An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
MarcusPCato wrote:First, Alias, why should we agree that the "compassion" aspect should assume any priority? You failed to justify that, which is really the whole key to your utopia.
MarcusPCato wrote:Secondly, Durant missed a lesson of history: it is also possible to prevent the abuse of power by denying the government the POWER to redirect the economy in the first place, and structure that denial of power in such a way that it takes a super-super majority to amend it.
(Nested quote removed.)
Here governemt as a person-autocrate or group-republic, your statement holds, but... government as 'representative' puts the masses back in the drivers seat. Presently, our representation is horrablily dilute when compared to the monkeysphere of humans, hence the power is shifting to a republic-oligarchy-aristocracy.
MarcusPCato wrote:(Nested quote removed.)
Our government was never intended to be, nor SHOULD it be, a democracy. It was intended to be, following the lead of Marcus Tullius Cicero, a mixed republic with monarchic, aristocratic and democratic elements, each intending to check and balance the other.
Alias wrote:I'm not sure direct democracy is impossible with larger populations, given the present state of technology. If you can organize a national uprising via Twitter, I guess you can hold an election. My suggestion would be to, rather, to keep the political process small and local, which would be easier to organize.
Alias wrote:Can the outcomes be much worse than we have now? We're facing extinction, though most people haven't been told yet. We're wasting an enormous amount of our resources, effort and welfare on strife over wealth - at the cost of survival. What kind of sense does that make?
Alias wrote:Take money, and worry about survival, and the dependence of survival on the ability to acquire money, out of the equation - what happens to the society? What happens to the task of governing and policing? more fundamentally still: For whom does the government exist? And what is its purpose?
Alias wrote:Of course it's possible - we had it for 10,000 years before money was invented. .
Alias wrote:The question is: can we deal with the people who so greatly benefit from money-based governance? No matter how much they deride government's ability to handle money, they won't easily give up a perfect funnel from the citizen's to the mogul's pocket.
Alias wrote: The next question is, can we shake off the brainwashing of the last few hundred years, wherein money was central to everything - even play, love, art and spirituality?
Alias wrote: For sure, once money is out of government, nobody will want to corrupt an official: they won't have the power to award lucrative contracts or pass legislation favourable to greedy backers. How much chicanary can you perpetrate, directing a truckload of turnip? (Yes, there is the possibility of mis-allocating truckloads of steel beams, but since no private contractor gets anywhere near a public-works building site, it would be very much harder.) In the private sector, people can steal and cheat all they want - or all they can get away with - among themselves, without the privileges of a legal structure based on wealth.
Alias wrote: I have no problem with a moral basis to the constitution - no religion, though, or cultural bias; just basic principles that apply to everybody - perhaps something like http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/the UN declaration of human rights.
Alias wrote: The one thing I consider most important in government is that it should never become exclusive to professional politicians and/or bureaucrats. The citizenry needs to be involved at all levels of organization and decision-making, all the time. It's not rocket-science! If GW Bush was qualified to run the world's biggest corporate nation, practical people can run a non-profit organization. If the outcome affects them exactly as it does their fellow citizens, they'd be a lot more responsible than the untouchable millionaires are now. I would recommend terms of two to four years in office, overlapping so you never have all rookies in a council.
David_the_simple wrote:I can see the overlap in concept of democracy, but 10,000 years ago the population was smaller.
A system without money, can it be done ?!
[brain-dewashing] With dynamic, but violent free education, I think it takes 20 years, (if we have that long).
In nature, there appears to be opposing forces, preditor and prey, regretfully, even in sentient social creatures. I would suspect that preditors will find a way to violate moral-fairness-justice whether an economy is based on money or moneyless.
To cap my understanding:
1) morals written into a constitution to help filter out the influence of immoral men in the society
2) moneyless based economy for managing resources to common needs and survival
3) money based economy for those that are willing to 'work' for a higher standard of living
Alias wrote:(Nested quote removed.)
Yeah. It doesn't have to be money; the private sector can use whatever medium of exchange they like. The private sector would probably contain many economic structures on various models, as people experiment. The most aggressive predators would certainly want to take over the whole thing, but if people aren't afraid of them, forced to work for and obey them, that might prove a whole lot more difficult.
David_the_simple wrote: 1) The Common Sector, one to govern resources required for survival, the basic and common needs. I suspecct this would include: water treatment, basic foods, basic housing (most economical possible), road building and maintenace, basic transportation (most economic possible), basic communication network, trash recycling service
2) The Private Sector, one allowing potentially higher standard of living by ambition and competition. With this allowing for bigger homes, sporty cars, state of the art entertainment, etc.
I suspect this would need to be applied on three levels: city, state, national. As each level has nuances, e.g. on a city level we need police and on a national level, we need a basic military.
It would also seem possible for the masses to append into the common sector, at differnt levels, by agreement, non-survival services, eg "we ALL want internet". Here upon agreement, the Common Sector would create jobs and services.
How would the mitigation of working in Common Sector job and purchasing from the Private Sector be done?
Common Sector job "time" to purchase products or service of equal "time" ? (machine production rates vs manual really messes this one up)
Is it possible to come up with a wage/salary-to-value table?
Alias wrote:(Nested quote removed.)
My assumption is that you work your four hours in community service, and then you're free - to play with your kids, make music, or go to your private job to earn whatever the medium of exchange is, over there. Suppose you're a surgeon: put in a shift of ER, then go over to the private clinic and do a face-lift, or whatever; collect fee, buy fancy watch. Of course, in essential services, your public hours would have to vary. It could be flexible in lots of jobs. The best news is, I think we could keep all education in the public sector; free to qualifying students (but we'd train only as many as the public sector needs in each skill-set).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests