A System of Parity

To solve world problems

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

A System of Parity

Post #1

Post by William »

Reminder

If you read what I have to say on this forum you would have noticed that I often refer to the overall problem of this world as being its 'Systems of Disparity'.

I have seen this Putting Our Heads Together forum and thought that at some time I would like to use it to expand on my ideas regarding the systems humanity have been using for - perhaps thousands of years - and why I see these systems as the main problem facing humanity and what I think would need to be done in order to change from the old ways to something more aligned with serving humanity in order to bring us from a level zero species to a level one species.

In relation to that, What I would like you to do is watch this youtube video[5:21] by 'Japanese American theoretical physicist, futurist, and popularizer of science.' Michio Kaku in relation to the 'types' of civilizations which are attainable in regard to this universe.

Specific to the focus, the types of civilization I want to engage you in conversation about in relation to this, are Types 0 and 1 civilizations - type one is explained @ [0:28] and type 0 @ [2:00].

Type 0 populations opposed to type 1 civilization @ [4:08]

Based on the opinion the video content speaks of, we are and always have been a Type Zero Species, which is to say we get by fairly much by surviving as best we can with what we have and this type of lifestyle has basically not changed until fairly recently with the advance in scientific discovery and engineering, although both processes still contribute at present to maintaining the Type Zero Species as status quo.

The habits of thousands of years have basically shaped the way we currently think and thus organize ourselves as communities, and in order to seriously make an attempt at becoming a type one species we will have to radically sort out what aspects of those habits are helping and which ones are hindering.

The common denominator which can be observed in all types of social organization, be they socialism, communism, capitalism, dictatorships, etc et al is that they all share the same structure in relation to disparity. All these systems of social order operate on the principles of disparity - some more than others, but that in itself is besides the point. All have some 'leaven in the bread' as it were, in relation to disparity.

Simply put, where there are 'haves' and 'have-nots' in any social system, that is a system which operates under the regulations of disparity.

I think that as long as this is the case, we will not - at least collectively - attain level one as a species.

In that case, what would be required is to somehow dismantle all such present systems of disparity and replace these with a system of parity.

I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.

This of course is a radical shift from the way things are presently done, where humans are not granted that right and have to earn it from the go-get, due to the present systems and in relation to this, (A) most are born into unfortunate circumstance and most of those remain in those situations for their entire lives.
(B) Some are born into more advantageous situations but it can go either way for them in that regard, and for the very few, (C) they are born into ideal situations where the threat of losing that is non existent.

Those in group (A) are everyone from the destitute, starving of the 3rd world right through to the poor in the first world.

Those in group (B) are what the poor in the 1st world consider to being rich. They range from those with steady jobs and income, paying off mortgages and getting their kids through to university up to those who own lots of property outright, have a lot of money which works for them, lots of leisure time and large banks accounts.

Those in group (C) are they who live in their own secure micro-Utopias where money is no object and where anything possible one wants to do can be done.


Altogether A B and C represent disparity and are made that way through the systems of disparity.

That is the basics. The question is, how would these systems have to change in order for a true system of parity and attaining level one status as a species in a collective manner thus be made achievable?

Not only that, but how to do so with the least amount of disruption to the present systems?

Of course I have some ideas regarding those questions, which I would like to share in subsequent posts. For now I will leave the OP as it is and hopefully some feedback will be forthcoming.

Cheers

William

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: A System of Parity

Post #11

Post by bluethread »

William wrote:]
[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]
More important, what incentive would there be for anyone to work? Also, who decides what is "universal basic income". Right now, Kim Jung Un is providing a form of universal basic income, to the citizens of DRNK. Note that they also refer to themselves as a democratic republic.
[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]
I can not speak for Zuckerberg & company, but I would say that giving people a basic income then they could buy their own food, clothes, shelter, and etc.
But this does not answer my question. The idea is that - let me quote the OP:
I think that the way to help that process is for human beings to be considered as having the natural right to food, clothing, shelter and health provided to them simply because they are born into this world.
There would be no requirement for the medium of money, as these things are GIVEN rather than having to be PAID for, as the current systems of disparity presently operate.
Given by whom to whom? If the giver receives food, clothing, shelter and health as a right, why would that giver exert himself and create anything to give?
I would agree that many people are poor because they waste and just blow their money, so it becomes more practical to give them food, housing, etc etc, without giving them any money.
Correct. Thus we are now focusing attention of a money-less system which exists in order to create parity.

What FCSH (food, clothing, shelter and health) allow for the individual is personal energy which can be channeled freely back into the SoP (System of Parity) and this can be regarded as the 'exchange' which replaces money.
Thus, the deal is - the individual by right receives FCSH and the system by right receives the energetic input of the individual. For as long as they both may live, so to speak. :)
So, by right, "the system" can force the individual to engage in productive activity? How is it that "the system" would do that?
Giving money is easier - and those who blow their income would thereby deserve to live in poverty.
Which is just another system of disparity.
It is also the way things work without the transfer to begin with. The first, transfer of money, is superfluous, and the latter, transfer of goods and services, is inefficient in addition to that.
Giving money is pointless because the use of money is exactly what precipitates SoDs (systems of disparity) in the first place.
No, currency does nothing but provide for a medium of exchange. How it is distributed is based on the cumulative effect of the exchange of goods and services by people with different value systems.
Money also allows for criminal activity to prosper...those who have money and spend it unwisely are often supporting crime.
This translate into the bigger arena where crime is simply made lawful.
No, it makes all economic activity to prosper, by reducing the cumbersome nature of barter. Unwise economic exchanges might impoverish one to the point of engaging in unlawful activities, but that is not due to the nature of currency, but the unwise nature of the person engaging in the unwise exchanges.
If I were to take your quote and change it to this:
Giving FCSH is easier - and those who invest their lives into that which gives to them would thereby deserve the rewards of the system of parity.

