Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.
Printable View
Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.
To be honest, the first things I would introduce would be concerning the environment. I would create incentives for both businesses and individuals to help honour and protect the environment. I would introduce harsh penalties for those who pollute and destroy the environment.
We've got to start with the environment because there won't be a future otherwise. Once we've sorted that one out, we can look towards the economy...
Except her royal highness of course ;)Quote:
Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.
Do you realize you're talking like yet another economist here? Karl Marx + simon = Karl Simon. :DQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
I have already acknowledged that capitalism is the best of the bunch that we currently have. The point is, we need to find a system that works better. A system that leverages the good points from capitalism and leaves the bad points behind.
I too agree that capitalism is the best we have, at present. No new system is going to be adopted overnight, however. It will be developed based upon the everchanging finanical and economic conditions that develop around the globe.
Greed is also a part of what drives us all. It cannot be denied. Instead of denying it, it 'should' be sidelined, so that it is not a factor in the overall working of a system.Quote:
Human endeavour needs to be rewarded and not smothered. However, greed should not be. Capitalism works by convincing us we need things we really don't. This is how it drives human progress. However, it leads to feelings of disatisfaction and self-inadequacy.
It is not highly unstable. I have already shown how it IS stable. It has withstood several 'catastrophes' in the past remarkably well, and even the example I stated, 9/11, goes on to support this fact. Also, a consequence of capitalism is inequality, it is not driven by it. Capitalism is driven by profits.Quote:
Capitalism is driven by inequality and is highly unstable.
What the **** are you on about?Quote:
Honeybee says
Mendhak, yes mankind will try generating newer resources, but somehow I think the speed will be less. One day, the needs will outweigh the resources. Consider this simple situation. If you are out of a job, don't have enough money to have one meal a day, you keep thinking, "Oh god, at least let me have a job that will pay me enough to have some food everyday." When you get a job that pays you enough to get the bare minimum needs satisfied, you start thinking, "It would be nice to have a job that allows me to save enough to go to a restaurant once a month" You land a job that pays you higher than the bare minimum, so you are able to save up and visit a restaurant once a month. Then you eye a job that will let you pay for a decent apartment, so you move into a better apartment. Then you seek a job that lets you have a car, then a few pieces of furniture, then to support a family, then for the kids' education and so on and so on. When you find that there are no jobs available that will pay you that much, you venture out on your own and start your own business. You reap in profits never seen before, but you will still crave for more dough. It's a growing business and in order to keep it growing you require more funds ... The loop will never terminate.
Exactly what you just said Honeybee. That's pretty much what I said in my first post.
We have it too good in our society. Kids today "need" a game console. When they have it they "need" another game. Those aren't needs, but they don't know the difference because they've never been in "need" of anything. Their basic survival is taken care of.
I think it's a cycle. First we have nothing - tribal society. Then our society "advances" to the point where we are now. I think we're not taking the path to advancement as much as we're taking the path to collapse.
The collapse isn't inevitable, but we don't seem to be learning the right things either. If our values don't get adjusted, the collapse will happen and we'll be back at taking care of our basic needs again.
And as simon and I have both said, the people will be more satisfied because our self-image won't be dependent on brand-name conformity. In fact, self-image won't even be an issue. Finding nourishment, a safe place to sleep and a good partner will provide all the satisfaction a person will want.
Well, well, well, if it isn't Jeremiah Roddenbach.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Equality for all people in a state. One law to abide created by and for the people.
its a very well known bogus argument mendhak, I know I'm using it right now, but unfortunately philosophers have learnt from their mistakes this way too. A contradiction.Quote:
How so? Any general populace does have the brains enough to make decisions based upon what they observe. In this case, the other system I was referring to was observed to be useless in the face of the changing economy, and capitalism was accepted as the best. Does that not make it an argument enough? What type of 'argument' do you want for this?
the gap can both increase and decrease, between two parts, but we have a 2^human population parts to take into account for, such a statement is flawed, if you want mathematical proof, I have.Quote:
I was referring to "if someone gains capital, someone else looses." This does imply the very same as the increasing divide between the rich and poor. If it does not, please tell me how.
Define resourcesQuote:
I see we disagree on the concept of resources here.
I will have a look at your other posts
EVERYONE GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS YOU MISSED!!
