All Lives Matter

[GingerRose]

1 hour ago, Mostly Peaceful Ryan said:

better training

Well what kind of training though? Like you cannot train someone not to be racist, but you can implement diversity courses into police academy and departments. Diversity courses aren't about training, they are about gaining empathy and new experiences. i think a course or multiple courses like these would be helpful.

[GingerRose]

1 hour ago, Mostly Peaceful Ryan said:

Long term fixes

I think for long term fixes we need to go up. Police is a branch of the issue, we need to go to the entire system if we want to fix things long term.

[GingerRose]

On 7/27/2020 at 1:55 PM, Skycaptain said:

British police use racial profiling

We came from there, don't think we took all our racism with us. We left some with you all too. Sharing is caring.

[GingerRose]

2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Antifa regularly engages in violence

Yea. It even says in their online definition that they push for their ideals through violent actions.

 

*array of autonomous groups that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both non-violent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform*

[GingerRose]

Just now, Arodash said:

Which actually makes them facist since facists tend to use similar tactics of violence and fear

😛 The irony

[Epitaph]

Honestly, I take no sides for any group because they're all the same in the end. I support the idea that anything alive matters, but I'll never support the groups.

 

Case and point. Several weeks before the black lives matter crowd or even the all lives matter crowd got stirred up over george floyd's death down in the states, some of the very same people ascribing to those groups were protesting about restarting the economy and opening more things back up, when there's clear evidence to show that covid hits elderly populations really hard. So just a few weeks prior, people were willing to risk the lives of elderly and frontline workers, and medical personell all for a fucking paycheck, and then suddenly when a narritive arrived that could be taken advantage of, these people suddenly started preaching about the "value" of human life.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

I don't know what this is.

Black bloc is a tactic used in some protest, typically the goal is for the people in the group to wear all black  nondescript clothing, this way when some commit violence the rest of the group hides them from law enforcement. My point is if you are not committing violence but still hiding those who are or trying to hide them, that makes you an accomplice and not innocent.

 

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

It's not guilt. I'm not guilty for my privilege, it's just something I recognize. I do know people who take it as guilt for generations before them, but that's not what this specific program is about when it speaks on white privilege.

I find most programs that focus on it, are doing just that. It is why I outright reject the argument of privilege as it is often used in neo-marxist arguments to be the "original sin" of those they deem oppressors. This is not to say I don't think people aren't blessed in the United states, but I do find it racist to attribute these blessings to one particular race. Basically my view is just because you know someones skin color doesn't mean you know anything about them, and to act like you do I find to be racist. I do not like collectivism and prefer to treat people as individuals. For these reasons I cannot get behind the idea of "Privilege", I have my own original sin I atone for, but this is between me and God.

 

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

I believe that Antifa is specifically known to condone violence, yes? I just mean that I don't see blm, stating that violence is part of their movement.

Antifa does condone violence, against anyone who is "facist" then they have a very broad definition of "facist". I have heard many justifying violence, I have heard chants from BLM that speak of violence, and many of the protests around the country have been violent. I don't know what BLM expects me to think of their group, but I would lean more to saying violence is part of their movement.

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

Yea. Our protests are very small and distanced

I'm glad to hear it, I have seen many in these protest not act so responsible and as someone who has high risk family members I avoid them.

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

I am a pacifist so I come to a lot of speed bumps on any justification. But that's another issue.

I recommend not becoming a police officer. Some of us, don't have that luxury to be a full pacifist. I don't believe in being the aggressor, but I am for defending myself and others.

 

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

Well what kind of training though? Like you cannot train someone not to be racist, but you can implement diversity courses into police academy and departments. Diversity courses aren't about training, they are about gaining empathy and new experiences. i think a course or multiple courses like these would be helpful.

I think more training in the field of maritial arts, and hand to hand fighting. So that violence can be stopped with less force and it doesn't elevate to lethal force. As I said before, I do not know a racist cop, I don't see a point in "training" the racism out of someone that isn't racist. This might not be true in different police departments.

 

1 hour ago, GingerRose said:

I think for long term fixes we need to go up. Police is a branch of the issue, we need to go to the entire system if we want to fix things long term.