Those rewards will equate to more than just FCSH.
However, what someone "deserves" is not relevant, you have made those things rights. So, they are given to everyone, whether they "deserve" it or not. When you introduce the concept of "those who invest their lives", you are speaking about earning. A right, at least as you are framing it, is not earned. Therefore, there is no reason for people to "invest their lives". That is the tragedy of the commons. Without personal property rights, there is no reason to exert oneself to earn what one would receive even if they did not earn it.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: A System of Parity

Post #12

Post by William »

[Replying to post 11 by bluethread]
Given by whom to whom?
The short answers is 'Given by humans to humans.'
If the giver receives food, clothing, shelter and health as a right, why would that giver exert himself and create anything to give?
I see no reason why he would not. Perhaps you do, but you haven't said as yet. It is important as by contributing that data you are helping to solve any potential problems with the idea.

Perhaps the best angle to take then is for you to give reason specific to why you yourself - if you were living in such a system - would choose NOT to give back to the system which made it possible for you to have FCSH freely.
So, by right, "the system" can force the individual to engage in productive activity? How is it that "the system" would do that?
No. It is an agreement between all people. That is the SoP. It is governed by the people. If one was born into it (because it already existed) then there would be more of a natural acceptance to what is. It would be a primary part of our education to give to that which gives to you because the reason the SoD is able to give to you is because you give to it. Humans giving to humans rather than humans selling things to humans.

In relation to what we might called the 'bridging' between the two ways of doing things, the question can be completely addressed under the assumption that there will be/is opposition to the idea and answers found.

The system can never be implemented if the people do not want it. Therefore, at least in the case of the majority, they will have to agree in principle to the exchange in order for it to become implemented.

Perhaps - for those who do not - the minority, something else can be arranged.

I think though that human beings are extremely amicable to giving back to that which gives to them and are also happiest when they are doing something, especially something that proves to be beneficial to the greater - overall humanity. It gives them a real sense of purpose which isn't centered upon what they can get out of the world in relation to the present SoDs.
It is also the way things work without the transfer to begin with. The first, transfer of money, is superfluous, and the latter, transfer of goods and services, is inefficient in addition to that.
In is unclear to me in the context used, as to whether you are saying this about the present SODs or of the idea of SoP. Can you expand on this please?
No, currency does nothing but provide for a medium of exchange.
You are mistaken. Currency is far more than just that. In relation to the difference between SoDs and SoD, medium of exchange is removed because it is surplus to requirement and thus, unnecessary. The exchange becomes one of service to that which provides and that which provides is also the service because human beings are doing this without the medium of money.

Also, it removes the need to pay taxes as presently a portion of taxes go towards health, but also go towards other things which taxpayers get no say in - as was exampled in an earlier post where the Obama admin bailed out the bankers, leaving the victims high and dry.

But certainly money acts as more than just a 'medium of exchange'. It is used to control people with.
No, it makes all economic activity to prosper, by reducing the cumbersome nature of barter. Unwise economic exchanges might impoverish one to the point of engaging in unlawful activities, but that is not due to the nature of currency, but the unwise nature of the person engaging in the unwise exchanges.
Within the SoP, the exchange of FCSH for the support of the system and doing away with any form of money (barter or otherwise) means that criminal activity will die. This is because the one thing that allows the criminal to do what he does is money.

Easy money at that, and there is the lawful equivalent of easy money (wall street as mentioned) and this allows for individual to live of the labor of others without having to do any hard labor themselves - because their money works for them, which is another example of how money is not simply a 'medium of exchange' as you are claiming.

Another thing is that it will be a most natural thing for those presently involved in criminal activity to no longer participate in that because they have their needs provided for them and they can invest their energy into something far more productive and satisfying - namely the SoP.

However, it is clear that in building the bridge between the two systems, that both the criminal world and the ruling class will be the most opposed to changes. But lets face it, they make up the minority and both are somewhat dependent on capturing the individuals support through various means of persuasion, and if those individuals saw an out to their predicament they are more likely than not to take that out and support the SoP initiative. Depending of course, where exactly in the rank and file they are positioned.
However, what someone "deserves" is not relevant, you have made those things rights. So, they are given to everyone, whether they "deserve" it or not. When you introduce the concept of "those who invest their lives", you are speaking about earning. A right, at least as you are framing it, is not earned. Therefore, there is no reason for people to "invest their lives". That is the tragedy of the commons. Without personal property rights, there is no reason to exert oneself to earn what one would receive even if they did not earn it.
An interesting phrase that. "The Commons" I understand your argument as coming from elitism, something that for some reason you have chosen not to address in this post here.

I think your concerns are relative in relation to the bridging stage as there will be opposition from the elitists and this will be one of their primary arguments.

