If capitalism is so badly flawed...

[mendhak]

And the alternatives aren't very easy to come by.

Brian, I think you'll (maybe) enjoy reading the WHOLE thread. You'll see where the debate headed off to. I liked this one. It actually settled down.

[NotLKH]

5 pages, Boy I'm tired!
Better late than never.

Alrighty. I'd like to backtrack a bit.

I've been making notes, and a few comments during this 5 pager,
So let me start with one question.

Simonm Says:
Human endeavour needs to be rewarded and not smothered. However, greed should not be

I generally agree with your statement, but Perhaps we could get this out of the way.

How do you define "Greed"
Its been said that greed is displayed by acquiring things that one doesn't "need".
In this context, the need is implyed to be that which allows survival.

Personally, To me, that isn't greed. Lets say I buy a book. Perhaps "Domain", {So far, a very good SF, by Steve Alten}.
Certainly, I didn't "need" this book for survival, but I did need it for enjoyment and
Intellectual stimulation. So, was I greedy for buying this book?
Lets assume the answer is "yes, lou, you are a greedy B******!" .
But wait a minute. Could my greedy nature be overbalanced by the fact that I pass the
books that I found exceptionally satisfying to other people, allowing them access to
it for free?

Perhaps greed should be defined as "That which motivates people to excessively collect things that one doesn't "need"."
But then, there exists hobiests, such as stamp collectors. Obviously, if a Stamp collector
has in excess of over four thousand stamps, then by this definition, that collecter is "Greedy".
But lets say we have 2 such hobiests. They both have the same number of stamps, but one collection is
worth $23.00, while the other is worth $621,439.00. Based on the monetary worth, is one more
greedy than the other?

Well, If so, then the def should become:
"That which motivates people to excessively collect expensive things
that one doesn't "need", to increase ones wealth."

But, again, lets say both stamp collectors:

a) Have no motivation to procure stamps based upon their value.
b) Base their collections purely on some artistic appreciation of the renditions on the stamps faces.
c) And, Finally, allow people to freely view their collections, to share the enjoyment of their beauty.

So, which one is greedy?


Ok. Next:

[/i] Mendhak says: [/i]
EVERYONE GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS YOU MISSED!!

Next:


In trying to setup, or improve a society, one needs to have a clear view
of the goal of that society.
So, I've seen "fairness" and "Happyness" bandied about. It seems
to me we have at least 2 different Ideas of what society should
be striving for:

Society #1: All people should be limited in such a way as to insure that all people are equal. No matter what peoples individual tastes and desires are.
Society #2: All people should be allowed to attain maximum satisfaction and happyness, but not at the expense of other members of the society.

I personally think #2 should be the direction that a society should go towards.

But if so, things get extremely complex.

-I'll be back
-Lou

[NotLKH]

If its to be society #2, then we have to
Understand this:

1) There are minimalists. These are people who want to fend for themselves as much as possible, with little or no gov't interference. In a society, "No Gov't interferance" is impossable. Furthur, its undesirable. At the very least, such individuals require health care and education, at the gov'ts expense, since:
sub a) prevention of Epidemics and other health scourges are what societal care excells in.
sub b) education allows the new gen to make educated choicezs of their own future.
2) There are individuals who want to live by working and contribute to society, and recieve that which allows themselves to live in a "civilized" fashion. I have no Idea how else to describe it.
3) Then there are those who want to work, recieve monetary compensation for their work, and rewards if they excell.
4) There are some who like tribal living.
5) There are those who want to work for the gov't, recieving recognition and power.
6) And so on...


I tend to see that, if society #2 is to be achieved, then what is needed is a super society. This super society would coordinate interaction between its sub societies. Each sub society can't exist in a vacuum, but needs the product from all the other sub societies for continued existance.

Imagine a nature preserve, seperated into sub sections engineeed to simulate differing environments. A penguin can't live in central africa, and I firmly doubt a lion could exist in polar conditions, but under a super management, all are happy...


-Lou

[cafeenman]

1) I agree with some of what you said, Lou.
2) I don't agree with some of what ou said, Lou.
3) I don't have a clue what you are talking about in some places, Lou.
4) I think this thread died a while ago, Lou.
5) If your g/f or wife don't think you're the man, why should we?
6) You've gotta be joking, right?

[simonm]

NotLKH

How do you define "Greed"?

I suppose that I would define "greed" to mean the desire to aquire wealth to such an extent whereby you either exploit others to get it or when your aquisitions leave others without.

However, you do have some interesting ideas about the functioning of a new society.

I tend to see that, if society #2 is to be achieved, then what is needed is a super society. This super society would coordinate interaction between its sub societies. Each sub society can't exist in a vacuum, but needs the product from all the other sub societies for continued existance.

How large are these "sub-societies"? Would they be like small communes? I think at the local level, there should be no waste (in terms of able bodied labour) and they should be self sufficient (as far as meeting basic survival needs are concerned).

On a larger scale, I think that the economy should be largely capitalistic and trade should be orchestrated both internally and externally.