Start from ground zero, every one starts of equal then slowly "merit" will take place. Why? Because the human race needs this for them to "function" Just like some people need a god, are they any less of a person? No the just have a diffrent way of living. We all need diffrent things. So if we start from ground zero and everyone starts out equal "merit" will soon appear.
One of the fundamental problems with a communist distribution of resources is that if left in place it would inevitably weaken society. If everybody recieves equal resources from society regardless of what they put into society there is no real incentive to work hard and improve society. The simple fact is that human beings, like all other mammals on this planet, are fundamentally selfish creatures. While people are capable of kindness, charitable behavior cannot be relied upon, in the end, almost everybody will put the well being of themselves and their immediate family above all other concerns. Without a major worldwide shift in human conciousness this will never change. While this is not impossible, I wouldn't count on it happening any time soon. With that taken into account, under a system where resources are shared equally regardless of contribution to society there is no incentive to do any more work than what one is forced to do. A person gets up and goes to work in the morning because it will provide them with resources. If this person will recieve the same resources regardless of whether they go to work or not, why would someone bother to go to work? Under communism, the only incentive to contribute to society would be threat of punishment instituted by the government. This is extremely undesirable to anyone who values their personal freedom. The most natural and effective system for the distribution of resources is fair capitalism. When one recieves from society resources comparable to what they put into society, there is a real incentive to contribute as much as possible to society. When everyone contributes as much as they can to society everyone benefits. Society improves every day and there are more resources for everyone, everyone's standard of living improves.
There will never be a good form of goverment, goverment will never work, anarchy will never work untill people evolve so to speak, not phyiscaly but mentaly. For every capalist there is a "facist corperation" for every Socilist/communist there is a "facist dictator" for ever anarchist there will be "Facist non anarchist". The human race has to simply grow up, something i think we may not be able to achive right now.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. -- Thomas Paine
Free-market capitalism is a natural economic system. The only government involvement that is required is the institution and enforcement of rules to ensure fair practice. Communism, on the other hand, cannot function without massive government involvement to collect and redistribute wealth, as well as to regulate people's contribution to prevent total economic collapse. So, if you want an economic system which requires a lower level of government involvment, which I do, capitalism is the way to go. The simple fact remains that human nature is human nature, you cannot force human nature to change and it would be foolish to expect human nature to change. If human nature somehow were to suddenly change, a workable communist economy might be possible, but you shouldn't count on it.
Yep, if only the government would just fuck off, and quit trying to force people to eb how they want hem to.
Human nature changes more then you suspect. There used to be working anarchy, untill large cities began to impose up on the anarchist's territory. Thus anarchy became barbaric. Durring the rennsiance humanity changed, durring the revolution's of france and america humainty had this new idea of freedom. During the world wars Spain once again bought back the anarchist state, it worked, untill the bigger "citites" forced them to take up goverment. Now there will be another world war this time it may cause the world to start back at zero. Humainty is on a cycle just look at history. When people say humainty can never change, when contervsery is arised there is a revolution, a rennsiance, a change. Then people fall backinto being comfortable and repeat the cycle. Its not that we don't change its just that when we do change we change back then change back then change back and back and back and back. Untill all change is lost because it is so normal now.
JWAM I see where you are coming from and it makes sense, just so you know i'm not saying you are wrong.
But the fact that it no longer is, shows quite clearly that it doesn't work. But you're pretty much right, all things cycle..
Well JWAM you're whole thing doesn't hold together. If everyone is primarily selfish then you're not going to have fairness. The more selfish everyone is the more mechanisms such as government are needed to assure fairness. In the current situation those with advantage want more advantage and less fairness. These individuals also control government. Government no longer assures a function of fairness. The less fairness there is the less incentive there is to do anything. After a point the natural consequence is the unravelling of society. When one is less able to contribute to society and consequently gets less back from society there is even less incentive to do anything. It's a positive feedback situation. One needs to offer more incentive to those who have less incentive and less incentive to those who have more incentive. But even with incentive there will be inequities because people have limitations after a point. In not all but in most cases a point not far from where one started out. Therefore mechanism for fair distribution are necessary. Inequality is immoral. Selfishness is not a myth. Especially in select individuals and groups.There need to be mechanisms to regulate selfish behavior. Because the more power one has the more returns one gets and the more incentive there is to keep going. This is also a positive feedback situation. Power corrupts. Incentive is blown wa y out of proportion. Kids go to school for how many years not because there's any real incentive other than that it's just the thing to do. Many people act out of self incentive. Much of my free time I spend here and there's nothing material nothing in terms of capital that I get in return. And how many others. The reason most people go to work is not really incentive but constraint. For most people there's nothing positive about it. JWAM I don't have much time either because I'm enslaved by capitalism and I have the feeling that much I said here today was too hurriedly conceived but I guess we'll get back to one another later.
