Our societal system is inherently flawed

The idea that we all compete with each other for our share of some imaginary and yet limited pie is something i find both counterproductive and highly control orientated.

The idea that we all work to accrue some consensually agreed (by whom and when) upon form of exchange does not seem to be taking us in the right direction...?

Are we not limiting ourselves and the possibilities we have as a planet within these systems.

We have the technology, the capability and the intelligence to create something amazing, but somehow within this framework it all keeps getting moved in the wrong direction.

The framework for a better system according to my humble opinion would run as follows:

Every single person would receive an equal share of everything... housing, food, clothing...
No party political system, only individual representation...
Mandatory period of service in jobs or tasks less desirable before moving onto preferences...

There are obviously a lot more points to make, but being limited by work at present

We already have the systems in place for the delivery of all that is needed and the supply of all services.
We already have a lot of the decision making structures in place, it is just that they have been corrupted and have no or insufficient checks and balances.
It is simply that we are doing this all at present on a greed and competitive basis...

The calls regarding similarities to communism are apparent, however at no point in history has any system such as this been implemented without underlying greed and disproportionate distribution.

Only part of your post worth reading, and then only to laugh at your utopian insanity. I have another idea, why don't we just print more money and hand it out?

I'm not going to get into dissecting that point for point but the biggest problem with this and many similar philosophies is that what you propose is completely contrary to human nature. Greed is an intrinsic part of our nature, I would even argue that without it we wouldn't have evolved to anything more than the primoridial soup we came from.

If we were nothing but a collection of automatons such philosophies would work brilliantly.

And there are reasons for that. The ideology has a lot of attractions but is fundamentally flawed in that it involves humans.

Every single person apart from the ones who think they are more important than others.

You forgot the part where everyone gets a pony

Obviously I seem to be an exception here in believing that humans may be capable of doing something positive...

I don't believe in Human Nature... It is nothing more than learned response...

There numerous examples where the human nature touted above as a point of failure is the exception in peoples experience...

I don't find validity in Human Nature as a reason for failure...

The systems we have at present are also influenced by these negative elements, yet they exist...

I believe that we as a species are capable of rising above the pool of own collective feces that we seem to be swimming in...

I believe that a "Utopia" can exist, but small minded attitudes confined by their scope of experience seem to dominate the spectrum of public opinion at present.

No every single person...

without fail...

eg. if every single person had the exact same opportunties as the person beside them, and beside them, and beside them, why is there a need for more when you already have more than enough.

Lets see if we can include the pony somewhere...?

I am looking for ideas on a better framework when compared to what we have at present...

You use the term "greed" to connote a negative quality, yet without it our ancestors wouldn't have been able to survive let alone evolve into human beings. In other words we wouldn't be here without it.

Can we change? Can we continue to evolve? Possibly but we're doing a heck of a lot to stop the natural process of evolution within our species and your proposal would only hinder any possible evolution even further.

I would call this view realistic rather than small minded.

Realism is subjective...

Yes possibly you are correct about greed, but is it just possible that perhaps we may have evolved past that now, therefore bringing other possibilities into our reality.

Ok...

How does technological advancement happen then? Seriously, that is an honest question.

The way our system works now allows for the most rapid technological advancement: New advanced things cost more to produce, and therefore to buy. In time, this cost goes down, so eventually everyone can afford it.

In your system, nothing new would be created until absolutely everyone could have it simultaneously?

Seriously, everything you have written sounds like the Soviets from the beginning of their revolution: modern technology and the “new man� would allow us to operate not based on “greed� but on our highest ideals.

In the end, the world needs to Luxury cars, because that technology works down to the base models.

The problem with all these system is this: all resources are limited, and will always be competed over. If you can propose a society that solves the question of two men going after the same woman... good luck

There was a time when I would have agreed with you, I think most of us have at some point believed or longed to believe that a utopia is possible. It's just that most of us grew out of that notion ...

It sounds like what you're proposing is very similar to what was proposed by Engels and Marx in the Communist Manifesto. The problem with the Communist Manifesto is that people are inherently greedy by nature - it's partly to do with the human survival instinct to get what you can - because it might not be there tomorrow.

Another flaw in your assumuptions is that the "pie" is finite - it is not, in my opinion. The size of the pie increases as the size of humanity does, as new avenues for capital growth and new technologies are uncovered.

