Civil Debates on Christianity and Religions

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Reply to topic
William
First Post
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:02 pm  A System of Parity Reply with quote

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
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 31: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:52 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
A System of Parity would have no such distinctions in relation to its citizens because ALL will be productive because they WANT to be productive because the System of Parity naturally and logically encourages such productivity.

See? Citizens who are no longer under the yoke of having to pay for their existence (as if they were owned by some LORD of Disparity, and governed by His faithful) will not have to wonder where they will shelter or where their next meal will come from or how they will clothe themselves or keep themselves healthy. They will not have to take out loans where they are charged interest/usury. They will not have to deal with falling further into the despair of debt while those who have the money continue to make more and more money from that debt.
All this, they will no longer have to endure. So why would you believe that such citizens would NOT be fully productive in giving their whole lives to support a System of Parity and would do so because they know that it is the very system which guarantees they no longer have to be slaves to disparity
[quote]

The Utopian idea you describe can never be with humans. Humans are naturally competitive--makes no difference what aspect of living we discuss--people compete to improve their self image, or their standing in the society. There have been all kinds of attempts to create societies like this, and they all fail. In order to get anything done in the society, there must be a form of governance to delegate work, and to ensure benefits are distributed evenly. So, right away, you have disparity....and it is downhill from there. Those who do their work especially well will (and should) be rewarded for doing more than their share, and those who shirk their work will receive less. In its simplest form, that is what we have now in our society.

To have any hope of parity in benefits such as housing, food , medical, dollars, etc we must at the same time have parity in work contributed to society. Unless we develop a plan to incorporate both aspects of parity, we will lose any incentive to work for the greater good, and quickly work only for personal betterment. You can forget about research, experimentation, scientific breakthroughs, food production, and menial labour.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 32: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:52 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 31 by twobitsworth]

Quote:
The Utopian idea you describe can never be with humans.


I think the potential is there for this to happen, but that the potential can be made real is far less likely to happen, due to the constrictive nature of the systems of disparity and the widespread affect those systems are presently having.

Quote:
Humans are naturally competitive--makes no difference what aspect of living we discuss--people compete to improve their self image, or their standing in the society.


It is easy enough to understand competitiveness as a natural reaction to life on earth but what you are speaking about is unrestrained competitiveness which is arguably not so much a 'natural' thing as it is an artificial thing created by the systems of disparity which allow for this (through law) to happen.

Most people would be content enough to exist in a system of parity, but the option isn't made available by the few who hold positions which enable them to overrule the many.

If parity isn't made an alternate option, the coercion to continue with disparity can appear to be 'natural'.

Quote:
There have been all kinds of attempts to create societies like this, and they all fail.


I think this has already been covered in the thread.

We are no longer in a world full of many different tribes competing for survival. We are more able to appreciate we are one big tribe which needs to change its thinking through identifying the problem of disparity and also identifying the solution of parity.

It is not a case of any longer attempting to build mini utopias into the fabric of disparity, and in relation to the few humans who's positions are 'money is no object' they have indeed shown that mini utopias can be created and have not failed.

The idea is to plan, critique the plan, tweak the plan where critique has shown a weakness and from that eventually create a system of parity based upon the plan.

'Utopia' is the natural product of a system of parity. The idea is to understand how something that works for the people in positions of money power and influence are able to create mini utopias for themselves, and adjusting that to suit everyone equally and create it by investing in it.

Quote:
In order to get anything done in the society, there must be a form of governance to delegate work, and to ensure benefits are distributed evenly.


Of course this is something you learned through the educational device of the particular system of disparity which owns you, right?

Quote:
In order to get anything done in the society, there must be a form of governance to delegate work, and to ensure benefits are distributed evenly.
So, right away, you have disparity....and it is downhill from there.


Right away I can identify the problem with this reasoning. The benefits are not distributed evenly. That is why there is disparity. Even distribution = parity.

Disproportionate distribution is a symptom of disparity, and there is no doubt disparity in regard to the majority is a matter of 'downhill from there'.

Quote:
Those who do their work especially well will (and should) be rewarded for doing more than their share, and those who shirk their work will receive less. In its simplest form, that is what we have now in our society.


And that is also a symptom of disparity and - in its simplest form - the reason things are indeed going down hill.

The problem you have outlined in the above quote has been covered in this thread. Have you read the whole thread?

