5 ms·

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 governme

by 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.

by loceng 13y ago

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.