If I had the power to change one thing, then I wouldn't change the type of society because they are all equally flawed. So I would use my change to make the pay scales equate to the good of a contribution and there would be a cap.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Cafeenman
This is a very good question and I think it is one t hat we should all attempt to answer. Name one thing that people would change if we had the power to do so...
So those who provide education and public service would be on the high end of the scale but nobody would make so much that they could just hoard it away. If they were careful with their spending, they can still afford a nice house, a boat or what have you, but nobody needs a property in 5 countries with a full staff and still have multi-billions in the bank.
COFFEE MAN
"Good of a controbution"!! Who is going to judge this? People may even argue what is the better contribution! A priest will argue his case with "God" on his side, a prostitute may argue that she provides pleasure, and a sweeper will say that she keeps the environment clean for all of humanity.Quote:
Cafeenman says
If I had the power to change one thing, then I wouldn't change the type of society because they are all equally flawed. So I would use my change to make the pay scales equate to the good of a contribution and there would be a cap.
So those who provide education and public service would be on the high end of the scale but nobody would make so much that they could just hoard it away. If they were careful with their spending, they can still afford a nice house, a boat or what have you, but nobody needs a property in 5 countries with a full staff and still have multi-billions in the bank.
What then?
:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Well, well, well, if it isn't Jeremiah Roddenbach.
Don't tell me you object to that idea ...
I think its too crowdy in here
I knew you'd ask :DQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I was going to propose a deal: you telling me how you got the word "****" in and I telling you what the **************** it was about :D But after quoting you I have changed my mind :p
I am simply trying to say is you need a brain to create a new resource and you need a dick to create a need. You decide which one will be used most often. ;)
.
Anyways, if you'll look over time, the demands have constantly increased. When, if possible to point out, have they ever decreased? Right from the beginning (of whenever) needs increase, technology has helped increase the demand manifold. With needs come demands, and with demands come needs. THey help each other and they also propagate.
Kedaman, if you're reading this, this is how I'm viewing the concept of a resource. This is the resource that propagates us to continue forward, to meet needs and create even more.
I agree that it's entirely subjective. But in this case I get to decide and that's the decision I made. If we value "capital" then the music industry and sports stars get the money because they definitely make money.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
COFFEE MAN
"Good of a controbution"!! Who is going to judge this? People may even argue what is the better contribution! A priest will argue his case with "God" on his side, a prostitute may argue that she provides pleasure, and a sweeper will say that she keeps the environment clean for all of humanity.
What then?
But my "improvement" is to make people better through education and helping others and less emphasis on having "stuff."
You can answer the question any way you like. And you are not Mendhak, by the way.
I can answer this two ways:Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I think its too crowdy in here
1) Refresh often and try to keep up.
2) The same can be said for the world. Everyone has a right to have kids, but somebody has to decide not to. That is a large part of the problem. Too many people who want too much. Even if they didn't want too much, our resources are definitely being taxed - and I don't mean financially. :)
Don't tell me you were serious? What you stated was the most basic definition as it had started out for democracy, around uhm.. a thousand years ago or something.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
:confused:
Don't tell me you object to that idea ...
If you're referring to capitalism, maybe you'll elaborate? I mean your idea is a very very stripped down version of democracy, one that no longer can really hold (in today's world)
Cafeenman, you have the problem nicely formulated
Your emphasis on "Less emphasis on having "stuff"" is actually against human nature. If this were truly possible, it may have been implemented in the first place, and we'd live in utopia or a semi-utopia or something.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
[B]
But my "improvement" is to make people better through education and helping others and less emphasis on having "stuff."
OK, OK, it's your decision, a theory, therefore I'll cease.
HUH??? :confused:Quote:
And you are not Mendhak, by the way.
That is the way things are now. I don't agree that's the way things should be. On some days I'm fully in favor of genetic elimination - those who are severely genetically defective are not allowed to reproduce.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
If I work more, I should have a right to more rewards, and if I have a sick brother back home who cannot go to work.
On other days I see that as being a totally inhumane concept. But in either case, I don't believe that a person who is unable to contribute through no decision or fault of their own should have to barely subsist while others are capable of contributing get to have a higher quality of life. Everyone should be provided the means to enjoy their lives. It's up to the individual to actually do it though.