If you believe you can fix all these problems purely with government policies, I do not share this idea. There is an issue with the culture in some of these comminities that set up children to fail. I can only talk about my city though.

[GingerRose]

35 minutes ago, Arodash said:

doesn't mean you know anything about them,

Absolutely. White privilege is just recognizing that some things come easier for a person who is white compared to to a person who is of another race. This isn't a radical opinion, it's a fact of many societies. I know that white people still struggle wit a world of issues where privilege do not find them.

[Epitaph]

43 minutes ago, Arodash said:

The value of human life? The people who need to get back to work, dont their lives matter too? 

Their lives matter, of course. Just not to the government or the corporations that insist they need to pay arbitrary imaginary numeric value. If our species wasn't so stuck up their own ass about assigning monetary value to everything then slowing the economy would be a non-issue. All the government would have to do is issue a statement and work on some paperwork between corporations to essentially write off taxes and living expenses for those who can't work during shutdown. Hand out food vouchers for those who are confirmed to have a loss of a job. This could be a maneuver that could be pulled off within the framework of our economic system. The actual real way to do things would be to freeze the economy entirely and introduce everybody to the frightening concept of doing things without money temporarily. Bills and payments, anything involving currency should be frozen as if the entire country were being audited. The very basic essentials should be maintained and covered without cost while isolation continues. As far as the protests go, I've seen a mixed bag of reasons why they're happening. The more ridiculous side to them is the simple argument "want money." But of course there's more reasonable statements being made.

[Epitaph]

6 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Do you know how food is made? Processed? It requires labor, it requires people and capital. The government cant snap their fingers and make money and boom it just all works.

Considering that I work two jobs in the food industry, yes. I never said anything about the government making money. I said remove the concept of money entirely temporarily, exactly as if a bank or government audit were being performed. Because that's a thing that can be done. If a single person's or an entire company's monetary assets can be frozen for the purpose of auditing than it can be applied to the entire country with some modifications.

 

Look at it this way. We're in a losing situation here. The more that covid spreads, the more it kills, the more time it has to mutate and adapt by spreading, the greater the possibility arises that there won't be an economy left if this thing gets a higher lethality rate and decimates the population. So it's either A) Start the economy and have to stop it again as the death/sickness toll rises or B) Freeze the economy and everything but basic necessities in an attempt to slow the pandemic before it gets too far gone.

 

No matter how you look at it, the economy takes a hit. So at that rate, why not focus on the value of human life. I can tell you this for certain. If the government announced in my country/province that for the time being, nobody was being paid for their work, but the reverse side was that absolutely no bills were being charged for basic necessities and expenses, I'd still show up to do my job because I can grasp the concept of importance it holds with or without monetary compensation. People have this nightmarish fear of being detached from monetary earnings and it's holding us back in times of trouble from doing what we actually have to do to get things done. Our system requires people to run it, not money. If all the people are fucking dead or sick, all the money in the world means absolutely nothing, just like it already does.

 

You freeze the economy, all money coming in or out. Every single debt, bill, or payment is suspended and frozen until the economy can resume in a more stable fashion. Workers in essential services aren't paid because of the frozen assets, but like everybody else their expenses are covered temporarily. Negotiate with companies to throw in a pay raise to paychecks once everything starts up again if people take issue for working for "free." When the pandemic gets under control, you unfreeze the economy and start the money flow again, exactly like you would an audit. There's no loss in economic value of anything if the economy was treated as a frozen asset, so it can resume as normal when things are under control.

 

That's what it would take to get things under control. Both the government and corporations won't do this because of course they're too short sighted to see past plummeting dollar signs, and neither does the average joe. I'd bet you if people were required to go to work but didn't get a paycheck, even in light of frozen payments and bills, they wouldn't do it. So dead people it is then.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

30 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

Absolutely. White privilege is just recognizing that some things come easier for a person who is white compared to to a person who is of another race. This isn't a radical opinion, it's a fact of many societies. I know that white people still struggle wit a world of issues where privilege do not find them.

