rather than later, but eventually one way or another. If every time something has happened before it has had the same result, trying it again and expecting something else is not a plan that inspires confidence.
perfunctory 8y ago
> The government struggles administering drivers licenses. What do you mean?

lisper 8y ago

> Historically, what follows this is mass poverty. Yes, but historically capitalism has worked. That's the whole point here: things are changing. Not all of the lessons of history apply in a post-scarcity world.

nercht12 8y ago
> Not all of the lessons of history apply in a post-scarcity world. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I'm not sure what you mean by "post-scarcity"? Things may be "available", but that doesn't mean people have access to them. While it's nice to think of land as "unowned", in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind. Besides, I've found that people tend to treat property better when they consider it theirs and have space AWAY from people. Going along with your point though, it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land (large enough to build a small family residence on at least). Yes, there would be competition, but in competitive areas, the land plots could be smaller. In "unwanted" areas (Kansas, Wyoming), plots could be large enough for profitable cattle and farming industry. The good thing would be that no one would be without land to built on; they would have their own space to "be them" and live as they wished without rubbing shoulders with their neighbors (which tends to make Americans rough around the edges, regardless of age/sex/political views). Currently, many people struggle just getting an apartment, let alone a house. Notably, the mechanics of a new system would need to be worked out, and would likely be abused, manipulated, and ruined because of selfish people, but it's a nice thought.
- lisper 8y ago
  > in practice, someone controls it, and they almost never have the interests of the occupants in mind Yes, that's why I'm advocating leases. This allows you to separate short-term control from long-term control more easily. The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control (the sink needs to be fixed now) but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control (we need to tear down this single family house, which made sense 50 years ago, and replace it with a multi-family unit). > it might be best if everyone received some designed size plot of land That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't.
  - nercht12 8y ago
    > The interests of the occupants are best attended to via short-term control ... but the interests of society are best attended to via long-term control. Sounds nice, but good luck finding politicians and leaders who will exercise just (as in "justice") decisions in this manner. More generally: The problem right now is a people problem, corruption. The system isn't the primary problem. If everyone were benevolent, sharing, kindhearted individuals, then we'd work together to see everyone had a home, regardless of whether the system was capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. Instead, we live in a world of selfish people. sigh It's nice to talk about theories though. :) > That might work if there was a constant supply of new land to distribute, but there isn't. True, but there is plenty of unused land. Just that people tend to crowd the coasts. EDIT: I didn't finish my thought. I meant to add that there's still enough earth for people to occupy for years... and we can build vertical realestate too.
    - lisper 8y ago
      > The problem right now is a people problem, corruption No, I don't agree. I've done a lot of traveling in Africa so I know what corruption looks like, and what we have in the West ain't it (yet). The situation we're in is a result of people acting rationally within a set of rules that were predicated on some assumptions that are no longer true, like that the demand for labor is essentially infinite. The rules are also based on some assumptions that were never true, like that societal well being can be objectively measured in terms of GDP or ROI or something like that, and that infinite growth is possible. To fix this problem we need to fundamentally change the rules of the game to better align with today's reality, and more importantly, tomorrow's likely reality: machines can do pretty much anything that humans can do, so the market value of labor is almost certainly going to plunge. That's good for buyers, but bad for sellers. But sellers are people too. We can't just discard them the way we do excess horses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_Need_Not_Apply).

yelloweyes 8y ago

"Historically" is not an argument. In 2005, historically, Myspace was THE social network and Facebook was basically nothing.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
You look at historical trends, not a single point in time. It's not historically Myspace was the social network, it's historically social networks are displaced by others, of which Facebook is only the latest incarnation. And the future of Facebook is Myspace, ideally sooner rather than later, but eventually one way or another. If every time something has happened before it has had the same result, trying it again and expecting something else is not a plan that inspires confidence.

perfunctory 8y ago

> The government struggles administering drivers licenses. What do you mean?