6 ms·

Humanity threatening its own survival like it currently does is not practical either. Even going back into the ocean like the dolphins is more practical than th

Humanity threatening its own survival like it currently does is not practical either. Even going back into the ocean like the dolphins is more practical than that. And more importantly, I think there is a difference between justified authority and power. Not that I'm automatically accepting employer and employee relationships as desirable, just like with "citizen vs. politician", but for example it's perfectly okay that parents can yank their kids at the arm when those are about to run into traffic, and otherwise curtail their autonomy, as long as it's justified. That's not power, that's authority, and even authority needs to be constantly re-evaluated and justified. If you're on an expedition and the most experienced person leads it, one would expect that when they get sick, they would pass that job on without any fuss at all, since it's about the well-being of the expedition, not about their personal power, right? Notice how in many cases instead we have people asserting ownership, certainly when it comes to employers, and even in politics. When was the last time you strolled into a place and up to the manager/president, proved you're smarter in all ways, and successfully convinced them they should give you their job and work under you? Thought so :P

loceng 13y ago
One way I feel we can give people more power, on the individual level and even out the playing field in employer-employee relationships, is to have the government taking care of all basic living needs - where you don't actually need to work in order to survive. For a business to succeed then, they would have to be kind and people would want to have to work for them out of other options - of which I could see that leading to many more co-operatives and the like.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I like the place you're describing! But finding a way from here to there is the tricky part, isn't it.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    http://flights.expedia.com/cheap-flights-to-sweden/ http://flights.expedia.com/cheap-flights-to-sweden/
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      I'm a big fan of changing where I am, rather than going where others prepared the soil for my liking. Also, if anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania :P
    - loceng 13y ago
      I laughed out loud. Thanks. :)
  - loceng 13y ago
    Me too! It is tricky. I've been working on this problem, and evolving my understanding of the systems influencing it for 12 years now or so. I've been designing a growing plan that I feel has a good chance of getting there or starting the path that will lead there. :) This will incorporate business plans / projects, a charity I am starting, and political aspirations - as policy will eventually need to change, and noise will need to be made to at minimum start discussion and have people raise questions about the status quo.
- chunky1994 13y ago
  Unless I'm missing some obvious sarcasm here, isn't this exactly what a welfare state does?
  - loceng 13y ago
    The welfare state doesn't give a livable wage, it gives a very bare minimum - that doesn't really allow you to function or grow as an individual. Many people who need assistance not only need assistance for food, shelter, but also for counselling and support. Some may never improve where they can be productive to society, though the goal would be to make everyone at least not counter-productive.
- dnautics 13y ago
  isn't the problem here that the people who run the government are in power and as the OP suggests, that makes them incredibly unlikely to be compassionate? At a fundamental level, then, the government seems like a bad candidate to be the agency responsible for "taking care of all basic needs".
  - loceng 13y ago
    Luckily with the internet we can quickly reach people, raise awareness and educate people - and show the positives of the changes that need to happen. I've been formulating a political strategy for many years now that will be self-sustainable, and self-perpetuating - because what you say is true, the people who run the government are in 'power' - and so you need to be able to compete with that, like any business who's going to disrupt the market. I wouldn't use the government in its current state as a good example as to how it could or would be structured in the future - they can be different beasts, old and new.
  - loceng 13y ago
    Also to add, when you only take care of a few of a person's overall needs then the synergy that can take place on the holistic level gets lost - and so the amplification effect and benefits on all of society are lost. You can't go half-ass when it comes to this - people will of course argue what that means and fully encompasses, though there will have to be a methodical, logical, pragmatic, etc. way to determine it - and so far for me business has allowed me to learn the tools and terminology - basically I look for the leading metrics for a healthy society, healthy people, and allow that to guide me; You have to have a definition for what health and wellness are, and what it means too, of course.
