Hello Billypot,
Good luck. I do not believe in a free lunch and I fail to see how someone can be supported without effort on their part and at no one else's expense, but then again the government has been printing money without backing...
In the mean time the motor of the world is well on its way to stopping.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Respectfully,
O.A.

Hi O.A.,
- I agree on all the first point. I am not pro-government at all.
all the systems you mention are a variant of the use of Money as we know it. I guess that by now you understand that I do not profess taking from one and giving to the other; as I said what I am thinking about is a totally new currency system. You may doubt the possibility of change, but then I find myself thinking the words of John Galt. Indeed, you may very well be a man of 'good' as you see the need for change - but you use your ability for the wrong purpose. By proclaiming that Capitalism is worth pursuing, you are thinking and acting against change. Because what must be stopped is not the world's mechanics (governments) but the motor itself (magic speculating money).

- Let me just insist here that my main goal is NOT HELPING THE POOR as such – it is putting creativity and enterprise, at a human level – more local/regional and not global – at the center of the system in a way that the entrepreneur keeps the totality of the result of his work. As I have replied to someone else on this page, this is not a socialist plan as such. To repeat again the idea would be : changing the currency system into another 'token' system, strictly for trading goods and services, that would allow an Unconditional Basic Income WITHOUT taking from one and giving to the other.

- About Human Nature, in its lowest level of expression, it is indeed not likely to change much. But humans see their nature change as they understand better the world and themselves through education. The very purpose of education, as I stated elsewhere, has to change equally drastically.
The man of today is different from the man of the past – even of the recent past. I am 46, the adults I knew when I was a kid are not the same – the world has changed and the people have changed accordingly. But the lowest characteristics are still the same and maybe even worse as they are being put to teh forefront by a society that makes appearance ever more important than substance. Changing the Motor of the World has implications that would change the way Humans see themselves and the others and, being less materialistic and more substantial, the way they 'control' the basic aspects of their nature would be different. Because change at a higher level is possible – that's what our neo-cortex is all about.

Sincerely,

JL

Hi Zero,

there is actually a lot of common ground in the fact that we agree there must be a change from the current situation. I would have to agree with your reply 'not in the next 50 years' if the only option was continuing the current system. As I said, I think we agree on the need for a change - but this must be a drastic one - away from the traditional political schemes. Stop the Motor of the World :-) The Motor, once again, for me – is the current way magic-Money functions. That Motor must be replaced entirely and drastically. Please read my answer to O.A. above as what I say is certainly valid for you as well.

About TV – I am sure that you know that everything told on TV has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The TV, next to the commercials creating unnecessary desires, is an ideological machine (both objections are tied of course). It is always important to know who's doing the talking because the narrative will be different from one to the other and will – definitely – never be complete. Before being a photographer I studied Film and worked a bit in that area. I could see the way stories where being told and why. I didn't want to pursue in such a shallow and false environment. Do I have an issue with TV ? I hope you do too. But of course there are programs I like – but I always watch with a critical eye and a questioning mind.

Hello Billypot,

1.) Utopia literally will probably never be achieved even on an individual basis, No one is ever satisfied. That is human nature. Happiness in varying degrees can be achieved and in this nation we were once promised the right to pursue it. Since happiness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder no government can set up a system that will please all. the best one can hope for is a minimalist government that protects the right of all to pursue to the best of their ability there own course. That means not taking from them the fruits of their labor or efforts they exert in this personal quest for the benefit of others not of their choosing.

The necessary changes are to live up to these promises, the spirit of the highest laws of the land the Constitution, return to a limited government that protects the rights of the individual instead of focusing on various groups.
"The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals* ( *I would interject here that these would be the most limited circumstances and I might disagree slightly with Locke). In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects." John Locke http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/...

"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” T. J.

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” T. J.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson

Good government would punish those in government and those outside that practice/participate in crony capitalism. It would protect the natural rights of all individuals, be the arbiter of legal disputes and the unbiased arbiter and dispenser of objective punishment of those that violate the rights of others. Nothing more.

Those that don't fit the system must fend for themselves as best as they can... depend upon the goodwill of others. In extreme cases where charity would not suffice then as a last resort State and local governments are best suited to aid them. The Federal government has no legitimate place. It has overstepped its legitimate authority.

2.) Technology and times have changed, but that has always been the case and the argument. Human nature has not.