In another thread you told me you don't believe in theories that Freud has put forth, in the same way Privelege is a theory, or way to look at the world. Just because a theory can be supported doesn't make it truth, every major theory is supported by evidence, but they are also discredited by other evidence. If you take a sociology course I highly recommend to be skeptical of every theory. I assume they are wrong, the ones I can discredit easily I throw away. The ones that are extremely hard to discredit I keep. Privilege is one I find incredibly harmful to society, it is best to avoid it. The only thing you know about someone life by someones skin is if they have more or less melanin than someone. People are individuals and it is best to keep it that way.

 

 Do you think a poor white kid that grew up in ghetto has not dealt with more struggles, even related to race, than say Will Smith's kids?

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

11 minutes ago, E said:

You freeze the economy, all money coming in or out. Every single debt, bill, or payment is suspended and frozen until the economy can resume in a more stable fashion. Workers in essential services aren't paid because of the frozen assets, but like everybody else their expenses are covered temporarily. Negotiate with companies to throw in a pay raise to paychecks once everything starts up again if people take issue for working for "free." When the pandemic gets under control, you unfreeze the economy and start the money flow again, exactly like you would an audit. There's no loss in economic value of anything if the economy was treated as a frozen asset, so it can resume as normal when things are under control.

I'm not going to work unless I am getting paid even if all my bills are covered, this is not how things work. You can't expect frontline workers to risk their lives and go to work free for months so that they might get a raise. Also some businesses might not be able to give raises after covid. Even if we go months out the economy can't be turned back on with a flick of the switch. This not how economics or money works.

 

11 minutes ago, E said:

That's what it would take to get things under control. Both the government and corporations won't do this because of course they're too short sighted to see past plummeting dollar signs, and neither does the average joe. I'd bet you if people were required to go to work but didn't get a paycheck, even in light of frozen payments and bills, they wouldn't do it. So dead people it is then.

Yeah no one would go to work, including essential workers for society to function. Which include the doctors and nurses, but also truck drivers that bring supplies this would lead to more dead. This is really bad policy.

[Homer]

The obvious solution to all of this is being a misanthrope. Nobody is preferred over anybody else and everyone gets to act offended on Twatter or Faecesbook. Win-win.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

4 minutes ago, Homer said:

Twatter or Faecesbook

The thing that these platforms have taught me most:

 

 

[Epitaph]

9 minutes ago, Mostly Peaceful Ryan said:

I'm not going to work unless I am getting paid even if all my bills are covered, this is not how things work. You can't expect frontline workers to risk their lives and go to work free for months so that they might get a raise. Also some businesses might not be able to give raises after covid. Even if we go months out the economy can't be turned back on with a flick of the switch. This not how economics or money works.

 

Yeah no one would go to work, including essential workers for society to function. Which include the doctors and nurses, but also truck drivers that bring supplies this would lead to more dead. This is really bad policy.

 

I walk into a town one day and see that a house is on fire. I go to help the townsfolk put out the fire because I know that help is a long way off. Better to help them stop the spread of the fire so it doesn't burn the entire town down instead. Now imagine if I stopped in the middle of that and said "I won't help fight this fire and risk my life unless I get a paycheck." There's no other way to phrase it. I'd be an asshole if I did that. But suddenly, apply that mindset to the economy as a whole and it's just totally normal to demand a paycheck in a crisis.

 

If you require a paycheck as incentive to do your job than you are fundamentally doing something wrong in your life. Collectively as a species, if we can't look past numeric value in times of crisis, then we don't deserve to survive the crisis. We deserve whatever fate the issue grants us, even if it's mass extinction or death. And if you want to talk about switches? Watching it happen right now. My province was one of the few that got ahead of covid by locking things down and shutting their economy down early. They shut almost everything down in a single day. They caved and opened things up, and now we have more active and rising cases then we ever did. The economy is going to go into the dumps considerably faster than it was when it was stunted, considering that over sixty percent of people in my province are over the age of fifty. 

[Homer]

2 minutes ago, E said:

If you require a paycheck as incentive to do your job than you are fundamentally doing something wrong in your life.

If you require me to do my job as incentive to pay me then you are fundamentally doing something wrong in your life

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

27 minutes ago, E said:

walk into a town one day and see that a house is on fire. I go to help the townsfolk put out the fire because I know that help is a long way off. Better to help them stop the spread of the fire so it doesn't burn the entire town down instead. Now imagine if I stopped in the middle of that and said "I won't help fight this fire and risk my life unless I get a paycheck." There's no other way to phrase it. I'd be an asshole if I did that. But suddenly, apply that mindset to the economy as a whole and it's just totally normal to demand a paycheck in a crisis.