- rjsw 13y ago
  What you describe has been suggested as the outcome of implementing a Basic Income, there have been several threads on it here recently.
  - loceng 13y ago
    Indeed. There was also a study done in Canada, I believe in Manitoba, many years ago called MinCome. The data was locked away until recently though, so only recently has research been started into seeing the positives and negatives of it. I'm not sure if simply giving people $X is the best approach, though there will be an approach that will work.
- consonants 13y ago
  The wealthy would fight tooth and nail against this as it threatens their positions of power. If their needs are met, who would toil for them to earn meager amounts of money just so that they can eat and have a roof over their head? Capitalism depends on a class of people that only has one mean of survival: to under sell their labor and time to employers. Closing off of the commons and the privatization of public lands accomplished this a few centuries ago. Giving the common people a basic income rolls back the stronghold the capitalist has on society. Check out Citigroup's leaked Plutonomy paper[1]. It's details, in disgustingly congratulatory terms, such a stronghold. It is also a literal dictionary definition of conspiracy to maintain a political, economical, and societal control of their financial position. [1] http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ - you will have to check some popular bittorrent sites to find the full paper.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I disagree. The wealthy and politically powerful would fight tooth and nail FOR this to consolidate their position of power, by grabbing subsidies for whatever products they provide, which they will fight to classify as "basic needs" and overbill the government for it, or bail them out when their product goes into downturn. For example: In such a future, farmers might claim that food is a "basic need" and fight to get subsidies, and when their food crop goes out of style, they may get the politicians to subsidize their land to go fallow. Or even to the point where their unhealthy crop would be overproduced relative to demand and sold to the public as a a part of a "healthy diet", leading to obesity and widespread medical problem. In such a future, doctors may claim that all of their medical procedures are a "basic need", and fight for a billing system that bills by procedure - to the point of requiring people to purchase coverage for procedures they will likely not need, and leading to unnecessary and risky medical procedures being performed on patients, with an untransparent pricing structure, leading to cost overruns that are an albatross on society. In such a future, bankers may claim that access to financial systems is a "basic need", and when their malfeasance results in systemic economic collapse, they fight for a rescue package that soaks them in money forcibly taken from the public. And in this future, sadly, the truly needy will always find a way to be unhelped by the wealthy and politically powerful (even some who are well-intentioned) who have captured the machinery and redefined "basic need" to their benefit.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Perhaps you missed this when it was posted the other day: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-c...
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  No, and I know there are plenty of decent people.. I guess their power is restricted by their conscience and compassion, and in that sense I wouldn't call them "powerful, period". Yet also plenty of others seem to like their power more undiluted than that, they tend to be generally be very good at ladder climbing, too; and as Aristotle said, one swallow doesn't make a summer. Another saying is that exceptions confirm the rule. Maybe that's just confusing witty sayings with arguments, but until Costco buys out all other companies except Valve et al, I don't see how this changes a lot. I never said you can't work hard or "lead" people, or that big projects don't require coordination and that individuals take themselves back so the undertaking can go smoothly. But power that respects no criticism, no logic, and only bows to equal or greater counter-power, still seems to be the norm, sadly. Kudos to the Costco guy, this bit “I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits,” says Jelinek. “It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.” reminds me of Henry Ford, who at least got that bit right, too. But when you generally look at corporate profits vs. wages, the "Costco spirit" seems to be an outlier. That guy is plain not greedy, which helps.
  - loceng 13y ago
    It also happens to work for their business model to be able to take care of their employees well, much like successful internet companies - through economies of scale they are amassing profits that would otherwise be spread out more equally among society. Costco would be like Walmart of course, though it's nice we have to contrasting examples - yet we're still left with systemic problems that don't take care of the needs of society.

