I just saw dewards. I meant, of course, rewards. No edit button and i was in too much of a gurry - you know, curry, burry, hurry... one of those bearby ketters.
TBC
-- Updated August 29th, 2017, 7:40 pm to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:
How about "Alignments" instead of Factions"? Out of the ones you had suggested, perhaps "Branches" would be the most adequate.
Sure, why not? I imagine these agencies would all share information and consult one another before making decisions - that is, co-operate in long-range planning.
These are all rough ideas, where specific wording is all subject to modification.
I get that. It wasn't a serious objection.
[/quote]
Each Alignment has their own hierarchy of achievement within each group (similar to the military rank).[/quote]
I'm not a fan of militarism in any endeavour, nor chains of command based on rank and obedience. Biggest problem: who decides the promotions? I prefer a more democratic system of leadership, and cell-structure of functions and responsibilities. Just a detail.
2. Avoid terms Socialism or Communism due to unfavorable historical connotation
To be fair, he couldn't avoid mentioning those ideologies without being accused of a copout. This wasn't a formal essay, but a forum contribution.
My own comment: I don't give a flying fig who has a problem with connotation: I remain a steadfast socialist.
(Generally bad approach = wasteful, inefficient, often unfair)
Not sure to what this refers.
3. Issue with your core concept of the government
It's not
my concept. The capitalism part doesn't come under government auspices. The proposal if for a transition to a better arrangement which would cause the least social disruption to achieve, rather that what might be built after a complete breakdown or revolution.
= Socialist Capitalism (similar to China, not great for human rights, freedoms, and excessive bureaucracy)
That's not an issue here. China's problems grow out of china's history and leadership, not the core concepts of a political model.
In fact, nobody in the last three hundred years has been able to get away from capitalist commerce, and nobody in the last four thousand years has been able to get away from money. Any government and economy we know about will have been constrained by established ownership and international trade.
4. Competition and duplication – bad approach.
I don't understand this one. Duplication of what? Bad approach to what?
Competition is necessary as a motive. Without competition no one will want to do anything.
Where does this conviction come from? That's a very serious question.
Examine your own motivations for your various decisions and actions. Pick ten high achievers from history, in arts, sciences, scholarship and social service - and examine their motives.
Then consider what motivates thousands of ordinary people to make helpful videos and post them on you tube, to share their knowledge and experience.
5. The social sector is based on the honor system of wealth distribution (No money).
No, it relies on strict regulation by elected administrators.
6. Big problem. Who coordinates the labor market?
There is no such thing as a labour market. It's one of capitalism's big fat lies.
The public sector in this model doesn't buy or sell anything. It simply co-ordinates the distribution resources, energy, basic goods and services.
What is the incentive to participate?
Physical well-being and security. This is your part-time job in exchange for which you get food, shelter, health-care, transportation and education.
2-3 hours work days and “no one gets a free ride”. Why not?
Except old people, children, the disabled and injured.
Government structure and the relationship to the citizens is no different than Communism.
Yes, if a government had ever actually operated on communal principles.
Controlling the police and the military.
By what other agency can police and military be controlled?
What prevents the government corruption of power?
I believe I went into that in some detail in my responses. Zatamon didn't cover the structure of government nor the process of selection. I proposed a system that could insure maximum transparency with minimum corruption opportunity. Fundamentally: since administrators don't have money flowing through their hands, it can't stick. Since theyare insulated from the private sector, they can't take any pay or kickbacks, award contracts, hand out favours or receive support from influential citizens. They have little or nothing to gain.
Since the terms of office are short and there are no career politicians, nobody has time to consolidate power.... Power over whom, or what, anyway?
7. Multiple dangerous implications in such government structure.
Such as?
8. The government relationship with the Free Market private sector is problematic. There has to be some concept for the exchange rate.
Why? What are they exchanging?
... it’s not that much different from Communism.
And what is communism?