I'm no expert on economic theory, but what I have said seems to hold more water than what you propose, as I will demonstrate by meticulously deconstructing your post. Wrong. While most people are selfish, most people desire fairness. While few people will harm themselves for the benefit of a stranger, it is equally true that few people will harm a stranger for their own benefit. For the most part, people don't like to see others suffer. You cannot control basic human nature. People are selfish regardless of the economic system they live under. EVERYONE wants the advantage, EVERYONE wants less fairness if it means they will be better off. Yes, there is too much interference in government by corporations, but that could be fixed without destroying the economy and society with communism, a terribly unfair system. YES! I SAID IT! COMMUNISM IS UNFAIR AS HELL! Those who contribute the most to society are victimised, while those who contribute the least are rewarded. How the hell is that fair? Which is exactly why communism will never work, it is a fundamentally unfair system. And how will they get positive feedback under communism if they recieve the same resources regardless of how much they contribute? Under capitalism, if they contribute more they recieve more, under communism there is no such incentive. What? So, those who contribute less should be rewarded, and those who contribute more should be punished? That is just asking for total economic collapse. Yes, people have limitations. The stronger, smarter, harder working people will come out on top in capitalism, just like in nature. Aren't morals just another form of merit? But I digress. Inequality is not immoral, it is simply natural. Under the law, all men and women are considered to be created equal, but in everything else they certainly are not. Is an electrical engineer equal to a janitor? The engineer could do the janitor's job, but the janitor couldn't do the engineer's job. They aren't equal in what they can contribute to society. It's not a question of morals, it's just the facts of life. Under fair capitalism, one gets economic power by contributing more to society. Yes, there need to be more mechanisms to regulate selfish behavior, but communism is certainly not the way to go about that. Power corrupts, and unearned wealth spoils. Many kids do have that attitude towards school, but certainly not all. Take me for instance, I am moving this week to go back to school, I am doing so because I want to contribute more to society and I want to improve my station in life. What is wrong with that? Besides, where is the incentive in a communist society? Don't people earn just as much regardless of how hard they work or their level of education? I don't get any material returns for posting here either. I can't speak for you, but the reason I am here is because I enjoy it. But I don't drag my ass into work every day because I like it, I do it because there is positive incentive, ie, money. No, it's incentive. It's not always pleasant, but if you want to enjoy the material benefits of society you need to contribute. If you don't want to work you have that right, but you might find it difficult to secure the necesities of life. But, under communism, what possible incentive would there be to go to work? People aren't going to just say "Gee, society is so nice to me, I think I'll go work my ass off with no benefit to myself." The only thing I can think of is a government employee with a gun forcing you to go to work, and that is a nightmare I don't want to live.
I was going to use the following to build a model... "The basis of everything is desire. Every human voluntary action is taken to fulfill one or more of one's desires. That's the definition of a voluntary action. A voluntary action is an action that derives from desire. Every human voluntary action is selfish because each voluntary action is intended to fulfill one or more of one's own desires. Even if one does something to help another person and even if it does help another person it's still selfish because one expects to get pleasure from it otherwise one wouldn't have done it, one wouldn't have had the desire to do it. Even helping someone else is selfish. "Every voluntary action is intended to benefit the self and is selfish. Some voluntary actions are intended to benefit the self AND benefit others. But there is no such thing as a purely selfless voluntary action. Every voluntary action has a selfish basic component. "Here is an example of a purely selfless action. I'm walking down the street carrying a bag of oranges and I accidentally trip and spill the oranges and some other people run off with them before I can do anything. That is a purely selfless action that helps others. But -- it is an involuntary action. "If I voluntarily give say a homeless person an orange it helps them and is 'selfless' but it is also selfish because it makes me feel good that's the real reason I did it because it makes me feel good and if I hadn't had that desire for that kind of fulfillment I never would have had sufficient desire to act and give them the orange." ...but I decided to just respond, as follows below, to JWAM's last post as it was written.