Quote:
To have any hope of parity in benefits such as housing, food , medical, dollars, etc we must at the same time have parity in work contributed to society.


This has been covered already. 'Dollars' however was never mentioned as part of the solution. Only those things necessary for ordinary natural human survival and well being are mentioned. 'Dollars' are part of the problem, not the solution.

Quote:
Unless we develop a plan to incorporate both aspects of parity, we will lose any incentive to work for the greater good, and quickly work only for personal betterment.


This too has been covered in the thread.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 33: Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:23 pm
Reply

Like this post
First of all, it is true that I had not read the entire thread. I have now.

I agree that society must change drastically in the future, as there will be less need for workers except in the most menial tasks and the most technically advanced. Millions of those middle people will be surplus, as their jobs are replaced by technology.

However I don't see a system like you propose being workable at all. One principle reason has been touched on already, and that is the need for governance. There is no way millions of people are going to work cooperatively on anything. I don't care how much education is used, it cannot happen without some form of governance. (which is disparity by definition). There is far too much variation in individuals--desire to help others is strong in some and entirely absent in others. Greed is the same. Ambition, whether to live a more luxurious life, or whether to live a more stoned life, varies tremendously.

It is easy to say everyone gets housing, health, etc as a right.....but who is going to organise where the housing goes, how big it is, what to do with someone who wrecks the house, what sort of infrastructure will be available, and who will build it, and who will ensure all this complex structure is maintained? this has not been addressed, effectively. How would society be governed?

Remember that it is virtually impossible for even a small committee of like minded people to agree on much. People vary too much, and either there is compromise or power based decision. To think millions of people will voluntarily work for the common good is extremely unrealistic. There are so many crappy jobs to be done to run a village/country/planet that no one will do those jobs unless they are compelled to , or are paid enough to.

[quote]
Quote:
What do I mean by "legal corruption"? I'm talking about legal but totally unfair capitalistic competition. Take Walmart for example. They aren't doing anything illegal, but their methods are basically cut-throat to small business. The smaller companies simply cannot compete with the high-volume discounts that a company like Walmart can benefit from. So while it is "legal" (i.e. not criminally corrupt), it's still form of corruption in terms of what's best for humanity and society at large.


this is an example of what I'm saying. I went into Target and saw a product for $23. The next day I needed that product but was much closer to Walgreens so checked there. They had the same product for $35 and I asked them to meet the Target price. They could not do so. I bought it anyway this time, but next time I won't bother going there. My actions here, added to the millions of others just like it, are what makes the monster corporations so large and growing. It is not corruption. It is the natural human desire to get the most bang for the buck as it were. The same thing will happen in Utopia. One village will gradually become a better place to live than the next, due to better educated residents, better attitude towards work, and fresher and healthier food grown. They will have more medical access because the doctors have gradually moved to this village. A village with fewer lazy people and fewer criminal types will eventually push those folks out ot other villages. YOu can see how this will evolve to HAVE villages and HAVE NOT villages.....and it cannot be stopped without strong and intrusive government action.

I believe we can reduce disparity of benefit and labour with a government committed to that principle. People can enjoy a right to housing health etc in exchange for work. Parity of labour is essential, and so far, si the least discussed aspect of a better society.]
Quote:

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 34: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:30 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 33 by twobitsworth]

Quote:
I agree that society must change drastically in the future, as there will be less need for workers except in the most menial tasks and the most technically advanced. Millions of those middle people will be surplus, as their jobs are replaced by technology.


What do you think regarding the sustainability of planetary resource? Do you think the surplus people could be utilized to help with that or will machines and technology be able to do this?

Quote:
However I don't see a system like you propose being workable at all. One principle reason has been touched on already, and that is the need for governance. There is no way millions of people are going to work cooperatively on anything. I don't care how much education is used, it cannot happen without some form of governance. (which is disparity by definition).


Why is any form of governance 'disparity by definition'?

Quote:
There is far too much variation in individuals--desire to help others is strong in some and entirely absent in others. Greed is the same. Ambition, whether to live a more luxurious life, or whether to live a more stoned life, varies tremendously.


But aren't you conflating the present systems with this idea? You are assuming that people will choose to remain the same. Situations educate people as much as teachers do. A dog in a cage poked daily with a sharp stick is 'naturally' going to behave differently than a dog who is treated with loving-kindness.

Present laws of the systems of disparity allow for people to express greediness through ambition and reward them for that with luxury.

