Bill Gates' donations should be treated and appreciated as charity. No where does capitalism say that once you become wealthy, you have social responsibilities and this is implied in our (all of us) deal with capitalism. In my estimation everyone agrees on this point. — Agent Smith

Did the money trick example not exemplify for you that the status, power and wealth of the rich is gained by their sycophantic manipulation of the labour of the majority poor?
Bill Gates so called 'charity work,' is explained by:

When Owen allows them a crumb of ‘charity’ they glorify his kindness and generosity. — universeness

If he is a genuine philantrophist ln the way I think Joseph Rowntree or Paul Newman was, then fine, to me, that's the absolute least they could do and this should be expected and not praised because to do otherwise would make them vile.
I am more interested in what you would do in his position but you seem reluctant to answer, so I am at a loss as to why you seem to covet being rich so much. I know you enjoy playing the stealth game and if you wont engage in discussion of how you would 'be' as a rich man in today's world, then we have very little to build upon. I think there are many many people who are not economically rich but have experienced lives as happy, useful, fulfilled and significant as any rich or rich and famous person ever has, in all of time.

First of all, gracias for attempting to make me see the light. I feel capitalism is all about competition and it models evolution in my humble opinion. The spirit of competition can be summed up in may the "best" man win. Unfortunately, ethics is sidelined or demoted (re all is fair in love & war) and thus the disgruntlement rife among the people.

I concur that just like how evolution can be improved upon, capitalism can be too. How exactly is beyond me, but there is a clear & present danger which you've tried to bring into the light - the time bomb is ticking!

First of all, gracias for attempting to make me see the light. I feel capitalism is all about competition and it models evolution in my humble opinion. — Agent Smith

For me, your response might seem very reasonable to many. The rich are indeed a product of the 'law of the jungle rules' and this is one of the main reasons why the majority of the worlds population continue to suffer under that exact uncivilised, savage law. It's a bad law which can, should and must be broken and destroyed. My only argument with you is that you present this law as an excuse for the behaviour of the rich instead of using it to condemn them for living by jungle instincts rather than by a sense of human civilised justice. In the USA does the words "all men are created equal" (as part of a sentence in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 at the beginning of the American Revolution) not gnaw against the 'law of the jungle' approach applied by the American rich?
The fact that they do not care that it does deserves your strongest condemnation towards them, does it not? So why do you want to be one of them? Are you sure you want to be rich? Are you sure you would not be content with an economic status that meant you could take the basic means of survival for granted from cradle to grave?

I did agree that we need to ethicize economics as what some like yourself seem to be grumbling about is the injustice that seems baked into capitalism.

Not exactly 'your strongest condemnation towards them' or a reason why you want to be one of them. You also suggest 'I seem to be grumbling,' in a way that in my opinion attempts to trivialise my complaints against the nefarious rich. As I typed, you appear to be a person who works within the bounds of reasoned thought but yet you would choose to be one of the rich. Under the law of the jungle rules, do you want to be one of the lions in charge of the entire pride? Would you like the fate of all the other male lions to be under your whim and tolerance? Would you like access to any lioness in the pride? Is that your driver under all that reasonable typing?
It's ok :joke: you don't need to answer that! I am only really typing about all people who are wannabee's
I will type about me rather than focus too much about my (probably inaccurate) impressions of you.
I don't want to be rich but I would like to have the power to stop anyone from becoming too rich and too powerful, including me. Rather paradoxical on the power issue I suppose. to become so powerful that I can prevent anyone including myself from becoming omnipotent.

Money is representative of value, as words are representative of things.

Money as an exchange value binds one to the monetary system in which money is exchanged for labor and goods. Labor produces goods, goods are consumed to produce labor. Its a closed system, in the sense that there are economic cycles which perpetuate its own existence. I wouldn't call it an illusion, (the monetary economic system) it is a game perhaps.

We could resort to a money-less system or in fact consume and labor without the use of an exchange value. Just as we could have governments without representatives or a sense of the world without words.

There's barter systems, gift systems, and something call an RBE (resource based economy). I think they could all operate efficiently.