However, the argument itself is based on behaviors associated with the commons under the present systems of disparity and this is precisely what makes it so easy for the elitists to continue their SoD by claiming that without proper control the commons would create some kind of chaos. Because the commons just can't think correctly and need governing.

In relation to the idea of SoP, the commons no longer have to struggle with paying for FCSH as well as paying tax, fundraising for necessary amenities, watching the gap between rich and poor widen, being victimized by fraudsters (legally and illegally), and other such things which presently serve as distractions which provide cover for the elitists to conceal themselves behind.

SoP will remove all such cover, which is why both elitists and organised crime will resist any and all serious attempts of support for SoP.
In this, while they might appear to be at odds with each other, they are in fact bedmates.

I trust you might be able to take this into account if you are going to continue defending the present SoD.

So what I am saying is that elitists/organised crime is a problem in that it will do all it can to oppose the solution.
Thus it needs to be recognized as such and ways found in which the participants might be encouraged to support SoP. One such way would be to make a watertight plan, get it out into the greater population in such a way that it is understandable by the commons and perhaps a snow-ball effect can happen where the ruling class (lawful and criminal alike) are forced to abide by what the people want.

however, humans don;t like to be in positions where they are forced to comply, and those with great means (lots of money) can use such means to undermine any such plans to change the SoD into SoP.

Therefore it will be necessary to somehow convince the elitists to support the plan by convincing them of its overall benefit to the human race and to giving the human race the leg-up it requires to become - altogether - a Type One Species.
Presently the elitists are in the job of suppressing the bulk of humanity.

So - the question is 'How do we present the case for a collective leg-up without requiring those in power to give up their ability to use that power?' and the answer to that involves understanding how power can be used for good or evil - for suppression or liberating - for being the villains or the heroes of humanity.



In relation to the idea of SoP, the commons no longer have to struggle with paying for FCSH as well as paying tax, fundraising for necessary amenities, watching the gap between rich and poor widen, being victimized by fraudsters, et al, I think that such an idea would be very appealing where they are given FCSH in exchange for doing what the are already having to do anyway. It is a no brainer in that light.

Indeed, they are doing it because they want to rather than because they are compelled to by something which apparently has no love, regard or respect for them as human beings.

The main point being is that we are all here on this planet - the planet actually provides all we need without any cost to us other than us having to invest our energy into receiving it anyway, and the greatest con-job ever done on humanity was to convince us that we require a medium/middle-man in order for that to happen.

But not to sound too harsh about that, I can accept that history to date is the natural enough way for a Type Zero species to start off down the road towards the inevitability of coming to the point where we have to find a better way in order to become a Type One species or face the consequences of not doing so.

Indeed, this is not to say that the elitists will not have the opportunity to become a Type One species, once the commons have been eradicated through natural enough reactions such as the planet warming due to current SoD behaviors, or less natural reactions such as wars for resources...et al.

Perhaps that is the only way humans can become a Type One species? The sacrifices of the many so that the few can survive?

Apparently that is what the elitist think - but this could just be rumors from the 'Department of Conspiracy Theories'. Perhaps in truth, they are hoping against hope that the commons will demand SoP and all that is required is a foolproof plan from the commons, endorsed by the commons, as to how to establish this? And the elitists with their power to pull the right levels to 'make it so', will obligingly do so.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: A System of Parity

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

I've narrowed you previous post down to the following three ideas that basically address the problem from my perspective:
William wrote: Or I could create a forum thread and WE (generic) could all contribute ideas, arguments finding holes in ideas etc...and maybe even get to the point where we have a comprehensive plan which can be shared on the broader internet...
I have tried to express my social-economic ideas on Internet forums in the past and I see how it goes. It basically ends up with everyone arguing about how "successful" greedy capitalism has been in the past. They argue that it is a "proven" system, and it's difficult to get them to see that we can't go back to that era.

In fact, this precisely how Donald Trump became president. Trump promised the coal miners, steelworkers, and autoworkers that he would put them back to work at their previous "high wages". His plan to do this was to make sure that greedy companies can indeed keep working via greedy principles (i.e. no more environmental restrictions to they can pollute to their heart's content, and lift their tax burden so they don't need to give anything back to society).

However, this is not going to work in any case. Even if companies are allowed to pollute to their heart's content and not pay much in taxes, modern day industries simply don't need as many manual laborers as they used to, thanks to robotics, etc.

So there's no going back to a time where greed can rule as the backbone of our economy in any case.

The answer is that people need to simply give up the idea of making high-wages for low-tech jobs at mega companies. The coal-miners, steelworkers, autoworkers, etc, are going to need to find smaller business types of job markets and SETTLE for less wages to boot <----- settling for less wages is something nobody wants to hear, but it's a necessary part of the solution.

What people don't understand is that less wages won't be a bad thing if we can get the economy to move in this direction because products themselves would be less expensive and it would all pan out in the end. But keep in mind that we've already lost everyone's attention already, because they are still rejecting our original proposal and hoping for mega companies to come back and offer HIGH WAGES. That all they have ever known and they have seen it work in the past, so they believe it can work again. They will argue that it's a "PROVEN SYSTEM" because it clearly worked at one point in time.

So this is where the argument ends. You simply aren't going to convince these people that something that worked in the past cannot work again. They simply aren't going to believe you.