Is it your argument that it is 'human nature' to be like this?
Do you think human nature has anything to do with how humans are educated and how the present systems encourage certain behavior by rewarding it and discouraging other behavior by punishing it and conflating good behavior with bad behavior as they do this?

Quote:
It is easy to say everyone gets housing, health, etc as a right.....but who is going to organise where the housing goes, how big it is, what to do with someone who wrecks the house, what sort of infrastructure will be available, and who will build it, and who will ensure all this complex structure is maintained? this has not been addressed, effectively. How would society be governed?


Initially these things will have to be sorted but once the system become an established reality, it will become self evident, People will understand that they are largely governing themselves and the principles of parity make decisions far easier due to lack of complexity.

Organizing where the housing goes etc is a skill set already well established. The same goes for infrastructure. There may have to be some rethinking in line with how such things affect the environment.

The idea of people purposefully wreaking houses seems contradictory to the fact that they are given everything the need to live by, in exchange for their life's energy in helping to kept the system of parity functioning smoothly. Why would anyone want to wreck that?

Quote:
Remember that it is virtually impossible for even a small committee of like minded people to agree on much. People vary too much, and either there is compromise or power based decision.


Remember that present committee situations are all involved with trying to function within the structures of disparity and this has much to do with disagreement. Limited funding and robbing Peter to pay Paul, cross purposes and pushing for particular results which will increase the likelihood of one benefiting/profiting, are all such reasons why people disagree and are all monetary based and thus prioritizing becomes necessary and disagreement comes from this type of platform.

A system of parity would do away with a lot of that stress and people will have no reason to disagree in the way the presently do.

Quote:
To think millions of people will voluntarily work for the common good is extremely unrealistic.


I don't think so. To me, saying such a thing is up there with claiming original sin. 'Human nature' is sinful by nature. It is saying that, given the choice to do good or evil, people will chose evil. If that is an actual fact, then I would say that religion got it right about that one.

It is not just for the common good that people will exchange their life energy for. That is par for the course, but common good is not necessarily a bad thing is it? What you are saying is that people won't want to 'work' for a good thing, because they are basically bad.

Quote:
There are so many crappy jobs to be done to run a village/country/planet that no one will do those jobs unless they are compelled to , or are paid enough to.


Well since money is not an option, the exchange rate is 'give your life's energy to build and maintain parity for food clothing shelter and health, education, etc...' Presently the crappy jobs are done by whom who are compelled by what?

Can you give and example of the kind of crappy jobs you are speaking about?

Quote:
My actions here, added to the millions of others just like it, are what makes the monster corporations so large and growing.


And if there was an alternative to the present systems of disparity, would you choose to continue with your present actions or would you invest your actions into a system of parity where such opportunity to feed giant corporate monsters is no longer an option?

Quote:
It is not corruption. It is the natural human desire to get the most bang for the buck as it were.


You are saying that it is natural for human beings to be greedy and want more than they even need? Do you realize that for every human being who thinks and acts this way, other human beings are losing out on what could be their share of that?
But because of the present systems of disparity, this is seen to be 'okay' - some win while most lose, and 'that is just nature'. Do you really believe this is the case?

Are you claiming it is just a natural part of the way evolution unfolds and 'it is not corruption' on account of that?
How does this fit in with the fact that such systems are directly contributing to unsustainable processes which are actually harming nature? How do you explain this so-called 'natural' human greed with the corruption of nature it is causing?

Quote:
The same thing will happen in Utopia. One village will gradually become a better place to live than the next, due to better educated residents, better attitude towards work, and fresher and healthier food grown.


The idea presented is that people are not consigned to one village for the rest of their lives, but are free to travel the world unencumbered by even boarders.

This is a very natural way for humans to live, by not staying in one place their whole lives and not having just one skill, but opportunity to develop many skills over a lifetime.
All villages are as good as all others, because the villages are not required to go it alone anyway. They are simply places in which to develop and it is unnecessary to make them larger than they have to be and they can all be within walking distance of each other, What one village does not have, another village can provide because the villages are not expected to just produce enough to get by, but also a surplus to share with other communities.

Quote:
They will have more medical access because the doctors have gradually moved to this village. A village with fewer lazy people and fewer criminal types will eventually push those folks out ot other villages. YOu can see how this will evolve to HAVE villages and HAVE NOT villages.....and it cannot be stopped without strong and intrusive government action.