In an RBE the idea is to automate or industrialize all repetitive production/work. This feature of the economy is more of an inevitability than a choice. Automated production is increasing exponentially. Before we can really economize without cash, we need to have a UBI, paid for by the profits gained by the owners of automation. So you can see that there is just this same cycle of production and labor, just with a couple of tweaks – increased automation, decreased labor costs, and social security (UBI).

Having an UBI I think would be a nice and almost dogged transition to an RBE.

Do you really think that something like UBI would mean that most people would choose not to work or take part in activities which would help the society they live in and benefit from? — universeness

Most? Of course not. But it is simply a wealth transfer. And those who have no other income, it works just like an unemployment benefit. And also, important, labour is very organized hence the labour unions have a lot of say. A fixed UBI for everybody would be inflationary, for the vast lower taxes might be better.

In Finland we do have a Nordic style welfare-state, and the negative effect of it is that part of the society do become marginalized. If you don't have a home, you are subsidies from the city/community that you get a small flat (or in the country side, a small house). Unemployment is perpetual, until you die. So you can live on these meager welfare and if you can find a low income job, a cleaner or an assistants position in a hospital or pensioner's home, you really have to judge which option, taking the job or not, will you take. Your basic income will only marginally go up and then you have to work 9 to 5 or more.

Some simply give up: once they have never worked earlier, they will not get hired. And that's that. There are families in Finland where the children have not worked and where the parents have not worked. It's a huge stigma and once met these dropped out teenagers, I couldn't believe the level of apathy it takes you into. But this is only the bad side.

The good side is that there's no homeless people in the streets. The beggars that you find in the city center (if you find them) are from other EU countries, likely from Romania, not Finns. Those who are criminals, likely really want to be criminals. The era of old style homeless men (some WW2 veterans back in the age) are not so frequent in parks at summer.

Hence when you have perpetual unemployment benefits and housing is a right, it really questions why UBI?

The rich are indeed a product of the 'law of the jungle rules' and this is one of the main reasons why the majority of the worlds population continue to suffer under that exact uncivilised, savage law. — universeness

Perhaps that is true, but it is also unavoidable. At the top of the pyramid, anarchy reigns, and people who excel at accumulating wealth and/or power almost always exhibit disagreeable, competitive traits. Hence the law of the jungle.

The question is whether we want these uncivilized savages to compete over wealth or over actual coercive power.

The more we transfer power to government, the more the emphasis will be on uncivilized savages (politicians) competing over the coercive power of government.

The more we transfer power away from government, the more the emphasis will be on the uncivilized savages ('the rich') competing over wealth.

When it comes down to it, there aren't many more flavors and it's a shit sandwich either way.

Among many critics of capitalism there seems to be the idea that somehow the uncivilized savages will behave in a more agreeable fashion when they're given power over government, but I fear the opposite is true. I think pretty much without exception, powerful governments have plunged into depravity.

In an RBE the idea is to automate or industrialize all repetitive production/work. — Josh Alfred

Yes, as you suggest, this is already happening technically, the problem is that such automated systems are still owned by a nefarious few.

Having an UBI I think would be a nice and almost dogged transition to an RBE. — Josh Alfred

:clap: But how do you marry this viewpoint with your profile statement:
Politically, I am most immediately a social-capitalist. I accept free market competition while pointedly accepting that there need to be regulations over wealth, and investments of the federal banking system into things like infrastructure. See: Mixed Economics.

If you advocate for a resource based economy then would you still suggest that only a few rich should own the automated infrastructure? Can you offer some regulation idea's you would impose on wealth and investment.

If you don't have a home, you are subsidies from the city/community that you get a small flat (or in the country side, a small house). Unemployment is perpetual, until you die. So you can live on these meager welfare and if you can find a low income job, a cleaner or an assistants position in a hospital or pensioner's home, you really have to judge which option, taking the job or not, will you take. Your basic income will only marginally go up and then you have to work 9 to 5 or more. — ssu

Very interesting! Do you think the welfare offered should not be so meagre then? Why is unemployment perpetual until you die? Is it simply because of only been offered menial jobs which wont increase your income much? Is free training/education not also available so you can do a job you want to do?

