You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Profits Are Not Confiscated Product
Is your clutch changed when you pay for it or when the mechanic completes the work?
All we have to do is keep the mechanic changing clutches.
I propose that he be free to order ANYTHING HE WANTS from the net to be delivered to his door posthaste.
This is, of course, applied across the board.
Just keep working but stop paying.
What would keep him changing clutches? How would he obtain new parts? Why would parts producers keep making clutches? Why would either not stay home and play video games or watch sports?
Where do the new parts come from?
What part of stop paying are you having trouble with?
As for the bums, yes, you are right, but when they begin to starve they will stand up and help, too.
They won't be able to find any love in the community, they will be pariahs, if they are ok with that, we already carry the bums but we carry a social worker, a supervisor, a director, and a governor to go with him, my plan cuts out their salaries, retirements, and health insurance.
Better to just carry the bums and not talk to them.
This proposal does require maturity from the masses, not something they have been bred/indoctrinated for in the last 100 years.
It is up to the visionaries to make it happen, 90% of the masses just don't care.
Unless you are ready to do the months of reading it would take to illuminate you to a level where your cognitive dissonance isn't too loud, we are really at an impasse.
And further conversation may be a waste of time.
But I got plenty to keep going if you do.
I get what you're saying now. So everyone works for free, everyone consumes for free. I see two possible issues with this.
First, some goods took more raw material and effort to produce so there will always be goods of which there are fewer (more scarce) per man-hour spent producing them.
Second, your proposal demands that people be other than they are. If people were other than they are, there are any number of grand ideas of how a society maybe ordered; however, human nature is as it is. Any system, in order to function (at all, let alone perfectly) must take into account both nature as it is, and human beings as they are.
This is just a recipe for a massive tragedy of the commons; the most desirable position for any individual within such a society would be to consume as much as possible while producing as little as possible, with no ownership stake in the commons goods -- and thus no motivation to maintain them.
As long as such an individual can count on Everyone Else doing THEIR part, he has no need to do his.
In other words, it sounds lovely, but ignores human nature.
Nesting stops at 6.
Well, no.
Your 'immutable' human nature has proven to be quite malleable, would you like links to books that can help you understand how wrong you are?
They will be by authors you'll recognize from your studies in crapitalism.
I do not refer to shifting cultural ethics and other niches of "human nature" but rather the immutable facts of what a human being is: a free-will actor which can only know the will of other free will actors through their actions.
The problem with your proposal is it will inevitably result in shortages of some goods and over-production of others. It is more fun to beta-test video games than to clean out a sewer. People will gravitate towards professions which offer the greatest comfort and leisure.
And compounding that is that you cannot know what others' preferences will be. You will not know how much of anything to produce until after it has been consumed (the calculation problem).
This is the immutable human nature I refer to: you can't know my needs and desires until I express them.
If only there were a system for communicating our values so that we can signal production levels...oh wait. There is. It's called "money".
So, I can't know what motivates people, but you can?
I agree that the slave paradigm's elite pay enough to keep the slaves mostly on the plantation, but I do not share your pessimistic view of human beings in general.
I don't agree that my accounting techniques would lead to any more shortages or overages than currently happens, I'd use the same folks and practices that they use today.
Except, the excess would accrue to the leisure of the workers rather than the wealth of the greedy, or the comfort of their hired minions.
I have seen good in people that didn't make economic sense, but then I learned the power of love.
Are you saying that you wouldn't change your kid's diaper unless you was getting paid?
You would rather play video games than live a rewarding life?
Break on through, Thomas, the whole truth lies ahead of you.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
You missed the point entirely; no, I don't know with certainty each person's motivation. I can know only that each person will seek to resolve his reality to match his motivation, and can only know that motivation by his actions taken in such resolution. That's entirely my point.
There may indeed be people who would rather clean a sewer than beta test video games (I would be extremely skeptical if you told me you'd honestly fall into that category); there are indeed people who value hard work, dirty work and the like. What you're missing is that those are still values they seek to manifest.
You say that you see people do good that makes no economic sense; this is senseless and shows that you only see exchanges of money as "economic sense"; the capitalist understands that any action taken to manifest your values is a profit. If you wish to lose money to feed the poor, for example, then by donating to charity (or paying extra in your taxes, if you prefer the violent and roundabout route to that end) you are still manifesting your values; you are profiting.
So changing my son's diaper, even though I was not paid money, was in fact economically sensible. I desired -- that is, preferred, placed value upon -- the hope that my son would be healthy and comfortable and took actions to ensure that. I was successful; I profited by an increase in my son's wellbeing.
If you see money as the only form of profit and economic sense, then it's no wonder you call it "crapitalism"; you misunderstand what the goal is and how it is achieved.
Ok, i'm glad to see that there is more that you value than money.
Now let's find out why you are attached to it.
If I can distribute the goods just as efficiently as the crapitalusts why would you want to continue the paradigm that separates us into haves and have nots?