As for other attempts at forms of socialism, or attempts to take care of the masses when they cannot or will not do for themselves. World history is replete with Marxist, socialist, and fascist examples. Our system has implemented schemes like the Square Deal, The New Deal, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., etc. Billions and billions have been spent on the war against poverty and yet it remains. Nations will go broke trying to help through good intentions, but the problem remains and is often exacerbated. Again, human nature remains unchanged. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Margaret Thatcher — 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.'


Respectfully,
O.A.

You resort to "automation" to evade the obvious injustice of allowing some to stop working while others MUST continue. You imply that all work can be automated.

I don't have to follow the link to see the obvious truth of it. I am a futurist at heart and it is patently obvious that there will come a day when all undesirable effort will be handled by machines.

But how soon?

Come back in 500 years and mines will mine themselves and sewage treatment plants will have no humans.
Hell, come back in 200 years! Maybe even 100 though I doubt it.

But not 50. No way 50. FIFTY years from now people will still be working.

So the change you advocate TODAY cannot fail to be a gross injustice to those who still have to do the jobs that stay-at-home poets have decided doesn't suit them.

But this isn't news to you, Billy. It is obvious from your discourse you are no fool. And that's why I consider a sideways reference to "automation" - as though it were right around the corner and pertinent to the debate - to be "glossing over" my main point - that what you propose is UNFAIR.
---

"The assumption is proven wrong..."
Few people have a head for business. It's not rocket science, but it does require a PASSION few possess.
As for all the rest (except health) - who cares?!

Whether they're reading the Classics, perfecting their backhand or smoking themselves into a perpetual stupor makes no difference. The point is they have stopped contributing to the sum of effort REQUIRED for Man to survive. They've still chosen a life of ease when it's not yet time to rest.
---

As for TV - sound's like you have issues with TV, but I'll leave that alone.
I think it's one of the Great Inventions and has changed Man as well as history.
Me? I like it. A lot. High drama and drop-dead comedy. History comes alive and Science is made plain. There's CSPAN if that's what you're into, or Porn if you prefer.

But as with all things, moderation, of course.
---

And on the last point, for those who "don't have the ability or just don't 'fit'"... well... those are two VERY different kinds of people, don't you think? Why would you would lump them together?

People who genuinely cannot work can be taken care of. Why wouldn't they be? Who would allow an 80 year old grandma to starve?

But "just don't fit?"
What does that mean?
Does it mean they just never learned to wake up every morning and get to work on-time?
Well, work the swing shift! Stay up as late as you want and wake up without an alarm!

The entire range of human endevour can be turned into a viable living.
"Do What You Love and the Money Will Follow" is one of my favorite books.

Dream - make a goal - make a plan - work the plan.
That's not rocket science either.

But for those who simply don't "fit" regardless of how benign their work could be?
Yes, absolutely, LET THEM BEG OR LET THEM STARVE. Right in front of my eyes. I'm totally OK with that. Really - no joke.

Anyone "too good to work" must rely on the MERCY of those who are not. And I, for one, have damn little of it.

Hi O.A.,

thanks for the reply. Two questions/remarks:

- "Utopia on an individual basis can be achieved if one has the initiative and is left to enjoy all of the fruits of their labor." Right. Even though as the individual is the basic element of humanity, achieving it would go beyond the individual level - so mentioning individual level sounds like minimizing the scope of what can be achieved the manner explained. But the current system absolutely makes it impossible. Even though Capitalism has been a necessary step in the advancement of humanity, the time calls for a change. You call the current system 'crony capitalism' - I do agree. What do you see as the necessary changes ? And what do you do about those who don't fit the system ?

- "You are not suggesting anything new or innovative that someone has not in some iteration tried to do before." What is striking now is the possibilities offered to make it work today: the advent of technology that makes automated work on a large scale possible (transport for example) and also the possibility to give small-scale production means into the hand of the citizens (3D printing for example), plus the availability of knowledge through the digital revolution. Add to this of course the general, global unrest about the current world organization. The ideas are not new by themselves - but the convergence of so many factors make the ideas coherent and relevant today. Besides, out of curiosity, please tell me more about the previous attempts you see resembling what I mentioned so far.

Sincerely,

JL

No. I am not against property as long as property results from our own work. I put the entrepreneur/innovator at the center of the system. I am against centralized governments. I am for a participative democracy and against the current joke that the elections represent (plutocracy). Don't oversimply what I am saying to fit in a box that you already know.