 

I don't call people who expect to be paid for putting out fires an asshole, I call them firefighters.

 

27 minutes ago, E said:

If you require a paycheck as incentive to do your job than you are fundamentally doing something wrong in your life.

Yes, I want to better my life after 4 to 18 months of work, I guess I am doing life wrong.

 

28 minutes ago, E said:

Collectively as a species, if we can't look past numeric value in times of crisis, then we don't deserve to survive the crisis.

 

[Epitaph]

8 hours ago, Arodash said:

Why do you think I have a job? Yes its fair for me to expect to compensated for my time, effort and training, guess what, if i'm not getting paid, i'm not working. 

 

The last group of people who thought being given a wage for work being done was a bad idea tore apart the US, I dont think you wanna go down the road of endorsing slavery. Because thats what that is telling someone their doing something wrong with their life if they expect to be paid when they work

 

You have a job because you were born into this economic system without consent or even the option to abandon it. It was forced on you, akin to slavery, albeit with much less restrictions than slavery and more shiny toys to keep you placated. I don't endorse slavery. The fact that most people wouldn't work at their jobs unless they were getting paid is a telling that something is fundamentally wrong with our society mentally. If you have to use money to lure people to do things that they wouldn't do normally, then something is terribly wrong. It shows a critical error in the mental processing of the population at large. It's like skipping a step. People don't give a shit about their work, they just care about whatever money they can get hold of. This mentality totally diminishes both the quality and the effort put into the work, because there's no actual value assigned to the work itself. The value has been moved to the money acquired. 

 

So no, I'm not telling anybody to sign up for slavery. I'm telling you that you're already taking part in refined slavery. Case and point. What are the two options a slave is given? Work or die(or get beaten into submission). What are the two options you're given in this economic society? Work or go homeless(which in many cases leads to death).

 

The illusion that you're not a slave comes from the loosening of restrictions and access to more provided goods and services, because somewhere along the line somebody figured out that they could multiply their profit exponentially if all their slaves had to pay bills and bought stuff. It was more economically viable to loosen restrictions and "free" people. And people buy into it because they get stuff in return. They got a better life than what they had as a slave, which is indeed true. But the actual principle of slavery is still in practice. See how long you survive if you don't work. Nobody has to kill you or beat you into submission, they can just let you die on the streets.

 

I'd wager that the last group of people that tore the US apart because they thought no wages were a good idea tore it apart because they didn't understand how to correctly format no wages, and that their ideology was founded on the wrong concept. The only actual difficulty in making a system without wages would be overcoming greedy people who value numeric value and wealth, and implementing the system globally since we're now a global economy tied together.

[Epitaph]

8 hours ago, Mostly Peaceful Ryan said:

 

I don't call people who expect to be paid for putting out fires an asshole, I call them firefighters.

 

Yes, I want to better my life after 4 to 18 months of work, I guess I am doing life wrong.

 

 

 

Well, consider me a firefighter then because I've put out fires in the last couple years in a couple spots around my area and helped work on a massive bushfire a couple months ago because the fire department was a half hour drive away and the water bombers were an hour away. Me and a bunch of random farmers worked to try and stall the fire before it spread downwind to town. Of course, I'm not actually a firefighter. I showed up and helped because it was the right thing to do. And I'd never ask for a paycheck because of that. Had I turned away from that fire, demanding a paycheck, I'd be an asshole.

 

That's the difference between some people. Some people do things without the need of a paycheck. They'd do their job even without the paycheck because their heart lies in the work itself or what it means for other people. Those people are doing it right. If you need a paycheck to lure you into doing your job, the fact that you wouldn't do your job without the paycheck shows an error in things. As I was explaining elsewhere, this mentality diminishes the quality of everything because most people don't give a shit about their jobs. They do them only for the money. Which diminishes both the quality of the work achieved and the quality of life for the worker who is spending their life away in a rat trap circle of paying bills, buying fancy toys, and paying for basic neccessities. 