They don't believe in Climate Change and science either, so these are the people you are up against.

So I'm saying that this is a lost battle. You may not like it, but that's just a fact of life. People would rather sit around and complain that the mega companies aren't hiring them than to actually change their lifestyle for the better in a lower-income economy.
William wrote: However, if you had a comprehensive plan which was already critically assessed to being watertight in relation to arguments your cousin (and his ilk) could not argue against, then there would be no call for him to call 'idiot'.
And how to you expect to convince people that your idea is "watertight" when it has never been proven in reality to actually work? The success of the mega companies and high wages of the coal mines, steel mills and auto factories have been proven to work. What people simply refuse to accept is that those days are over forever.

Even if Trump grants companies permission to pollute like they did in the 40's and 50's again, and cuts their taxes, that's still not going to work because with modern day technologies these companies simply don't have any need for high-paid manual laborers. That's a past era.

Actually that's the POINT. Until you can get people to agree to this fact you won't get anywhere. And this is where I had the problem with my cousin. He can't understand that those days are over for good. He still believes that this older model can be revived if we simply quite out-sourcing manufacturing to other countries. That's what they believe the problem to be. So just "bring the jobs back to America" and everything will be just fine again like it was back in the 50's.

I simply couldn't convince my cousin that this ideology is over and cannot be brought back like he has been taught to believe that it could be.

After all he's the one who has a Ph.D. in economics. Remember? I'm the uneducated "idiot" when it comes to economics. So he's going to be teaching me where I'm wrong, he's not about to accept that I might actually have a better understanding of real life than he does.

So that's what you are up against.
William wrote: What would you rather do...argue with Christians or work on a plan such as this?
To be perfectly honest with you William I've given up on humanity a long time ago. I seriously doubt that humans will ever evolve to become a type I civilization. We certainly have a few intelligent scientists and academics who are thinking in that direction, but unfortunately we seem to have many more people who don't get it.

As far as arguing with Christians is concerned. I originally came on this forum in the hopes of potentially convincing Christians that for them to continue to support Christianity is no different from them giving their support to Islam. In other words, but even supporting these Abrahamic religions they are actually supporting that Islam had at least equal merit. It was my hope that Americans might be intelligent enough to recognize that we need to renounce the Abrahamic religions altogether if we have any hope at all of convincing Muslim countries to give up their religious mythologies too.

But clearly that was a totally futile hope. Christians are too dead set on defending the validity of their religion, so they aren't about to help anyone else sees the folly of the Abrahamic religions. They will continue to support Islam via their support of Christianity to the day they die.

And when it comes to economic models we're basically looking at the precise same mentality.

Just look at how many coal miners, steel workers, and auto workers feel for Trump's utter nonsense? They actually believed that he could take them back in time to the 1950's when wages were high and low-skilled labor was easy to come by.

They can't see that those days are over forever.

At the very best Trump might incite the return of some coal mines, steel mills, and auto manufactures in America. But those companies simply aren't going to need low-skilled laborers who demand high wages anymore. They have robots to do the jobs now.

So many Americans (especially those who voted for Trump) are currently living on the dream that Trump can bring back "The Good Old Days" (i.e. Happy Days of the 50's).

And they believe it can happen because it was historically "proven" to work once upon a time. But times have changed and there's no going back. Robots are here to say for one thing. Also we can't really survive for very long by allowing companies to pollute to their heart's content and not pay any taxes.

Especially when they aren't even hiring very many human workers anymore. This will be an economy where only the rich can get a job and the poor will be chastised for not being rich.

That's the direction we're currently headed in and that's the economic tsunami you need to deal with if you want to try to turn things around.

Keep in mind that any model you propose cannot be one where mega companies start hiring lots of low-skilled laborers at high wages. That is simply not going to work anymore.

So anything you propose is going to require that people embrace the idea of living a more meager lifestyle for the better good of humanity and the planet.

Good luck with that. You're up against a tsunami of GREED that no one wants to let go of.

That's just the reality of the real world.

People just want high-paying jobs where all they need to do is get up in the morning and go shovel coal, pour some molten steel, or put parts on a car on an assembly line.

The things that ROBOTS do today far cheaper!

Trump can't make the robot's go away. So the 1950's are OVER.

And this is what you need to convince people of.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: A System of Parity

Post #14

Post by JP Cusick »

William wrote: Thus we are now focusing attention of a money-less system which exists in order to create parity.

What FCSH (food, clothing, shelter and health) allow for the individual is personal energy which can be channeled freely back into the SoP (System of Parity) and this can be regarded as the 'exchange' which replaces money.
Thus, the deal is - the individual by right receives FCSH and the system by right receives the energetic input of the individual. For as long as they both may live, so to speak.
This sounds a lot like Jesus teachings = to consider the Lilies of the field and do not worry about our food or drink or clothing because the Father provides every thing that we need - as we can not serve both God and mammon.

Link here Matthew 6:24-34

If we follow this doctrine then we do not need any economical system or government to do this - because a person just needs faith to do it.

Verse 33 " But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. "
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #15

Post by Divine Insight »

William,

You are interested in ideas of how we could change society to work toward becoming a type 1 civilization. And you would like to discuss ideas toward that goal. I have no problem with that, and in fact I would like to be part of a serious movement toward that goal.