Some simply give up: once they have never worked earlier, they will not get hired. And that's that. There are families in Finland where the children have not worked and where the parents have not worked. It's a huge stigma and once met these dropped out teenagers, I couldn't believe the level of apathy it takes you into. But this is only the bad side. — ssu

Yep, sound like there are still problems to be solved but Finland seems so much ahead of the UK welfare system!

The good side is that there's no homeless people in the streets. — ssu

Well done Finland!

The beggars that you find in the city center (if you find them) are from other EU countries, likely from Romania, not Finns — ssu

Not so good Finland!

Those who are criminals, likely really want to be criminals. — ssu

Do you think the criminal mindset is born or created by experience or a bit of both?

The era of old style homeless men (some WW2 veterans back in the age) are not so frequent in parks at summer. — ssu

Traumatised people need the most help and care to recover, if they even can recover from such hell as war.

Hence when you have perpetual unemployment benefits and housing is a right, it really questions why UBI? — ssu

The Finish system seems much better than the UK one but it seems to me from your description of it, shows that its not FINnISHed yet (sorry! :blush: ), perhaps a UBI which is enough for an individual to live 'in comfort,' is needed. Is your health service free at point of delivery?

But how do you marry this viewpoint with your profile statement? Key words, "most immediately.”

If you advocate for a resource based economy then would you still suggest that only a few rich should own the automated infrastructure? Can you offer some regulation idea's you would impose on wealth and investment.

Some one is going to own of the automation, rather it be of higher class, or some collective insured ownership. In either case the mind-set behind both is simple enough. A UBI tax seems to logically follow from either case.

There's plenty on youtube about the RBE system:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGHqghNqwSM

Perhaps that is true, but it is also unavoidable. — Tzeentch

Do you really think that the human race is powerless to change this?

When it comes down to it, there aren't many more flavors and it's a shit sandwich either way. — Tzeentch

I posted this on quora! I would be interested in your opinion of the idea.

Party politics and the first past the post voting system is not working for the benefit of the majority in the UK.

There is the old posit that in certain constituencies, if you selected a donkey to stand in the election, it would be voted in as long as it had the correct party rosette affixed to it.

650 seats in the house of commons. How about this:

1. Each constituency has an official political debating group that anyone in the constituency can join. The constituency group can have as many district branches as are required. No political parties would be allowed. You become nominated for local or national elections through your branch and constituency group. Each candidate would stand as an independent.
2. The 650 elected to the house of commons for a 4 year term would all be independents. The first job would be for the 650 to elect a prime minister and a deputy PM from their number. These two would then choose their cabinet from the remaining 648 based on their profiles, personal discussions, personal preference etc. The cabinet, Pm and deputy would then invite others to become the government backbench until they numbered 326. The official opposition would then be made up of the remaining 324 MP’s.
3. No house of lords but a citizens house made of elected members. This second house would be made up of ‘stakeholder’ groups of equal size. Group names such as ‘science,’ ‘military,’ ‘police,’ ‘educators,’ ‘construction industry,’ ‘business,’ etc. This house would function much like the house of lords does now but with much more ability to apply checks and balances to the house of commons.

Would this system not offer a better way to do politics in the UK?

Some one is going to own of the automation, rather it be of higher class, or some collective insured ownership. — Josh Alfred

Why not 'owned by the people?' I try never to use the word 'class' as a label to categorise people, it seems almost like a caste system to me.

There's plenty on youtube about the RBE system — Josh Alfred

Yeah, and some are even worth watching, but I prefer to read about your personal interpretations.
Here is a nice vision of the future and its only 4 mins long:

Social unrest is caused by economic disparity more than absolute levels of poverty. Absolute wealth today in terms of available resources is greater for those we consider in poverty than 100 years ago. That is. I have more in my home today than nobility had in years past.

I'm not opposed to providing for those without, but I have no illusions that this base level existence we're creating will become content. You still have a underclass in your envisioned society. It's just a bit higher an underclass than what currently exists

That is. I have more in my home today than nobility had in years past. — Hanover

Perhaps in functionality or technicality but not in exchange value, not if converted to currency compared to the exchange power any noble had during any era you care to mention.