 

I can fault myself for using the wrong terminology to express the idea I had in mind. You're certainly not in the wrong for wanting to improve your life. But if money's the only incentive for you to do your job, then something is wrong in your life. And it's not necessarily you, it's the society we live in. You were born into this system with no consent or choice on whether or not you wanted to be taxed with bills for the rest of your life. But you were given a choice on what happens if you refuse to take part in the system. Homelessness. So what do you do? You take part in the grind. And you tell yourself that this is okay because you get stuff out of it. You improve your life. The travesty of the entire thing is that you could improve your life by default without money. The fact that going up in life is determined by how much you throw at the paywall is sick.

 

And you know what? I can even support the monetary system to a degree because it's what has enabled us to achieve what we have so far. But it is terribly flawed and it's getting worse as time progresses.

[Epitaph]

2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

You realize I have the choice to simply walk off into the woods right? Do my own thing and not engage in the system? No. Its not akin to slavery, forcing people to work without their consent and without compensation is slavery, places like the Soviet Union did that

 

So please tell me of a system you wouldnt consider some kind of slavery, i'm all ears

Actually, you don't. The only place you could pull that off would be Alaska due to it's size and absolute remoteness. 

 

You try walking into the woods anywhere else and you'll get hit with a few things. For starters, national parks. Owned government land. Owned people land. If you built any sort of structure, they would have the legal right to demolish it. If you lived in a van or a tent, they would have the legal right to evict you. If you had any interaction with the plantlife, such as trees for building material, you'd be fined for not having a permit. Interaction with any wildlife? Same thing. As I said, you could do it, but only in highly remote areas with almost zero population. Those doors of walking off into the woods and doing your own thing are almost closed. As our population expands, they'll close entirely one day.

 

A system I wouldn't consider slavery? Here goes.

 

Remove currency completely. There is no longer any numeric cash value assigned to anything. Nobody is paid anything for their work, at least in a numeric sense. The tradeoff for this system is that we're moving the numeric value of our jobs done into the system itself. The system cannot function without workers keeping it working. So the pay that you get for helping to keep the system work is access to what the system can provide. That means you walk into a store, see a TV you want, you take it. Need a new car? It's yours. Food? Go pick it up. As long as you work, say a bare minimum of hours you get access to the system because you help keep it alive. 

 

How about people who don't want to work in the system? Somebody who wants to be homeless? Your basic bare minimum living neccessities are provided for no cost because it's inhuman to deny anybody basic living standards. But if they don't have, let's say an identification card that's linked to their job, they can't "buy" any of the higher up stuff that's available because they haven't put the time into working.

 

Let's notch it up another step. Do you want to increase employment rate to about a hundred percent? You cut the working hours by half. Introduce shifts so that people aren't working their entire day away and have time to themselves. This would be more difficult to implement in places like an oil rig, or let's say a train conductor who spends days travelling at a time, but it could all be streamlined with the hiring of more employees. And hell, why not add some flexability. If you love your job and you don't want to work just the four hours, you're free to work as much as you want as long as it doesn't end up cutting out other employee's minimum hours.

 

I could elaborate more, but that seems like a fair start don't you think? I don't see holes in that. But maybe you do. Point em' out to me.

[Epitaph]

23 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Some firefighters do it for the passion of the job because it doesnt pay very much. I could be making way more doing something else but its my choice to do this job

If it's your choice, then that's great. You're probably in the lucky ten percent then. There's nothing wrong with that. But for the ninety percent of people stuck in jobs they work only because they have to pay bills, it's not right, and you can't tell me that it is.

[Epitaph]

1 minute ago, Arodash said:

Your right, its not right, they can make the choice to leave said job to work a better one, one they like, my job doesnt always pay my bills the way i'd like but I work it because I like it, where are you getting that 90% figure from? Could I see some numbers?

 

Im frome Maine. Its.... very, easy to do this. 

 

Yeah, this is basically how slavery worked. What we currently have allows ME the individual to do and gain more. This idea is far too simplistic to perform on a large scale, hence why nations like the Soviet Union collapses and why China and Vietnam have adopted more capitalistic economies. 