After you post, make sure you go back one full page and read everything. Takes time, and by the time you reply something, a new page emerges. So do it again.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I think its too crowdy in here
OK, I'm not keeping up well with this thread, but I hate passing up being complimented, so which of my posts are you referring to?Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Cafeenman, you have the problem nicely formulated
really ...
then why are certain persons immune to law then ? Politicians who cannot be prosecuted before their immunity is relieved for one, a Queen who virtually cannot be prosecuted as a second ...
Then why does our police force use different measures for different people ? Why do they judge others to be more susceptible to crime or, the other way around, why are they too lenient on someone of foreign origin.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not equality.
As for capitalism : it thrives on inequality, it works on the basis that some people are better than others.
My idea was rather : one law for everyone and everyone, from top to bottom is treated the same. No lenient procedures on people who are of importance. A crime is a crime.
The competition thing is a good wheeze but I would go for regulated competition.
Hence my preferrence for social democracy rather than hard capitalism. It's not because you can't live up to your potential that you should be written off entirely and that is exactly what happens too much nowadays.
Someone not fit enough is simply left behind with no chance of getting back in the system.
Of course I'm serious :rolleyes:
I'm seeing a lot of utopia oriented concepts here. Why not come out with some practical concepts that can be improvements upon the present system of capitalism.
After all, that is the topic at hand... or related, rather.
One more time....Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Your emphasis on "Less emphasis on having "stuff"" is actually against human nature. If this were truly possible, it may have been implemented in the first place, and we'd live in utopia or a semi-utopia or something.
Human nature has nothing to do with good for society. They are not necessarily exclusive, but as I said before... people are stupid and don't make good choices. Look at the world as it is today. It is like it is from choices made by people. If you like the world the way it is, then there's not a problem, is there?
If you don't like the world the way it is, then we need people to make better choices. My way inflicts that on them whether they like it or not.
I should repeat a LOT of utopia like concepts and ideas. A dime a dozen.
We don't live in utopia, and rest assured, it will never be attained. We live in a practical world filled with *******s like you, me, him her and it.
I ask anyone to bring forth a practical idea, if possible, for that would be more appropriate, wouldn't it?
Mine is not a utopia concept. In fact, most European countries have been working out that idea for the last 20 years. With impressive results and impressive failures to. But they're constantly reminded that it needs work.
All in all, I'd prefer that system over a hard capitalistic society.
What countries are you referring to? I'm a little surprised to say I'm not aware of these ideas being worked out... or maybe I've come across the examples, but never realized it.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Mine is not a utopia concept. In fact, most European countries have been working out that idea for the last 20 years. With impressive results and impressive failures to. But they're constantly reminded that it needs work.
All in all, I'd prefer that system over a hard capitalistic society.
GODDAMNIT!
shucks! It's almost 6 and I have to go home. I'm afraid that by the time I come back, I'll have to sift through a thousand pages of postings, and by the time I reach the end I'll be so utterly confused I'll just drop out of here. :(
Practical would be a salary cap. If your argument about everyone being able to excel is true, then in theory, everyone could have as much money as Bill Gates. If everyone had as much money as Bill Gates, then money would be seriously devaluated. The fact is that in order for some to excel, some have to fail.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
I'm seeing a lot of utopia oriented concepts here. Why not come out with some practical concepts that can be improvements upon the present system of capitalism.
After all, that is the topic at hand... or related, rather.
We like to blame the failures for not being motivated enough, but somebody HAS to do it. Capitalism will create failures from people who may not have failed otherwise.
Anyway, I think a salary cap would be a serious improvement because the excess would have to go somewhere which I hope would filter into societal programs and to people in need.
When we got the Lotto in Florida, there was this big deal about how most of it would go to education. Do you know what actually happened? They took away the money education was getting and gave them the lotto money. Now education gets the same as it got before and the rest goes to wherever it goes. The fact is they deliberately deceived us into voting for the lotta because it was supposed to improve education. I don't know what actually happened to it, but it didn't go to the schools.
There was a point to that, but I forgot what it was. :(
Stay late. You'll impress your boss.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
shucks! It's almost 6 and I have to go home. I'm afraid that by the time I come back, I'll have to sift through a thousand pages of postings, and by the time I reach the end I'll be so utterly confused I'll just drop out of here. :(
What countries ?
you're kidding me right ?