You still have a underclass in your envisioned society. It's just a bit higher an underclass than what currently exists — Hanover

I think this would only be in a similar sense that a wine buff might refer to those who drink wine as a weekend plonk. If you can take the basic means of survival for granted and live a 'comfortable' lifestyle then who cares if some di**head calls you part of an underclass as they think you have no class! As I typed before, I think we should stop using the word 'class' to categorise people.

Do you really think that the human race is powerless to change this? — universeness

If you mean the fact that the disagreeable, competitive, competent types get to rule, yes, I think mankind is unable to change that except if it somehow this personality type would cease to exist.

They excel by nature at accruing wealth and/or power, and it seems impossible to prevent this from happening because to do so would mean one has to employ coercive measures, and that power then has to be wielded by someone - who is going to do that? The exact same type of person.

Would this system not offer a better way to do politics in the UK? — universeness

I'm not that familiar with the UK system, but reading your idea I like the idea of not allowing political parties. At the same time I'm not sure if the formation of political parties is another natural tendency within human politics, which will just find another outlet in an unforeseen way.

And while this isn't a criticism of your idea, I would note the following:
- No system is immune to corruption. It seems even systems that disemminate power, feature short terms and plenty of checks & balances, etc. eventually fall to corruption.

- Decentralized systems are, in my eyes, more legitimate. However, they also tend to be less efficient. When a system comes under pressure of crises, often the drive towards greater efficiency trumps all else, and power is allowed to centralize. That centralization concentrates power in the hands of fewer people, and will speed up the process of corruption. Additionally, taking this power away again rarely happens, not in the least because those in power will try to consolidate.


It seems to me that mankind is a slave to power dynamics, and that the best we can hope for is to delay the inevitable.

Speaking as a member of the underclass and a layabout by trade, I can assure you that my revolutionary fervour is fed by starvation. This is not a new theory I am promoting - bread and circuses has long been known as the basis for a peaceful society.

If you mean the fact that the disagreeable, competitive, competent types get to rule, yes, I think mankind is unable to change that except if it somehow this personality type would cease to exist. — Tzeentch

I disagree. I think that the future effects of global social media and its resultant global organisation of the masses will drown out such small minority self-serving individuals.

They excel by nature at accruing wealth and/or power, and it seems impossible to prevent this from happening because to do so would mean one has to employ coercive measures, and that power then has to be wielded by someone - who is going to do that? The exact same type of person. — Tzeentch

There is a great deal of historical evidence to back-up what you type here but I don't think it will be ever thus. Social justice and an acceptable level of economic parity has been fought for since we left the wilds. Progress has been slow, but there has been clear, undeniable progress and 2022 years or even 10,000 years of tears is only a few seconds in the cosmic calendar.

I like the idea of not allowing political parties — Tzeentch

:up:

And while this isn't a criticism of your idea, I would note the following:
- No system is immune to corruption. It seems even systems that disemminate power, feature short terms and plenty of checks & balances, etc. eventually fall to corruption. — Tzeentch

I cant claim the 'no more political parties' as my idea as it has been around for a long time but I certainly do support it. People are corruptible and people can corrupt systems. I refuse to believe that problem has no solution.

That centralization concentrates power in the hands of fewer people, and will speed up the process of corruption. Additionally, taking this power away again rarely happens, not in the least because those in power will try to consolidate. — Tzeentch

I actually support getting rid of all concepts of nationhood and I support world government. Perhaps the biggest hierarchy possible on the planet is the best way to go. Who will we compete with when we are united as one planet and one species? Especially if we have also got rid of money and party politics.
We would still need powerful checks & balances and strong local authority systems but we would also have a fully socially networked global population to keep the nefarious in check and as time goes on, more and more people are becoming educated in the methods the nefarious use and how they can be stopped

Well, it does feel terrible to be at the bottom of the food chain. However, it seems to be the way nature works - its gotten us this far hasn't it? Your own family tree is probably marked by many ruthless, brutish characters - you wouldn't be here otherwise, oui monsieur? I once said in another thread that I'm no longer "happy to be alive" for this reason.

In short, on the matter of survival (of one's genes), morality is a hindrance; that's how I explain this to myself anyway. It's in our nature to, well, "neutralize" competitors.