Doctors too can travel as they will, and settle for a time where they will, and teach others how to be doctors. Technology can take care of the bigger health requirements and peoples health will generally improve anyway.
As for lazy people, the point of the education re parity is to teach people that they get what they need in exchange for giving their life energies to the system which gives them what they need. Win Win.

It may be that for a few generations lazy people will still expect to get things for nothing, but this attitude will die out as future generations born into the system of parity see no purpose in being lazy, any more than they will see any purpose in being overworked. Generally there will be less need to work the kind of hours we presently are working anyway.
Human beings actually thrive on creativity and many so-called lazy people are unemployed and are of little value to the present systems of disparity which breed them. A system of parity will open up creativity because things people can contribute won't be judged upon what they can do to make money. When people are appreciated for being able to do something, they do not bury their talents and refuse to contribute.

It is when they are scraped that they resort to what you call laziness, because they are not wanted for anything. They are treated as having no value.

As for criminals, they are primarily involved with making money. If money is no longer an option, and the value is in people rather than things, how are they going to carry on being criminals? There is nothing to steal, there is nothing to own, there is nothing to get rich by and become lords of. Everything is everyone's to use, not abuse.

Explain to me how criminals can thrive in such a system. Certain there is no need for you to explain how they thrive in the current systems of disparity.

Quote:
I believe we can reduce disparity of benefit and labour with a government committed to that principle. People can enjoy a right to housing health etc in exchange for work. Parity of labour is essential, and so far, si the least discussed aspect of a better society.]


Well by all means, feel free to expand on those ideas. That is what the thread is about.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 35: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:40 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
As for lazy people, the point of the education re parity is to teach people that they get what they need in exchange for giving their life energies to the system which gives them what they need. Win Win.


I agree that education may help to encourage people to get off the porch and do something for society, but this would be a minority of people. i will give you an example. In British Columbia where I live we have aboriginal communities who receive free post secondary education. This is a huge benefit not available to everyone else....and if you were correct, there would be nearly 100% take up on this benefit. There is not. It is a minority of aboriginals who take advantage of this benefit.

the problem is, there is no personal benefit to an individual to make an extra effort for anything--they are entitled to the same benefit regardless of effort expended. Parity as you are describing it, would actively encourage extreme laziness and self indulgence--their living conditions would not be affected.

Additionally, as mentioned before, there are another minority of people who are naturally inclined to constantly improve their own lives by performing extra work. Every group of people has a minority like this, and they are not "greedy" for this desire to improve their lives. Yes, parity might give them a mediocre house, medical, etc but they will not be satisfied with that for long at all.....and will look for ways to improve their lot. Under parity, the indolent will look at the hard worker who has created beautiful paintings for his house, has grown exotic foods, and has actively raised livestock to trade....and will say "how come this guy gets to have so much, this is not parity". And it would not be parity--one person ran faster and ran harder, and quickly lives a better life.

Using a form of currency exacerbates this pattern, but even without it, the same strata will develop in any society. Attempting to force the ambitious to be satisfied with the same as the lazy is doomed to fail.

One step we might take though, towards a better distribution, would be to look at the non working segment of society. Those currently unemployed and those who will become unemployed by tech. They enjoy unemployment benefits for say, six months.(while they look for new work) Then cash benefits cease. Instead, they are moved into government built housing units adjacent to massive farming/greenhouses, where they are allowed to live for free in exchange for working 40 hour weeks producing food for society. As long as they are doing this work they enjoy a steady standard of living. They are free to leave anytime to take outside work or to start a business.

In the event a person is unemployed, and also refuses to pull his/her weight producing food, would be put into the special free housing called detention where every service is designed to preserve human life and no more.

The advantages of this plan are several: food is raised/grown locally and organically with no imports. each person is actively contributing to the success of the society. a vast amount of cash which used to be paid out to individuals with no accountability as to what it is spent on, would be redirected to building new housing and infrastructure for those who will become unemployed soon.

Once the bugs are worked out, people could be doing other work to contribute as it was needed by society.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 36: Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:01 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 35 by twobitsworth]
Quote:

I agree that education may help to encourage people to get off the porch and do something for society, but this would be a minority of people. i will give you an example. In British Columbia where I live we have aboriginal communities who receive free post secondary education. This is a huge benefit not available to everyone else....and if you were correct, there would be nearly 100% take up on this benefit. There is not. It is a minority of aboriginals who take advantage of this benefit.

the problem is, there is no personal benefit to an individual to make an extra effort for anything--they are entitled to the same benefit regardless of effort expended. Parity as you are describing it, would actively encourage extreme laziness and self indulgence--their living conditions would not be affected.