What is seriously flawed in modern culture is the spiritual/ethical ways in which to divide up the pie. Some people would call that "finding religion." I would call it "being practical about what we have." The biggest problems that the human race will have in the next 30-50 years will have to do with energy, water and global warming. Wars will begin in the next 15-20 years because of these same things. The question should be: how do we control our greed enough so that everbody on the planet has enough food and water to survive?

But why do you think treating everybody the same would be an improvement? We are all different. Do I get the same amount of food? How much is that? I'm taller than most. Do I get the same size clothes? I'm using more resouces then. We are all different.We need a system that reflects that and allows everybody to fulfill their potential.

Do you want everything that everyone has now? Or do you want what you want at present...

There are no costs because there is no form of exchange apart from the individuals service to the collective...

There are always individuals whose interests lie in technology and developing it, whilst others have absolutely no interest in these fields...

I don't agree at all. Human Nature is some learned response, but most of it is, in my opinion, evolutionary in nature. I'm 39 years old and still single - I'm just now realizing that my success with women (or rather, lack therof) has to do with me attempting to execute my learned responses rather than performing what evolution intended. But I digress...

Do not underestmate the power of what we as humans have evolved into.

I see your point. But if consumerism, social snobbery, office politics and national politics are anything to go by, one-upmanship and self-aggrandisement are very popular. Perhaps even a certain number of the idealistic hippies/gurus who set up supposedly egalitarian communes have done so because they're on a power trip.

Like people have mentioned, it's all to do with greed. Communism is a great idea in theory, but it will never work in practice because of greed. Capitalism is the one system we have that works with greed, and although unrestricted Capitalism would destroy us all, when it is kept in check by a democracy, I believe it's the best system we have.

What incentive would there be to excell? Or to even perform any more than is absolutely necessary?

Where would we be without those who have been driven to excell? Very few people do anything extraordinary without incentive and why would you?

For simplicity sake I'll explain it like this. Why would a person who is given a set amount of, say, food work harder than absolutely necessary? By working harder, his body requires more energy but because he can't get it, he's always hungry and therefore is essentially being punished for working harder.

Nice. So your response is "everything is fine now, stop trying".

That is easy to say when you are perfectly healthy. So in your 'ideal world' all medical research should come to a halt? What about making cars safer?

We'd all have pushbikes.

That's a little sad.. the notion that somehow we all have grow out of our dreams and submit to a "reality" less than we desire...


Please see human nature post above... It doesn't exist... set of learned responses...


No maybe I didn't explain that correctly, the original posts intention is to illustrate that the pie is both imaginary in it's existence and the idea that it is limited...


And that is precisely the point of the original post... surely there is a better solution to these issues than fighting wih big fuck off guns over the resources...


I was not clear, obviously individuals have varying needs and need to be treated accordingly...


I could not have said it better myself...

Sounds to me like there’s someone here that’s a communist in denial.

It's not sad, no one is telling you, you have to give up your dreams, you're welcome to keep believing in Santa Claus as well. I'm merely saying that most people do grow out of it.

you're assuming once again he won't have enough... He has all that he needs and more...

Advancement comes from those who have genuine interest in their fields...

How does it work now...

Yes companies pay money to have those with genuine interest i n their fields make progress...

There is very little difference apart from the methods of application...


No that's not what i said at all... We develop new technologies now, why should that stop...


That is not at all what I said and let me repeat...

There is no reason for any development to stop...

Would you seriously do your job if you got no compensation for it?

How many people in this world are actually in a job that they love or even like? Most of the jobs out there are menial and boring not to mention hard physical labour, only a fraction of the work is in any way stimulating for most people. How would it be decided who get the few coveted good jobs?

I think you mean not kept in check by a democracy??

If so, I agree 100%. Many of the problems in the US, for example, are due to the fact that the people - those that are responsible for keeping rampant capitalisim in check - are either too ignorant or too lackadaisical to see or care that the government is pulling the wool over their eyes.

I wouldn't need any compensation because I have everything i need...

I have the food I need, the housing i require, the transport i require...

If i want to fly back to Australia and visit my family I can do that...


We would all be required to perform menial tasks for a period before moving onto preferences...
The decisions run now on who is best qualified, why should that change!

Wow, just wow... how old are you?

Let me see if I have things right here then.