I have several ideas to offer. My ideas would not solve all problems. Nor should we expect any single person to have all solutions. But I do have many ideas to offer.

However, there is a problem. The main problem is that our current society is only interested in instant gratification. Even our political system in the USA is based on a four-year administration (maybe 8 years at best).

My proposal (and I personally believe that any effective proposals) to get us to become a type 1 civilization would necessarily need to be a program that is going to span decades. It's not going to happen overnight. Because of this politicians who only have 4 to 8 years to get something done aren't going to be interested in supporting long term projects that won't even be completed until long after they are out of office.

I'm not even convinced that society itself has any interest in working toward goals that are that far off in the future. Even a 20 year goal would not be attractive to most people. Most people want results today!

Also, doesn't this entire concept of becoming a type 1 civilization basically require that people at least believe in the truth of scientific knowledge etc.? I mean, currently many people are in denial of things like human-caused climate change. How can you get people on-board with something they are in complete denial of?

Religion also stands in the way. Many Christians actually believe that "God is ultimately in control". So they aren't even thinking about becoming a type 1 civilization. To the contrary, they often see any human plans for such a long-term future control over the earth as being nothing short of human arrogance. They see this as failing to "Trust in God" and refusing to give ourselves over to God's Will and God's Plan.

After all, let's face it, Christianity promises an end-time Apocalypse where Jesus will return and take up all the good little Christians in "The Rapture". In fact, Christians who don't believe in this are in denial of what their very own religion has prophesied.

In any case, what I'm suggesting here is that religions like Christianity and Islam, etc, are actually quite detrimental to the very idea of becoming a type 1 civilization. There is nothing in these religions that suggest that mankind should ever be so arrogant as to think that we humans could or should ever take our future into our own hands.

We are supposed to "Trust in God" remember? The Christians even went as far as having this printed on all our currency.

There's nothing in the Bible instructing us, or even remotely suggesting that we shoul become a type 1 civilization that actually takes control of planet earth entirely. To the contrary that would be seen as arrogance where mankind thinks he's so wise as to become like God and control nature.

So Christianity is a huge obstacle for any discussions on how we might become a type 1 civilization. Christianity simply isn't compatible with mankind taking the reins of nature. That would be taboo in a religion that "Trusts in God" to be the master of the universe.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: A System of Parity

Post #16

Post by JP Cusick »

JP Cusick wrote:
William wrote: Thus we are now focusing attention of a money-less system which exists in order to create parity.

What FCSH (food, clothing, shelter and health) allow for the individual is personal energy which can be channeled freely back into the SoP (System of Parity) and this can be regarded as the 'exchange' which replaces money.
Thus, the deal is - the individual by right receives FCSH and the system by right receives the energetic input of the individual. For as long as they both may live, so to speak.
This sounds a lot like Jesus teachings = to consider the Lilies of the field and do not worry about our food or drink or clothing because the Father provides every thing that we need - as we can not serve both God and mammon.

Link here Matthew 6:24-34

If we follow this doctrine then we do not need any economical system or government to do this - because a person just needs faith to do it.

Verse 33 " But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. "
As a followup since this is a thought provoking discussion and not to be a debate, so:

My understanding is that long ago then there was no common money as we have today, and in ancient Egypt the people discovered that instead of every person working to raise crops for food that because the Nile river was so rich for crops to grow so they could use 100 or even 1000 people to do the farming which then fed 100,000 or even fed millions of citizens, and that was a big factor in giving the Egyptians the free time to built the Pyramids because the majority of laborers did not need to work to grow food.

Surely (speculation) the Egyptians used that same principle of a few doing the farming so they had a few who made all of the clothing and another few doing various supports for society while hundreds of thousands were then free to build the giant Pyramids.

As such this idea of free "FCSH" was probably already done in ancient history, and that might even be where the Hebrews (and other societies) got their ideas for a peaceful Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #17

Post by bluethread »

William wrote: [Replying to post 11 by bluethread]
Given by whom to whom?
The short answers is 'Given by humans to humans.'
Sure all humans would probably line up to receive, but which humans are going to give and how much?
If the giver receives food, clothing, shelter and health as a right, why would that giver exert himself and create anything to give?
I see no reason why he would not. Perhaps you do, but you haven't said as yet. It is important as by contributing that data you are helping to solve any potential problems with the idea.

Perhaps the best angle to take then is for you to give reason specific to why you yourself - if you were living in such a system - would choose NOT to give back to the system which made it possible for you to have FCSH freely.
Because, I would rather do palates and play video games.
So, by right, "the system" can force the individual to engage in productive activity? How is it that "the system" would do that?
No. It is an agreement between all people. That is the SoP. It is governed by the people. If one was born into it (because it already existed) then there would be more of a natural acceptance to what is. It would be a primary part of our education to give to that which gives to you because the reason the SoD is able to give to you is because you give to it. Humans giving to humans rather than humans selling things to humans.

In relation to what we might called the 'bridging' between the two ways of doing things, the question can be completely addressed under the assumption that there will be/is opposition to the idea and answers found.

The system can never be implemented if the people do not want it. Therefore, at least in the case of the majority, they will have to agree in principle to the exchange in order for it to become implemented.

Perhaps - for those who do not - the minority, something else can be arranged.