I think your argument here fails to address the system of parity which I have been speaking about.

I think you are far too readily simplistic in your assessment of those you call lazy people. You think it is because they cannot be bothered but have you thought about the possibility that the see no collective future in the way the present systems of disparity function, and while they are given what might be considered 'preferential' treatment by being given a leg up on the ladder of competition, they simply see no future in those systems giving them the opportunity to do so, because - either consciously or subconsciously, or a mix of both- they see or intuit that ultimately it is a doomed process they are being encouraged to partake of.
Also, within that idea, it may be that they are not as selfish as those who embrace the opportunity because they understand that while indeed they might as an individual succeed, the success is an empty one at that because the whole world isn't altogether succeeding along with them.
So it may not be a case of being lazy but of not wanting to expend energy into something which they feel is ultimately futile in relation to the bigger picture.

Then you might argue that if this is the case, what are they doing to change that? Why are some of them resorting to drugs and frivolous behavior which the observer can interpret to mean that they do not care anyway?

I would say that much of that is a reaction to powerlessness and a general lack of understanding or appreciation or trust for the powers that be and it has to be remembered that the dominant systems of disparity (most notably, Rome) forced themselves upon indigenous cultures and insinuated their methods onto those people, whether they like that or not.

One can understand how this has had its affect, and how that has turned out for these cultures and how they have naturally developed distrust and hopelessness in the face of such powerful entities.
Such things are etched into those minds and due to the ripple effect on how these systems of disparity have had on the ecosystems of the planet and even threaten extinction, it that light one can understand the 'laziness' as more of a hopeless reaction in the face of mighty adversity and the drugs etc as an escape from that reality. (One would also do well to remember that many of those more involved in supporting these systems of disparity are also indulging in drugs so to be fair, drugs are likely not the root cause of the problems in either 'camp').

Quote:
Additionally, as mentioned before, there are another minority of people who are naturally inclined to constantly improve their own lives by performing extra work. Every group of people has a minority like this, and they are not "greedy" for this desire to improve their lives. Yes, parity might give them a mediocre house, medical, etc but they will not be satisfied with that for long at all.....and will look for ways to improve their lot.


One might argue that greediness is wanting more than one really requires, in terms of FCS&H, but in relation to the idea of the system of parity I have been touching upon, the same education would apply to such people, and taking away the means in which they are able to exercise this 'non-greedy-but-natural' tendency would soon enough replace such with something more appropriate and necessary in relation to becoming a type 1 species.

Basically the whole idea of parity is to improve everyone's lot equally from the go-get, so that this has the effect of them not having to concern themselves with wanting to 'desire to improve their lives'. Improving ones lot in relation to the present systems of disparity allow for the activity of doing so, but those so involved seem never really sure at which point ones 'lot' has improved, and thus are always striving for more and more of the piece of the pie, always at the cost of others going without and the environment irrevocably suffering.

A system of parity will allow people to understand that helping improve everyone's 'lot' as a global idea, as a collective species - will always mean that whatever improvements are created with this in mind, will automatically improve the individuals 'lot' and that should suffice as a natural filler for the urge you speak of as 'natural'.

Quote:
Under parity, the indolent will look at the hard worker who has created beautiful paintings for his house, has grown exotic foods, and has actively raised livestock to trade....and will say "how come this guy gets to have so much, this is not parity". And it would not be parity--one person ran faster and ran harder, and quickly lives a better life.


This is not at all how I have been expressing my idea of a system of parity. Hard work is relative to the individuals abilities and most individuals will gravitate to where they feel they can provide the best expression because they will have that opportunity, and because they are valued for that expression, and because that expression contributes to the whole.

They may create the beautiful paintings or the house, but neither the painting OR the house belongs to anyone. They are enjoyed by those who occupy the house and as occupiers, also custodians. Same with exotic foods and livestock. Any trade might be with other communities who have the exotic food, materials for building and infrastructure, but no one owns the product of their work, because their work (life's energy) is traded from the go-get for FCS&H. Nothing is owned. Everything is shared equally.

