Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sergarr]

That doesn't really get rid of capitalism, just means people aren't so dependent on each other for simple survival.  It could be more cheaply accomplished with a universal income.

And then people become threatened with the possibility of losing the universal income for some stupid reason.

I've seen how welfare systems work. It make you completely dependent on the mercy of the one who gives you the money.

It could be more cheaply accomplished with a universal income.

My only complaint with this is that there needs to be some restriction that people need to be doing something, so that they don't just sit around all day being a leech to society.  Can be anything from continuing education to running a buisness, forging armor to creating artwork, working a nine to five job to creating youtube let's plays.  I don't care, just so long as they are doing something and can prove it.

Forcing people to work? USSR tried it, and it didn't work.

[Frumple]

... the incredibly vast majority are already completely dependent on the mercy of the ones who give the money. Actually guaranteeing something livable would be a helluva' improvement.

And @nen, that last bit was definitely good for a chuckle. It's neat to see Palin thinks straight shooting involves drunken brawls.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Forcing people to work? USSR tried it, and it didn't work.

No, they forced people into certain types of work.  This is more, "you've done work to help an aspect of society?  Here's some money."  If certain industries need to be expanded or are critical, those who do work there get a bonus to the money they get.

[SalmonGod]

If people want a quality of life that is only attainable by a certain amount of contribution to society, then they will make that requisite contribution.  If they don't make that contribution, then that quality of life obviously wasn't so important to them.  If a minority want a certain quality of life that the majority isn't willing to work for, the majority is not morally obligated to provide it to them.

I don't understand why so much of political/economic theory comes down to "how can we force people to work".  This thinking seems completely wrong to me. 

People will work as much as they need to get what they want out of life.  Trying to design catches and leverages which force more than that is in my opinion completely immoral.

[Sergarr]

... the incredibly vast majority are already completely dependent on the mercy of the ones who give the money. Actually guaranteeing something livable would be a helluva' improvement.

And @nen, that last bit was definitely good for a chuckle. It's neat to see Palin thinks straight shooting involves drunken brawls.

The universal income is worse, definitely worse.

The bureaucracy would make striving to not lose the universal income hell.

Forcing people to work? USSR tried it, and it didn't work.

No, they forced people into certain types of work.  This is more, "you've done work to help an aspect of society?  Here's some money."  If certain industries need to be expanded or are critical, those who do work there get a bonus to the money they get.

So somebody gets to define what work is and what isn't?

[Helgoland]

Who defines what's helpful to aspects of society?

Sergarr, that's the thing about universal income: It's universal. There's no such thing as losing it.

[Angle]

In all honesty, I try to remain pretty hands-off (dare I say laissez-faire?) with regards to this thread. It's been a slow summer in Washington, and I'd rather it remain near the front page than forgotten about on page five or six, so...meh.

*Laughs Maniacally*

Forcing people to work? USSR tried it, and it didn't work.

No, they forced people into certain types of work.  This is more, "you've done work to help an aspect of society?  Here's some money."  If certain industries need to be expanded or are critical, those who do work there get a bonus to the money they get.

But who keeps track of this? And for that matter, who keeps track of them?

When they'll get abusive, it will already be too late.

Also, who will carry out the function of regulation?

There would be a system of enterprises dedicated to watching other enterprises for corruption, and blowing the whistle if they see any. This includes each other, of course. Regulation is enforced by general agreement - If people are convinced someone is being corrupt, they refuse to deal with them. This does require people to put a constant effort into keeping their society working, but all societies require that, and this one should make it easier than others.

edir: Now that  think about it, It might be worth splitting of a thread to go over this in detail. Anyone interested?

[Helgoland]

There would be a system of enterprises dedicated to watching other enterprises for corruption, and blowing the whistle if they see any. This includes each other, of course. Regulation is enforced by general agreement - If people are convinced someone is being corrupt, they refuse to deal with them. This does require people to put a constant effort into keeping their society working, but all societies require that, and this one should make it easier than others.