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. — Agent Smith

Well, it does feel terrible to be at the bottom of the food chain. — Agent Smith

Can you hear all the animals protest at your claim, especially the chickens!

it seems to be the way nature works - its gotten us this far hasn't it? — Agent Smith

Well, the chickens are also still here and not extinct but they don't have the freedoms most humans do.

Your own family tree is probably marked by many ruthless, brutish characters - you wouldn't be here otherwise — Agent Smith

That's a dark and rather depressing claim Mr Smith! I think the past also has a healthy number of loving, gentle, altruistic people who I can claim as ancestral in my family who are also the reason I am here now.

In short, on the matter of survival (of one's genes), morality is a hindrance; that's how I explain this to myself anyway. It's in our nature to, well, "neutralize" competitors. — Agent Smith

It is so recorded in our law of the jungle heritage BUT we have also united tribes we have warred with, by such concepts as 'treaty,' 'marriage (joining bloodlines), surrender and then merging with the victors etc. Finding ways to unite and grow into nation sized groups. Perhaps just one main competitive style barrier to get over, nations merging into one planet!

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. — Agent Smith

Yeah, the christians call it The garden of Eden but just like the first matrix, its a fable. There has never been a perfect human world and I don't think there ever will be but we can create a much better human world than we have now. Help, by condemning in your strongest terms possible, the rich and powerful who still follow the law of the jungle policy!

I think that the future effects of global social media and its resultant global organisation of the masses will drown out such small minority self-serving individuals. — universeness

Won't those just be bought and paid for by those same self-serving individuals, like most media is today?

Though, I think today we're seeing a challenge by more independent and critical news outlets. Lots of independent podcasters and people making their voice heard and gathering a following. It's a good trend. If it can withstand the powers that be remains to be soon, though.

It's worrying to me how quickly things like freedom of speech end up on the chopping block when it suits the powerful, and what worries me even more is how easily people accept it.

There is a great deal of historical evidence to back-up what you type here but I don't think it will be ever thus. Social justice and an acceptable level of economic parity has been fought for since we left the wilds. Progress has been slow, but there has been clear, undeniable progress and 2022 years or even 10,000 years of tears is only a few seconds in the cosmic calendar. — universeness

There has been some progress. That's fair enough.

I actually support getting rid of all concepts of nationhood and I support world government. Perhaps the biggest hierarchy possible on the planet is the best way to go. Who will we compete with when we are united as one planet and one species? — universeness

Playing the advocate of the devil here; wouldn't world domination be the wet dream of any uncivilized savage?

Well, I made it a point to stress on the necessity for improvement, but whether it's possible/not is an open question. We could at least try, but there are no gurantees as to how it'll all pan out in the end. It's my suspicion that it's easy & healthy, mind you, to expose flaws but generating true solutions to problems is a whole new ball game. In short people aren't stupid - if there was a better alternative to capitalism, we would've jumped at the opportunity to adopt it.

Won't those just be bought and paid for by those same self-serving individuals, like most media is today? — Tzeentch

Its very reasonable to raise such 'alarm flags.' You go on to suggest one or two examples of where such circumstances may be bypassed or avoided. I would like to see a national computing infrastructure owned by the public and monitored by the elected authorities. A public computer network (pcn), free of charge to all users, no adverts. There would be standard topics set up, 'politics,' 'Science,' 'philosophy,' 'sports,' psychology' etc. Any member of the public could start their own group on any topic and the rules would be similar or perhaps better than those available on typical discussion sites today. The government would not have full control over this system it would have joint control with an elected citizens group made up of stakeholder groups.

It's worrying to me how quickly things like freedom of speech end up on the chopping block when it suits the powerful, and what worries me even more is how easily people accept it. — Tzeentch

I agree. BUT I don't think anyone should have the freedom to incite violence or spread hatred and that can be a complicated one to enforce fairly, but we must always try our best to.

Playing the advocate of the devil here; wouldn't world domination be the wet dream of any uncivilized savage? — Tzeentch

Absolutely, there will always be such individuals and even some significant groups with such plans but I hope for a system which can identify them and stop them. It is the responsibility of us all to decide EXACTLY WHO the enemy is. WE MUST get that part right!

