[Replying to post 35 by twobitsworth
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').
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.