This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Alternatives To How We Live.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Cambo
Who supplies the pharmaceutical companies with labor and how do they pay their contractors?
In my ideal world, everything would be free.
Contractors charge because they need money because their workers need to be paid because they need to pay for groceries and rent. It's a money cycle.
For example, I have to pay doctor Squishalot because he needs money to pay Professor pezz who sells drugs to doctor Squishalot. Professor pezz has to pay plumber Jubilee because she has to repair a leak in his kitchen. Plumber Jubilee has to be paid because she has expenses, and it goes on and on.
If services, materials and product were free, wouldn't that do more good that bad?
I think Jubilee understands where I am coming from =)
Post by
Squishalot
The problem is, Cambo, it assumes that your doctor is also the one servicing their drug suppliers and their community.
That's another issue with the 'free' system - you need a closed economy. You can't access materials and supplies outside of your community for free.
Also, the reason it doesn't do more good than bad is because I might eat more than you do (for example). Why should you be working hard to subsidise my eating habits? What if someone gets sick more than everyone else and therefore utilises the doctor's services more?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Capnboomkin
Perhaps with the advancement of technology, robots and other automation will take over the majority of industry, commerce and service industries. The robots will need servicing and maintenance of course, but this will be free because the technicians will not have to earn money to pay for tools, transport, accommodation and food. This is because everything will be free.
I couldn't help but picture the people from
Wall-E
here. Do you really want to become like them?
Post by
pezz
If services, materials and product were free, wouldn't that do more good that bad?
If they were really
free
that would be bad, because you could just take as much 'free' stuff as you wanted from everyone, who would in turn take all of your 'free' stuff from you. Whoever had the most 'free' stuff would in the end be the one who could best physically separate everyone else from his horde.
It there wasn't a currency and instead we all just bartered you're taking all of the easiness out of the wealth system, but leaving all of the greed and necessary hard work in.
Post by
142728
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
If they were really
free
that would be bad, because you could just take as much 'free' stuff as you wanted from everyone, who would in turn take all of your 'free' stuff from you. Whoever had the most 'free' stuff would in the end be the one who could best physically separate everyone else from his horde.
There would be laws and enforcement to ensure fair distribution, and I imagine that citizens would also work together to defend the new lifestyle.
If everyone lived comfortably, I don't understand how greed or theft would rise to be a major issue.
Someone wouldn't need to steal a 40 inch TV from their neighbour, because they could just go down the road to the public distribution centre and get one for themselves.
Post by
Adamsm
If everyone lived comfortably, I don't understand how greed or theft would rise to be a major issue.
Someone wouldn't need to steal a 40 inch TV from their neighbour, because they could just go down the road to the public distribution centre and get one for themselves.
Because not everyone can/will live comfortably; there are always those who feel the need to rub their better fortune in the noses of everyone else: Yes, Bob can get the newest TV but so can everyone else...so Bob would try to make sure he ended up with the only one of a specific model to lord it over everyone else, and then Jim get's jealous and either steals or smashes Bob's 'better' TV...and so on and so forth.
Post by
Squishalot
Someone wouldn't need to steal a 40 inch TV from their neighbour, because they could just go down the road to the public distribution centre and get one for themselves.
Finite goods, infinite wants.
The reason anything has value today is because we can't just go down the road and get stuff. You're assuming that it's possible to magically create everything we might possibly want. However, to get your TVs, it's going to sacrifice time that would be spent on prepping food, for example. That's another benefit of using cash - it allows us to quantify how much we want some goods and services over others.
There would be laws and enforcement to ensure fair distribution, and I imagine that citizens would also work together to defend the new lifestyle.
Also, I thought you were trying to advocate minimal government influence?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Cambo
Because not everyone can/will live comfortably; there are always those who feel the need to rub their better fortune in the noses of everyone else: Yes, Bob can get the newest TV but so can everyone else...so Bob would try to make sure he ended up with the only one of a specific model to lord it over everyone else, and then Jim get's jealous and either steals or smashes Bob's 'better' TV...and so on and so forth.
In theory, that sounds right.
But I don't believe that's an accurate portrayal of what happens now, and we can't be sure that will be an issue in this example.
I refuse to accept that our human nature is an obstacle to improving how we live and work, because surely the majority would behave themselves and make it work.
Post by
Adamsm
I refuse to accept that our human nature is an obstacle to improving how we live and work, because surely the majority would behave themselves and make it work.