I think though that human beings are extremely amicable to giving back to that which gives to them and are also happiest when they are doing something, especially something that proves to be beneficial to the greater - overall humanity. It gives them a real sense of purpose which isn't centered upon what they can get out of the world in relation to the present SoDs.
Ok, so I agree to entertain people with my palates and video game skills and some one else can volunteer to clean out the sewers and pick up the garbage. Is that how it works?
It is also the way things work without the transfer to begin with. The first, transfer of money, is superfluous, and the latter, transfer of goods and services, is inefficient in addition to that.
In is unclear to me in the context used, as to whether you are saying this about the present SODs or of the idea of SoP. Can you expand on this please?
People trade there goods, services and currency for thing that they value regardless of how they gain access to those goods, services and currency. So, transferring goods, services and currency by law doesn't change that. It only shows a social preference for what some people value and distain for what other people value.
No, currency does nothing but provide for a medium of exchange.
You are mistaken. Currency is far more than just that. In relation to the difference between SoDs and SoD, medium of exchange is removed because it is surplus to requirement and thus, unnecessary. The exchange becomes one of service to that which provides and that which provides is also the service because human beings are doing this without the medium of money.
Removing currency does not change it's purpose and an economy without currency will just, for the purpose of convenience, use various goods as currency. A baker may want a steak, but the butcher doesn't want bread, he wants a knife. So, the butcher takes the bread as currency and trades it with the smith, who wants coal, for a knife. The smith then trades the bread with the miner . . . . In that way, even barter societies eventually migrate to establishing a standard currency.
Also, it removes the need to pay taxes as presently a portion of taxes go towards health, but also go towards other things which taxpayers get no say in - as was exampled in an earlier post where the Obama admin bailed out the bankers, leaving the victims high and dry.

But certainly money acts as more than just a 'medium of exchange'. It is used to control people with.
No people are controlled by the need for goods and services that the currency represents. The commodity industries are bailed out all of the time, not that I favor that either. In those cases, a government enforces a mandatory exchange rate. It is generally that is delineated in currency, again for convenience sake, but it does not necessarily have to be. Also, barter does not stop taxation. The IRS code and other taxing agencies require one to value the bartered items, again for convenience sake, and remit the tax.
No, it makes all economic activity to prosper, by reducing the cumbersome nature of barter. Unwise economic exchanges might impoverish one to the point of engaging in unlawful activities, but that is not due to the nature of currency, but the unwise nature of the person engaging in the unwise exchanges.
Within the SoP, the exchange of FCSH for the support of the system and doing away with any form of money (barter or otherwise) means that criminal activity will die. This is because the one thing that allows the criminal to do what he does is money.
So, are you saying that I would have to eat that loaf of rye bread that I am given or throw it away, even if I do not like rye bread. It would be illegal for me to trade it with my neighbor for cleaning out my gutters?
Easy money at that, and there is the lawful equivalent of easy money (wall street as mentioned) and this allows for individual to live of the labor of others without having to do any hard labor themselves - because their money works for them, which is another example of how money is not simply a 'medium of exchange' as you are claiming.
No, the person who exchanges currency is doing the same thing as the one who is exchanging turnips. Do you think that turnip merchants are living off of the labor of others, without having to do any hard labor themselves? In this utopia of yours are you also going to outlaw grocery stores?
Another thing is that it will be a most natural thing for those presently involved in criminal activity to no longer participate in that because they have their needs provided for them and they can invest their energy into something far more productive and satisfying - namely the SoP.


Well, it has been said that needs are merely wants with varying degrees of urgency. Providing people with certain basic necessities of life at no direct cost does not stop them from committing crime in order to get even more. In fact, it could be argued that receiving basic necessities at no direct cost trains people to expect to get things at no direct cost and, therefore, encourages criminal activity. I also find your premise regard the natural tendencies of criminals to be spurious. As the famous criminal defense attorney F. Lee Bailey said, people are criminals because they are lazy. Their natural tendency is to get as much as they can with as little effort as possible. What is interesting is that he had a similar suggestion, but for a different reason. He did not say that we should not have currency, but that it should be illegal to have more than $500 cash on one's person. That is to force most significant transactions to have audit trails. So, it is not currency that is the problem, but the lack readily available evidence of transactions, that makes crime easier.
However, it is clear that in building the bridge between the two systems, that both the criminal world and the ruling class will be the most opposed to changes. But lets face it, they make up the minority and both are somewhat dependent on capturing the individuals support through various means of persuasion, and if those individuals saw an out to their predicament they are more likely than not to take that out and support the SoP initiative. Depending of course, where exactly in the rank and file they are positioned.
That is nothing more than class based conspiracy theory. Changing the system does not hinder those who work the system. They just adapt to the new system. The best solution, IMO, is to make working the system part of the system, and that is what a market based economy does.
However, what someone "deserves" is not relevant, you have made those things rights. So, they are given to everyone, whether they "deserve" it or not. When you introduce the concept of "those who invest their lives", you are speaking about earning. A right, at least as you are framing it, is not earned. Therefore, there is no reason for people to "invest their lives". That is the tragedy of the commons. Without personal property rights, there is no reason to exert oneself to earn what one would receive even if they did not earn it.
An interesting phrase that. "The Commons" I understand your argument as coming from elitism, something that for some reason you have chosen not to address in this post here.
The phrase "the commons" is not an elitist phrase. Is does not refer to commoners, but the economy where all is held in common, i.e. theoretical communism. Your next section rambles on about class warfare based on that misconception. so I'll just skip to how one makes your solution work.
Therefore it will be necessary to somehow convince the elitists to support the plan by convincing them of its overall benefit to the human race and to giving the human race the leg-up it requires to become - altogether - a Type One Species.
Presently the elitists are in the job of suppressing the bulk of humanity.
How specifically does one do this convincing? Regarding your premise. I side with Ernest Hemmingway, who, when told by F. Scott Fitzgerald, "You know, the rich are different from you and me." replied, "Yes. They've got more money." It is not the amount of money that is the problem, but the tendency to horde it, which the wealth do not do, and the poor are more likely to do.