Try Germany, Holland, Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Italy, France ...
Ever heard of the Rheinland model, the Poldermodel ?
I haven't. What are they?Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Ever heard of the Rheinland model, the Poldermodel ?
You may have forgotten your point, but I get what you're saying. You're pointing at corruption, and keeping a check on it. It's just that I had found your previously stated idea a bit too, erm... what's the word for it... 'idea type thing'... ok, fill in the word for me if you can.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
Practical would be a salary cap. If your argument about everyone being able to excel is true, then in theory, everyone could have as much money as Bill Gates. If everyone had as much money as Bill Gates, then money would be seriously devaluated. The fact is that in order for some to excel, some have to fail.
We like to blame the failures for not being motivated enough, but somebody HAS to do it. Capitalism will create failures from people who may not have failed otherwise.
Anyway, I think a salary cap would be a serious improvement because the excess would have to go somewhere which I hope would filter into societal programs and to people in need.
When we got the Lotto in Florida, there was this big deal about how most of it would go to education. Do you know what actually happened? They took away the money education was getting and gave them the lotto money. Now education gets the same as it got before and the rest goes to wherever it goes. The fact is they deliberately deceived us into voting for the lotta because it was supposed to improve education. I don't know what actually happened to it, but it didn't go to the schools.
There was a point to that, but I forgot what it was. :(
Also, how on earth can you believe that people can exist 'equally' in society? It's never true, never has been, never will. The only place we're equal, is in front of God's eyes, and that too only if God exists.
Otherwise, we're on our own, and we must strive to work in an hierarchial (sp?) society. Am I going off topic here?
As travelled as I am, you've bruised my ego... I haven't heard of those. I will read up on those when I get home.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
What countries ?
you're kidding me right ?
Try Germany, Holland, Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Italy, France ...
Ever heard of the Rheinland model, the Poldermodel ?
CAFEENMAN::
WHy am I not mendhak??? what have I done?
Social democratic models for economy and social advancement. Created in Germany and Holland.Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
I haven't. What are they?
Characteristic is it's open economy idea and an elaborate social security system.
In practice : you go to a hospital, receive a bill and get refunded up to 90% of the amount.
If there are any good links you know, please post them. I would like to read on this. If you don't, I'll search, nevertheless.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Social democratic models for economy and social advancement. Created in Germany and Holland.
Characteristic is it's open economy idea and an elaborate social security system.
In practice : you go to a hospital, receive a bill and get refunded up to 90% of the amount.
Gotta go, I'll come back and check this.
What would happen (this is not a rhetorical question) if people were allowed to pick their job rather than try to get hired. The only criteria is that you have to pick something you enjoy doing, it has to be a contribution and you have to be able to do it to a certain level of competence. So you don't get to pick "playing video games." Although I guess somebody needs to test them.
All the jobs have equal pay, so no job is more enticing than another in that regard.
Would everyone flock towards certain jobs or would things be evenly distributed by demand (more or less). I don't have a clue about the laws that govern these things.
But when you think about it, there are people that enjoy things that I don't. For example, some people enjoy mindless jobs such as assembly lines.
Just something I wonder about sometimes - especially when I'm unemployed. :(
The point of this thread is an ideal society or at least an improved one. So we don't have to stick totally to what we can just go out and change.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Also, how on earth can you believe that people can exist 'equally' in society? It's never true, never has been, never will. The only place we're equal, is in front of God's eyes, and that too only if God exists.
I don't believe all people can exist equally. I just take issue with people who can't contibute having to live at a basic survival level. I think all people deserve to enjoy their lives. So that means that some people will have to have less so other people can have more. That doesn't make them equal. It just makes it better for those who can't do for themselves without taking away other people's ability to enjoy their lives as well.
If I tell you then I would be helping you imposter him.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
CAFEENMAN::
WHy am I not mendhak??? what have I done?
Mostly I'm referring to physically and mentally handicapped people. I'm not sure who else might fall under the "no fault of their own rule." It would have to be an exceptional case. I get to be the judge and nobody is allowed to lie to me. :)Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
How would you distinguish between those who cannot contribute because of their own fault, and those who cannot contribute because of someone else's fault?
mendhak went home so we're all waiting on him. :)Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Has the thread died??
.