Why should I give a damn about my business partner being a corrupt asshole as long as I get paid? Shunning is a powerful measure, but difficult to implement.

As for a dedicated thread: There's been loads of these, and they never end well. That's why I don't present any own ideas and just snipe at those of others

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

So somebody gets to define what work is and what isn't?

Who defines what's helpful to aspects of society?

To answer the who of both of these: the populace.

For the former: Performing studies of whether the task satisfies the definition of work, which is:  "Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result."

For the latter: Crowdsourcing to determine the path of advancement that is the most fitting to advance society.

[Angle]

Why should I give a damn about my business partner being a corrupt asshole as long as I get paid? Shunning is a powerful measure, but difficult to implement.

As for a dedicated thread: There's been loads of these, and they never end well. That's why I don't present any own ideas and just snipe at those of others

Because you might get caught in the crossfire yourself.

I'd be willing to babysit the dedicated thread, and I'm confident I can control myself.

[mainiac]

... the incredibly vast majority are already completely dependent on the mercy of the ones who give the money. Actually guaranteeing something livable would be a helluva' improvement.

And @nen, that last bit was definitely good for a chuckle. It's neat to see Palin thinks straight shooting involves drunken brawls.

The universal income is worse, definitely worse.

The bureaucracy would make striving to not lose the universal income hell.

I think you missed the word "universal".

[Sergarr]

... the incredibly vast majority are already completely dependent on the mercy of the ones who give the money. Actually guaranteeing something livable would be a helluva' improvement.

And @nen, that last bit was definitely good for a chuckle. It's neat to see Palin thinks straight shooting involves drunken brawls.

The universal income is worse, definitely worse.

The bureaucracy would make striving to not lose the universal income hell.

I think you missed the word "universal".

Preeeetty sure that any practical implementation of universal income will have some special exemptions for criminals.

Expand the definition of crime, and you've got welfare system mk. 2.

[Lagslayer]

Yes, and all we need to make the socialist utopia work is the exact same thing every other system is missing!

[PTTG??]

Nope, universal income should be totally universal. We'll pay you from the day you're born to the day you die. Criminals need UI even more than regular citizens; it's what will keep them from continuing to be criminals.

Why would anyone work? For the same reason that people don't say "well, I've got a job at McDonalds making minimum wage, why bother trying to get a raise?"

[Bauglir]

Yeah, if "universal income" is on the table, it needs to be without qualification. None of this waffling about when it comes to "How much is enough work?" or "Is it right to be supporting criminals?" There is no answer to those questions that will satisfy a majority of people. Keep it to pragmatism - will it make society work more smoothly as a whole?

If you really want to focus on particular groups, then you need to frame your questions in terms of who benefits, not who's punished. Really, your question shouldn't be, "How will we punish the leeches?" Your question should be, "How will we reward the creators?" The premise of a post-scarcity society is that letting people "leech off society" ceases to inconvenience the people who don't. When there's no cost to the members of society you prefer, why on earth should you even care about the hypothetical moochers? What justice is there in punishing people for living the lives they want to live, when there's no meaningful cost to anybody else?

The rewards to the creators are obvious - prestige, extra wealth (to whatever extent that's meaningful), and, most importantly, a sense of purpose and accomplishment. To whatever extent anybody ever accomplishes anything great, those are powerful motivators - much moreso than a minimum wage ever has been. Here's how a properly-done post-scarcity society would differ from current Western society, in terms of awesome people doing awesome things:

- The people who already have the ability, resources, motivation, and luck to do great things will continue to do so.
- People who lack resources and luck will find those are less of a problem - you'll see more wonderful things from people who could achieve but were held back by the system. I expect this is a majority of people, but it's certainly nonzero and a clear gain over the present.
- People who are content to coast through life will still be able to do so, but instead of working in fast food or as low-level office drones, they'll be free to do so from their couch. Nothing of value has been lost.

Who, exactly, loses here?