 

Wanna see what happens in a system where you try to eliminate currency? Check out the DPRK or Venezuela

https://www.staffsquared.com/blog/why-85-of-people-hate-their-jobs/#:~:text=A global poll conducted by,are unhappy in their jobs.

https://www.inc.com/jt-odonnell/how-this-1-question-can-make-you-choose-wrong-career.html

 

 Couple quick googles turns this up.

 

I live out in the boonies and it's controlled tightly out here. The difference between living out in the woods is determined by our respective laws and governments, then.

 

Something I got to ask before I write some more. Explain to me how you earn more in this system as opposed to a system where everything is provided so long as you take part in it? What classifies as more by your books?

 

The examples of the countries given all come from two very critical failures. For one, they didn't cut themselves off from currency completely. They still depended on it and therefore crashed because of it. For two, these countries failed because they adopted a leader(ship) who wanted more power. So rather than treating their system as an ergonomic egalitarian system, they turned it into a caste system, with leaders getting more and lessers getting less. The theoretical one I proposed above does no such thing. Everybody works, does their job, everybody has equal access to everything if it is currently available.  There is no caste system nor pyramid of hierarchy based off wealth or status. The only heirarchy there is, is whether or not somebody has the qualifications to do a certain job.

[Epitaph]

2 minutes ago, Arodash said:

If I want 2 cars. I can buy two cars in your propposes system, how do you determine who can have cars? What happens when they run out of stock because everyone has taken a car? Also people have incentive to invent new things because they get something from it, given the option to work the minimum LOTS of people will do that, when people like me who loves to work and will work more hours will get paid more, I get more for what I do. 

 

If I work 20 hours, I should get something equal to that 20 hours. 

 

If someone works 10 hours, they should get something equal to that 10 hours.

 

Otherwise, why would I work 10 extra hours if it's basically pointless and the lazy jackhole next to me doesnt want to?

No matter what, this happens. Even in democratic systems this happens. In the current systems the west and Americas engage in, people are given the oppertunity to rise up. 

 

This isn't difficult math here. There's no determining who can have two cars. Being a worker in the system means you have access to everything it has. If you want two cars, go for it. Most people would settle with two cars. You're treating it like everybody would go insane and just treat things like bulk barn and stock up. Yes, because I need twelve ocean liners and fifteen fighter jets in my life. 98% of people in america have access to one vehicle already. I'm sure a percentage of them would opt for getting a new car if they could walk onto a lot and get one. But I'm also sure many would be ergonomic about it and keep their current car, or repair it because it wouldn't cost anything.  The basic rule of the system is, you work, all the doors are open to you. If you want it, and it's in supply, it's yours. That's literally it.

 

And as for stock, all I have to do is ask you the question of what happens today when we currently run out of stock? The same damn thing. You gotta wait until some comes in. 

 

You're correct that people have incentive to create things because they get something. Incentive to create something shouldn't come from monetary drive. If you're going to create something ideally you're creating it because you want to create it. You want to build something that helps people or improves something. Somebody who truly invents is somebody who does it with or without the money because there's a higher ideal at play than just "muh riches."

 

You want to talk equal compensation? If you enjoy your job so much, then wouldn't working twenty hours be enough? The actual enjoyment you get for doing something you love to do for twenty hours? Fuck, imagine that. You're working a job you love as much as you want to work it and you get access to everything because of it. And somehow theoretically you'd want more? What in the ever living fuck is there to be had at that point in life that you don't already have access to?

 

"Otherwise, why would I work 10 extra hours if it's basically pointless and the lazy jackhole next to me doesnt want to?"

 

Maybe because you actually enjoy your work and it's not about the asshole next to you who chooses to work the minimum? It's not pointless if you actually like doing your work. And that's a moot point because those people exist everywhere already. Lemme give you a page out of my life. I work in a grocery store as a stock jockey. Not a real thrilling job. But I personally believe that if you're going to do a job, you do it the best that you can no matter what. I'm one of the best workers in the store. I've worked through injuries, sickness, death of friends and family, and vehicle breakdowns and showed up on time for my job without a single complaint or a slowdown in my efforts to do my job. Meanwhile, there's a pretty big collection of other workers in my department who won't even work a quarter of what I can do. And the two of us make the same wage. Hell, I work harder than my manager and do some of the things he does in better capacity and he gets paid more than me. So there you go.