Also, from what I read on Judge Napolitano's 1-hour appearance Q&A, it feels like revolution is brewing. But a revolution brings changes to the current system. I hear many people talk about protecting what they have. But I don't see many outlines for a new system. Please do explain what you see as best organization. And what is your plan of action regarding those who don't fit to that organization?

Zero,

- I absolutely agree with you on energy.
- the assumption is proven wrong in the sense that people use the means given to them to advance their situation - this can mean starting a business, but also mending their home, taking care of health issues... It is not about going to work for anyone else.
- watching TV: TV is strictly a salesman in a box. It is a produc of the current system and is meant to keep people scotched in their sofas - only to leave it to buy the promoted products. Get rid of corporatism/global capitalism and you get rid of the mesmerizing media as we know it. Besides, and more important - what I am proposing, as answered in my previous reply, implies a different type of education - one that prepares people for action. The current education prepares people for inaction and doing what they're told. That's how you get people melting in their sofas.
- I truly can believe from your answers that you wouldn't use the word 'parasite'. That's good.
- I didn't gloss over your remark: I mentioned automation. The coming technical revolution (and it's already here) will replace many of the existing jobs. This can be ok in a society that let people use their time to be themselves or it can terrible if the system just lets down the people replaced by automation. Please check the following: http://www.federicopistono.org/books/tal... Browse the author's website and you will find his other book 'Robots will steal your jobs but it's ok'.
- I personnally do not see myself withdrawing from any efforts - as I believe you must have understood from what I've said about myself. But I know there are people who either don't have the ability for or just don't fit in a common endeavor. You didn't reply to my question: what you do about these people ?

The least expenditure of energy is life's natural state. Birds become flightless when there is nothing to evade.

You say the assumption is proven wrong - I say bull sh!t. I've seen Indian reservations and the South Side on Chicago.

And I know myself.
I am not "driven". Most people are not. Striving "go-getters" are the exception - not the rule.

The average man, if allowed to do so, will sit on the couch and watch daytime. TV I know I did.

I'll say it again - the worst thing you can do for a person is give them a check.

BTW, I never use the word "parasite," I try to be civil.

And also BTW, you glossed over my main point in the first exchange. In this day and age there are no mines without miners, there are no sewage plants without sewage plant workers, there are no snow plows without snow plow drivers.

By what reasoning do you consider it OK to withdraw your efforts from this Great and Necessary Common Endevor?

Zero,

1. the problem is not to give a check. It is to take away from the active to give to the inactive. Each is entitled to the fruit of its efforts. But the current Money system allows nothing else than handicapping the creative. There are other possibilities but these imply not a modification of the system, but a total paradigm shift.
2. You say the vast majority would just do nothing. This is an assumption that has been proven wrong on the terrain. Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E3...
I agree some will not do much or anything. But these are a minority. Currently they are indeed a cost to the working population. But the system can be engineered otherwise – and not remove to the active to let the inactive access food, lodging, energy. If we don't change the system, what is your best option ? Working camps ? Extermination camps ? Here is an idea from the past. In 19th century Russia, BEFORE the communist era, there was no death penalty. But they would cut off the nose and ears of the guilty. And send them to freezing Siberia. They were dead after a maximum of 5 days. I guess there is always a guilt-free way to do things... What's your option ?
3. Unemployment is not without meaning. Bear with me. When you were unemployed, did you refuse to engage in something meaninful to you ? Or did you just not feel like there was anything worth moving your ass for ? In another educational system that teaches you to know yourself and to take action, rather than the current system that just tries to show you teh value of sacrifice and how to do well what you're told, you might have been ready to take action for a project that you find engaging for yourself at the time you went on welfare. There are ways to empower people through education and designing a system giving them the means of action without handicapping the active population. But it is a choice – the current choice is to organize greed and maintain those who have the magic money in the dominant position. Laziness is not a sin in science. It is a sign of maladjustment to the situation you're in at a certain moment in time. And it takes more than reason to change that – it requires self-knowledge and emotional balance. Not currently available in a greedy competition manufacturing fear and distrust.

Hello Billypot,
The "justifying the way things are being run now" as you see things, is not what is happening now. It is closest to how history has best delivered prosperity and increased the standard of living for more people around the world than any other system yet devised. We have drifted far afield from the ideal capitalist system and paid dearly for every step in the socialist direction. I am not satisfied with the present state/practice of things. We are practicing mixed market, crony capitalism.

