|
dbloomer -> RE: Politics and religion. (7/31/2010 10:35:29 AM)
|
quote:
Let me paraphrase what you just said: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." It's been tried. Always with frightful results.
What I'm saying and what you're hearing are two very different things. You've immediately assumed what I'm talking about is something akin to communism because it's convinient for the brain to categorize information quickly.
This resource-based-economy is nothing like communism or anything that's been "tried before". We are in a technological era unlike anything before, a unique condition, which allows for a resource-based economy, also a unique condition.
It's not "Everyone has their needs looked after by the government". It's "Everything belongs to everyone", as though the world were one big library, where you could steal books if you wanted to, but since you already have full access to the library, and so does everyone else, stealing a book will not profit you, nor will it hurt anyone, really. Why "steal" something that's already in your possession, and why steal an item from someone when it's not actually going to result in depriving them of it if there's another one waiting for them?
quote:
And are you sure that there are enough resources to provide all with a computer, car, cell phone, and housing? Not to mention food and clothing?
Statistics have shown we could easily feed everyone on the planet given the resources we have. What science does is deal in absolute terms. Politics deals in a world of subjectivity. Am I sure there's enough resources to provide everyone with everything? I believe so, but there's only one way to find out: Research, NOT debate.
During the depression a milk company poured all of it's unsellable milk out in to a gutter or something like that because nobody could pay. Meanwhile, everyone starved and went thirsty even though there was an abundance of milk. Tell me how this "Works".
quote:
I have serious issues with the capitalist concept of "From each according to his abilities, and to each accordingly".
If you think 20% of the nation controlling 80% of the wealth and thus the resources, works, that's your perogative. I never said capitalism didn't have positive effects, just that it has MANY MANY negative effects, which render capitalism obsolete given that a more efficient model that will make EVERYONE "WEALTHIER" through efficiency, exists and can be safely tested.
quote:
But you gotta admit it WORKS. Look at the technological advances made in the USA compared to those made in the rest of the world. This is due to our reward-based system and our access to capital within the system.
Whenever RESOURCES and manpower are funneled in to research, technology will flourish, just like whenever you put gasoline on a fire, the fire will burn more brightly. It's important to realize that it's the gasoline and not the money that bought the gasoline that deserves the credit for being the catalyst for technological advancement. Money in fact inhibits technological progress because inferior products are rushed on to the market in order to increase profit, amongst many MANY other reasons.
As for the concept that reward fuels people:
Yes, reward will always fuel people, especially in a world where monetary rewards mean the difference between living in a home and starving to death in the cold.
My question to you is "So what?". People are motivated by moving away from discomfort, or by moving towards pleasure. If we build an environment where greed doesn't move a person towards pleasure or a desirable outcome, but where cooperation DOES, I think you'll find that people's minds will shift from greed to cooperation for their own self-interest.
|
|
|
|