 

Personally I don't much care that we make the same wage and I don't give a shit that they work less because what matters to me is that I've done it right. Nobody in the store can say that I can fuck around or that I'm lazy. And when I leave, they're all going to notice my absence because I did so much to keep things running. The very fact I was able to do that, and that I stuck to my belief in doing it right and well is the only thing that matters to me because everything else is irrelevant, really. 

 

This notion of getting more for doing more that seems to reside in people is just a dangerous line tipping into too much ego and narcissism. I agree that it's nice to be acknowledged or compensated for what you put in, but our current society doesn't work that way anyway. There's incompotent as shit people everywhere up at the top getting paid more while the majority of the hard workers are sitting at the bottom and getting nothing for it.

 

And worse off, people don't know when to control when to stop getting more. The mentality that you should get more for doing more leans dangerously close to psychopathic tendencies if it isn't measured, and when applied to the economy as a whole, we get trillionaires who have so much power and wealth that it's insane. And they don't stop. And it has to stop. There's got to be a limit to sanity.

 

"people are given the oppertunity to rise up."

 

That's highly debatable considering that they live in a system designed to rob them of whatever money they have at any opportunity. There's a key difference in wording here. They aren't given an opportunity. The deck is stacked against them. But they do have an opportunity. But only if they manage to dodge all the bills and roll a lucky hand first. That system guarantees that the vast majority of the population will always remain in a constant state of monetary deadlock. And that's not right. Frankly, you know what? I think the main flaw in my theoretical system isn't the system itself, it's that it has no way of overcoming human greed. It's primarily why communism fails. On paper it sounds okay, but it doesn't function in practice because people are greedy fucks. Because let's face it, for some reason people are disturbed about being equal, deep down. You even said it yourself. 

 

"Otherwise, why would I work 10 extra hours if it's basically pointless and the lazy jackhole next to me doesnt want to?"

 

At the end of the day I can acknowledge that we've gotten as far as we have because of the system we have now. But I'm never going to stop taking potshots at it because it has glaring holes of inefficiency and inadequacy all over it. And the way it exists today indicates a decline in things rather than an improvement. And it highlights the glaring flaws we have by societal standards and just as a species in general.

[Missing]

18 minutes ago, E said:

You're treating it like everybody would go insane and just treat things like bulk barn and stock up.

I think part of the reason people can sometimes have a difficult time understanding why this wouldn’t happen is because it’s become so common within our current system for companies to try and find ways to make people want more than they need. When someone produces something that’s needed, like a phone, some people buy it because they need it. But if you can convince people who already have a working phone that they should also want to buy it, more people buy it, and you make more money. It encourages waste. But in the system you’re describing, while people would have the ability to go through phones like Kleenex if they really wanted to, the people who produce phones wouldn’t be rewarded for that wasteful consumption and they wouldn’t want to have to put in so much wasted work into producing phones that are going to be thrown away so quickly, so they would likely want to avoid making phones a symbol of fashion or status or anything else that would encourage people to get them when they don’t need one. They would probably also become a lot more efficient and build phones to last, maybe make them modular so you can switch out the camera or the screen to stay up to date on the newest tech or fix broken parts without needing to unnecessarily duplicate parts that were still in perfect working order.

 

I think a system similar to the one you’re describing could allow us as a society to redirect a lot of that otherwise redundant human effort into advancements that would be more meaningful for humanity as a whole.

 

 

[Epitaph]

31 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Humans live better today than our ancestors as recent as the 1800s, we have luxury goods they couldnt even imagine. No matter how wealthy the king was in the 1300s he could have still died of a paper cut, or a bad harvest would starve his kingdom

 

No. We have only gained in standards

To claim that something has no downsides is straight up folly and it's incredibly dangerous to do as such. We've gained, but we've also lost as well.

 

Like for instance, quality. Certain standards have gone up, but in many cases, standards have gone down. A simple example of that are vehicles. Vehicles aren't built like they were. Our newer ones are more fuel economic and lighter. But the older ones were much sturdier and user friendly. You didn't have to be a mechanic or an electrician to maintain them. And they were built with superior metals and materials that resist corrosion, effectively making their lifespan almost as long as a human's if maintained well. 