"While most people are selfish, most people desire fairness. While few people will harm themselves for the benefit of a stranger, it is equally true that few people will harm a stranger for their own benefit. For the most part, people don't like to see others suffer." Most are indifferent to exploitation, inequity, inhumanity even genocide as long as it's remote and not directly experienced. Even when the facts are widely reported. The average voter and the typical stockholder. You and me. "You cannot control basic human nature. People are selfish regardless of the economic system they live under." But you can influence human actions. That's what it's all about. You can minimize the exploitation that arises from selfishness. "EVERYONE wants the advantage, EVERYONE wants less fairness if it means they will be better off. Yes, there is too much interference in government by corporations, but that could be fixed without destroying the economy and society with communism, a terribly unfair system." YES! I SAID IT! COMMUNISM IS UNFAIR AS HELL! Those who contribute the most to society are victimised, while those who contribute the least are rewarded. How the hell is that fair?" Capitalism fails to establish equity among individuals making corresponding efforts. It attaches value to things not people. It compensates qualities over which one has no control effectively neutralizing incentive. It promotes inequality and wastes incentive by overcompensating those who are already productive. Which is exactly why communism will never work, it is a fundamentally unfair system. Capitalism is fundamentally inequitable and immoral and not working. Which is why it will never suffice. I'm not defending historical communism. I'm in favor of perfecting the best possible system. It will probably have elements of capitalism and elements of communism. "And how will they get positive feedback under communism if they recieve the same resources regardless of how much they contribute? Under capitalism, if they contribute more they recieve more, under communism there is no such incentive." This scenario doesn't correspond to reality. People have sufficient incentive to go to work because if one doesn't work one doesn't eat. That's the smaller part of the picture. The larger part of the picture is that once working in most circumstances incentive plays little role because one is already working near maximum capacity or the job has marginal latitude for advancement. You find yourself in a trap thanks to the shitgrace of god and the greed of others. Rewards that are unobtainable are not incentives they're jokes. "What? So, those who contribute less should be rewarded, and those who contribute more should be punished? That is just asking for total economic collapse. Start with equitably compensating those who are basically doing all they can and not overcompensating those offered more incentive than they need. Yes, people have limitations. The stronger, smarter, harder working people will come out on top in capitalism, just like in nature. Aren't morals just another form of merit? But I digress. Inequality is not immoral, it is simply natural. Under the law, all men and women are considered to be created equal, but in everything else they certainly are not. Is an electrical engineer equal to a janitor? The engineer could do the janitor's job, but the janitor couldn't do the engineer's job. They aren't equal in what they can contribute to society. It's not a question of morals, it's just the facts of life." You can't have engineers without janitors. Every element of the support system performs its function. Nature is amoral and inequitable. That doesn't mean we want an immoral inhumane or iequitable society. If an engineeer working at a given level of his capacity should have a Porsche then a janitor working at the same level of his capacity should have a Porsche. (I didn't mean to highlight the script here or in the previous paragraph. It's a computer error I don't seem to be able to change.) Under fair capitalism, one gets economic power by contributing more to society. Yes, there need to be more mechanisms to regulate selfish behavior, but communism is certainly not the way to go about that. Power corrupts, and unearned wealth spoils. We need to find a way to do things right. The perfect system does not exist but we want to get there. The current capitalist system sucks and is getting worse not better. Under unfair capitalism one is doomed to inequity. "Many kids do have that attitude towards school, but certainly not all. Take me for instance, I am moving this week to go back to school, I am doing so because I want to contribute more to society and I want to improve my station in life. What is wrong with that? Besides, where is the incentive in a communist society? Don't people earn just as much regardless of how hard they work or their level of education? There are all kinds of incentives besides money. You just pointed one out. There are incentive more powerful than money. Every desire is an incentive. There are all kind of desires. It's not a matter of all incentive no incentive. It's a matter of using incentive intelligently and equitably. It's a moral issue of what you do once incentive has done as much as it can and you're still left with gross inequity. If someone is doing as well as he ever is going to do with a certain amount of incentive then don't waste resources by providing further incentive = nonincentive because the limit has already been reached. Instead put those resources to work where they will do some good either materially (in circumstances where there is a deficit of incentive) or morally (in circumstances where people doing the best they can are treated inequitably." "I don't get any material returns for posting here either. I can't speak for you, but the reason I am here is because I enjoy it. But I don't drag my ass into work every day because I like it, I do it because there is positive incentive, ie, more money." What most end up learning is that they are doing it for the bare necessities of life with no hope for anything more while the privileged are doing less and getting more and handing it off to their kids who along with cronies perpetuate the same inhumane system. "No, it's incentive. It's not always pleasant, but if you want to enjoy the material benefits of society you need to contribute. If you don't want to work you have that right, but you might find it difficult to secure the necesities of life. But, under communism, what possible incentive would there be to go to work? People aren't going to just say "Gee, society is so nice to me, I think I'll go work my ass off with no benefit to myself." The only thing I can think of is a government employee with a gun forcing you to go to work, and that is a nightmare I don't want to live." Is a knife at your back a constraint or an incentive? If people want to enjoy the material benefits of life they need to be treated like equals and they need to fight for equality. Under capitalism in reality there is no incentive because people are compensated on the basis of intrinsic capacities limitations and privileges in actuality for most people there is little hope of any material improvement. The ones who have more want to keep it that way so they promote the system. Morality doesn't occur naturally. It's the consequence of voluntarty effort. A moral society doesn't come about if people don't make efforts to that end.