Well, I'm known to have a very low opinion of humanity on a whole; I don't know, for every 'stirring story of the community pulling together', you get just as many lynch mobs.
Post by
pezz
Sorry, but are you making a jump from trading a sack of potatoes for things to a building whose only function is to hold the entire community's stock of gigantic free TVs?
It's got nothing to do with selfish/envious human nature at all. You're just asking for too many goods for too little work.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
Sorry, but are you making a jump from trading a sack of potatoes for things to a building whose only function is to hold the entire community's stock of gigantic free TVs?
I was thinking in the lines of some kind of bartering system for
necessities
.
Luxury goods such as TVs and cars would be supplied to whomever wanted or actually needed one.
It's got nothing to do with selfish/envious human nature at all. You're just asking for too many goods for too little work.
I am not wanting to fill my house with lots of enviable goods at all. I am just not wanting to die of stress-related illnesses at 40 because I struggle to afford basic things like food, housing and healthcare even though I earn twice as much as the median.
Post by
Squishalot
I am not wanting to fill my house with lots of enviable goods at all. I am just not wanting to die of stress-related illnesses at 40 because I struggle to afford basic things like food, housing and healthcare even though I earn twice as much as the median.
If you are, it's because you're not trying to work on the *basic* needs. Most people live in a house that is far bigger than what they need to survive. Any person living by themselves in anything bigger than a studio apartment (including myself, guilty as charged) doesn't have the right to complain that they're paying too much for their residence because anything bigger than that *is* a luxury good.
Post by
pezz
Sorry, but are you making a jump from trading a sack of potatoes for things to a building whose only function is to hold the entire community's stock of gigantic free TVs?
I was thinking in the lines of some kind of bartering system for
necessities
.
Luxury goods such as TVs and cars would be supplied to whomever wanted or actually needed one.
So we have an idyllic communal farming society... with a large LCD screen factory and a large microchip technology factory. You still also need a bunch of factory drones to make this work, and I'd imagine they'd be slightly perturbed that their service gives the community free TVs and someone else's gives the community free turnips.
Plus, who's going to keep track of inventory? Of orders from parts suppliers? There are a lot of crummy nine to five desk jobs associated with making TVs. No TVs allowed if this is the society you want people to live in as opposed to the society you want to live in.
It's got nothing to do with selfish/envious human nature at all. You're just asking for too many goods for too little work.
I am not wanting to fill my house with lots of enviable goods at all. I am just not wanting to die of stress-related illnesses at 40 because I struggle to afford basic things like food, housing and healthcare even though I earn twice as much as the median.
I'm not saying you are acting in a selfish and envious way. I'm saying that the problems with the way you've expanded on your idea aren't to do with envy, they're to do with a lack of fairness and a lack of appreciation for the ramifications of specialization and trade.
Re: Healthcare. There are a lot of desk jobs associated with hospitals/pharmaceutical research/pharmaceutical distribution. Again, if you really want a society with no desk jobs for
anyone
, then you won't have to work for healthcare, strictly speaking. But that's only because healthcare amounts to praying you don't get sick.
Post by
203406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Transducer
Something that has to happen for this to work:
everyone must have the right to choose a job they actually want to do
, so that they can actually feel fulfillment and satisfaction in contributing to their community and personal livilhood. If this is taken care of, a lot of the other issues brought up in this thread would be resolved.
You should also consider looking into a small-scale solution, one that is already available, though perhaps not widely known:
Intentional Communities - ecovillages, communes, co-housing, co-ops
Post by
Squishalot
everyone must have the right to choose a job they actually want to do
I want to be a pro-gamer.
Can you see how this really isn't going to work?
Post by
Transducer
I want to be a pro-gamer.
Can you see how this really isn't going to work?
There's lots of issues that have to be resolved, but...
I don't see what's so special or 'wrong' about your example.
I guess you don't know about South Korea?
Or careers in entertainment business in general?
And don't say 'well then everyone would want to be a cushy entertainer'. There are enough people out there that love every single job that you or I would hate.
Post by
Jubilee
I think his point is that you'll have more people doing certain jobs than are necessary, and as a direct result, you'll be gimping other areas.
For example: would you agree that the amount of lawyers is relatively good for the demand that's out there? If I need a lawyer I can open the phone book and pretty much in all cases get a same day consultation. But it's also true that law schools only accept a small fraction of applicants. So if we quadrupled the number of lawyers, I would think that most would have a hard time finding work, and then other fields would then suffer from the lack of manpower they would have had.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.