The general idea of this system would be that the Earth Itself provides the raw materials and seeds etc - everything - necessary for all these things to be made/grown etc, and we are all custodians of the Earth.
As such, we are already freely provided for and the rest is simply collectively up to us, to maintain and care for in all ways which allow for this to happen.

Thus there will not be any opportunity for anyone to have to wonder "how come this guy gets to have so much, this is not parity" because that can only be expressed within the culture of systems of disparity.

Quote:
Using a form of currency exacerbates this pattern, but even without it, the same strata will develop in any society. Attempting to force the ambitious to be satisfied with the same as the lazy is doomed to fail.


Your whole argument stems directly from within the systems of disparity. The forcing is actually occurring from the systems of disparity currently in place.

The idea of a system of parity is not to attempt to 'force the ambitious to be satisfied with the same as the lazy' because that would be doomed to fail.
Rather the idea is equilibrium which lifts the position of those going without and drops the position of those having more than enough. The focus of the ambition is what is being asked of the ambitious to reconsider, and not by force (for how is that possible?) but through the logical necessity of finding a real workable alternative to the current systems of disparity.

In that, no one would be asking the ambitious to become destitute lazy people (for who among them would want that?) but to get them to understand that if they continue down the path they are currently on, inevitably they will most likely end up on that position anyway, as all systems of disparity are unsustainable.

It is similar to asking those who can invest wealth into ideas, to think about investing in Earth rather than in the Moon or Mars...that can wait until we have collectively cleaned up the mess that the systems of disparity have created.

Presently, pointing fingers and expressing that the reason we have problems is because of lazy/indolent people who don't want to be like the ambitious supporters of disparity who are success stories, is not even realistic. Even if everyone became like that, where would they get their wealth from? Systems of disparity are dependent upon the 'have-nots' existing, otherwise what can they measure their success and wealth against? Each other? Then what? The ones with the least millions become the prey? A new layer of social failure to replace the old, so the finger of distraction continues to point blame away from those who most benefit from these present systems of disparity?

Such can never end well.

Quote:
One step we might take though, towards a better distribution, would be to look at the non working segment of society. Those currently unemployed and those who will become unemployed by tech. They enjoy unemployment benefits for say, six months.(while they look for new work) Then cash benefits cease. Instead, they are moved into government built housing units adjacent to massive farming/greenhouses, where they are allowed to live for free in exchange for working 40 hour weeks producing food for society. As long as they are doing this work they enjoy a steady standard of living. They are free to leave anytime to take outside work or to start a business.


To me, this idea - while sounding quite good, is simply a band aid on a gaping festering wound requiring actual surgery.

It is simply something which is expressed under the belief that the present systems of disparity have to be upheld, nurtured, supported etc, and that this can still be accomplished through ideas which simply impound the victims of disparity where they can be used to continue making profits for the rich and powerful.

'Looking for new work' is a catch-cry which has little relevance for the reality of the situation. Rather than have 'lazy' folk sit around, at least have them out 'looking for work' which doesn't actually exist.

Quote:
They enjoy unemployment benefits for say, six months.(while they look for new work) Then cash benefits cease.


If you have ever been on an unemployment benefit, you should know that there is nothing really to speak of, to 'enjoy'.
Some get accustomed to this, and this complicates things when trying to get them back into the workforce, but of course if the work doesn't actually exist, it becomes more of a problem for those made to actively seek work, and go through the motions of keeping to that type of routine. It is pointless and an unnecessary degradation.

For example, the country I live in - a member of the government recently proposed making the unemployed 'work for the dole' by having them plant trees. The member was booed for this, but the government did suggest the unemployed are made to plant trees for the minimum wage.

This is still an idea worth booing, because it still comes from the systems of disparity which require there are always those less equal with others, (such as the ruling classes) and those that make the rules do so for that reason.

In my mind, it would be far better to offer great incentive, such as an automatic share in the proceeds of the sweat of their labors, so that they are investing in their own futures, and given the opportunity - not to simply stay in the same place while those making the rules profit from that, but in actually advancing their position and having pride in their work efforts rather than simply being USED.

And speaking of being USED;

Quote:
Then cash benefits cease. Instead, they are moved into government built housing units adjacent to massive farming/greenhouses, where they are allowed to live for free in exchange for working 40 hour weeks producing food for society.


So their efforts in producing food allows for them to live in these units, pay rent, pay for their food, and profits are made through the sale of food to 'society' which they themselves will never see.

Like I explained, this is simply a band aid on a gaping festering wound requiring actual surgery.