Well the important activity is to keep trying Mr Smith. I always liked Obama's call of 'yes we can!' I personally support the main tenets of socialism and humanism. I also like some of the ideas being put forward by those who talk about a resource based economy, such as @Josh Alfred I am a little suspicious of characters such as Jacque Fresco, having read some more details about his life based on watching this 8 minute clip some time ago:


I preferred this 18 mins one by Sue Everatt, even though she is connected to Jacque. My mind is not yet made up about Jacque as a benevolent force or not.

To get rich is glorious. — Deng Xiaoping

In my humble opinion, under capitalism,

1. To get rich is ethical (equal opportunity).

2. To stay rich is unethical (you'll have to meddle in politics).
3. To get richer is unethical (ditto).

This is probably just the tip of the iceberg as regards the complexity of the problem of money tending to accumulate in the hands of the few at the cost of massive poverty and hand-to-mouth existence.

1. To get rich is ethical — Agent Smith

I agree totally, if your measure of 'rich' is a human right and is the measure of economic parity for all and I think your second and third criteria sound good to me but I don't think any capitalist would recognise or accept any of your typed criteria. Especially number 1, as interpreted by me. I think they would require your criteria altered to.

1, To get rich is ethical no matter how you achieve it and there must be a majority of poor, inferior undeserving unfortunates for the rich to compare themselves to.
2. To stay rich is ethical.
3. To get richer is even more ethical as the rich are chosen to be so or are the only ones who have the wits to become so. You think your gonna stop us? :lol:

So, should all us inferior, undeserving, unfortunates accept the dictates of the rich 'law of the jungle' predators or should we keep fighting against them?

1, To get rich is ethical no matter how you achieve it and there must be a majority of poor, inferior undeserving unfortunates for the rich to compare themselves to. — universeness

Pecunia non olet. :snicker:

So, should all us inferior, undeserving, unfortunates accept the dictates of the rich 'law of the jungle' predators or should we keep fighting against them? — universeness

I'm not saying we should let injustice continue but I don't see an alternative; if there's one then it's communism OR capitalism and we seem to have opted for the latter. Perhaps my ignorance of economics & politics is showing.

Very interesting! Do you think the welfare offered should not be so meagre then? — universeness

If you get more as unemployed than working at McDonalds, who would work at McDonalds? It's not an awesome bonus on your CV. Or at least when your in your 20's. Why just hmmm... enjoy sports or discuss things on a Philosophy Forum than take those orders at the drive in?

Why is unemployment perpetual until you die? — universeness

Unemployment benefit is never taken away. Naturally they urge you to look for jobs, provide courses, but there's no penalties like being kicked out of the system. So basically, you'll get unemployement benefits until 65 years, and then you get state pension. Although they have, I guess, taken the American statistical gimmick that over certain period people aren't unemployed, they are just discouraged workers. As if those looking for jobs are just the ones unemployed.

The Finish system seems much better than the UK one but it seems to me from your description of it, shows that its not FINnISHed yet (sorry! :blush: ), perhaps a UBI which is enough for an individual to live 'in comfort,' is needed. Is your health service free at point of delivery? — universeness

In fact they experimented with UBI here in Finland. The results were a mixed bag, but not so hugely positive that UBI would be implemented in Finland. Here's an official video of the experiment results:

Pecunia non olet. :snicker: — Agent Smith

:lol: I always need an on-line translator when exchanging with you Mr Smith. Money does stink in every sense of the word, including the fact that it does have an actual odour.

I'm not saying we should let injustice continue but I don't see an alternative; if there's one then it's communism OR capitalism and we seem to have opted for the latter. Perhaps my ignorance of economics & politics is showing. — Agent Smith

So why not socialism/humanism and a resource based economy?

So why not socialism/humanism and a resource based economy? — universeness

People are so afeared of communism that they wouldn't touch these ideologies with a barge pole. It's kinda a slippery slope fallacy but they want to play it safe, the risks are just too high to take the gamble. Apparently suffering outside a gulag is better than suffering inside one. My two cents.