So - the question is 'How do we present the case for a collective leg-up without requiring those in power to give up their ability to use that power?' and the answer to that involves understanding how power can be used for good or evil - for suppression or liberating - for being the villains or the heroes of humanity.
No, it is in recognizing human nature and integrating that into the economic model, which is what a market based economy does.

In relation to the idea of SoP, the commons no longer have to struggle with paying for FCSH as well as paying tax, fundraising for necessary amenities, watching the gap between rich and poor widen, being victimized by fraudsters, et al, I think that such an idea would be very appealing where they are given FCSH in exchange for doing what the are already having to do anyway. It is a no brainer in that light.

Indeed, they are doing it because they want to rather than because they are compelled to by something which apparently has no love, regard or respect for them as human beings.
Well, that might apply to those who have no love, regard or respect for themselves. However, those who do are the one's who are most likely to put out the extra effort, not those who wait to receive a stipend.
The main point being is that we are all here on this planet - the planet actually provides all we need without any cost to us other than us having to invest our energy into receiving it anyway, and the greatest con-job ever done on humanity was to convince us that we require a medium/middle-man in order for that to happen.
So, you are making the Luddite argument that specialization and economies of scale are a con-job?
But not to sound too harsh about that, I can accept that history to date is the natural enough way for a Type Zero species to start off down the road towards the inevitability of coming to the point where we have to find a better way in order to become a Type One species or face the consequences of not doing so.
My view of this whole Type One species thing is just futurist idealism. First, by calling globalism Type One, one is making the current economic structure look substandard, and sets the conclusion as the starting point. Second, centralized economies tend to collapse of their own weight. I therefore, think that localism is a mush better solution than globalism.
Indeed, this is not to say that the elitists will not have the opportunity to become a Type One species, once the commons have been eradicated through natural enough reactions such as the planet warming due to current SoD behaviors, or less natural reactions such as wars for resources...et al.

Perhaps that is the only way humans can become a Type One species? The sacrifices of the many so that the few can survive?
Again, "the commons" does not refer to commoners, but the society holding all things in common. Such an approach leads to tragedy. As long as the society recognizes property rights and the markets allow the free exchange of goods and services, the productive will rise and the nonproductive will fall, thus assuring continued survival.
Apparently that is what the elitist think - but this could just be rumors from the 'Department of Conspiracy Theories'. Perhaps in truth, they are hoping against hope that the commons will demand SoP and all that is required is a foolproof plan from the commons, endorsed by the commons, as to how to establish this? And the elitists with their power to pull the right levels to 'make it so', will obligingly do so.
All of this has been examined in "The Tale of Two Cities." The commoners can work to support the enforcement of everyone's property rights and open markets as happened in England and these United States, or one can support a Bastille moment where those who have are beheaded and their goods distributed by self proclaimed populists, as happened in France. It's your choice. I prefer the former.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10501
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 496 times
Been thanked: 1133 times
Contact:

Re: A System of Parity

Post #18

Post by William »

[Replying to JP Cusick]
This sounds a lot like Jesus teachings = to consider the Lilies of the field and do not worry about our food or drink or clothing because the Father provides every thing that we need - as we can not serve both God and mammon.

Link here Matthew 6:24-34

If we follow this doctrine then we do not need any economical system or government to do this - because a person just needs faith to do it.

Verse 33 " But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. "
I think it does have its parallel with some of Jesus' teachings, yes.

However, it is more a case of humans helping humans rather than putting faith in a GOD who will provide for those that do, in a magical manner which requires faith.

In order for a SoP to work, it requires people helping people without them charging each other for doing so. This, I think aligns, nicely enough with some of what Jesus is attributed with saying. That is to say, Christians should not have a problem with the idea of helping to build a System of Parity - at least in theory they shouldn't, but as can be observed, some/many do in fact have great problems with this idea.
Historical it was Christians/Christianity at the forefront of helping to establish SoD willingly and in the belief that they were serving GOD by doing so.

Thus the idea of an SoP becoming a reality is faced with the problem of Christianity - not all Christians I would suppose - but enough to create a barrier - so wherein would the solution be to this problem?
Perhaps Christians being convinced that SoP is something their GOD would have them support?

[Replying to post 16 by JP Cusick]
As a followup since this is a thought provoking discussion and not to be a debate, so:

My understanding is that long ago then there was no common money as we have today, and in ancient Egypt the people discovered that instead of every person working to raise crops for food that because the Nile river was so rich for crops to grow so they could use 100 or even 1000 people to do the farming which then fed 100,000 or even fed millions of citizens, and that was a big factor in giving the Egyptians the free time to built the Pyramids because the majority of laborers did not need to work to grow food.