Quote:
As long as they are doing this work they enjoy a steady standard of living. They are free to leave anytime to take outside work or to start a business.


Oh the enjoyment! How could anyone NOT enjoy such a privilege! They might even get lucky and escape that joy in order to find non-government employment which might pay better, or even start their own business and get the tax benefits from that and move up in the world! It is an empty dream fostered by the systems of disparity which will eventual only see the filthy richest survive in their underground fortresses as the planet declines due to the forces of inequality. Or perhaps the richest of the richest will fly off to Mars, where they will then be dealing with even worse conditions anyway. But at least they will be free from the scourge of the have-nots!

What madness is that?

Quote:
In the event a person is unemployed, and also refuses to pull his/her weight producing food, would be put into the special free housing called detention where every service is designed to preserve human life and no more.


Like a prison within a prison. Such are the 'solutions' from those who enjoy the systems of disparity enough to even think such a suggestion is actually even moral, let alone good.

Quote:
The advantages of this plan are several: food is raised/grown locally and organically with no imports. each person is actively contributing to the success of the society. a vast amount of cash which used to be paid out to individuals with no accountability as to what it is spent on, would be redirected to building new housing and infrastructure for those who will become unemployed soon.


Looks good on paper eh? Who are 'those who will become unemployed soon'?

One would of course have to consider the loses involved for those currently profiting from the import/export sectors. They are rich and powerful and unlikely to support such a thing anyway.

All said and done, ownership, cash (or other types of exchange) all are tools of the systems of disparity and until this is understood, things are not going to get better. One can hope, one can even pray, but if one is unable to seriously contemplate the problem and help create a viable solution independent of those tools which are helping maintain the problem, one is not seeing the wood for the trees, and one is 'living the dream' without regard for the actual reality.

Quote:
Once the bugs are worked out, people could be doing other work to contribute as it was needed by society.


Yes. These 'people' in the interim, are not part of the 'society' which needs them. That is disparity. That is the nature of the systems of disparity. That is why these systems evolved as they have.

'Society' in that sense, are those who most benefit in having the systems of disparity supported and maintained by 'the people' - *voters or non voters as they may be.

* Religion and Politics - same coin, different sides.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 37: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:43 pm
Reply
Re: A System of Parity

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by William]

If they are torturing kids and I believe in doing something and come up with ideas of value, why should we be equally rewarded?

So, why advocate "hard" parity? What's the difference of measures as matter of fact from today's situation of "capitalism under democracy and human rights"?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 38: Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:13 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
They may create the beautiful paintings or the house, but neither the painting OR the house belongs to anyone. They are enjoyed by those who occupy the house and as occupiers, also custodians. Same with exotic foods and livestock. Any trade might be with other communities who have the exotic food, materials for building and infrastructure, but no one owns the product of their work, because their work (life's energy) is traded from the go-get for FCS&H. Nothing is owned. Everything is shared equally.


Maybe I don't understand something here. Lets take education for example. All anyone needs to survive comfortably is basic numeracy and literacy. Any further education is undertaken to improve one's lot in life, and is taught by people who are well paid for understanding and sharing complex knowledge. Individuals undertake many years of difficult education in order to obtain much better jobs, paying much better salaries. But if we take that possibility away, any further education would be curtailed.

Additionally, all the professors who live in fine homes, and enjoy secure tenure at universities may not be receptive to giving all that up, and living alongside the grade three street cleaner in the same conditions, but if we are to have parity, those professionals will have to be brought down to the parity level.

After a few years of this parity, who would fly the planes, perform the operations in surgery, repair transit services in major cities, etc? These are highly technical jobs that require over a decade of dedicated struggle through university.

IF the product of your labours is not yours to do with as you like, but must be shared with all who ask....why would a person struggle through a decade of further education?? A basic life can be had, just like every other person's life...with third grade or so.

Also, in a parity system, how would recreation work? All these equal people who don't own anything--some of them might want to fly overseas to visit relatives, or enjoy sunshine. How could they do that? Who would fly the plane? Who would maintain the plane? Who would perform the myriad jobs needed to run an airport.....and why would they do so? I get it that they woudl be taught that everyone who wants to has to contribute what they can, and they should be happy with the same services as everyone else who has made a tiny fraction of their effort--because there would be no benefit to striving to achieve anything. This is the fundamental flaw in the idea of parity as presented.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version