loceng 13y ago

One way I feel we can give people more power, on the individual level and even out the playing field in employer-employee relationships, is to have the government taking care of all basic living needs - where you don't actually need to work in order to survive. For a business to succeed then, they would have to be kind and people would want to have to work for them out of other options - of which I could see that leading to many more co-operatives and the like.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
I like the place you're describing! But finding a way from here to there is the tricky part, isn't it.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  http://flights.expedia.com/cheap-flights-to-sweden/ http://flights.expedia.com/cheap-flights-to-sweden/
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    I'm a big fan of changing where I am, rather than going where others prepared the soil for my liking. Also, if anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania :P
  - loceng 13y ago
    I laughed out loud. Thanks. :)
- loceng 13y ago
  Me too! It is tricky. I've been working on this problem, and evolving my understanding of the systems influencing it for 12 years now or so. I've been designing a growing plan that I feel has a good chance of getting there or starting the path that will lead there. :) This will incorporate business plans / projects, a charity I am starting, and political aspirations - as policy will eventually need to change, and noise will need to be made to at minimum start discussion and have people raise questions about the status quo.
chunky1994 13y ago
Unless I'm missing some obvious sarcasm here, isn't this exactly what a welfare state does?
- loceng 13y ago
  The welfare state doesn't give a livable wage, it gives a very bare minimum - that doesn't really allow you to function or grow as an individual. Many people who need assistance not only need assistance for food, shelter, but also for counselling and support. Some may never improve where they can be productive to society, though the goal would be to make everyone at least not counter-productive.
dnautics 13y ago
isn't the problem here that the people who run the government are in power and as the OP suggests, that makes them incredibly unlikely to be compassionate? At a fundamental level, then, the government seems like a bad candidate to be the agency responsible for "taking care of all basic needs".
- loceng 13y ago
  Luckily with the internet we can quickly reach people, raise awareness and educate people - and show the positives of the changes that need to happen. I've been formulating a political strategy for many years now that will be self-sustainable, and self-perpetuating - because what you say is true, the people who run the government are in 'power' - and so you need to be able to compete with that, like any business who's going to disrupt the market. I wouldn't use the government in its current state as a good example as to how it could or would be structured in the future - they can be different beasts, old and new.
- loceng 13y ago
  Also to add, when you only take care of a few of a person's overall needs then the synergy that can take place on the holistic level gets lost - and so the amplification effect and benefits on all of society are lost. You can't go half-ass when it comes to this - people will of course argue what that means and fully encompasses, though there will have to be a methodical, logical, pragmatic, etc. way to determine it - and so far for me business has allowed me to learn the tools and terminology - basically I look for the leading metrics for a healthy society, healthy people, and allow that to guide me; You have to have a definition for what health and wellness are, and what it means too, of course.
rjsw 13y ago
What you describe has been suggested as the outcome of implementing a Basic Income, there have been several threads on it here recently.
- loceng 13y ago
  Indeed. There was also a study done in Canada, I believe in Manitoba, many years ago called MinCome. The data was locked away until recently though, so only recently has research been started into seeing the positives and negatives of it. I'm not sure if simply giving people $X is the best approach, though there will be an approach that will work.
consonants 13y ago
The wealthy would fight tooth and nail against this as it threatens their positions of power. If their needs are met, who would toil for them to earn meager amounts of money just so that they can eat and have a roof over their head? Capitalism depends on a class of people that only has one mean of survival: to under sell their labor and time to employers. Closing off of the commons and the privatization of public lands accomplished this a few centuries ago. Giving the common people a basic income rolls back the stronghold the capitalist has on society. Check out Citigroup's leaked Plutonomy paper[1]. It's details, in disgustingly congratulatory terms, such a stronghold. It is also a literal dictionary definition of conspiracy to maintain a political, economical, and societal control of their financial position. [1] http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ http://mathbabe.org/2012/08/30/citigroups-plutonomy-memos/ - you will have to check some popular bittorrent sites to find the full paper.
- dnautics 13y ago
  I disagree. The wealthy and politically powerful would fight tooth and nail FOR this to consolidate their position of power, by grabbing subsidies for whatever products they provide, which they will fight to classify as "basic needs" and overbill the government for it, or bail them out when their product goes into downturn. For example: In such a future, farmers might claim that food is a "basic need" and fight to get subsidies, and when their food crop goes out of style, they may get the politicians to subsidize their land to go fallow. Or even to the point where their unhealthy crop would be overproduced relative to demand and sold to the public as a a part of a "healthy diet", leading to obesity and widespread medical problem. In such a future, doctors may claim that all of their medical procedures are a "basic need", and fight for a billing system that bills by procedure - to the point of requiring people to purchase coverage for procedures they will likely not need, and leading to unnecessary and risky medical procedures being performed on patients, with an untransparent pricing structure, leading to cost overruns that are an albatross on society. In such a future, bankers may claim that access to financial systems is a "basic need", and when their malfeasance results in systemic economic collapse, they fight for a rescue package that soaks them in money forcibly taken from the public. And in this future, sadly, the truly needy will always find a way to be unhelped by the wealthy and politically powerful (even some who are well-intentioned) who have captured the machinery and redefined "basic need" to their benefit.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Perhaps you missed this when it was posted the other day: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-craig-jelinek-leads-the-cheapest-happiest-company-in-the-world http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-06/costco-ceo-c...

PavlovsCat 13y ago
No, and I know there are plenty of decent people.. I guess their power is restricted by their conscience and compassion, and in that sense I wouldn't call them "powerful, period". Yet also plenty of others seem to like their power more undiluted than that, they tend to be generally be very good at ladder climbing, too; and as Aristotle said, one swallow doesn't make a summer. Another saying is that exceptions confirm the rule. Maybe that's just confusing witty sayings with arguments, but until Costco buys out all other companies except Valve et al, I don't see how this changes a lot. I never said you can't work hard or "lead" people, or that big projects don't require coordination and that individuals take themselves back so the undertaking can go smoothly. But power that respects no criticism, no logic, and only bows to equal or greater counter-power, still seems to be the norm, sadly. Kudos to the Costco guy, this bit “I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits,” says Jelinek. “It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.” reminds me of Henry Ford, who at least got that bit right, too. But when you generally look at corporate profits vs. wages, the "Costco spirit" seems to be an outlier. That guy is plain not greedy, which helps.
- loceng 13y ago
  It also happens to work for their business model to be able to take care of their employees well, much like successful internet companies - through economies of scale they are amassing profits that would otherwise be spread out more equally among society. Costco would be like Walmart of course, though it's nice we have to contrasting examples - yet we're still left with systemic problems that don't take care of the needs of society.