Surely (speculation) the Egyptians used that same principle of a few doing the farming so they had a few who made all of the clothing and another few doing various supports for society while hundreds of thousands were then free to build the giant Pyramids.

As such this idea of free "FCSH" was probably already done in ancient history, and that might even be where the Hebrews (and other societies) got their ideas for a peaceful Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven.
This may be the case, but as we know, Egypt was a system of disparity where there were the ruling classes and the workers.
If the FCSH was indeed provided it was not for the sake of the people but for the sake of the ruling class. What use are pyramids to the people?

We are looking for a new system which is not based upon any type of disparity, and in this we will have to make things up as we go along because our ancestors showed us how not to do things - and we need to take that information and find new ways on how to do things by weaning ourselves away from the old ways using the opportunity of technology to assist us.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #19

Post by Divine Insight »

I've come to realize that all you are basically doing here is using different words from what many people have already recognized for millennium. You choose to use the terms "Disparity versus Parity", but in a very real sense all you are really talking about is "Competition versus Cooperation".

Why not use the latter terms since they are probably far more meaningful when it comes to normal conversations.

Also, you address the issue of working toward a type 1 civilization in the OP. While I agree that a type 1 civilization is never going to get off the ground until people have first learned that cooperation must necessarily replace competition as the underlying motivation and social philosophy.

However, if are suggesting that by merely moving from a competitive based society to a cooperative based society this would then natural lead to a type 1 civilization I would disagree. There's far more to it than just that. However, I will agree that this would be an important first step to be sure.

Actually I think you are doing your own purpose a great disservice by using terms like disparity versus parity when people would be far more likely understand and contribute to the conversation if you would speak in the more commonly understood concepts of competitive based society versus cooperative based society.

Using terms like disparity (which actually sounds like a negative pejorative) versus parity (which most people aren't likely to think of as cooperation anyway) only serves to muddle your ideas.

In short, if you are suggesting that we need to learn to cooperate with each other versus competing with each other before we have any hope at all of becoming a type 1 civilization I agree completely. But that's just a first step toward becoming a type 1 civilization.

And, as you are probably already aware, even that first step does not appear to be something that is going to be openly embraced by many people. One major reason is that people tend not to even be able to agree on what we should be cooperating on. Thus they end up in battles of competition and arguments of what we should even be cooperating on in the first place.

I had already mentioned my cousin's view on these issues. He's argument would be that if I'm not prepared to back up a competitive based system of capitalism then I'm the one who is refusing to cooperate with that model.

In your terms he would be suggesting that I am the one who is causing disparity in the system he prefers. In other words, I'm not "in parity" with his favorite social-economic model.

So I would be the "outcast" who is branded as being the one who is refusing to "cooperate" or be "in parity with" competitive capitalism which he would claim has been historically proven to work.

You can't even argue with his latter point. Competitive Capitalism has been historically proven to work in some situations. What you would need to do know is convince him that the situations have changed and there's no going back.

But I can already give you his argument on that. He would agree that situations have changed. He would disagree that there's no going back. And that's where you enter into endless arguments that ultimately become futile. Because he is as convinced that by changing things (as Trump has proposed) we could go back to the Happy Days of the 1950's. So now your work becomes one of trying to convince him that he's wrong.

Never mind that you might rather talk about better alternatives. He's not interested in hearing your historically unproven ideas UNTIL you have convinced him that he's wrong in his belief that we can actually return to a successful competitive capitalism that has historically worked. He would even argue that it's STILL working today, just not as efficiently as it used to. And he blames the inefficiencies on immigrants, outsourcing of jobs, the shutting down of coal mines, steel mills, auto factories, etc.

He would argue is that "all we need to do" is revert back to the way things were.

So that's what you would need to convince him is impossible to do before he would even be the slightest bit interested in hearing your new untested methods.

Another argument he would give is that your system requires that people freely cooperate without expecting large profits for those who are ambitious entrepreneurs. He would argue that such a system is "socialism" and cannot work in the real world because real people in the real world will never work together without any hope of excelling beyond the mundane.

In short, he's going to argue for "The American Dream" for the ambitious. And being a Christian he really has no interest in talking about a type 1 civilization because that's not part of "God's Plan" anyway.

I'm just giving you the reality of how real world people are going to react to your proposal.

The only people who would even be remotely interested would be people who would be interested in helping the human species become a type 1 civilization at some point in the future which would most likely be long after they have personally died.

Most people aren't interested in what might happen to humanity after they die.

Sad but true.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: A System of Parity

Post #20

Post by JP Cusick »

William wrote: We are looking for a new system which is not based upon any type of disparity ...
In this case then I can not even imagine such a scenario where there is no disparity of any kind.

Even the Kingdom of God has a King and a "King of Kings" and a hierarchy, and there is nothing wrong with having disparity so long as it is benevolent and righteous.

Happy are the people who have just and honorable leaders, and such leaders are blessed to have loyal and loving subordinates.

Providing food, housing, clothing, health care, and etc, is fine to improve and support the lowest rungs of society, but each person still must earn their advancement just as each child must grow up into a mature adult.

The system of Capitalism is an evil system and it has huge and unjust disparities, so yes that needs to be replaced with a better system.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Post Reply