As far as my reading material goes, I have read much that is "out of the box" including such radical doctrines (by comparison) as Marx and Engels have written. What I have offered was a minute portion of the material I have studied. What they have in common is the tried and true ring of truth. Though, to this day, much of what they advocate is not being practiced.

What you are proposing is not new; it has been tried in various forms and revealed themselves to be machinations.

No. You are not suggesting anything new or innovative that someone has not in some iteration tried to do before. It is just packaged in a new wrapper.

Friedman once proposed a minimal stipend for the masses and later expressed reservations.

To suggest that a true laissez faire system has somehow failed people, is to deny the fact that it has never truly been exercised. We have always had a mixed economy, but when we were closest to truly free markets we made the greatest leaps of progress known to history. It is also a logical fallacy to suggest that this system is not innovative or creative. It (though never fully laissez faire) was the product of millennia of inferior experiments and is the result of historical innovation. All other Utopian visions have proven that the one unchanging condition of human nature will always manifest itself and produce equality in the form of equal poverty under any system that rewards people for sloth.

There will never be a universal Utopia. Men naturally have divergent interests and a self interest that must be acknowledged and harnessed to best advantage, not to perfection. Perfection is a pipe dream. One man's utopia is another's prison.

When one is given something for nothing, one must always ask "at whose expense." Rand

Utopia on an individual basis can be achieved if one has the initiative and is left to enjoy all of the fruits of their labor.

You are quite right. We are unlikely to agree on much of what you have proposed. Perhaps if/when man has changed his nature in ways most unlikely many more millennia from now... Well, maybe I could see something positive to your vision.

Until then,
Respectfully,
O.A.

Billy, while you may not be - a great many are.
The worst thing you can do for a man is simply give him a check.

The VAST MAJORITY will simply resign themselves to that standard of living - however low that may be.

Here in America we have a great deal of experience with that.

I myself, have lived off unemployment until it ran out.
(As a sinner may be Christian - so to do I still consider myself an OBJ - though I have sinned.)

I am saying this is possible by replacing the current money system - not within the current money system. Economy is entirely man-made and can be completely replaced. We can replace the currency by automatically, unconditionally generated tokens. It is the scenario I am into - it needs a mental stretch but it is by no means impossible. New currencies are being created locally in many places around the world - it is just a matter of time before one is adopted worldwide. But for it to change anything, then it must make speculation impossible - it must remove the possibility to create tokens out of the tokens already owned. Only through trade of services/commodities can anyone earn more than the regular allowance that the Unconditionnal Basic Income would represent.

We don't need interstellar technology to dig graphite. Automation is here today and even more so tomorrow. Even standard office jobs are replaceable. We'd better get ready.

I am personnally far from a free-rider - I work my ass off to develop my own projects. I don't make use of subsidies or any State/Public help available. And I am doing ok. What do you do ?

I am pro-entrepreneurs, anti-centralization, anti-speculation but I am also studying - while working as photographer and software developer - Psychology with a particular interest in Educational Neuroscience. And I know that people are hard-wired differently. Nurture can change nature but in a limited way only. Not everyone can or wants to be an entrepreneur. We are all different and reality is different for each of us. The idea that reality is what IT IS is regarded as an oversimplification and a view of the past. We have to accept diversity. And organize the world towards diversity and away of any kind of domination. As I said in another reply, none of the current variants of the system (Capitalism / Socialism (incl. Communism) / Totalitarianism / Anarchy) can do without domination. We need a societal / political reboot - to stop the motor of the World : and that is self-replicating Money. Replace it by tokens strictly made for trading - no posibility to make tokens off tokens, only through creativity and trade. This is made possible through technology and by making it available to most of us. That is what automation can be used for. Reward the engineers, the farmers, the nurses,... but let the entrepreneurs be central to the society and earn extra when their creation meets success.
No need in all this to label anyone as parasites. It is the current money / economic system tax system that creates parasites through the necessity of taxation. A complete overhaul is imaginable and can be put into place - because economy is man-made and artificial. It can be changed - completely.

I agree with you. I am not pro-governments at all. But what is reinforcing Governments today is Corporatism. It needs the Governments to bring down salaries to maximize profit. The whole current system is gone astray - and the biggest problem is not the poor, it is those earning money speculating and living off the creators.