 

Food's another one. We have tons of it but the actual quality of it is poor. Nutrition wise everything is essentially bleached and then re-mineralized, because all of it is processed. Hence why this is the only time we've seen in history when we have an epidemic of over eating and poor eating.

 

Medical's the same thing. Technology has surged incredibly, sure. But medicinal progress is now controlled by pharmacuticals. We have more solutions to problems than we did in the past, but those solutions can absolutely bankrupt people because their price tag is needlessly costly. In a lot of cases it's more ergonomical to simply die than get caught in the trap of medical expenses for the rest of your life.

 

So no, we have not only gained. We've taken a step forward and a step backwards.

[GingerRose]

15 hours ago, Arodash said:

go to Asia,

I am talking solely about America.

 

Anyway I spoken my beliefs on this. I have  had my satisfied last word on this forum.

[GingerRose]

32 minutes ago, Arodash said:

America then, go to Baltimore

I'll make another forum on this. 

Actually never mind. It's a bit too much right now.

I changed my mind again.

[Epitaph]

9 hours ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

I think part of the reason people can sometimes have a difficult time understanding why this wouldn’t happen is because it’s become so common within our current system for companies to try and find ways to make people want more than they need. When someone produces something that’s needed, like a phone, some people buy it because they need it. But if you can convince people who already have a working phone that they should also want to buy it, more people buy it, and you make more money. It encourages waste. But in the system you’re describing, while people would have the ability to go through phones like Kleenex if they really wanted to, the people who produce phones wouldn’t be rewarded for that wasteful consumption and they wouldn’t want to have to put in so much wasted work into producing phones that are going to be thrown away so quickly, so they would likely want to avoid making phones a symbol of fashion or status or anything else that would encourage people to get them when they don’t need one. They would probably also become a lot more efficient and build phones to last, maybe make them modular so you can switch out the camera or the screen to stay up to date on the newest tech or fix broken parts without needing to unnecessarily duplicate parts that were still in perfect working order.

 

I think a system similar to the one you’re describing could allow us as a society to redirect a lot of that otherwise redundant human effort into advancements that would be more meaningful for humanity as a whole.

 

 

Theoretically, yes. Machines and technology could actually focus once again on being built to last because you'd have no need to market them year round for sales. Scientific progress would be less hindered, although I think resource allocation would still be an issue that would have to be worked out. Like it or not, resources are always limited to some extent. You'd need a board of people in the government to decide which scientific projects to focus more effort and resources on as opposed to others. I've no doubt that politics would still come into play but it could be mitigated so much more than it is now. Scientific progress has stagnated in the last fifty years in some fields due to the research not being viewed as profitable, or in the current climate, it's results are skewed due to political interests and agendas. 

 

 

[Epitaph]

9 hours ago, Arodash said:

A system like this could only happen when we have reached post-scarcity there are finite resources in the world until we have replicators like in Star Trek this kind of a society won't function

You can't use finite resources as an excuse in this case, since we already deal with the issue of finite resources to begin with. At best, the only thing that money accomplishes is the stalling of certain resources being depleted because not everybody can afford to buy the ultra rare stuff. But even that isn't the case, because once something is found to be profitable, it's ground into the dirt until there's nothing left. Like farmland. There's huge swaths of land that are nutritionally empty. Nothing left in the soil. So the only conceived solution within profitable views was simply re-fertalizing the soil with various sprays and chemicals sold to farmers. The production of these chemicals takes resources. As our population climbs and the demands for food grow, it's not going to be possible to grow either the food or produce the chemicals needed to sustain it as we'll have hit our peak of space and production capacity. This is the ultimate end that waits at the end of the tunnel if a capitalistic society runs unchecked growth, which is exactly what's happening now.

 

 Post scarcity also introduces an immense problem. Post scarcity can't function or be achieved in an economic society that values profit over everything else. You'll be left with a huge gap of people who have no jobs and are therefore stuck with no way out of being poor. The gap between rich and poor will be unsurmountable if post scarcity is achieved in any society that has an economy based off monetary values.

 

If we're talking about the future, the concept of rich and poor, the class system, all of it has to be dismantled and remade into something else at some point, because if it continues on like it is now, in a hundred years we're going to hit a peak where there no longer is any progress towards anything because it's all hit the peak of growth that it can sustain before it collapses.