Recipe for a perfect society

Step 1: Kill everyone over 6 months old

Step 2: ???


Again, if you are going to posit that resources are unlimited, the burden of proof is on you. Please do so, explain how your unlimited pie society deals with the following situations

- A doctor who is better than others, and can cure the sick… but can only operate so much
- An engineer, like the doctor above… what project does he work on?
- Two men want to marry the same woman…


And there’s the rub… who decides who needs what? Who decides someone needs something?

I hate to say it, but the reason the stuff you talk about isn’t discussed more is because it is very basic. Most of us wish there were a better, utopian ideal you describe, however we’ve all realized it isn’t possible.

Comes down to this: companies are better at organising labor and capital to supply most of the needs of society.

Goods/services are priced into the marketplace and consumer are given the ability to vote for said items by agreeing to pay the price. Companies may respond by lowering prices and lowering productions costs by investing in technology. Cost of products vis-a-vis the consumer approaches the break-even point.

Why do free-market economies out-perform rigidly government controlled ones? Did I miss something here, or are you just having a laugh?

My preference is to be a musician. How long do I have to do menial tasks before I get to sit around and play music all day?

Yes, but you haven’t addressed who gets things first. You also haven’t addressed how we decide which technology should be used… competition among technology leads to improvement. Governments have done a terrible job in the past ‘deciding’ which one is best.

Also, where is the incentive?

Ugh… I was going to write more, but I’m at a loss. Pleb, please review the entire 20^th century to see why you are wrong, goodbye.

Sorry, ER, the peoples democratic front has analyzed the need for musicians, and determined that only one person is needed for this job. How would you like to shovel coal?

Damnit! There's this life down the tubes, hopefully I'll have better luck the next time around.

Plus your family has a history of resisting the needs of the peoples democratic front and thusly, you have been identified as a threat to the goals of the peoples democratic front...

Such sarcasm is not constructive...


who decides now, do we not already have systems such as these in place... human resources etc...?

These systems are for the larger part already functioning and as said before they are limited by lack of checks and balances...


32 and counting...

Very philosophical on a Monday morning.

Monday morning blues perhaps at the thaught of another week of futile office work...

It would be great if we could have a different society, but i don't know if that is ever achievable. people are greedy and even if you have a great 'equal' system, you only need 1 person who doesn't comply and then others will start as well.

Think I need to go on my lunch break now.

That sounds like a luxury, to me, not a need. Many of my ancestors in the States wanted to visit their families in Europe, but had everything available in North America necessary for their survival.

Who defines "need" and who defines "luxury"? And what should they be?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Duh!

It addressed a valid issue.. how do you propose we get rid of these 'learned responses'


the marketplace does... remember, "monetary exchange"? Companies which can hire the better engineers get the better ones. They can hire them because they have more money. They have more money because people buy their products. People buy their product because they feel they need them... or if you don't like that word usage... they feel that having the said product will increase their happyness in such a way to make it worth the labor required to purchase said product.

So basically the summary of your unguided thought process is: I wish everything were happening exactly as it is now, I just wish it were motivated by idealism instead of greed.

As already stated we have threse systems in place already, who gets the position first is at present normally the best qualified applicant, why should that change!


There will always be those who do not want to operate within any system, such as myself right now, but I play the game or i don't receive any benefits associated with the system...

On that note, my need to get my work done so that I can make money to pay me bills far outweighs the luxury of time to stay on this thread, keep up with it, and post my opinions after giving necessary thought.

Ciao for now...

TROLL!!!

No, there are many things that need to be changed...

The wasteful use of our resources, the corruption in our political systems, the unfettered greed of our corporations...

The marketplace does not decide, last time I looked a person decided I would be employed...

mmm, then the company had a need, based on the success of the product/service that satisfies a MARKET.

this is a troll, come on admit it.

Agreed, the naive idealism troll thing is fun, but I'm done... Pleb, you are quite provably wrong, as I said earlier, please examine the 20th century to see why you are wrong. Start here

So what you're saying is that it stems from a desire within the community for the product...

That's quite obvious...

Nah, no troll here...

Honest questions on a search for a better alternative than this!

As stated previously, this has not been applied without disproportional distribution and rampant corruption and therefore the Soviet Union is not a valid example...

I am also not speaking about this in relation to individual countries, but a whole planet perspective...