Hi Mimi,
I do agree Corporatism is not Capitalism - but what's going on out there Mimi ? It is the big global companies killing off entrepreneurs. And I agree Corporatism tends to resemble Collectivism as Corporation tend to buy off Governments. But don't you think many Propertarians / Libertarians are actually supporting Corporatism at least via the stock exchange if not simply earning a high salary in a big company ? Speculators are even worse than do-nothings to the active entrepreneurs. The John Galts of today are the employees of the Corprorations - these are the guys who must say NO and refuse to work for Corporatism. I am for free enterprise - but an entrepreneurial society is not necessarily a 'parasite safari' - but it takes a vision. A vision that takes away the 'man-made' self-replicating ability of money.

It is a different scenario. The scenario is made possible by the technological progress. Because automation will replace a lot of jobs - even standard office employees jobs, we need to get prepared and change the system.

You don't get the diffence implied in the replacement of the money system: in a vision where speculating-prone money is replaced by a token strictly made for trading, and whose creation is automatic and not controlled by anyone, you do not have to pay for anyone else - nothing is taken away from you. And the richness of nations (in money) is not an issue anymore. You are given the means for enterprise and entrepreneurship - let your creativity bring your best to the world - and be rewarded for your efforts when your creation meets success. Without having to hunt down the parasites - which is sometimes what some seem to love most about Libertarianism / Propertarianism.

We do not live in the days of Star Trek.
Our sustenance does not emerge miraculously from a replicator.
Everything we need and want is made by someone. Without the efforts of others we are naked and afraid.

Until the day robots do our work for us, someone will have to work the swing shift in a graphite mine.

Leave aside such advanced concepts as "Social Systems" or "Entrepreneurism" or whatever.
It's as simple as this - who finds "fulfillment" as a graphite miner? Who would CHOOSE that job if you could choose to do nothing.

But for just a moment lets back up and leave the confusion of modern life.
Consider a different time and circumstance - but the very same situation.

Imagine you are one of a handful of Islanders who've just landed on an unknown shore.
There is much to be done. There is EVERYTHING to be done.
But perhaps you don't like to hunt, fish, thatch roofs or take care of the pig. Maybe your thing is Polynesian Poetry.

Or maybe you're just so lazy you'd prefer to simply lie on the beach and let others catch your food, build your hut and watch the communal pig.

What RIGHT do you have to a free ride while others dig graphite at 22:00?
What system do you envision that does away with countless examples of less-than-desirable work?

That is not what I am saying. Life is fragile. A bad decision may cost us our life. We are not entitled to live through a bad choice. Sometimes we are lucky enough to live through bad decisions. But if I make a dab decision and die because of it, no one owns me a thing.

I scanned ahead and read your other remarks in this thread. Hope you don’t mind. ;)
To put it bluntly, Capitalism is not Corporatism. You are very confused. It doesn’t surprise me. You don’t live here; you are putting your own political biases on a system you have never chosen to live under and is quite different from your portion of the sphere. I love Capitalism. When it is done right, it is great for everyone. But, Corporatism is the enemy of true Capitalism --I’ll concede that point. It is an issue. However, your plan is a silly idea because there is not a handful of nations that are rich enough to pull your scheme off. I rather not pay for the sins of the world, mmm-kay?
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archive...

What you suggests is so much better than having gov't create "systems" that take over industries. The reason to create systems is a) it creates jobs for bureacrats, b) it masks the fact that we're asking the rich to subsidize the poor, and c) some people don't have faith in the poor to use wealth wisely.

An add-on on the update needed; from Wall Street Journal film review : "An update is needed, and not just because train buffs, New Deal economics and the miracle of the Bessemer converter are inexplicable to people under 50, not to mention boring. The anti-individualist enemies that Ayn Rand battled are still the enemy, but they’ve shifted their line of attack. Political collectivists are no longer much interested in taking things away from the wealthy and creative. Even the most left-wing politicians worship wealth creation—as the political-action-committee collection plate is passed. Partners at Goldman Sachs go forth with their billions. Steve Jobs walks on water. Jay-Z and Beyoncé are rich enough to buy God. Progressive Robin Hoods have turned their attention to robbing ordinary individuals. It’s the plain folks, not a Taggart/Rearden elite, whose prospects and opportunities are stolen by corrupt school systems, health-care rationing, public employee union extortions, carbon-emissions payola and deficit-debt burden graft. Today’s collectivists are going after malefactors of moderate means."